Thread by @clim8resistance

Hmm.

The Guardian is actually supported by a vast legacy, inflated by the sale of a used car advertising weekly.

The readership has barely supported the Guardian for a long time.

Let's be clear... The Guardian is supported by dead billionaires and second hand car salesmen.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1363899410095161352

Oh, and some living billionaires, too...

If it were any other publication so supported by billionaires, Guardian journalists would be demanding that there was a quid-pro-quo...

Do not tell me that there is no quid-pro-quo...

"There is no quid-pro-quo", says the Guardian....

And yet...

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you f*cking hypocrites.

And George Monbiot! @GeorgeMonbiot

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

The Guardian admits that the European Climate Foundation "supports" its environmental stories.

So how can @guardianeco claim to write impartially when the ECF funds EVERY UK green campaign, from Greenpeace, to XR, from the New Economics Foundation to Conservative think tanks?

If I turned out to be *actually* funded by a fossil fuel company (I am not now and never have been), no @guardian journalist would take my claim to speak from a position of editorial independence at face value.

So why does the Guardian expect us to take its journalism seriously?

This is what they accuse @thegwpfcom and @spikedonline of.

But it's not true.

It's only true of the Guardian.

It's right there, in black and white.

gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Qu…