reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Major strategic problems in global communication have led to the spread of disinformation about the pandemic on social media. State-sponsored groups are creating accounts to sow political discord and gain financial advantages. Violence against healthcare workers and minority populations is increasing. Different countries are implementing limited internet shutdowns to manage the overwhelming amount of misinformation. Experts agree that identifying every bad actor is a huge challenge, and new disinformation campaigns are generated daily. Some believe that controlling access to information is necessary to combat the problem. However, it's not just trolls spreading fake news, but also political leaders. It's crucial to ensure that accurate public health information reaches the public through various outlets. Misinformation is causing unrest, eroding trust, and hindering response efforts. Governments are implementing interventions, including internet shutdowns and penalties for spreading harmful falsehoods. Social media companies are trying to limit misuse of their platforms, but it's a complex issue. The public is losing trust in both misinformation and the measures to control it.

Independent media is facing challenges due to digital platforms capturing advertising and subscription revenue. Facebook and Google alone captured half of the global digital advertising spend in 2020, leading to a loss of billions of dollars for news feeds and TV newscasts in the US. This affects access to local news and creates market failures, particularly in vulnerable countries. However, initiatives like the MediaM project in Moldova aim to combat misinformation by working with local media outlets to improve subscription sales and marketing strategies. These efforts are part of the viability accelerator, which actively addresses market trends and supports sustainable business models for independent media worldwide.

Trump has frozen millions in USAID funds for foreign media, causing outrage among liberals. Reports reveal that USAID has been funding outlets like Politico and the New York Times, raising concerns about the U.S. government influencing global journalism. Trump’s recent hold on USAID has cut $268 million from media in over 30 countries, affecting 6,200 journalists and 707 news outlets. This situation parallels past revelations about social media collusion with the government to shape public opinion. Critics argue that while they highlight U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, the real issue is that many media outlets are funded by the U.S., including the BBC, which is the second-largest recipient of U.S. funding after the UK government.

In New Zealand, COVID-19 has impacted traditional media models already facing challenges from technology and changing consumer demands. Misinformation about the virus has also spread through social media. To address these issues, we prioritized the establishment of a public interest journalism fund. This fund aims to support our media in producing informative stories that keep New Zealanders updated. We believe that a vibrant and trusted media sector is crucial for a healthy democracy. This initiative aligns with our goal of Building Back Better.

Thousands of journalists and hundreds of newsrooms received USAID funding. We're committed to serving our communities across the Treasure Valley, El Paso, Las Cruces, Eastern Iowa, and Mid-Michigan. The spread of false news on social media is alarming and a serious threat to our democracy.

In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat The United States because The United States controls all the world's media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results.

Microsoft and USAID are joining forces to address the crisis facing journalism and independent media. Brad Smith from Microsoft emphasizes the importance of businesses standing up for democracy, as it benefits both society and the economy. Samantha Power from USAID highlights the need for sustainable business models for independent media, given the dominance of digital platforms in advertising and subscription revenue. She shares examples of successful initiatives in Moldova and Nicaragua, where support and restructuring have led to increased revenue and online reach for independent media outlets. Power calls for more partnerships between government, civil society, and the private sector to ensure the sustainability of independent media.

Microsoft and USAID are joining forces to address the crisis facing journalism and independent media. Brad Smith from Microsoft emphasizes the importance of businesses standing up for and promoting healthy democracy. Samantha Power from USAID discusses the Media Viability Accelerator program, which aims to support sustainable business models for independent media. She highlights the impact of independent media on citizen welfare and the need for financial support in the face of digital platforms dominating advertising and subscription revenue. Power shares success stories from Moldova and Nicaragua, where support from USAID has led to increased revenue and online reach for independent media outlets. She calls for more partners to join the initiative and emphasizes the importance of a partnership between government, civil society, and the private sector.

There are good and bad journalists, but when the public mistrusts us and turns to misleading alternative sources, it's problematic. Without a common set of facts, it's difficult to solve society's big problems. CourseCorrect is using machine learning and AI to identify and combat misinformation. They analyze linguistic patterns, network science, and temporal behavior to pinpoint misinformation sources and its reach. Tailoring corrections based on the context of the person is crucial for effectiveness. CourseCorrect's experiments have shown that strategically placing correct information in social media networks can reduce the spread of misinformation. By testing different strategies, they can advise journalists on the most effective ways to combat misinformation. A former Facebook public policy director is part of the team, bringing valuable experience in coordinating the company's work during elections.

