Early Wednesday morning, the Guardian announced a decision to forgo all advertising ties to fossil fuel extraction companies.
The Guardian‘s Acting Chief Executive Anna Bateson and Chief Revenue Officer Hamish Nicklin released a joint statement, calling climate change the “most important challenge of our times,” and saying the decision “is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world.”
Even so, they were forced to admit that the change could come with a price tag:
The funding model for the Guardian – like most high-quality media companies – is going to remain precarious over the next few years. It’s true that rejecting some adverts might make our lives a tiny bit tougher in the very short term.
Nonetheless, we believe building a more purposeful organisation and remaining financially sustainable have to go hand in hand.
Because of that, the news outlet will continue to advertise for car companies. The alternative, they claimed, would be financially untenable.
“Stopping those ads would be a severe financial blow,” they explained, “and might force us to make significant cuts to Guardian and Observer journalism around the world.”
Bateson and Nicklin hope that the aforementioned “short term” difficulties will be offset by companies more likely to advertise with an environmentally friendly outlet:
We believe many brands will agree with our stance, and might be persuaded to choose to work with us more as a result. The future of advertising lies in building trust with consumers, and demonstrating a real commitment to values and purpose.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace praised the move. Greenpeace UK Senior Climate Campaigner Mel Evans called it a “bold move to end the legitimacy of fossil fuels,” representing “a watershed moment” for which The Guardian “must be applauded.”
“Oil and gas firms now find themselves alongside tobacco companies as businesses that threaten the health and wellbeing of everyone on this planet,” Evans said. “Other media outlets, arts and sports organizations must now follow suit and end fossil fuel company advertising and sponsorship.”
Read more at Breitbart
How brave! How woke!
The Guardian just another liberal leftists rag that wastes the Freedom of the Press Trees and Printing Ink just to prove how idiotic they are
I really have grown TIRED of the comparison of energy PROVIDERS being compared to tobacco companies. Let’s just blow this up with a few (simple) points: 1.) Tobacco is exclusively a discretionary consumer choice with little societal benefit. We can all survive & prosper without a SINGLE tobacco product, if necessary. 2.) ENERGY is essential to modern EXISTENCE. You can drive across the U.S on a tank of gasoline, heat your home, cook your food with natural gas. You CAN’T drive across the U.S on a tank full of cigarette butts. MOST people can make this key distinction. 3) Climate alarmists & fossil fuel activists have no capacity to see any of the many BENEFITS that petroleum has contributed to better LIVING on earth. Any potential downside of CO2 emissions or plastic pollution is FAR out-weighed by the myriad of human benefits. Even the 9th Circuit judge (Allsop) recognized this fundamental reality last year in dismissing a climate lawsuit by Oakland/SF against “Big Oil.” 4.) Speaking of lawsuits, look no further than the NY State lawsuit dismissed last month. After examination of approximately 4.5 MILLION pages of internal Exxon-Mobil documents as part of the “Exxon Knew” climate investigation, a diminished investor fraud case was summarily dismissed. So, I think any rational, thoughtful individual will see little correlation between the tobacco cases in the 90’s and the ongoing disinformation campaign being launched at oil & gas majors. As such, the Guardians position would appear, quite foolish…
I would love to see the fossil fuel companies to stop selling any of their products to the Guardian’s employees. And perhaps all the employees must give up all products that have any byproducts of fossil fuels (e.g. their iPhones, anything with plastic in it, any carbon-fiber products…) Then they’d find out how virtue signalling really means.
Gore sure lined his pockets with ill gotten cash selling his two fake ducumenties and two junk science books to those gullible enough to beleive his load of malarkey and listen to or recite his idiotic poem
May I live to see the collapse of the Guardian’s position. As the ‘emergency’ ceases to appear, global temp remains the same or cooler, there will be backtracking, cover up, denials. Let us not forget.
“and might force us to make significant cuts to Guardian and Observer journalism around the world.” That’s would be the best you have done ever for the world,you stupid,brain dead Eco-Nazi you.
Warren Buffett just dumped his newspaper chain. Print media is desperate, beware the survivors.
They are the meanest SOB’s in the Valley of Death.
BTW, truth and objectivity were earlier casualties.
Hey, fine with me! How about turning down advertising money from big pharma, big retail; hell all consumer oriented sectors. Die “newspapers”, die!
This should have been a non-issue. With the constant war on fossil fuels that the Guardian is conducting, they should not have been giving them their business and help fund them. The car companies should stop using the Guardian for the same reason.
The race is on .
Who will be first to go down in flames ?
CNN or Guardian ?
The fools and their ideas what else will they come up with besides this? Yes the Guardian will have to stop publication because their printing ink is made from Fossil Fuels