ged from reporting Parliament

In October 2009, The Guardian reported that it was forbidden to report on a parliamentary matter – a

question recorded in a Commons order paper, to be answered by a minister later that week. [115] The
paper noted that it was being "forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented—for the
first time in memory—from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve
proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only
fact The Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck." The paper
further claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech
established under the 1689 Bill of Rights".[116] The only parliamentary question mentioning Carter-
Ruck in the relevant period was by Paul Farrelly MP, in reference to legal action
by Barclays and Trafigura.[117][118] The part of the question referencing Carter-Ruck relates to the latter
company's September 2009 gagging order on the publication of a 2006 internal report [119] into
the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal, which involved a class action case that the
company only settled in September 2009 after The Guardian published some of the commodity
trader's internal emails.[120] The reporting injunction was lifted the next day, for Carter-Ruck withdrew
it before The Guardian could challenge it in the High Court.[121] Alan Rusbridger attributed the rapid
back-down by Carter-Ruck to postings on Twitter,[122] as did a BBC article.[123]
Edward Snowden leaks and intervention by the UK government
In June 2013, the newspaper broke news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held
by Barack Obama's administration[19][124] and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM
surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
[20]
 The Guardian said a DSMA-Notice had been sent to editors and journalists on 7 June after the
first Guardian story about the Snowden documents. It said the DSMA-Notice was being used as an
"attempt to censor coverage of surveillance tactics employed by intelligence agencies in the UK and
US".[125]
The newspaper was subsequently contacted by the British government's Cabinet Secretary,
Sir Jeremy Heywood, under instruction from Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime
Minister Nick Clegg, who ordered that the hard drives containing the information be destroyed.
[126]
 The Guardian's offices were then visited in July by agents from the UK's GCHQ, who supervised
the destruction of the hard drives containing information acquired from Snowden. [127] The
Guardian said it had destroyed the hard drives to avoid threatened legal action by the UK
government that could have stopped it from reporting on US and British government surveillance
contained in the documents.[128] In June 2014, The Register reported that the information the
government sought to suppress by destroying the hard drives related to the location of a "beyond top
secret" internet monitoring base in Seeb, Oman, and the close involvement of BT and Cable &
Wireless in intercepting internet communications.[129] Julian Assange criticised the newspaper for not
publishing the entirety of the content when it had the chance. [130] Rusbridger had initially covered the
Snowden documents without the government's supervision, but subsequently sought it, and
established an ongoing relationship with the Defence Ministry. The Guardian coverage of Snowden
later continued because the information had already been copied outside the United Kingdom,
earning the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize. Rusbridger and subsequent chief editors would sit on the
government's DSMA-notice board.[131]
Manafort–Assange secret meetings
In a November 2018 Guardian article, Luke Harding and Dan Collyns cited anonymous sources
which stated that Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings
with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015,
and 2016.[132] The name of a third author, Fernando Villavicencio, was removed from the online
version of the story soon after publication. The title of the story was originally 'Manafort held secret
talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy'. A few hours after publication, 'sources say' was added
to the title, and the meeting became an 'apparent meeting'. [133] One reporter characterized the story,
"If it's right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it's wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe." Manafort
and Assange both denied ever having met with the latter threatening legal action against The
Guardian.[134] Ecuador's London consul Fidel Narváez, who had worked at Ecuador's embassy in
London from 2010 to July 2018, denied that Manafort's visits had happened. [133] Serge Halimi said
Harding had a personal grievance against Assange and noted that Manafort's name does not appear
in the Ecuadorian embassy's visitors’ book and there were no pictures of Manafort entering or
leaving "one of the most surveilled and filmed buildings on the planet". [133]
Priti Patel cartoon
The Guardian was accused of being "racist and misogynistic" after it published a cartoon
depicting Home Secretary, Priti Patel as a cow with a ring in its nose in an alleged reference to
her Hindu faith, since cows are considered sacred in Hinduism.[135][136]
WikiLeaks coverage
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, a former contributor to The Guardian, has accused The Guardian of
falsifying the words of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a report about the interview he gave to
Italian newspaper La Repubblica. In The Intercept, Greenwald wrote: "This article is about how those
[Guardian's] false claims—fabrications, really—were spread all over the internet by journalists,
causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news." [137] The
Guardian later amended its article about Assange.[138][clarification needed]
After publishing a story on 13 January 2017 claiming that WhatsApp had a "backdoor [that] allows
snooping on messages", more than 70 professional cryptographers signed on to an open letter
calling for The Guardian to retract the article.[139][140] On 13 June 2017, editor Paul Chadwick released
an article detailing the flawed reporting in the original January article, which was amended to remove
references to a backdoor.[141][142]

