The Guardian has uncovered concerning activity by CT Group, a leading political lobbying firm founded by Lynton Crosby. Crosby previously served as an electoral strategist for former UK Prime Ministers David Cameron and Boris Johnson. The investigation reveals that CT Group has allegedly arranged for journalists to write articles in major British newspapers that support its clients, despite the appearance of independent reporting. The firm is accused of offering cash incentives to ensure the content aligns with the interests of its clients.
The probe began when Gavin Stollar, head of CT Group’s real estate division and a prominent Liberal Democrat, approached a freelance journalist. Stollar proposed the journalist cover the UK’s housing crisis and critique the Building Safety Regulator. This regulator was established after the Grenfell Tower fire, which tragically claimed 72 lives. Stollar assured the journalist that CT would provide research and real-life case studies from individuals affected by housing shortages to support the story.
How the deal unfolded
Stollar made it clear the journalist would receive payment from the newspaper. However, CT Group would also offer direct financial compensation. For instance, the firm proposed paying £100 for each story that successfully got published. The journalist was also invited to organize a roundtable event for CT Group, for which they would receive £500. The journalist was encouraged to submit articles to national and trade publications that would promote the property guardianship industry, a sector often criticized for poor housing quality and minimal tenant protections.
One CT Group employee suggested the journalist write a “call to action” from the industry, urging a specific political position from figures like Andy Burnham. The emphasis was on avoiding the appearance of an advertorial. Advertorials are paid-for pieces that are clearly labeled as such. Instead, CT Group aimed for the stories to subtly reflect their client’s interests without overt commercial branding.
CT Group’s response and clientele
CT Group denied all allegations in a statement, claiming the events were “deliberately mischaracterized.” The firm stated it never paid the undercover journalist or engaged them in any capacity. With a yearly revenue of £40 million, CT Group has worked with high-profile clients like Airbus Defence and Space, Philip Morris, and the owner of football club Manchester City. The company highlights its success in areas such as corporate issue resolution, election campaigns, and legislative changes.
The public affairs industry is facing increasing scrutiny. This follows the case of Peter Mandelson, who was found to have held a dual role as an owner of the lobbying firm Global Counsel while serving as a British ambassador to Washington. In response, the Ethics and Integrity Commission recently called for new laws to improve transparency across the sector.
Ethical issues and lack of transparency
During interactions with the undercover journalist, CT Group employees seemingly dismissed ethical concerns. A CT lobbyist suggested that editors would likely reject any story if the journalist revealed the firm’s involvement. Another confirmed the firm had previously worked with another journalist on a “retainer” basis, where the journalist did not disclose their sources to the publication.
The journalist voiced discomfort with being paid for a story without the newspaper being aware. CT Group employees’ responses indicated that maintaining discretion and exerting influence are key aspects of their operations. These actions raise serious concerns about transparency and the integrity of editorial independence in journalism.
The investigation spanned over four months and involved multiple interactions, including in-person meetings, video calls, and emails. These discussions explored the potential for placing stories in publications like the Financial Times and the Guardian. The findings highlight the need for clearer ethical guidelines and transparency in the public affairs industry, as these practices pose a significant threat to public trust in media.