The latest spectacular example is news that Britain’s Guardian newspaper is paying its editor, thanks to a massive 42% pay rise, a NZ$1m annual salary.
Like Stuff here, the daily Guardian newspaper’s free on-line issue makes pleas for donations from its readers. Last year this yielded The Guardian circa NZ$150m with over a million on-line readers pledging £1 per month and another half million making one-off payments.
All of that despite the newspaper having a base support from its owner, the tax exempt Scott Trust, which has a circa NZ$3billion investment fund used solely to fund the newspaper.
Over the last year The Guardian has campaigned against huge CEO salaries, citing many examples, albeit mostly less than NZ$1m p.a.
It has additionally campaigned against huge CEO salary increments although none quoted were as high as the Guardian editor’s 42%.
It’s also campaigned against tax-exempt trusts. All of this in the light of the editor’s massive salary, screams hypocrisy.
But I’ve lived a long life and while now happy to stay out of the public-arena, that hasn’t always been the case.
In particular, I’ve witnessed numerous examples of purported socialists, unionists and the like, confronted by an unexpected financial opportunity, abruptly abandon their previous collectivism and go for it. And why not? Given the option of living in Remuera or South Auckland, rationality makes this an easy decision.
I exempt the mid 1980s Labour hierarchy so many of whom became hard right wingers and abandoned their former socialist beliefs.
They were not hypocrites but instead the opposite. They had watched in miserable opposition Muldoon steal their thunder by applying their beliefs and had seen the devastating consequences. So to their credit they turned to the economic logic of the market economy. They were accused by the die-hard Labour rump of hypocrisy although, as said, they were the opposite, namely men of integrity with the courage to accept their life-long faith was wrong.
That said, there’s no doubt the Guardian’s editor is on face value a screaming hypocrite, her massive pay increase and salary being precisely what she has presided over with her newspaper’s attacking articles in the Guardian.
But then again, perhaps she is in fact a true market believer and has recognised the sizeable commercial opportunity in disgruntled envy ridden school-teachers and public servants loser mice, all on relatively low incomes which due to their personal character weakness they trade off for job security.
So she produces a product, just as do hamburger joints and the like, catering to their prejudices and thus profits greatly. Everyone is happy.
NOTE: The above comments refers to the daily Guardian newspaper. The paper also owns The Guardian Weekly which I recommend subscribing to as it contains excellent articles on a wide range of issues with no political leaning.
It has additionally campaigned against huge CEO salary increments although none quoted were as high as the Guardian editor’s 42%.
It’s also campaigned against tax-exempt trusts. All of this in the light of the editor’s massive salary, screams hypocrisy.
But I’ve lived a long life and while now happy to stay out of the public-arena, that hasn’t always been the case.
In particular, I’ve witnessed numerous examples of purported socialists, unionists and the like, confronted by an unexpected financial opportunity, abruptly abandon their previous collectivism and go for it. And why not? Given the option of living in Remuera or South Auckland, rationality makes this an easy decision.
I exempt the mid 1980s Labour hierarchy so many of whom became hard right wingers and abandoned their former socialist beliefs.
They were not hypocrites but instead the opposite. They had watched in miserable opposition Muldoon steal their thunder by applying their beliefs and had seen the devastating consequences. So to their credit they turned to the economic logic of the market economy. They were accused by the die-hard Labour rump of hypocrisy although, as said, they were the opposite, namely men of integrity with the courage to accept their life-long faith was wrong.
That said, there’s no doubt the Guardian’s editor is on face value a screaming hypocrite, her massive pay increase and salary being precisely what she has presided over with her newspaper’s attacking articles in the Guardian.
But then again, perhaps she is in fact a true market believer and has recognised the sizeable commercial opportunity in disgruntled envy ridden school-teachers and public servants loser mice, all on relatively low incomes which due to their personal character weakness they trade off for job security.
So she produces a product, just as do hamburger joints and the like, catering to their prejudices and thus profits greatly. Everyone is happy.
NOTE: The above comments refers to the daily Guardian newspaper. The paper also owns The Guardian Weekly which I recommend subscribing to as it contains excellent articles on a wide range of issues with no political leaning.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
2 comments:
The Guardian waged quite a campaign for pulling down statues related to the slave trade but it transpired its own existence came from money and people associated to the slave trade. Early editorials show support for the slave supporting Democrats and Confederacy.
I have read that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is also a Director of the Guardian newspaper. Wikipedia is also always on the case for donations. Although I often look at Wikipedia I can imagine where it leans politically and can tell that some politicians don't have controversies and others do. Compare Ardern to Luxon for example.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.