Evidence suggests that the publication was held hostage by its main donor, Roy Singham; that its failure to diversify its funding was a feature, not a bug; and that when it came to be regarded as less useful politically, it was deliberately abandoned, rather than being given the chance to gain.
Evidence suggests the publication was hostage to its main donor, Roy Singham, and the
train of events suggests that when it came to be regarded as less useful politically it was deliberately abandoned, rather than being given the chance to gain real independence.