Ownership and finances

The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group (GMG) of newspapers, radio stations and print
media. GMG components include The Observer, The Guardian Weekly and TheGuardian.com. All
were owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation existing between 1936 and 2008, which
aimed to ensure the paper's editorial independence in perpetuity, maintaining its financial health to
ensure it did not become vulnerable to takeovers by commercial media groups. At the beginning of
October 2008, the Scott Trust's assets were transferred to a new limited company, The Scott Trust
Limited, with the intention being that the original trust would be wound up. [143] Dame Liz Forgan, chair
of the Scott Trust, reassured staff that the purposes of the new company remained the same as
under the previous arrangements.

The Guardian's headquarters in London

The Guardian is the only British national daily to conduct (since 2003) an annual social, ethical and
environmental audit in which it examines, under the scrutiny of an independent external auditor, its
own behaviour as a company. [144] It is also the only British national daily newspaper to employ an
internal ombudsman (called the "readers' editor") to handle complaints and corrections.
The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate and intervened in 1995 to save
the Mail & Guardian in South Africa; GMG sold the majority of its shares of the Mail & Guardian in
2002.[145]
The Guardian was consistently loss-making until 2019. [146] The National Newspaper division of GMG,
which also includes The Observer, reported operating losses of £49.9 million in 2006, up from £18.6
million in 2005.[147] The paper was therefore heavily dependent on cross-subsidisation from profitable
companies within the group.
The continual losses made by the National Newspaper division of the Guardian Media Group caused
it to dispose of its Regional Media division by selling titles to competitor Trinity Mirror in March 2010.
This included the flagship Manchester Evening News, and severed the historic link between that
paper and The Guardian. The sale was in order to safeguard the future of The Guardian newspaper
as is the intended purpose of the Scott Trust.[148]
In June 2011 Guardian News and Media revealed increased annual losses of £33 million and
announced that it was looking to focus on its online edition for news coverage, leaving the print
edition to contain more comments and features. It was also speculated that The Guardian might
become the first British national daily paper to be fully online. [149][150]
For the three years up to June 2012, the paper lost £100,000 a day, which prompted Intelligent
Life to question whether The Guardian could survive.[151]
Between 2007 and 2014 The Guardian Media Group sold all their side businesses, of regional
papers and online portals for classifieds and consolidated, into The Guardian as sole product. The
sales let them acquire a capital stock of £838.3 million as of July 2014, supposed to guarantee the
independence of the Guardian in perpetuity. In the first year, the paper made more losses than
predicted, and in January 2016 the publishers announced, that The Guardian will cut 20 per cent of
staff and costs within the next three years.[152] The newspaper is rare in calling for direct contributions
"to deliver the independent journalism the world needs." [153]
The Guardian Media Group's 2018 annual report (year ending 1 April 2018) indicated some
significant changes occurring. Its digital (online) editions accounted for over 50% of group revenues
by that time; the loss from news and media operations was £18.6 million, 52% lower than during the
prior year (2017: £38.9 million). The Group had cut costs by £19.1 million, partly by switching its print
edition to the tabloid format. The Guardian Media Group's owner, the Scott Trust Endowment Fund,
reported that its value at the time was £1.01 billion (2017: £1.03 billion). [154] In the following financial
report (for the year 2018–2019), the group reported a profit (EBITDA) of £0.8 million before
exceptional items, thus breaking even in 2019.[155][156]
To be sustainable, the annual subsidy must fall within the £25m of interest returned on the
investments from the Scott Trust Endowment Fund. [157]

"Membership" subscription scheme

In 2014, The Guardian launched a membership scheme.[158] The scheme aims to reduce the financial
losses incurred by The Guardian without introducing a paywall, thus maintaining open access to the
website. Website readers can pay a monthly subscription, with three tiers available. [159] As of 2018
this approach was considered successful, having brought more than 1 million subscriptions or
donations, with the paper hoping to break even by April 2019. [160]

Foundation funding
The Guardian Foundation at the Senate House History Day, 2019.

