by Alan Macleod
Part 3 - “Independent” Media, Brought to You By the US Government
The cuts to USAID, therefore, have highlighted that the United States has consciously created a vast matrix encompassing thousands of journalists worldwide, all producing pro-U.S. content.
Yet, in discussing the USAID cuts, corporate media has insisted on describing these outlets as “independent.” “Independent outlets in [the] former Soviet Union are poised to be hurt by temporary shut down at key US agency,” wrote The Financial Times. “From Ukraine to Afghanistan, independent media organizations across the world are being forced to lay off staff or shut down after losing USAID funding,” The Guardian told its readers. Meanwhile, The Washington Post went with “Independent media in Russia, Ukraine lose their funding with USAID freeze.” Perhaps most notably, even organizations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) did the same. Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF U.S., commented, “Non-profit newsroom and media organizations have already had to cease operations and lay off staff. The most likely scenario is that after the 90-day freeze, they will disappear forever.”
There is already a serious problem in modern discourse with the term “independent media,” a phrase commonly defined as any media outlet, no matter how big an empire it is, that is not owned or funded by the state (as if that is the only form of dependence or control to which media is subject). But even at this extremely low bar, all these outlets fail. Indeed, Weimers’ warning underlines the fact that none of them are independent in any meaningful way. They are, in fact, completely dependent on USAID for their very existence.
Not only that, but some USAID-backed journalists candidly admit that their funding dictates their output and what stories they do and do not cover. Leila Bicakcic, CEO of Center for Investigative Reporting (a USAID-supported Bosnian organization), admitted, on camera, that “If you are funded by the U.S. government, there are certain topics that you would simply not go after, because the U.S. government has its interests that are above all others.”
While USAID specifically targets foreign audiences, much of its messaging comes back to America, as those foreign outlets are used as credible, independent, and reliable sources for newspapers or cable news networks to cite. Thus, its bankrolling of foreign media ends up flooding domestic audiences with pro-U.S. messaging as well.
While the press may be lamenting the demise of USAID-backed media, many heads of state are not. “Take your money with you,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro, “it’s poison.”
Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador, shared a rare moment of agreement with Petro. “Most governments don’t want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money actually ends up,” he wrote, explaining that:
While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements. At best, maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need (there are such cases), but the rest is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda.
Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador, shared a rare moment of agreement with Petro. “Most governments don’t want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money actually ends up,” he wrote, explaining that:
While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements. At best, maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need (there are such cases), but the rest is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda.
Source, links:
Comments
Post a Comment