Tag: bill gates

Columbia Journalism Review Explains How The Gates Foundation Manipulates The Media Narrative

Most of the feature stories published by the Columbia Journalism Review, a mostly-digital biannual “magazine” published and edited by the Columbia School of Journalism and its staff, is sanctimonious media naval-gazing filtered through a lens of cryptomarxist propaganda, written by a seemingly endless procession of washed-up magazine writers.

But every once in a while, just like the NYT, Washington Post and CNN, even CJR gets it (mostly) right. And fortunately for us, one of those days arrived earlier this month, when the website published this insightful piece outlining the influence of the Gates Foundation on the media that covers it.

Most readers probably didn’t realize how much money the Gates Foundation spends backing even for-profit media companies like the New York Times and the Financial Times, some of the most financially successful legacy media products, thanks to their dedicated readerships. For most media companies, which don’t have the financial wherewithal of the two named above, the financial links go even deeper. Schwab opens with his strongest example: NPR.

LAST AUGUST, NPR PROFILED A HARVARD-LED EXPERIMENT to help low-income families find housing in wealthier neighborhoods, giving their children access to better schools and an opportunity to “break the cycle of poverty.” According to researchers cited in the article, these children could see $183,000 greater earnings over their lifetimes—a striking forecast for a housing program still in its experimental stage.

If you squint as you read the story, you’ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you’re really paying attention, you’ll also see the editor’s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.

NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.

And that speaks to a larger trend—and ethical issue—with billionaire philanthropists’ bankrolling the news. The Broad Foundation, whose philanthropic agenda includes promoting charter schools, at one point funded part of the LA Times’ reporting on education. Charles Koch has made charitable donations to journalistic institutions such as the Poynter Institute, as well as to news outlets such as the Daily Caller, that support his conservative politics. And the Rockefeller Foundation funds Vox’s Future Perfect, a reporting project that examines the world “through the lens of effective altruism”—often looking at philanthropy.

As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations—a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic—an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.

It’s just the latest reminder that all of NPR’s reporting on the coronavirus and China is suspect due to its links to Gates and, by extension, the WHO. Back in April, we noted this piece for being an egregious example of a reporter failing to make all of the sources links to China explicitly clear. Though a few clues were included.

Keep reading

“Charity” Accused of Sex Abuse Coordinating ID2020’s Pilot Program For Refugee Newborns

“Charity” of the Predator Class

More troubling than the background and associations of iRespond are those of their partner in the recently announced newborn biometric identification initiative, the International Rescue Committee (IRC). The IRC describes themselves as responding “to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and help[ing] people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover and gain control of their future.” 

Despite the IRC framing itself as a “humanitarian” venture, its board is stuffed with a sordid mix of Wall Street criminals and war criminals. For example, its board is co-chaired by Timothy Geithner, former Treasury Secretary during the 2008 financial crisis bail-outs and current President of Wall Street titan Warburg-Pincus, and Susan Susman, an Executive Vice President at Pfizer. Its board of advisers includes war criminals Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright as well as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Also present are current and former leaders and top executives at McKinsey, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Kroll Associates (“the CIA of Wall Street”), PepsiCo, Bank of America, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and the World Bank. Another advisor is former chairman and CEO of AIG Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, a name that will likely be familiar to those who have researched the September 11th attacks and Wall Street financial crimes in general.

Since 2013, the IRC has been led by David Miliband, the Tony Blair “protégé” who Bill Clinton once called “one of the ablest, most creative public servants of our time” and who worked closely with then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while serving as the U.K.’s Foreign Secretary. So close was Miliband to the Clintons, that he was being considered for a “top U.S. government job” if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election.

In the years since joining the IRC, Miliband’s salary as the group’s president has ballooned to nearly a million dollars annually (up from approximately $240,000 when he arrived at the organization in 2013). In addition, the group has been mired in scandal since Miliband became its president. For instance, it was revealed in 2018 that IRC was one of several U.K.-based charities where “workers [were] alleged to be in sexually exploitative relationships with refugee children” including through “sex-for-food scandals” where “sexual abuse was so endemic that the only way for many refugee families to survive was to allow a teenage girl to be exploited.” Reports further alleged that IRC and other charities named in the report, including Save the Children, had known of the egregious abuse for years prior to the allegations being made public and chose not to act.

Keep reading

Next Time You’re Called A “Crank” Or “Flat Earther” On Concerns About A ‘Rushed’ Coronavirus Vaccine, Show Them This

We detailed earlier that a number of US universities will enforce mandatory COVID-19 tests for all students wishing to return to campus through the Fall semester — with some lately announcing that this will be at a rate of two nasal swabs per week — which is a policy, no doubt uncomfortable for those having to endure such “routine” swabs, also appearing among companies for on-site personnel.

And in many parts of the country, cities and counties currently have mask laws requiring them in all public spaces. Given that over the past months the race has been on to develop and fast-track a coronavirus vaccine, the logical next step will be that students and employees provide proof they’ve received the vaccine before returning to work or school. Naturally, the idea of fast-tracking this process also amid a deeply politically charged climate has people concerned. And they should be, if Bill Gates’ latest appearance on CBS is any indicator of where things stand.

British veteran journalist Neil Clark had this reaction to the Bill Gates interview, which came days ago: When anyone tries to gaslight you by calling you a ‘crank’ , a ‘tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist’ or ‘Flat Earther’ for having perfectly legitimate & sensible concerns over a rushed through ‘Coronavirus’ vaccine & its side effects, just send them this.

Even the mainstream media correspondent giving the interview appeared momentarily exasperated and incredulous that Bill Gates shrugged off credible reports of side effects as ultimately no big deal. When the anchor pressed him again on the safety of the vaccine, his answer appeared to be simply, trust us. Gates was asked:

Side effects from the Moderna vaccine sound concerning… we looked. After the second dose at least 80% of participants experienced a systemic side effect, ranging from severe chills to fevers. So are these vaccines safe?

“The FDA, not being pressured, will look hard at that,” Gates said, addressing the issue of possible side effects. “The FDA is the gold standard of regulators, and their current guidance on this — if they stick with that — is very very appropriate.”

Gates even goes on to candidly acknowledge the likelihood of side effects from the vaccine, which he admitted would “improve” over time. Does this sound comforting? Add to this that as part of his explanation he argues that for a vaccine to be effective it would have to be administered to the population on a mass scale, and globally:

“If what you’re trying to do is block all the transmission, then you need to get 70-80% coverage on a global basis. So it’s unbelievably big numbers,” he said.

Gates, who has been warning about the threat of a global pandemic since 2015, admitted that “there will be a lot of uncertainty” about the efficacy of any vaccine, but stressed that it’s a solution “that will improve over time.”

Keep reading