Revealed: Documents Show Bill Gates Has Given $319 Million to Media Outlets

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
Sifting through over 30,000 grants in the company’s database, MintPress can reveal that the Gates Foundation has bankrolled hundreds of media outlets and ventures, to the tune of at least $319 million

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.

 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
The difference between Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a conspiracy theorist.

Philanthropic organizations is just a way to hide your money, it's called the art of false generosity. His business strategy was simply, invest into his image, buy the media and then get them to promote his products and discredit the credits,
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
66,557
Philanthropic organizations is just a way to hide your money, it's called the art of false generosity. His business strategy was simply, invest into his image, buy the media and then get them to promote his products and discredit the credits,

You know that Bill Gates doesn't personally allocate or authorise the donations the Foundation gives? There is a hierarchy that starts with a CEO.
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
You know that Bill Gates doesn't personally allocate or authorise the donations the Foundation gives? There is a hierarchy that starts with a CEO.

Yes, but the point is that organisations who he funds will inevitably be biased towards him. They effectively run as a PR firm for him, his investments and his organisation. This isn't rocket science, it's the manufacture of consent.
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
No, it's not rocket science, it's just your opinion.

it's simply follow the money. It has been well observed in propaganda studies that money filters out opinion, most notably the Herman-Chomsky Model.


The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:

  1. Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.
  2. The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority."[11] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
  3. Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that "the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers." Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media's dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.[12][clarification needed]
  4. Flak and the enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[12]
  5. Anti-communism/war on terror: Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the "war on terror" as the major social control mechanism.[13][clarification needed]


see the first point. It's common sense, money talks.

The manufacture of consent was written in the 80s, today's "communist or terrorist" is just a conspiracy theorist.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
66,557
it's simply follow the money. It has been well observed in propaganda studies that money filters out opinion, most notably the Herman-Chomsky Model.





see the first point. It's common sense, money talks.

The manufacture of consent was written in the 80s, today's "communist or terrorist" is just a conspiracy theorist.

You know, while you are down the rabbit hole, have you ever seen someone who looks a bit like this?

1642113446004.png
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
Your entire premise starts with a falsehood, you didn't notice because you are so deep in the conspiracy theories.

the falsehood that money influences objective media coverage?


good book on the scam behind "philanthropic" organizations and how they effectively buy a good public image.
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
@Dave do you honestly think that any of these news outlets are going to objectively cover anything about Bill Gates, say his relationship with Epstein?

or the merits of enforcing antitrust?
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896

for the record...
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
66,557
Think a little bit further, who gives money to the foundation?

The money was given to the Foundation when it was formed, it isn't something Gates has a monthly debit order for. Since then others like Buffett have also donated money.

You could even just go read the Wikipedia page for a basic idea of how it operates.
 

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
13,896
The money was given to the Foundation when it was formed, it isn't something Gates has a monthly debit order for. Since then others like Buffett have also donated money.

You could even just go read the Wikipedia page for a basic idea of how it operates.

you fail to understand how the mass media propaganda model works. Money from foundations eventually filters opinion and it selects what information and which stories get prioritized, you end up with a selected narrative without coercion.


As for Wikipedia, that also act as a corporate billboard, especially for bigpharma.
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Microsoft Matching Gifts Program
 
Last edited:
Top