NEW YORK — Over the past few months, several articles and editorials with a distinct War On Porn propaganda slant have been appearing under the banner of The Guardian, the influential transatlantic news organization based in London and New York, which bills itself as "the world's leading liberal voice."
These articles look almost exactly like the rest of The Guardian online content, with the same font, design, artwork, layout and out-links to other stories produced by the news source of choice for educated liberals in the English-speaking world and around the globe.
Recent articles include quotes from Labour politicians claiming that "the online harms bill doesn’t go far enough" and "we have to get control over [the porn] industry," giving a platform to religiously inspired Exodus Cry founder Laila Mickelwait to conflate consensual and nonconsensual adult content, and an op-ed written by anti-porn crusader Kate Isaacs clamoring for state censorship and entitled "Pornhub needs to change — or shut down."
But a closer look at these Guardian War On Porn articles in their "Exploitation in Focus" series — the latest bears the sensationalist, call-to-action, passive-voice headline "Urgent Action Needed As Rise in Porn Site Traffic Raises Abuse Fears, Say MPs" — reveals that the content was produced "under the sponsorship of Humanity United."
Buried in the small print next to the article there's a link leading to a page where The Guardian discloses that the "Exploitation in Focus" series is "supported, in part, through a grant to theguardian.org by Humanity United, a U.S.-based foundation dedicated to bringing new approaches to global problems that have long been considered intractable."
According to the disclaimer, the Humanity United content "is editorially independent and covers modern-day slavery" but "all our journalism follows GNM’s published editorial code."
By categorizing "pornography" in their "modern day slavery" section, however The Guardian conflates legitimate adult entertainment production and distribution (i.e., legal, consensual porn) with "human trafficking."
The end result is diverting the attention of the educated, liberal public opinion that relies on The Guardian as a main news source (including a large part of the U.S. Democratic Party and U.K. Labour Party establishments and donor base) away from labor, where most human trafficking worldwide occurs (migrant workers, the agricultural industry, the garment and restaurant industries, etc.) and towards sensationalized headlines scapegoating all "porn."
And this is all done by The Guardian under the auspices (and funding) of two publicity-averse nonprofits with very vague names and missions who respond to a billionaire philanthropist couple. A couple, incidentally, who were embroiled in a labor human trafficking scandal of their own around the time they founded Humanity United.
The Humanity United webpage further discloses that this generically named nonprofit is "part of The Omidyar Group, a diverse collection of organizations, each guided by its own approach, but united by a common desire to catalyze social impact."
Turns out these War On Porn pieces under The Guardian banner — which consistently stigmatize legal pornography by exclusively covering it in the context of child abuse and human trafficking, align themselves with and amplify the messages of religiously motivated anti-porn crusaders in the U.S. and the U.K., and arbitrarily target particular adult entertainment businesses (they have called for the "shutting down" of Pornhub) — are not journalism but an unclear mix of advocacy and sponsored content.
What is this "theguardian.org"?
The disclaimer in the "Exploitation in Focus" series refers to Humanity United paying "theguardian.org" to sponsor this anti-porn content. The ".org" is important here. It is the name of a nonprofit connected to the Guardian news organization whose mission is "to advance and inform public discourse and citizen participation around the most pressing issues of our time through the support of independent journalism and journalistic projects at the Guardian."
They claim to achieve this advocacy goal by supporting "journalistic projects that critically inform the public," convening events and "disseminating information about freedom of expression and freedom of the press" and identifying and supporting "projects aimed at strengthening the capacity of independent news organizations to reach broad, diverse audiences and create sustainable business models."
To amplify and accelerate the impact of this work, the group declares, theguardian.org "will identify projects where it can partner across a range of organizations including academic institutions, other charitable organizations, non-profit media, and NGOs."
I guess the specific focus of this mission would depend on who's on the board, right?
Although many people associate The Guardian news organization with the U.K., where it originated, and with the British political left, wealthy members of the American business and nonprofit elite comprise the bulk of the theguardian.org's board.