The event centers on the release and discussion of a comprehensive report from the Knight Commission on the Information, Media, and Democracy, produced with the Aspen Institute and the Knight Foundation. Speakers acknowledge the hard work of commissioners, staff, and partners, and emphasize that the report’s themes—transparency, innovation, engagement, and a commitment to rebuilding trust—cut across multiple programs within the institute and beyond. The overarching aim is to address a crisis of trust in democracy and in the media, a problem described as global and among the most important for the health of democracies. Jamie Woodson and Tony Marx, co-chairs, open by recognizing that polarization and partisanship are at historic highs and trust in core institutions is at an all-time low. They stress the necessity of cross-sector leadership and action to rebuild trust, noting that the group learned from a wide array of input from across the country and from experts who testified. They underscore that the commission’s work models the tough, constructive conversations needed to move forward and that the report’s unanimous conclusions offer guidance for rebuilding trust in democracy and in the media. They highlight the Commission’s diverse makeup and its approach of tackling difficult conversations to reach meaningful, forward-looking recommendations. Tony Marx then adds a reflective point about Ben Franklin’s republic—“a republic if you can keep it”—and frames the current moment as one where the country faces uncertainty about maintaining democracy. He argues that trusted media and trustworthy technology are essential and notes the need for transparency across media and technology, as well as a local, representative media that serves as a check on power. He emphasizes that the work hinges on the public’s ability to talk, learn, and engage across differences, and that the report constitutes the beginning of a long effort to strengthen democracy. He closes with a nod to a Ben Franklin portrait and a pledge to keep moving forward. Alberto Ibargüen (Knight Foundation) speaks to the Commission’s formation, the collaboration with Aspen, and the renewal of a civic project built around shared democratic values. He notes the importance of representatives from Miami, Eduardo Padrón, among the commissioners and recognizes the leadership of Aspen and Knight’s teams, including Christine Gloria. He situates the Commission’s work within a broader historical arc about how the Internet and technology transformed information, comparing the current moment to Gutenberg’s revolution and the subsequent challenges of distinguishing truth from fiction. He observes that the report builds a foundation for civil discourse and neighbor-to-neighbor conversations across different perspectives. Charlie Firestone and other panelists present the structure and core themes of the report. The report divides into three integrated areas—media, technology, and citizenship—each with its own leadership, and all anchored in shared values: responsibility, free expression, transparency, literacy, innovation, and diversity. They acknowledge that while consensus was reached on many points, some specifics (like platform regulation) were not fully agreed upon, reflecting the complexity of addressing today’s realities. The report is designed as a compass for policymakers, industry, and citizens to navigate the trust crisis, rather than a prescriptive map of all possible reforms. A central, recurring theme is radical transparency. The media subcommittee, chaired by Rainey Aronson and Mizel Stewart, explains that transparency should be practical and cultural: journalists must reveal sources, label opinions clearly, and open up decision-making processes and raw materials (rushes, notebooks) to the public. The goal is to build trust by peeling back the curtain and showing work, while recognizing that traditional journalist-source protections remain necessary but should adapt to new expectations of openness. The media recommendations stress addressing perceptions of bias and the need to restore credibility in journalism. Meredith S. and Charlie Sykes acknowledge the genuine bias that exists, the threat of demonization of the press, and the importance of introspection within newsrooms. They argue that trust is the number-one asset, and transparency about methods, sourcing, funding, and editorial processes can improve credibility. A robust local press is identified as essential for trust in communities, with particular focus on news deserts and the need for a hybrid funding model that includes philanthropy to support new local outlets and diverse newsroom representation reflecting the communities served. Innovation in how journalism engages with audiences is highlighted. The report urges news organizations to reclaim audience relationships, invest in transparent practices about how stories are produced, updated, and corrected, and to develop new ways of involving audiences to co-create and verify information. This includes discussing the role of platforms in guiding discovery and the possibility of restoring accountability by owning more of the audience relationship and data. Technology and governance discussions center on information fiduciaries and radical transparency applied to platforms. Claire Wardle, Jo Anne Lipman, and Nahla O’Connor outline the need for corporate social responsibility from platforms, transparency about data usage, provenance of content, funding for political advertising, and algorithmic transparency. They advocate for a “glass box” approach to algorithms so users understand how personalization works and can act to counter filter bubbles. They also discuss data portability as a mechanism to empower individuals and to foster competition and consumer choice. The panel acknowledges the complexity of balancing innovation with responsibility and privacy, and calls for experiments and evaluation backed by platform data to measure progress. Citizenship recommendations center on reviving civic education and digital literacy, expanding access to substantive constitutional knowledge, and renewing civic spaces for face-to-face dialogue. Jeff Rosen emphasizes standards, substantive curricula, and funding for civics education, calling for philanthropists to support the development and distribution of high-quality, bipartisan civics content—such as online curricula that teach the First Amendment through interactive materials and cross-partisan exchanges. Charlie Sykes advocates for a national service concept as a way to restore shared purpose and civic responsibility, while stressing that digital literacy alone cannot replace substantive constitutional knowledge. The group urges lifelong learning about government and democracy, with curricula designed for diverse audiences beyond just students. The session closes with affirmations that the report’s recommendations are starting points for ongoing dialogue and action. The organizers encourage engagement via social media and reiterate the belief that America’s citizens are capable of rebuilding trust by moving beyond fear and anger, changing tools and approaches, and investing in education, transparency, and civic life. A questions-and-answer segment touches on scenarios for disasters, polarization, and the need to involve a broader set of voices beyond national media platforms, underscoring the ongoing, iterative nature of this work.

