For such a spiteful alarmist newspaper, it is highly unlikely that many, if any oil and gas companies regularly advertised in The Guardian. So this token (woken) gesture speaks volumes about the virtue signaling nature of the rag. Presumably Rupert Murdoch will pick up those spoils? The management probably hasn’t thought of that.
While The Guardian might chalk it up as a victory, it is without doubt they are still powered largely by fossil fuels, including coal-fired power. It’s journalists no doubt use planes, cars and other forms of fossil fueled transport to produce their alarmist articles.
The Guardian proudly wrote,
ICYMI, we made an important announcement yesterday. We will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels. It will be implemented with immediate effect. https://gu.com/p/d6qq4/au
“Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world,” the Guardian’s acting chief executive and chief revenue officer said in a joint statement. “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.”
In May last year we also updated our style guide to change the language we use to more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. This is why we favour “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” instead of “climate change”. We also favour saying “climate science denier or climate denier” instead of “climate sceptic”. https://gu.com/p/bfgxm/au
We will not stay quiet and we want the Guardian to play a leading role in reporting on the environmental catastrophe.
As we’ve reported in the past, The Guardian begs for charity after its articles because it’s content is not unique enough to attract a paying audience. It bats against the SMH and ABC for its readership- no palpable differentiation, even if the paper admits it loves using climate hyperbole.
As for being a “tiny bit tougher in the short term” on revenues it is probably as immeasurable as Australia’s impact on C02 in the atmosphere…i.e. 0.0000134%.
Get woke, go broke. Perhaps the paper should reflect on the quote from Rockefeller,
“Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.”