The board is chaired by Asha Curran, CEO of #GivingTuesday, "the global generosity movement" and a Fellow at Stanford's Digital Civil Society Lab in the Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society.
Members include the Stanford-affiliated Lenny Mendonca (retired senior partner at global management consulting behemoth McKinsey & Company), Alice Rhee (whose background is in private philanthropy and as "media adviser to a private family foundation guiding strategic investments in nonprofit journalism and civic engagement storytelling"), Vivian Schiller (former NPR CEO and President and current "strategic advisor to Craig Newmark Philanthropies"), Lois Quam ("the founding CEO of a $32 billion division of the FORTUNE 50 global corporation UnitedHealth Group"), Michael Crocker (The Guardian's Head of Finance, also a board member of theguardian.org's U.K. counterpart, The Guardian Foundation) and Rachel White (the current president of theguardian.org).
All are members of the philanthropy establishment or wealthy liberal circles, anglophiles with Bay Area tech connections.
The Omidyar Group's Humanity United nonprofit has a mission as full of abstract concepts as its vague name.
"At Humanity United, we believe in the power of people to bring about extraordinary change," is how they put it in their promo materials. "When humanity is united, we can act together to create a powerful force for human dignity."
Launched in 2008, Humanity United claims to be a foundation "dedicated to cultivating the conditions for enduring freedom and peace. Working from a belief that whatever problems humans create humans can solve, we support and build efforts to change the systems that suppress human rights and contribute to human suffering."
"To do this, we encourage experimentation, innovation, co-creation, and adaptation to maximize impact. Our tools go beyond traditional financial support and include network development, advocacy, strategic communications, and some HU-led initiatives."
Advocacy and strategy communications? HU-led initiatives? Does this mean an agenda-driven, private organization paid The Guardian's nonprofit arm to sneak this "Exploitation in Focus" series among their editorial content?
That's what the small print seems to be saying.
What is this Omidyar Group then? And are they related to Twitter/Instagram anti-porn troll Omid?
Probably not related to Twitter pest Omid. The Omidyar Group is the philanthropic arm of mega-rich couple Pierre and Pam Omidyar.
Mega-rich?
Pierre founded eBay and wrote the proprietary code that underlies it. So, yeah. 10.4 billion in wealth.
How much is that comparatively speaking?
About 1/10 of a Bezos, or three Trumps.
What does The Omidyar Group do?
"Our approach is grounded in the Omidyars' belief that we are all part of a global community, and that the impact of our individual choices reaches far beyond our own lives. When these choices are positive, we believe they foster a thriving world where people are free to act on their inherent capabilities, and are supported by institutions that are accountable, responsive, and just."
That sounds very vague. Anything more specific about how Humanity United and paid sponsored content against porn is related to all those abstractions?
Humanity United is the pet project of Pam Omidyar, who describes herself as "a philanthropist, mom, and ocean lover."
"She and her husband Pierre share the belief that all people can improve their lives and that of their community, if given the right access and opportunities," reads their website.
"One of Pierre and Pam’s first organization was Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm, funding both for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations to create opportunity for individuals around the world to improve their own lives. As a member of the board, Pam plays an ongoing role in steering the organization’s work."
"Soon after the creation of Omidyar Network, there was a clear realization that there are some people who are unable to take advantage of the economic opportunities Omidyar Network creates. As a result, Pam had a vision for the creation of Humanity United — a foundation dedicated to bringing new approaches to global problems that have long been considered intractable."
According to the couple "Humanity United builds, leads, and supports efforts to change the systems that contribute to problems like human trafficking, mass atrocities, and violent conflict."
Ah, there it is: human trafficking. So the Omidyars care about human trafficking in general.
Yes, the Omidyars' sponsored content for The Guardian does cover other issues concerning human trafficking besides the insistent War On Porn messaging about porn and human trafficking.
