

Guardian newspaper 'changed Iraq article to avoid offending Apple' - notsony
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-changed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html

======
notsony
If you see a paywall, just use your browser's private mode or delete cookies.

> The Guardian is facing questions over its relationship with advertisers
> after allegations that it changed a news article amid concerns about
> offending Apple. ... in July last year Apple bought wraparound advertising
> on The Guardian's website and stipulated that the advertising should not be
> placed next to negative news.

A Guardian insider said that the headline of an article about Iraq on The
Guardian's website was changed amid concerns about offending Apple, and the
article was later removed from the home page entirely.

The insider said: "If editorial staff knew what was happening here they would
be horrified."

The Guardian declined to comment on the specific allegation, but said: "It is
never the case that editorial content is changed to meet stipulations made by
an advertiser."

------
hackuser
As the story says, The Telegraph has been accused by The Guardian and others
[1] of changing content to please a major advertiser. Is this journalism for
the readers or revenge for The Telegraph?

The Telegraph was accused of refusing to publish stories about serious
corruption in a major bank, HSBC. That's much more serious than changing a
headline to look more positive (if the accusation against the Guardian is
true).

[1] [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/columnist-
resign...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/columnist-resigns-over-
telegraphs-fraud-202691.html)

~~~
notsony
Yes, the Guardian and Telegraph are at war now. I would say it's both
journalism and revenge, because the Guardian likes to take the moral high
ground on many issues, so its interesting to find out that they are not above
accepting money for "native advertising" (corporate fluff disguised as
articles). The backdrop of course is the upcoming UK election...

> This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC
> group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations
> that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and
> their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party.

...

We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the
Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about
our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal
details of MPs’ expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their
judgment and partiality.

Our support for Britain’s financial services has never blinded us to the
failings of the industry. In 2012, we revealed that HSBC was at the centre of
a major HM Revenue and Customs investigation after it opened offshore accounts
in Jersey for criminals living in this country. Many of the media outlets that
are today so excited about HSBC’s conduct showed remarkably little interest in
those revelations at the time.

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-
view/11423912/T...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-
view/11423912/The-Telegraphs-promise-to-our-readers.html)