And honorable members, the rise in information manipulation and disinformation, as we hear, is dividing our societies. This is why we urgently need the European democracy shield. So we will set up a new European Centre for democratic resilience. This will bring together the expertise and capacity of Member States and neighbouring countries. This is why the first step in an autocrat's playbook is always to capture independent media, because this enables backsliding and corruption to happen in the dark. This is why we will launch a new media resilience programme. This is why, in the next budget, we have proposed to significantly boost funding for media. We also need to enable private equity. We will therefore use our tools to support independent and local media. A free press is the backbone of any democracy, and we will support Europe's press to remain free despite your shouting.

Unheard attended a parliamentary hearing on the future of news and discussed the issue of disinformation. They discovered a worldwide system of censorship that blocks certain websites from receiving ad revenue. Unheard was placed on the Global Disinformation Index's exclusion list, despite publishing well-known writers and interviewing influential figures. The GDI defines disinformation as narratives that are adversarial, even if factually accurate. The GDI is a government-funded organization that receives money from various sources. Unheard argues that this type of censorship is dangerous and stifles important discussions. They urge individuals and companies to be aware of where their ad dollars are going and to support independent media.

Under USAID's independent media and media sustainability branches, half a billion dollars a year funds a network of over 4,000 media outlets, reaching 778,000,000 people and training 9,000 journalists. This includes training by organizations like the Atlantic Council, funded by USAID, the State Department, and the Pentagon. USAID funds both sides of the issue, including a $500,000,000 mercenary media operation. The CEO of Internews, which is funded by USAID, is advocating for a global advertising exclusion list to censor disinformation by targeting ad revenue. USAID also gave $68,000,000 to the World Economic Forum. USAID's internal documents show explicit political targeting of advertiser networks.

An anchor in California shared that news reporters often feel compelled to present scripted narratives they know are false to maintain access to press briefings. This pressure limits coverage of California's issues, as local stations fear losing invitations and viewership. The censorship seen on platforms like Twitter and Meta mirrors what occurs in local news. When Meta resisted pressure from the Biden administration, it faced legal challenges, highlighting the risks for smaller stations that might be sued by state officials. This environment stifles honest reporting and critical coverage of local problems.

In New Zealand, COVID-19 has impacted traditional media models already facing challenges from technology and changing consumer demands. Misinformation about the virus has also spread through social media. To address these issues, we prioritized the creation of a public interest journalism fund. This fund aims to support our media in producing informative stories that keep New Zealanders updated. We believe that a vibrant and trusted media sector is crucial for a healthy democracy. This initiative aligns with our goal of Building Back Better.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of advertising revenue supports harmful content. We need to collaborate with the global advertising industry to redirect ad dollars. This involves creating exclusion and inclusion lists to prioritize funding for accurate and relevant news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to focus its resources on disseminating truthful and beneficial information.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

Two companies dominate global industries, but media conglomerates owned by elite families control the narrative. Companies like ViacomCBS, AT&T, News Corp, Disney, and Comcast shape public opinion through their vast media holdings. News agencies like Reuters and AFP, along with organizations like Project Syndicate and the European Journalism Center, influence news content worldwide. The European Journalism Center receives funding from the Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Facebook, and Google, raising questions about media independence. This centralized control of information poses a threat to democracy.

We launched Reporters Shield, an insurance fund for journalists facing political risks. It's a global public good, vital for independent media's survival and success. In Moldova, combating misinformation, our MediaM initiative helped local outlets create membership systems, boosting revenue by 38% and online reach by 60% over three years. In Nicaragua, La Prensa, an important news outlet under attack, was on the verge of collapse. We provided emergency funding and, more significantly, assisted with a business restructuring plan to stabilize their finances. Our focus is on sustainable business models for independent media, not just short-term aid.

Global media reporting is often synchronized. Biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking

Media outlets receiving significant funding from the government raises concerns about their objectivity. Millions of dollars flowed to organizations like Politico and the BBC, echoing past scandals like payola in the music industry. The USAID's spending on journals and publications, while sometimes justifiable, saw a dramatic increase under the Biden administration, reaching $8 million annually for Politico, compared to $1.3 million under Trump. This represents a significant portion of Politico's revenue. Similar concerning funding patterns emerged with the BBC and Thomson Reuters. While the New York Times received comparatively less, the increase in funding warrants scrutiny. This situation requires investigation to ensure transparency and maintain public trust in the media's independence. The information is still developing, but citizen journalists are already using publicly available data to shed light on the issue.

Disinformation is profitable, so we must trace the money. A significant portion of the funding for harmful content comes from the global advertising industry. We need to collaborate with this industry to redirect ad dollars. This can involve creating exclusion and inclusion lists to target funding towards accurate and reliable news and information. We must challenge the global advertising industry worldwide to prioritize funding for truthful and relevant content.