In 2016, the company established a U.S.-based philanthropic arm to raise money from individuals
and organizations including think tanks and corporate foundations. [161] The grants are focused by the
donors on particular issues. By the following year, the organization had raised $1 million from the
likes of Pierre Omidyar's Humanity United, the Skoll Foundation, and the Conrad N. Hilton
Foundation to finance reporting on topics including modern-day slavery and climate change. The
Guardian has stated that it has secured $6 million "in multi-year funding commitments" thus far.[162]
The new project developed from funding relationships which the paper already had with
the Ford, Rockefeller, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.[163] Gates had given the organization
$5 million[164] for its Global Development webpage. [165]
As of March 2020, the journal claims to be "the first major global news organisation to institute an
outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels." [166]

Political stance and editorial opinion

Founded by textile traders and merchants, in its early years The Guardian had a reputation as "an
organ of the middle class",[167] or in the words of C. P. Scott's son Ted, "a paper that will remain
bourgeois to the last".[168] Associated at first with the Little Circle and hence with classical
liberalism as expressed by the Whigs and later by the Liberal Party, its political orientation
underwent a decisive change after World War II, leading to a gradual alignment with Labour and
the political left in general.
The Scott Trust describes one of its "core purposes" to be "to secure the financial and editorial
independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation;
remaining faithful to its liberal tradition". [7][169] The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream
left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80 per
cent of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters;[12] according to another MORI poll taken in 2005,
48 per cent of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 34 per cent Liberal Democrat voters.[13] The
term "Guardian reader" can be used to imply a stereotype of liberal, left-wing or "politically correct"
views.[3]
Although the paper is often considered to be "linked inextricably" to the Labour Party, [169] three of The
Guardian's four leader writers joined the more centrist Social Democratic Party on its foundation in
1981. The paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his successful bid to lead the
Labour Party,[170] and to be elected Prime Minister.[171] On 19 January 2003, two months before
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an Observer Editorial said: "Military intervention in the Middle East holds
many dangers. But if we want a lasting peace it may be the only option. ... War with Iraq may yet not
come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government,
we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force." [172] The Guardian,
however, opposed the war, along with the Daily Mirror and The Independent.[173]
Then Guardian features editor Ian Katz asserted in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left
newspaper".[174] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix
of "right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites,
etc," and that the newspaper was "clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive". She also said that
"you can be absolutely certain that come the next general election, The Guardian's stance will not be
dictated by the editor, still less any foreign proprietor (it helps that there isn't one) but will be the
result of vigorous debate within the paper". [175] The paper's comment and opinion pages, though often
written by centre-left contributors such as Polly Toynbee, have allowed some space for right-of-
centre voices such as Sir Max Hastings and Michael Gove. Since an editorial in 2000, The
Guardian has favoured abolition of the British monarchy.[176] "I write for the Guardian," said Max
Hastings in 2005,[177] "because it is read by the new establishment," reflecting the paper's then-
growing influence.
In the run-up to the 2010 general election, following a meeting of the editorial staff,[178] the paper
declared its support for the Liberal Democrats, due in particular, to the party's stance on electoral
reform. The paper suggested tactical voting to prevent a Conservative victory, given Britain's first-
past-the-post electoral system.[179] At the 2015 election, the paper switched its support to the Labour
Party. The paper argued that Britain needed a new direction and Labour "speaks with more urgency
than its rivals on social justice, standing up to predatory capitalism, on investment for growth, on
reforming and strengthening the public realm, Britain's place in Europe and international
development".[180]
Assistant Editor Michael White, in discussing media self-censorship in March 2011, says: "I have
always sensed liberal, middle class ill-ease in going after stories about immigration, legal or
otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class, which is more
easily ignored altogether. Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of
Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets." [181]
In a 2013 interview for NPR, The Guardian's Latin America correspondent Rory Carroll stated that
many editors at The Guardian believed and continue to believe that they should support Hugo
Chávez "because he was a standard-bearer for the left". [182]
In the 2015 United Kingdom general election it endorsed the Labour Party.[183]
In the 2015 Labour Party leadership election, The Guardian supported Blairite candidate Yvette
Cooper and was critical of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, the successful candidate.[184] These positions
were criticised by the Morning Star, which accused The Guardian of being conservative.[185] Although
the majority of Guardian columnists were against Corbyn winning, Owen Jones, Seumas Milne,
and George Monbiot wrote supportive articles about him. Despite the critical position of the paper in
general, The Guardian endorsed the Labour Party whilst Corbyn was its leader in
the 2017[186] and 2019 general elections — although in both cases they endorsed a vote for
opposition parties other than Labour, such as the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National
Party in seats where Labour did not stand a chance.[187]
In the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum The Guardian endorsed
remaining in the EU,[188] and in the 2019 European election invited its readers to vote for pro-EU
candidates, without endorsing specific parties.[189]

