Comments on: Media buyer of the day, Gates Foundation edition http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/18/media-buyer-of-the-day-gates-foundation-edition/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: TGGP http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/18/media-buyer-of-the-day-gates-foundation-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-33347 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:05:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11173#comment-33347 “Non-profits in general seem constitutionally incapable of getting out of their wonky high-serious comfort zone.”
Funny, since as you later point out, the Guardian and other media organizations the GF gives money to are non-profits.

]]>
By: philippeb http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/18/media-buyer-of-the-day-gates-foundation-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-33345 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:05:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=11173#comment-33345 Frankly I am not that concerned about the logo that I find quite unobtrusive compared to so many ads that flash while you are reading etc.
i am much more concerned by the limitations the sponsorhip is putting on the content: if you click on the logo you go to the page where the Guardian explains what they supposedly cannot do because of the limitations the US law puts on Foundations. That seems to silence quite a deal.
The other aspect of course is how free will the Guardian feel about criticizing the Gates Foundation or any project funded by the Gates Foundation considering that already many people don’t dare expressing publicly the slightest criticism (see the recent Alliance magazine issue stating that 50% of the people they contacted did not want to be quoted publicly).
The irony of this is that -supposedly- the Gates Foundation would like to get “honest feedback” and regrets it cannot get it: that’s for obvious reasons: who wants to criticize such a rich benefactor?
That’s the curse of extreme wealth. In that context paying real journalists to report is fine with me as long as it is clear there is a “support” and the public knows very clearly what it entails: how much they got, etc. At first as I recall the Guardian (and Gates) refused to say how much they had received/given. One of the key is transparency and the Gates Foundation is NOT transparent but they could easily be.
They could also hire many more journalists to make this transparency happen.
The logo seems a very small part of the story but thanks for digging up the amounts that were invested.
Ph
PS: I did meet the wall of silence when I dared criticize the way the Gates Foundation has been supporting tobacco control projects in Africa where their transparency and accountability have been minimal and the amount of administrative cost has been quite high. But who cares about a few millions dollars when the global annual budget is 3.5 billion?
If you are interested visit my blog Tobacco Control in Africa and read Honest feedback, questions to the Gates Foudnation.
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/afr ica

]]>