Who needs viewers and readers when you can have rich Uncle Bill to stay. His requirements are minimal. All he asks is that he can read his scary Great (My) Reset stories to the children. How they love his silly tales of everyone frying in a climate fireball if they insist on keeping the lights on.
Over the last decade, the Bill Gates Foundation has “granted” over $50,000,000 to the BBC through its Action Watch arm. In that time the software tycoon has become a go-to source across the Corporation for epidemics, vaccines and anti-meat diets, while his recent climate change book was given five airings last week on prime time Radio 4.
The Gates Foundation spreads vast amounts of money around numerous good causes, mostly involving public health in the developing world. But its work is hampered by green activist ideology, minimising the help given by cheap reliable fossil fuel. Running public sanitation facilities on unreliable windmills and the sun helps condemn millions in the third world to earlier deaths and higher rates of disease and poverty.
Much of the BBC money appears to support advocacy in the developing world although the terms of specific grants are drawn wide. In August 2019, the BBC received $2.03m “to help us learn deepen our underpinning of process and user journey for different sets of women’s empowerment collectives, develop use cases for where digital can help amplify effects bring efficiencies, and close gender gaps for women”.
Who knows what this gibberish means? You would need a higher degree in Nonsense Studies from WokeUpTheWazoo University to make head or tail.
Of course the Gates goodies don’t stop with the BBC. It has been estimated that the Foundation has spread $250,000,000 around various media outlets over the last few years.
Almost needless to say the circulation-lite Guardian newspaper has been generously endowed to the tune of $7,000,000 over the last four years alone. There was nearly $3m in 2017 to “support the global coverage on economic opportunity and empowerment for women and girls”. In 2011 the Guardian received almost £6m for establishing a “Millennium Development Goals” web site focused on “providing compelling, evidence-based content, discussion and debate”.
The site is still in operation giving voice, and no doubt gainful employment, to green activists such as Jonathon Porritt. He recently argued that we should not miss the “glorious chance” provided by the Covid disaster “to address the climate and biodiversity”.
The usual Guardian house slur for any money seen to be supporting media and political debate is “dark money”. George Monbiot is most vocal – “Dark money is pushing democracy in the UK over the edge”, he wrote in 2017. But of course, his vitriol only applies to the political ideas he disagrees with. Indeed the Guardian proudly proclaims “Available for everyone, funded by readers” – which is true, although Mr Gates’ paper delivery bill seems a tad on the high side.
So called dark money was also behind the 2019 successful campaign by actors at the Royal Shakespeare Company led by Sir Mark Rylance and Emma “First Class” Thompson to stop BP subsidising tickets for children. It is not enough that BP heats their homes, lights their theatres and film sets and flies them around the world. It is “dirty money” although, sadly, a virtuous campaign to raise “clean” money to replace BP’s contribution failed to raise more than £2,000 after a year.
Rather surprisingly, the right-leaning Daily Telegraph accepted $3,446,801 in 2017 to “support content production” and “raise awareness in the UK”. Until recently the Telegraph was often sceptical around the politics and science of climate change. But Christopher Booker has passed away while the take-no-prisoners polemist James Delingpole finds his mainstream media work confined to reviewing the telly in the Telegraph’s house magazine, the Spectator. The former editor Charles Moore still casts a critical eye but the day-to-day coverage in the newspaper is in the hands of new “environmental” correspondents who mostly follow the example of the BBC and sub the press releases issued by green, science masquerading activists.
This is the real tragedy of independent journalism. At a time when a tsunami of money is available for media and academia from Gates and others such as Jeremy Grantham, the mainstream media has given up looking at the science of climate change. It is “settled”. There is not a single peer reviewed science paper that proves conclusively humans cause all or most global warming. One doesn’t exist, but who cares when opinions from climate models that have never been accurate will do.
As a result, all the crucial investigative work has migrated elsewhere. The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently published an outstanding report from Ben Pile that showed the recent rigged Climate Assembly UK was merely a pathetic attempt to suggest wide public support for net zero.
And it takes a retired accountant to put the controlled and corralled media to shame. Everyday Paul Homewood on his site Not A Lot Of People Know That debunks the subbed nonsense claims published by people like the BBC’s Harrabin and McGrath. These days there is more journalist integrity in Homewood’s little finger than the entire BBC climate science output.
Granted, some may disagree.
Follow Chris on twitter @CMorrisonEsq
If you appreciated this article and would like to support us, would you consider a one off small donation?
(any currency can be selected)