And you'd almost certainly be wrong. The subscribers to The Guardian, worldwide, value its quality reporting where most other newspapers are beholden to the interests of their owners.

Their trust structure is probably a positive vs. influential owners (as you say) but that doesn't automatically mean that The Grauniad always offers "quality reporting".

They still push a distinct political angle (aka bias) in everything they write, and aren't above lower-quality clickbait.

The Scott Trust got wound up in 2008 and its assets transferred to a new limited company named "The Scott Trust Limited" (disingenuous name). [1]

[1] https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-owning-scott-trust-t...

Seriously, you need to learn a little about company formations, especially Articles and Memorandum.

The Guardian isn’t above clickbait in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds.

So do most people on Facebook. For many, Facebook is the internet. And they trust that, and everything on it.

> The subscribers to The Guardian, worldwide, value its

> quality reporting

Said every person about their favorite news outlet ever. I'm sure there are a few people out there hate-reading other news outlets, but the majority read their particular news source because they believe it to be somewhat comparatively truthful.

> most other newspapers are beholden to the interests of

> their owners

They are beholden to the hand that feeds them, which in the case of The Guardian is a left-leaning politically biassed audience. It doesn't particularly matter whether what they say is completely the truth, as long as it gets people to pay their memberships.

Also, as with much of the big news corporations (especially the lower budget ones), reporting is typically what I refer to as armchair journalism. Most news articles appear to either be sourced from another website or have come from social media sourced (such as Twitter). There's an awful lot of back-scratching happening between news outlets.