[
USAID And The BBC:Had beers last night with a younger English friend, who was beyond depressed about the state of affairs in his country. He said that it feels like the entire country is caught in some sort of warp in which they can't see the real world. He told me that so many people he knows of his generation he's in his twenties are eager to emigrate, because they see no future for themselves here. He said he would absolutely be one of them, if his work didn't require him to stay in the country.
I wrote the other day that USAID was, pre-Trump, the second-biggest funder of the BBC's philanthropic arm. I pointed out that this is still pernicious, but it's not the same thing as funding the Beeb's newsgathering. A friend and veteran of UK journalism, who knows how all this works, wrote to say it's not that simple:
Quote:
The reality is that the USAid money is steering BBC editorial content and priorities. Check this annual fest of hate to Christian values, "100 Women".
I've followed for decades how the BBC fills its news content and have learned to question this stuff, because of the legally mandated obligation on the BBC to be 'impartial'. The continual wagging finger and nagging at the audiences is becoming an existential threat to the BBC because its funded by the licence-fee, paid by everyone in the UK who owns a TV. They are fed up with it. They are not stupid and resent being lectured at about all the predictable issues. Brits can be generous, tolerant and liberal. But hate sanctimonious droning.
But its Washington who are helping to fund and drive some of it! (The leftist lobby which has captured the ruling heights of the BBC and its multi-billion pound operations, which has 500m people tuning in around the world, don't need much encouragement.) Note the site states:
"How were the 100 Women chosen?
The BBC 100 Women team drew up a shortlist based on names gathered through research and suggested by the BBC's network of 41 World Service Languages teams, as well as BBC Media Action."
So BBC Media Action shapes this narrative, in turn funded by USAID.
There are always "reproductive rights" advocates and individuals like the transgender biologist from Colombia who of course uses "a queer lens to analyse landscapes and species".
Every year there are examples as every year the BBC produces this list. Pick any year and its the same. This is from 2013:
The BBC held a '100 Women' event as part of a "special series on the challenges faced by women in the 21st century." Great in principle. The season culminated with "100 inspiring women from around the world gathering for a unique event here at the BBC".
One of these women was Rebecca Gomperts - a Dutch doctor who runs an organization called Women on Waves. The BBC says:
"She has sailed into controversy on a number of occasions on her yacht, providing help to women in countries where abortions are restricted."
A short self-video is shot - no comment, no criticism, just her proclaiming her work, which in essence is to get round the law of countries where the unborn child is protected. Her work is reported here.
The BBC broadcasts the '100 Women' material globally. Look at the list on YouTube. "Completely separate from BBC News" yeah, right!
Hungary's Viktor Orban understands you have to have a total civilisational response. And lt looks like Trump/Musk are going for shock and awe too. "So much winning to be had" as you wrote this week.
On that 100 Women list from 2013, there is this person:
Quote:
Anna Arrowsmith English porn film director
Yeah, the US taxpayer helps pay for that.
By the way, there has been substantial pushback against the claim, which I published here the other day, that the journalism outlet Politico received USAID funds.
Lee Fang said that USAID only bought subscriptions to the Politico Pro service for some government officials.Still, federal records show that the US Government sent Politico's parent company $8.2 million. The answer seems to be that only $44,000 came from USAID,
but the rest came from other federal agencies, as subscriptions for the trade publication Politico runs distinct from its ordinary newsgathering.
That's much less scandalous, but it is nevertheless worth considering how much relying on government largesse, even above-board things like subscriptions, might affect your reporting. $8.2 million is a
lot of revenue, even if honestly received. It happens from time to time, on both the political Left and Right, that some politician will publish a crap book, and donor organizations will buy up tens of thousands of copies as a kind of laundered contribution to the politician, and to create the illusion that the pol has written a bestseller. I don't have any reason to believe that this has been going on with Politico Pro, but it's still worth thinking about this symbiotic relationship between Washington journalists and those on whom they report.] -Rod Dreher