That is a rhetorical question, since obviously they can be very silly, indeed. One of their leading headlines today shouts: "Tory tax allies 'subsidised' by the taxpayer". It is clearly a story about the Taxpayers' Alliance, who is being provided by a vast amount of extra publicity through the Guardian's obsession with its activities.
As it happens, I, too, have on various occasions pointed out that the TPA was acting as a front organization for the Conservative Party but being subsidised by the taxpayer is an accusation one must take seriously until one reads the sub-heading: "Taxpayers' Alliance accused of using charitable arm to claim gift aid on donations from wealthy backers".
Does the Guardian really not know the difference between using charitable status to receive donations and being subsidized by the taxpayer? Obviously not, as their main source is John Prescott, whose own financial dealings do not bear too much investigation.
Not only all think-tanks receive money through charitable trusts, whether they are right-wing, left-wing, Conservative or Labour but any government that really cared about the status of individual contributions (about which both Labour and Conservative politicians mouth off ad nauseam) would reform the tax law making it possible to give to charities, educational establishments and think-tanks. In the meantime we have to put up with this idiotic excuse for journalism.