However, there are other, less philanthropic connections between the Omidyars' wealth and human trafficking.
Uh-oh — is this gonna be about Jeffrey Epstein?
Not really, though the Omidyars and Epstein did move in the same exact circles of liberal tech philanthropists.
"The communications revolution occurring in the age of information and computation has not stopped, nor has it even slowed down. The markets crashed. The innovation continues," reads a 2004 report about a Bay Area tech tradition known as The Billionaires' Dinner.
"And a number of people who showed up for the dinner are really cooking: Jeff Bezos of Amazon; Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, Larry, Sergey, Lori Park, and Megan Smith; Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay; Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway; Steve Case, former Chairman of AOL Time-Warner who is now on to new adventures; and Jeffrey Epstein, who recently endowed The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University which is involved in researching applications of mathematics and computer science to biology."
That crowd. Epstein also donated a bunch of money to the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), "a think tank for theoretical researchers," where Pierre Omidyar serves as trustee.
So what's the Omidyars' other connection to actual human trafficking, besides personally funding The Guardian's journalism about it?
Humanity United was founded shortly after a massive human trafficking scandal, when labor abuses were discovered on a pineapple farm in Maui, Hawaii. One of the Omidyars' main homes is in Oahu.
From a 2010 article on Pierre Omidyar in Honolulu's Star Advertiser ("Omidyar to Invest More in Hawaii"):
"One of the organizations the Omidyars established, Humanity United, is dedicated to ending mass atrocities and modern-day slavery. Omidyar is also a shareholder in Maui Land and Pineapple Co., whose former subsidiary, Maui Pineapple Co., has been linked to a recent human trafficking case."
"Last week federal prosecutors indicted employees of a Los Angeles-based labor recruiting company, Global Horizons Manpower Inc., in what the FBI said is the largest human trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history."
"Global Horizons is accused of enticing 400 workers from Thailand to U.S. farms — including Maui Pineapple Co.’s farm — based on false promises of lucrative jobs. Instead, recruiters allegedly confiscated the workers’ passports, disregarded employment contracts and threatened deportation."
"In 2007, Omidyar invested $10 million in Maui Land and Pineapple Co."
"Omidyar said yesterday the alleged human trafficking occurred before he became a shareholder and he had no knowledge of the incident until 'a year or two' after buying into the company."
"'It was terrible circumstances that occurred certainly, but it occurred and then it stopped before we even became shareholders,' Omidyar said. 'We didn’t even know about it until a year or two later. With the quality of the management that’s there now and the issues they’re focusing on, I’m happy to be a shareholder today.'"
Recapping — a superwealthy, secretive businessman who founded a nonprofit after becoming entangled in an actual human trafficking scandal is paying an elite U.S.-based foundation attached to a supposedly liberal U.K. newspaper to run regular articles alleging that porn, not undocumented labor in other industries, is the main culprit in human trafficking?
Wait — there's more from that 2010 Honolulu Star Advertiser article!
"Omidyar said the [Maui Land & Pineapple] episode demonstrates how hard it is to eradicate human trafficking, and 'how easy it is to become involved in a business or to buy a product, buy a pineapple, or whatever, and sort of unknowingly kind of taint yourself with these terrible practices.'"
"'What I’ve learned through engaging in a nonprofit like Humanity United is it’s very difficult to identify when this happens,' he said."
"'You really need to go and take a very close look at who are your partners. If you’re doing any kind of recruiting for migrant labor or temporary workers, you really need to know [where] are they coming from? Do they have translators available where they can speak to inspectors? There’s a need for a much greater level of oversight and enforcement in this country and other areas around the world where transient labor comes in to make sure that folks are not being held against their will.'"
What does The Guardian say about all this?
XBIZ has contacted the Guardian for a comment regarding the sponsored content by Humanity United.
Specifically, does the Guardian believe the sponsored content is appropriately flagged to let a reader know that it is not part of their edited content? Why did the Guardian
The Guardian has not yet replied.
