When Does Sponsored Positive, Uncritical Coverage of Controversial Global Medical, Food Programs Become a Conflict of Interest?
January 31, 2012
Reports commonly say Bill Gates– through his philanthropic foundation work– is ‘saving lives’ and ‘feeding the world’s poor.’
But there’s no mistaking the genocidal undertones. Hundreds of millions if not billions are living on the edge of starvation at the start of the 21st Century, while a new era of GMO-proliferation and Big Agra domination pose other grave threats– both economic and vital. Thus, it is extremely important that we collectively decide on the best solutions for the future– or at least avoid the worst outcomes; it could prove far too costly in hindsight to pander to the wrong development.
So why has “the media” been so positively-glowing about Gates’ singular heavy-hand pushing GMO crops on the developing world (see AGRA partnership with Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto) while vowing to lower population numbers through his global vaccination campaign (see GAVI alliance with Rockefeller Foundation), all while helping consolidate ownership in the food market now driving up prices (see global food security under Gates Foundation, Cargill and others)?
The simple answer is that many media voices are foundation funded– with grants and partnerships paid directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The very journalistic outlets who should otherwise be holding Gates’ policies accountable with tough questions and volumes of scrutiny are instead financially-tied to his work.
Infowars Nightly News: Does Bill Gates Have a Conflict of Interest Problem?
For example, an ABC News article discussing the expansion of GMO drought resistant crops– aimed directly at Africa and the developing world– is published under a glowing title: “Bill Gates on Using His Money to Save Lives, Fixing U.S. Schools, Reflecting on Steve Jobs”. Mixed with disclosures that Gates holds 500,000 shares of stock in the world’s most controversial company, Monsanto, is a note at the bottom admitting that ABC News’ coverage has been sponsored in part by Gates, under the BE THE CHANGE: SAVE A LIFE program focused on health care in the poorest areas of the world:
Without a doubt, disclosing their links is better than not doing so. But is it enough?
A big part of the problem is that Bill Gates, son of a top Planned Parenthood official, is in league with a group of wealthy eugencists working to reduce the world’s population. But instead of admitting the agenda he is working towards, much of his heavily-backed efforts are branded in “the media” under hopeful sounding terms like “global health,” “feeding the world’s poor,” “fighting disease” and other positive buzz terms. Look at the secret meeting of billionaires back in 2009, at which Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and numerous other celebrity elites gathered to coordinate population reduction-targeted programs.
Note the difference between ABC’s dull headline “Meeting of America’s Richest About ‘Need,’ Attendee Says” vs. the London Times eye-catching headline “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation.”
But ABC News is far from the only media partner funded in part by Bill Gates.
The London Telegraph, too, has at least two blogs– on Global Development and Poverty Matters— subsidized by the Gates Foundation. Many stories, such as those on the rising prices of food, note the sponsorship of Gates, but the stories themselves fail to deal with the other interests owned by Gates– such as shares in Cargill and Monsanto– that may directly affect or influence the very food crisis at hand. Instead, the sponsorship logo paints a mainly positive impression of the foundation in the minds of readers.
To be fair, the same sponsored blog does post articles critical of Bill Gates, like this one: Why is the Gates foundation investing in GM giant Monsanto?. So why would Gates pay to support these reports if it could tarnish his image? Entities as large as the Gates Foundation know that they can never avoid all criticism; a better PR strategy, therefore, is to funnel one’s own critique through “friendly” outlets– a classic limited hangout.
Both the London Telegraph and ABC News claim that their relationship does not bias the reporting or add editorial pressure. However, if there was no benefit from such ties, lobbyists would have stopped taking politicians out for dinner & entertainment a long time ago.
Criticism is indeed dished out at Gates, but it is “balanced” with heroic, almost saint-like portrayals. The “media” has steered clear of covering the controversy over vaccine dangers (except to demonize whistleblowers), as well as studies that show GMO crops have correlation with cancer, organ failure and multi-generational sterility in lab rat studies?
