patrick.net

The Biden Affair is nothing new. So overwhelming is the influence of the press over our politics, that many have described liberal democracies as media-steered regimes, wherein politicians adopt positions and enact policies calculated above all to secure favourable coverage from journalists. Much recent German history appears to support this theory, from the nuclear phase-out of 2011 to the self-imposed migration crisis of 2015 to the lockdown and mass vaccination hysteria of 2020–21.

This is an enticing theory, but I think it actually understates the role of the media. The press do not drive politics so much as they collaborate in the formulation and implementation of policy. Many media stories are themselves political events. They serve to coordinate and direct the distributed actors of our managerial systems, and they construct an adjusted reality designed not only to confine debate, but also to limit the range of conceivable actions to those which our rulers already favour. ...

In hard authoritarian regimes, like National Socialist Germany, regime propaganda was an open, blunt instrument. Everybody who read the Völkischer Beobachter knew very well that the paper propagated the official Nazi Party line. The soft authoritarianism of the liberal West, in contrast, manages the information and opinions available to the public in a much more effective manner, namely by pretending not to. Millions of people open their newspapers every day in the belief that they contain accurate accounts of the goings-on in the world, and they form their beliefs and political preferences within this highly convincing illusion. ...

Among the forces that conspire to keep legacy media on-message is their aforementioned collaboration with the political establishment. This collaboration includes a tacit understanding that leading politicians and bureaucrats will only provide interviews and information to regime-adjacent journalists, granting them an effective monopoly on political news.

SEATTLE — Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.

While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.

Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic. Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.

The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.

Awards Directly to Media Outlets:

NPR- $24,663,066
The Guardian (including TheGuardian.org)- $12,951,391
Cascade Public Media – $10,895,016
Public Radio International (PRI.org/TheWorld.org)- $7,719,113
The Conversation- $6,664,271
Univision- $5,924,043
Der Spiegel (Germany)- $5,437,294
Project Syndicate- $5,280,186
Education Week – $4,898,240
WETA- $4,529,400
NBCUniversal Media- $4,373,500
Nation Media Group (Kenya) – $4,073,194
Le Monde (France)- $4,014,512
Bhekisisa (South Africa) – $3,990,182
El País – $3,968,184
BBC- $3,668,657
CNN- $3,600,000
KCET- $3,520,703
Population Communications International (population.org) – $3,500,000
The Daily Telegraph – $3,446,801
Chalkbeat – $2,672,491
The Education Post- $2,639,193
Rockhopper Productions (U.K.) – $2,480,392
Corporation for Public Broadcasting – $2,430,949
UpWorthy – $2,339,023
Financial Times – $2,309,845
The 74 Media- $2,275,344
Texas Tribune- $2,317,163
Punch (Nigeria) – $2,175,675
News Deeply – $1,612,122
The Atlantic- $1,403,453
Minnesota Public Radio- $1,290,898
YR Media- $1,125,000
The New Humanitarian- $1,046,457
Sheger FM (Ethiopia) – $1,004,600
Al-Jazeera- $1,000,000
ProPublica- $1,000,000
Crosscut Public Media – $810,000
Grist Magazine- $750,000
Kurzgesagt – $570,000
Educational Broadcasting Corp – $506,504
Classical 98.1 – $500,000
PBS – $499,997
Gannett – $499,651
Mail and Guardian (South Africa)- $492,974
Inside Higher Ed.- $439,910
BusinessDay (Nigeria) – $416,900
Medium.com – $412,000
Nutopia- $350,000
Independent Television Broadcasting Inc. – $300,000
Independent Television Service, Inc. – $300,000
Caixin Media (China) – $250,000
Pacific News Service – $225,000
National Journal – $220,638
Chronicle of Higher Education – $149,994
Belle and Wissell, Co. $100,000
Media Trust – $100,000
New York Public Radio – $77,290
KUOW – Puget Sound Public Radio – $5,310
Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gateses hearts. For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions to “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.” Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.

The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big media outlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation, and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund. While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.

Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.

These centers include:

International Center for Journalists- $20,436,938
Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) – $3,800,357
The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting – $2,432,552
Fondation EurActiv Politech – $2,368,300
International Women’s Media Foundation – $1,500,000
Center for Investigative Reporting – $1,446,639
InterMedia Survey institute – $1,297,545
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism – $1,068,169
Internews Network – $985,126
Communications Consortium Media Center – $858,000
Institute for Nonprofit News – $650,021
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies- $382,997
Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) – $360,211
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies – $254,500
Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) – $124,823
Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting – $100,000
In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.

The list of these organizations includes:

Education Writers Association – $5,938,475
National Newspaper Publishers Association – $3,249,176
National Press Foundation- $1,916,172
Washington News Council- $698,200
American Society of News Editors Foundation – $250,000
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press- $25,000
This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.

The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops. Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates. This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.

Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:

Johns Hopkins University – $1,866,408
Teachers College, Columbia University- $1,462,500
University of California Berkeley- $767,800
Tsinghua University (China) – $450,000
Seattle University – $414,524
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies – $254,500
Rhodes University (South Africa) – $189,000
Montclair State University- $160,538
Pan-Atlantic University Foundation – $130,718
World Health Organization – $38,403
The Aftermath Project- $15,435
The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia. Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information. Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.

Media projects supported by the Gates Foundation:

European Journalism Centre – $20,060,048
World University Service of Canada – $12,127,622
Well Told Story Limited – $9,870,333
Solutions Journalism Inc.- $7,254,755
Entertainment Industry Foundation – $6,688,208
Population Foundation of India- $5,749,826 –
Participant Media – $3,914,207
Réseau Africain de l’Education pour la santé- $3,561,683
New America – $3,405,859
AllAfrica Foundation – $2,311,529
Steps International – $2,208,265
Center for Advocacy and Research – $2,200,630
The Sesame Workshop – $2,030,307
Panos Institute West Africa – $1,809,850
Open Cities Lab – $1,601,452
Harvard university – $1,190,527
Learning Matters – $1,078,048
The Aaron Diamond Aids Research Center- $981,631
Thomson Media Foundation- $860,628
Communications Consortium Media Center – $858,000
StoryThings- $799,536
Center for Rural Strategies – $749,945
The New Venture Fund – $700,000
Helianthus Media – $575,064
University of Southern California- $550,000
World Health Organization- $530,095
Phi Delta Kappa International – $446,000
Ikana Media – $425,000
Seattle Foundation – $305,000
EducationNC – $300,000
Beijing Guokr Interactive – $300,000
Upswell- $246,918
The African Academy of Sciences – $208,708
Seeking Modern Applications for Real Transformation (SMART) – $201,781
Bay Area Video Coalition- $190,000
PowHERful Foundation – $185,953
PTA Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers – $150,000
ProSocial – $100,000
Boston University – $100,000
National Center for Families Learning – $100,000
Development Media International – $100,000
Ahmadu Bello University- $100,000
Indonesian eHealth and Telemedicine Society – $100,000
The Filmmakers Collaborative – $50,000
Foundation for Public Broadcasting in Georgia Inc. – $25,000
SIFF – $13,000
Total: $97,315,408

$319.4 MILLION AND (A LOT) MORE

Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million. However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. ...

You really don’t hate the media nearly enough. According to the Herald, the CDC recommends the hastily-approved, untested mRNA-RSV shot for pregnant women :

For kids, while most RSV infections are mild, some babies and young children who
are born premature, have a weaker immune system or another medical condition
might be more at risk for severe illness, according to the CDC.
That's why the CDC says it recommends maternal RSV vaccination during pregnancy
or giving babies RSV monoclonal antibodies. "Most infants will not need both," the
agency said.

No thanks. I say good luck to them. You couldn’t get me near an RSV shot even if you offered me a free ticket to Fauci’s sentencing hearing. Tempting, but hard pass.

I’m just a lawyer, not a doctor, so I’m not giving anybody medical advice. But I plan to sit this one out. I never even heard of RSV until the covid bucks began drying up. I bet they just made it up. So I’ll take my own chances.

It seems far more probable that the rumours of phantom anti-immigration rallies were planted and disseminated by state intelligence and associated private sector consulting firms, which then coordinated a ‘response’ across the astroturf activist NGOs and primary state propaganda platforms. The obvious goal is to wrest back control of the narrative by insinuating that the majority of the British people stand with the occupation government, while those struggling for national liberation are a tiny minority of low-status thugs.

Oops: Colbert audience accidentally laughs when he says CNN “just reports the news as it is”

Stoney-faced CNN panelists along the bench were forced to sit and listen, while one overly truthful panelist criticized Kamala for claiming Trump caused the country’s problems even though she’s been in the White House for nearly four years now. Why hasn’t she already fixed these problems? Worse, he pointed out that, “Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years, and somehow, it’s still all Trump’s fault.”

The other panelists gave their best impressions of poker players holding terrible cards.

JournoList (sometimes referred to as the J-List)[1] was a private Google Groups forum for discussing politics and the news media with 400 left-leaning[2] journalists, academics and others. Ezra Klein created the online forum in February 2007 while blogging at The American Prospect and shut it down on June 25, 2010 amid wider public exposure. Journalists later pointed out various off-color statements made by members of the list denigrating conservatives. Others defended such statements as being taken out of context or simply a matter of private candor. ...

Responding to the Jeremiah Wright controversy surrounding Obama's campaign, one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists".[7][8] Chris Hayes of The Nation was requesting ideas from other journalists for best ways to criticize Sarah Palin in an email thread.[9]

Ackerman was also quoted as saying, "find a right winger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically."[10] According to media scholar Jim A. Kuypers, the hatred of conservatives was strong on the list. Sarah Spitz, an NPR affiliate producer, had written that she would "laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out", if she would witness Rush Limbaugh having a heart attack.[8] ...

Tucker Carlson, who edited several of Strong's articles about JournoList, wrote in a July 22 article: "Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too. ... I've been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It's harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong."[8] Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList saying, "... hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism."[11]