The Guardian newspaper is my paper of choice, and read by pretty much everyone that I know and like. I met my husband with the help of the Guardian Soulmates service, and a highlight of last summer was our son’s joke being published in the Guardian kids page. So it’s fair to say that the Guardian is the most significant brand in my life and the one aspect of living in the UK I miss the most when I can’t get my daily fix.<\/p>\n
But no relationship is perfect, and that paper’s coverage of philanthropy has long been the imperfection I’ve put up with in return for getting a reliable update on what’s going on in the world, and for the joy of reading my favourite columnists (thank you Tim, Lucy, Hadley, Zoe). If you don’t agree, or never noticed, that the Guardian has it in for generous rich people, here’s two particular low points in their coverage of philanthropy:<\/p>\n
(1) Michelle Hanson’s barbed response to news that Bill Gates was committing over $30 billion to good causes:<\/p>\n
\u201cBill Gates is giving millions [sic] to charity. So? Why not? What else could he possibly do with all his money except coat himself in treacle and roll in banknotes?\u201d<\/em> (28\/11\/06).<\/p>\n (2) Simon Jenkins’ comment on\u00a0Warren Buffett’s decision to add another $30+ billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:<\/p>\n \u201cwhen the world\u2019s second-richest man gives most of his money to the world\u2019s richest man, we do well to count our spoons\u201d (<\/em>28\/06\/06). \u00a0(If anyone can tell me what he means, I’d be glad to hear it).<\/p>\n