Circulation and format

The Guardian had a certified average daily circulation of 204,222 copies in December 2012 — a
drop of 11.25 per cent in January 2012 — as compared to sales of 547,465 for The Daily Telegraph,
396,041 for The Times, and 78,082 for The Independent.[190] In March 2013, its average daily
circulation had fallen to 193,586, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. [191] Circulation has
continued to decline and stood at 161,091 in December 2016, a decline of 2.98 per cent year-on-
year.[192] In July 2021, the circulation was 105,134; later that year, the publishers stopped making
circulation data public.[4]

Publication history
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March
2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Guardian's Newsroom visitor centre and archive (No 60), with an old sign with the name The Manchester
Guardian

The first edition was published on 5 May 1821,[193] at which time The Guardian was a weekly,
published on Saturdays and costing 7d; the stamp duty on newspapers (4d per sheet) forced the
price up so high that it was uneconomic to publish more frequently. When the stamp duty was cut in
1836, The Guardian added a Wednesday edition and with the abolition of the tax in 1855 it became
a daily paper costing 2d.
In October 1952, the paper took the step of printing news on the front page, replacing the adverts
that had hitherto filled that space. Then-editor A. P. Wadsworth wrote: "It is not a thing I like myself,
but it seems to be accepted by all the newspaper pundits that it is preferable to be in fashion." [194]
Following the closure of the Anglican Church Newspaper, The Guardian, in 1951, the paper dropped
"Manchester" from its title in 1959, becoming simply The Guardian.[195] In 1964 it moved to London,
losing some of its regional agenda but continuing to be heavily subsidised by sales of the more
downmarket but more profitable Manchester Evening News. The financial position remained
extremely poor into the 1970s; at one time it was in merger talks with The Times. The paper
consolidated its centre-left stance during the 1970s and 1980s. [citation needed]
On 12 February 1988, The Guardian had a significant redesign; as well as improving the quality of
its printers' ink, it also changed its masthead to a juxtaposition of an italic Garamond "The", with a
bold Helvetica "Guardian", that remained in use until the 2005 redesign.
In 1992, The Guardian relaunched its features section as G2, a tabloid-format supplement. This
innovation was widely copied by the other "quality" broadsheets and ultimately led to the rise of
"compact" papers and The Guardian's move to the Berliner format. In 1993 the paper declined to
participate in the broadsheet price war started by Rupert Murdoch's The Times. In June 1993, The
Guardian bought The Observer from Lonrho, thus gaining a serious Sunday sister newspaper with
similar political views.
Its international weekly edition is now titled The Guardian Weekly, though it retained the
title Manchester Guardian Weekly for some years after the home edition had moved to London. It
includes sections from a number of other internationally significant newspapers of a somewhat left-
of-centre inclination, including Le Monde and The Washington Post. The Guardian Weekly was also
linked to a website for expatriates, Guar