reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal lines, which is dangerous for our democracy.

Elon Musk released documents showing collusion between the White House and Twitter on censorship. He defied his lawyers by sharing the documents with journalists, standing up for free speech in the US. In Europe, censorship is rampant, with heavy fines for criticizing official medical recommendations. Musk's actions were courageous, considering his reliance on government contracts for SpaceX and ties to intelligence agencies. The release of these documents shed light on government interference in social media platforms.

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their personal bias and agenda, controlling people's thoughts. This is dangerous.

Elon Musk is seen as a defender of free speech, standing up against censorship from government, media, and tech companies. He understands that advertisers can be easily influenced by special interest groups and political allies. This is evident in the case of Tucker Carlson.

A network president revealed that allowing certain voices on air could lead to the host's firing due to advertiser pressures, particularly from pharmaceutical companies. During non-election years, up to 70% of news revenue can come from pharma ads, which serve as a public relations tactic rather than simply promoting drugs. This funding influences the media, making it reluctant to investigate pharmaceutical practices, even when there are serious concerns about vaccine safety and corporate misconduct. The media often dismisses legitimate questions as anti-science, silencing discussions about vaccine injuries. There's a growing need to reconsider trust in the pharmaceutical industry, especially with the increasing government funding for drugs like Ozempic.

Elon Musk claims that everyone is the media, but having a Twitter account and a blue checkmark doesn't make someone a reporter. True journalism requires hard work and dedication, not just opinions shared online. It's crucial to recognize the value of professional journalism amidst the misinformation spread on social media. The efforts of reporters and editors at reputable outlets like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and NBC News are significant. Their work is essential to providing accurate news and countering the false narratives proliferating online.

I have worked in high-profile media roles, faced danger, and been falsely accused. The media faces challenges in the age of information warfare, with censorship and propaganda threatening freedom of speech. Nonprofit organizations act as political propagandists, stifling free thought. Big tech companies wield immense power over what we see and hear. The importance of freedom of speech, especially in the United States, cannot be overstated. The fight for truth and freedom is crucial in the current media landscape.

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal agendas.

In the United States, the standard model of journalism, which relies on corporate advertising, imposes severe restraints on media outlets. Journalists are limited in what they can say to avoid offending corporate advertisers. This restricts the opinions, perspectives, and reporting that can be aired. It is ironic that journalists, who should value their freedom to speak, are shocked when someone like Elon Musk tells corporations to go fuck themselves for trying to control political content. The problem lies with journalists who serve establishment power instead of challenging it. The corporatization of media has imported a culture of avoiding controversy and pleasing powerful people, leading to a lack of courage among journalists.

The mainstream media is often criticized for parroting the same narrative and being disconnected from our reality. They are seen as paid actors reading a script given to them by a higher power that doesn't care about us. Their focus is on fear, war, and trauma.

Freedom of speech is under attack, with a censorship industrial complex choking expression and debate. Federal and state governments fund censorship technology, directing big tech to censor speech. Academic institutions research disinformation for the censorship regime, and think tanks groom journalists to promote pro-censorship propaganda. Nonprofit censorship groups produce blacklists to favor left-wing media and silence dissenting voices. The Federalist has been targeted for critiquing corporate media coverage of Black Lives Matter riots, which caused over $2 billion in damages. A House report documented Stanford's collusion with government entities to censor information, including political reporting. 70% of Americans distrust corporate media. Blacklists from groups like NewsGuard rate left-wing outlets higher than those challenging orthodoxies, impacting advertising revenue. The Federalist exposed the Russia collusion hoax and media lies against Justice Kavanaugh, even suing the State Department for promoting censorship tools. Despite facing censorship, The Federalist will continue reporting the truth.

