reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Civil society, including the press, academia, special interest groups, and NGOs, plays a crucial role in addressing election security and countering malign influence. It is not enough for just the federal government, states, or tech and social media companies to tackle this issue. We need a collaborative effort from all sectors of society to understand and address the threats. This synergy is still a work in progress.

Renee DiResta, a speaker at the 4th Annual Cybersecurity Summit, discusses the power of partnerships in combating misinformation. She highlights the need for collaboration between government agencies, research institutions, and civil society organizations to address the spread of false and misleading information. DiResta emphasizes the importance of situational awareness, context, and resilience in countering harmful narratives. She suggests the establishment of a Center of Excellence within the federal government to coordinate efforts and promote effective communication. While acknowledging the need to respect civil liberties and prioritize free expression, DiResta emphasizes the urgency of addressing the current challenges posed by misinformation.

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.

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.

I am grateful to Brad and Microsoft for their support. Microsoft is known for partnering with initiatives that make a positive impact in the world. They understand the importance of economic development, digitization, climate change adaptation, and strengthening democracy. It's not just about preaching to the choir; it's about showing up and taking action. I appreciate their involvement.

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.

Independent journalism plays a crucial role in preventing deception by industries like pharmaceuticals and the military-industrial complex. Mainstream media often fails to fact-check or challenge false narratives, making independent journalists essential. They uncover the truth, exposing influences, revealing financial ties, and providing evidence through emails. Without them, we would be in a dire situation. The internet has become a platform for these journalists to thrive, as mainstream media corporations are corrupt and beholden to their sponsors.

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.

I am grateful to Brad and Microsoft for their support. When we have ideas to make a positive impact, Microsoft is enthusiastic to partner with us. This mindset exists in other companies too, rooted in the recognition of the business case for various causes like economic development, digitization, climate change adaptation, and strengthening democracy. Companies like Microsoft have a powerful voice and can make a difference. It's not just about preaching to the choir, but about showing up and taking action in the private sector. I am incredibly grateful for their support.

Independent media is facing challenges due to digital platforms like Facebook and Google capturing a significant portion of advertising and subscription revenue. This has led to a decline in revenue for news feeds and TV newscasts in the US. The lack of access to local news has created information deserts, particularly in vulnerable countries where USAID works. To address this, USA launched the Media M initiative in Moldova, aiming to combat misinformation by working with local media outlets to develop a membership system and improve marketing strategies. This initiative is part of the viability accelerator, which seeks sustainable business models for independent and local media worldwide.

Renee DiResta, a speaker at the 4th Annual Cybersecurity Summit, discusses the power of partnerships in combating misinformation and disinformation. She highlights the need for collaboration between government agencies, research institutions, and civil society organizations to address the spread of false and misleading narratives. DiResta emphasizes the importance of situational awareness, effective communication, and the promotion of reliable information while respecting civil liberties and prioritizing free expression. She suggests the establishment of a Center of Excellence within the federal government to coordinate efforts and facilitate ongoing research and analysis. The goal is to mitigate the impact of harmful misinformation and protect democratic institutions and public health.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

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.

"USAID has been there since independence." "helping fund the creation of Dia and the Ministry of Digital Transformation." "Not Dia solving the corruption problem, but it's a huge answer to taking out the middlemen and to creating greater transparency." "ProZoro on procurement in the health domain, which is so cut down on corruption. USAID funded ProZoro." "We were giving $1,500,000,000 every single month just right into the treasury of Ukraine. Just in cash." "the spigot of about a billion a month that we were provide USAID was providing with our treasury department, that is no longer happening." "There are so many answers to this." "the independent journalists who have exposed corruption." "the journalists were the ones that uncovered corruption on the use of US taxpayer dollars." "the Ukraine supplementals always had tens of millions of dollars also from Moldova." "We extended a very large loan, interest free loan, to the government of Ukraine using the frozen assets as collateral." "I'm very worried about Moldova. This is the last chance for Moldova." "Slava Ukraini." "Samantha, stop will never give up."

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.

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.

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.