In a CNN interview [no known sponsorship from the Gates Foundation] with Bill Gates, he was given softball questions heralding his savior status in Africa. Meanwhile, Gates was given freehand to smear Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who prominently raised questions about the possible link between vaccines and autism in a study. While on CNN, Gates called him a ‘fraud’ and overtly suggested that the doctor was biased from a financial interest– all while potentially costing the lives of vulnerable children:
Bill Gates: Vaccine Safety Skeptics Kill Children!
Wakefield has already initiated a lawsuit against journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal for publishing lies, distortions and mischaracterization of his work. Yet Brian Deer has been criticized for not disclosing his own links. He appeared at a French conference attended by three MMR vaccine manufacturers (targeted by Wakefield’s research) as well as– you guessed it– the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Similarly, the producer of a BBC (Gates Foundation grant recipient) documentary largely attacking Dr. Wakefield also failed to disclose her links. According to the Age of Autism blog, producer for the BBC program, Alexandra Feachem, is the daughter of Sir Richard Feacham, a bonafide beneficiary of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and advocate for private-public partnerships in health.
But while opponents of Wakefield tried to target his alleged conflicts of interests, including financial, the Gates Foundation continues to give annual grants to dozens of media organizations and medical paper writing groups– from training to reporting and more. The Seattle Times disclosed in Feb. 2011 at least 45 media entities receiving money from the Gates Foundation. Some of the money is significant, other grants are paltry– but history shows that such financial support tends to sway influence (even without “buying” it).
Among these organizations are big name news media, including the BBC, NPR and AllAfrica.com, as well as numerous university and global outlets, and of course, many press clubs and training grounds for tomorrow’s journalists. Further recipients include many centers that write or train for the writing of medical research and journal publication:
BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
MEDIA-RELATED GRANT RECIPIENTS:
BBC World Service Trust
Crosscut Public Media
Editorial Projects in Education
Education Writers Association
Foundation for Public Broadcasting in Georgia
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies
International Center for Journalism
International Center for Journalists
International Women’s Media Foundation
Johns Hopkins University
Learning Matters, Inc.
Lincoln Square Productions, LLC
Link Media, Inc
Mater Medical Research Institute
National Conference of Editorial Writers Foundation
National Journal Group
National Press Foundation
National Public Radio (NPR)
New Venture Fund
Overseas Development Institute
President and Fellows of Harvard College
Project Hope (to publish papers on global health issues)
Public Library of Science
Public Radio International
Regents of the University of California Berkley
Steps International Foundation
Teachers College, Columbia University
Aspen Institute, Inc.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
United Nations Foundation
Unity Journalists of Color, Inc.
WGBH Educational Foundation
Washington News Council
World Health Organization
Is it any wonder that when the London Telegraph publishes a positive story about the Gates Foundation’s work on tropical diseases (without disclosing their sponsorship, per article), the British Medical Journal releases a study on tropical diseases at nearly the same time that upfront quotes from a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spokesperson and refers to their activities in working with 13 pharmaceutical companies? [No direct connection between Gates and BMJ is alleged here.]
The White House has been under fire– both during the George W. Bush Administration as well as the Barack Obama Administration (also, campaign plants on CNN)– for paid news scandals masquerading as fair, but friendly reporting. They are, of course, taxpayer funded government institutes, making their conflicts of interest more poignant and controversial.
Yet, in the quasi-private sector where numerous large foundations, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation chief among them, also grant money to media outlets while simultaneously promoting campaigns (like GAVI and AGRA) where they hope for positive coverage, questions of ethics also arise. Given the scope of operations at Gates, Rockefeller and other mega-foundations, there is no doubt that decisions they make– in what and how to promote– can have consequences for the world’s population that even outweigh what governments do.
With that in mind, it is time that Bill Gates’ image in “the media” as a savior of the poor be blemished with the full light of day and balanced with full criticism and deep discussion about the impact his foundation’s choices can have on our very livelihoods and future.
This article was posted: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 3:05 pm