The Associated Press’s Stunning Corruption [Link Fixed]

The corruption, bias, and ethical void within the mainstream media is now difficult to overstate. The latest revelation is so damning, 95% of the media isn’t reporting it, since it points to the ethics rot of one of its most esteemed members. This is the news media’s recent tactic to avoid being exposed as the lying, manipulating propaganda agents they and their partisan allies in Big Tech and social media are. Hide the facts

The Associated Press, the august and once respected newswire service, accepts donations to fund its climate coverage. In 2022, the AP received $8 million in donations to fund its climate doom reporting, with money coming from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation, all climate change alarmists. The AP isn’t alone: what it calls philanthropy-funded news is a trend, with other news sources accepting charitable funds as well. The Salt Lake Tribune, The Seattle Times and the New York Times are also accepting grants from interest groups.

Yes, non-profits are interest groups.

The $8 million over three years allows the AP to hire 20 more “climate journalists.” AP News Vice President Brian Carovillano says without giggling that the money comes “without strings attached” and asserts that funders have “no influence on the stories conducted.” He’s lying. He’s unquestionably lying: if I give a publication 8 million dollars to hire ethics specialists to report on the importance of ethics, those hires are certain to influence the publication’s content. Is there any chance the “climate journalists” will write stories about how so much climate science is speculative, politically-slanted hooey? I think not.

From the foundations’ end of things, there is no way they could justify climate-change policy related donations unless they were certain that the millions would advance their mission. That would be unethical, and a breach of fiduciary duty. It’s ethical for the foundations to spend money to corrupt news reporting “for the greater good,” but it is unethical for news organizations to let them do it.

The AP, proudly announcing its quid pro quo arrangement as if its a boon for public education, writes, “This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story.” Ya think? I bet if the AP accepted millions from, say, the Bernie Sanders For President Campaign, it would transform how the news service covered his candidacy. And,

For many years, Journalists and philanthropists were more wary of each other. News organizations were concerned about maintaining independence and, until the past two decades, financially secure enough not to need help.

Translation: “News organizations used to care about things like conflict of interest and the appearance of undue influence, taking money for favorable stories and, you know, that integrity thingy. But now we really need the money, and besides, those conservatives don’t trust us anyway, so what the hell!”

7 thoughts on “The Associated Press’s Stunning Corruption [Link Fixed]

  1. You know, it is one thing to realize that an organization slants its news coverage because of the political beliefs of its reporters and editors.

    It is quite another to realize that they slant their news coverage because they’ve been paid to do so.

    It is kind of like that Newsweek story of a couple years ago, detailing how various groups came together to rig the electoral procedures. They were just so bursting with pride at what they’d done they could not help boasting about it.

    Ick. Just ick.

  2. My dear old mother, who was sharper than a tack, used the then current term of “pressure groups.” The assholes have craftily rebranded themselves as “public interest groups.” Sorry guys and spare me. You’re just pressure groups. And another of Mom’s favorite sayings, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

  3. From the foundations’ end of things, there is no way they could justify climate-change policy related donations unless they were certain that the millions would advance their mission. That would be unethical, and a breach of fiduciary duty…

    An industrialist once said, “half our advertising is wasted, if we only knew which half!”. In the light of that, no, there is no need at all for such a strong criterion. All they need to know is that enough of their broadcast seed will sprout. They do know for certain that retaining the funds would not advance their mission. They can justify their actions by acknowledging that they are, indeed, acting in an area of uncertainty much like advertising and making the best of it with a heuristic.

  4. “A grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting was instrumental in AP’s coverage of the conflict in Yemen that won a 2019 Pulitzer Prize, said Brian Carovillano, AP news vice president who supervises partnerships and grants.”

    Seems incestuous to me. Get a Pulitzer grant and then get an award for the story they funded. Pulitizer prizes mean nothing any more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.