The only reason The Telegraph published that article is that their chief political commentator had just resigned over the papers failure to cover the HSBC tax story (among other things) and the Telegraph were engaging in shit-tier whataboutery to try and stop their readership collapsing. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-...
>The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.
The Telegraph is in the middle of a huge meltdown at the moment, and they are lashing out at everybody else. They also ran this particularly appalling story on their front page to try and detract from their own crisis: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/daily-telegraph-anonymou...
>A senior Daily Telegraph reporter wrote an anonymous front page story suggesting suicides at a rival newspaper may be connected to stress caused by commercial pressure – just days after the Telegraph itself faced allegations of blurring the lines between advertising and editorial.
I'm no fan of The Telegraph, and also think they published the piece because the Guardian revealed their own timidity in standing up to an advertiser (HSBC). But that doesn't mean the Telegraph piece about the Guardian is untrue. My own interpretation is that this kind of thing must be more common than we think when these publishers rely so heavily on advertising money. Of course it's not in their interest to be so open about it, so we probably hear little - except when they start flinging mud at each other.
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&res...
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=exstudent
You know, if it's about transparency and ethics.