Demoralization includes influencing through various methods such as infiltration, propaganda methods, and direct contacts across different areas where public opinion is formulated or shaped. The result is that the power structure slowly is eroded by bodies and groups of people who do not have either the qualification or the will of the people to keep them in power, yet they do have power. One such group mentioned is the media. The speaker questions who elected the media and how they have acquired so much power, almost monopolistic, over people’s minds. They can “rape your mind.” They question who elected them and how they have the nerve to decide what is good and what is bad for the president and his administration, who were chosen by the people. The speaker references Spiro Agnew, who was hated by the liberal left, and who described the media as a bunch of enfeebled snobs. That description is presented as illustrative of what the speaker believes the media are. The media are characterized as a reflection of mediocrity within a large establishment, such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and major television networks. According to the speaker, you do not have to be an excellent journalist to succeed in such environments. You only have to be a mediocre journalist. Excellence is not required to survive; competition has diminished. As soon as you smile for the camera and perform your job, that suffices. There is no longer meaningful competition. The speaker further asserts that the media’s power and influence are sustained by a lack of competition, ease of survival, and comfortable income. The implication is that the media operate with little incentive to excel, maintain high standards, or challenge the status quo, because stability, good pay (for example, “$100,000 a year” is cited), and public-facing performance are enough to ensure their continued position.

Elon Musk is seen as a defender of free speech against censorship from government, media, and tech companies. He understands that advertisers can be easily influenced by special interest groups and political allies. This is evident in the case of Tucker Carlson.

In the United States, the standard model of journalism, which relies on corporate advertising, imposes severe restraints on media outlets. This limits the hiring of certain journalists and restricts the opinions, perspectives, and reporting that can be aired. Journalists should value their freedom to speak, but many are afraid to challenge corporate advertisers. The recent controversy involving Elon Musk telling corporations to "go fuck yourself" for trying to control political content highlights the lack of journalists willing to stand up to such limitations. The corporatization of media has led to a culture of avoiding controversy and pleasing powerful people, resulting in a lack of courage among journalists.

The media is controlled by a few corporations like Disney, Fox, Westinghouse, and GE. They can say whatever they want and silence those who disagree. They rarely talk about the negative aspects of the nuclear industry, like Westinghouse being sued for fraud or GE operating nuclear bomb plants. These corporations receive billions in subsidies from the government and use tax money to support congressmen. They also dump toxic waste and GE made the bullets that shot JFK. When you buy products sponsored on this show, you contribute to this chain. McDonald's was ignored because they made jokes about O.J. Simpson. Lord Michael and Barry went to the same high school.

Elon Musk claims that everyone is the media, but that's misleading. Having a social media presence doesn't make someone a reporter. Journalism is a challenging profession that requires dedication and a commitment to uncovering the truth without bias. It involves hard work, not just sharing opinions on platforms like Twitter. The integrity of journalists and editors is often undermined by misinformation circulating on social media, which distorts the reality of their efforts and contributions. It's crucial to recognize and respect the rigorous work that goes into responsible reporting.

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.

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.

Tucker Carlson's departure from Fox News signals the mainstream media's decline. Their focus on self-promotion and serving corporate interests, particularly the pharmaceutical and military-industrial complexes, has alienated viewers. The massive settlements Fox News paid, while highlighting media hypocrisy, pale in comparison to the pharmaceutical industry's payouts. This highlights the mainstream media's compromised integrity and dependence on advertising revenue. The rise of independent media, fueled by social media and direct audience engagement, provides an alternative. This new model prioritizes audience connection, transparency, and responsive dialogue, fostering genuine democratic discourse and challenging the established power structures. The old media model is failing, and the future lies in a more decentralized and participatory approach to news and information.

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.

Some argue about free speech, with Musk claiming it's not an absolute right. Regulation is present in media like the BBC, which benefits from it. Lack of regulation in the press is seen as a negative. Social media is considered another form of media, and the idea of internet freedom has been overemphasized by some.

Elon Musk claims that everyone is the media, but simply having a Twitter account and a blue checkmark doesn't make someone a reporter. Being a journalist requires dedication, hard work, and a commitment to uncovering the truth without bias. It's not achieved through social media commentary or personal opinions. The integrity of journalism is crucial, especially when misinformation spreads on platforms like Twitter. The hard work of reporters and editors deserves recognition, and it's essential to counter the false narratives that undermine their efforts.

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.

Elon Musk is seen as a defender of free speech, standing up against censorship from government, media, and tech companies. He understands that advertisers can be easily influenced by special interest groups and political allies. This is evident in the case of Tucker Carlson.