Do Wealthy Donors Influence How The Associated Press Reports The News?
The Associated Press is one of the largest news agencies in the world, writing stories that are republished or recited by hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and television news programs. Much of the news coverage you read or watch every day was created by the AP. You may not even realize the story you're reading or watching came from the AP unless you happen to notice the letters "AP" at the top of the column, or you notice that TV news hosts on different stations are saying exactly the same thing on the same day. Since news outlets can't afford to keep large staffs of reporters on their payrolls anymore, they rely on the Associated Press to take up the slack. That shouldn't be a problem if the reporting is accurate and impartial.
Their website states "We were founded as an independent news cooperative, whose members are U.S. newspapers and broadcasters, steadfast in our mission to inform the world. To this day, AP remains independent, beholden only to the facts."
Does the AP meet that standard? Are they really independent and impartial? Do they accurately report the facts?
I took a look at the AP's website and saw news stories that definitely appeared to be pushing the political elite's agendas. There's an entire page filled with dozens of reports on climate change, but no stories from any of the thousands of scientists who dispute the official narrative that climate change is caused by human activity. If you get your news from the Associated Press, you probably have no idea that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change. No alternative viewpoints seem to be allowed. On their health page, there are several articles suggesting you get flu and COVID vaccines, but there's no mention of the potential risks of doing so. I saw no stories about vaccine injuries. There are no stories questioning the pseudoscience of virology. But there IS a story that defends ultraprocessed foods. And the AP's site has an entire section devoted to questionable "fact checking" on subjects including election fraud, Haitians eating pets, and FEMA's hurricane response in North Carolina. Granted, many of their articles seem to be well researched and impartial, but that's to be expected on a site that is essentially controlled opposition: sprinkle some truth onto a pile of propaganda and the public will believe it all.
So I don't buy their claim of being "beholden only to the facts". But who are they beholden to? Perhaps to their many financial supporters:
Let's take a look at some of them. The list is in alphabetical order with one glaring exception: the Gates Foundation is at the top of the list. In late 2023, the Gates Foundation gave the AP $1,829,815. It's probably safe to assume that Bill Gates has a lot of influence at the Associated Press. Gates is notorious for pushing vaccines, the COVID psyop, fake meat, digital ID's, the climate change agenda, and censorship. While the AP may say it is independent, the senior editors are almost certain to keep Gates' interests in mind when deciding which topics to cover and how they're reported. Even if there isn't an official policy to please Gates, it would be career suicide to piss him off.
Who else funds the Associated Press? For the sake of brevity, I'll only mention the funding sources that have a clear focus on an agenda that could influence the AP's work. Some, such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, award hundreds of grants every year for a wide range of projects and most of them look reasonably harmless. Others have a much narrower range and thus are more likely to exert influence on the media for favorable coverage of those projects.
For example, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation awards a significant number of grants to environmental issues, particularly climate change and renewable energy.
The Climate and Land Use Alliance "advances land use policies and finance that help countries achieve ambitious climate targets".
The Hearthland Foundation is focused on equity and justice, which are buzzwords of the radical left.
The Hollyhock Foundation has climate change as one of its priorities.
The KR Foundation's primary goal is "to address the root causes of climate change and environmental degradation". They fund projects that promote the elimination of fossil fuels, cars, and the consumption of meat.
The Nathan Cummings Foundation websites states "We believe the dual crises named in our mission (inequality and climate change) cannot be addressed without first addressing their root causes and oppressive manifestations. That’s why we are focused on the long-term and interconnected goal of advancing racial, economic, and environmental justice (REEJ)".
The Outrider Foundation "supports multimedia storytelling about nuclear threats and climate change". Its advisory board includes the infamous Michael E. Mann.
The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation pushes artificial intelligence and other digital technologies to solve "the world’s most pressing challenges, from the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change to health inequities".
Pivotal Philanthropies Foundation refers to Pivotal Ventures, a company founded by Melinda Gates that advances left-leaning ideologies, with diversity being their main focus.
Quadrivium has five main focus areas: democracy, technology & society, scientific understanding, climate change, and ocean health. How connected are they to the Associated Press? Their website brags, "We helped to stand up a climate desk at the Associated Press (AP). AP’s member cooperative business model helps the largest and smallest news organizations reach populations across a wide range of geographies and cultural and economic backgrounds with climate change stories that matter in their communities. Importantly, these stories improve public understanding of the existential threats we face as well as the many solutions available and underway." Quadrivium also helped set up an organization called 'SciLine', which among other things provides vaccine propaganda to news reporters. SciLine fails to mention any adverse reactions (such as death) from vaccines, choosing instead to repeat the standard "safe and effective" talking points of the medical industrial complex.
With the Associated Press accepting so much money from foundations with clear-cut agendas, especially climate change, its difficult to accept that the AP is impartial in its reporting. Reporters and editors are bound to self-censor even if there isn't a written policy to do so. News and research that runs counter to what the foundations pay for likely never sees the light of day.
Public ignorance is the inevitable result.