Welcome to 21st century media warfare. Waged by your government on you.

Over the last two years people around the world have come to realise that the main stream media, journalism and even the very word journalist has changed. And it has done so in a very fundamental and dark way.

Today the very notion that main stream journalists all ascribe to a bedrock of minimum standards and ethics is being laughed at.

Yes, the stereotype of an intrepid journalist toiling away in a brave and unending quest for truth used to be the norm.

But no longer.

Today, what we are experiencing, again and again, is something very different. 

Over the past decade, phrases like click-bait and fake news have become everyday parlance. To the untrained eye, media sources spinning stories and crafting misleading headlines may seem like modern phenomena.

However, these practices have roots that go deep into the history of the main stream media.

In the late 19th-century, two media moguls, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, went to great lengths to outsell their competitors in a crowded and cutthroat landscape. Their most popular tactic adopted the moniker yellow journalism.

What has changed? Is the present day reality any different from that that has always existed since the dark days of yellow journalism?

This article exposes some of the sordid secrets which lay behind todays Main Stream Media.

Strategic Investments

To make sense out of this new world of journalism one needs to understand what is really happening to our main stream media.

What most of the general public are not aware of it that there is an insidious attack being conducted across our entire system of news reporting.

This attack is being driven by the corporate interests of large non-governmental organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and George Sorros’s Open Society Foundation. These insidious organisations are giving huge financial grants to journalism schools as a way to drive changes in how journalism graduates are being trained.

To be blunt, this is yet another example of the gradual erosion of journalistic integrity due to the pernicious influence of money used by a few elitists who have weaponised their wealth in order to advance both their own power and nefarious agendas.

Under the influence of these large grants, many journalism schools have taken to teaching advocacy and solutions journalism which are basically fancy terms for propaganda.

So, given the huge donations of corporate sponsorship, the Main Stream Media are now specifically hiring journalists to report with skewed biases on the topics of interest to these corporations (or governments).

Let that sink in for a moment.

Who Teaches Advocacy Journalism?

Renee Hobbs is a professor and the founding director of the Harrington School of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island. She is also the director of the Media Education Lab.

She once described the system of teaching journalism in the education system as follows:

The education bureaucracy is addicted to chunking up complex competencies into discrete, bite-size units, since it’s easier to measure bits of knowledge and isolated skills.

For these reasons, educators sometimes choose a small piece of the media literacy pie – like analysing credibility, for example and then reduce it to a stupid checklist.”

So, who teaches advocacy journalism and more importantly who funds such teachings?

Let’s look at one of the biggest journalism schools in the USA – Columbia University.

Firstly, how do they view advocacy journalism?

The university describes one their advocacy journalism programs as follows:

Calling for coalitions. Building partnerships between journalists and advocates.

Journalism is being hit hard globally, and some even predict the end of independent journalism in the global south, especially in Africa.

It’s time to look at what may survive. Philanthropic funding will become more essential, and donors will be eager to expand partnerships between journalism and advocacy groups.

Through this project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Media Partnerships team explored the dynamics of such collaborations.

Drawing from multiple case studies, the project provided recommendations for foundations, nonprofits and media organizations that maximise impact, respecting a shared covenant.”

Their partner in developing their advocacy journalism training program (and it’s funding) is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Advocacy Journalism

Advocacy journalism is a brand of journalism which adopts a non-objective viewpoint. This is usually for a social or political purpose.

Advocacy journalists often reject the traditional reporting ideal of objectivity. In part this is due to the influence of corporate sponsors in advertising.

So let’s figure out what advocacy journalism really is.

Let’s start by defining terms.

The definition of advocacy journalism from Merriam-Webster is: 

“Journalism that advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint”

That sounds like how one might define propaganda. Right?

The Merriam-Webster definition of propaganda is:

“The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.

Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”

Hmmm, interesting. The definitions for advocacy journalism and propaganda are essentially THE SAME.

Well, what a Brave New World we live in.

Amazon describe that classic book as follows:

“Aldous Huxley’s profoundly important classic of world literature, Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order–all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls.”

Sound familiar?

Why is this important? It’s important because journalism is increasingly taught by those who believe that classic journalism – which required that both sides of an issue be presented in a fair and balanced way – is an outdated concept and deserves to die a quiet death.

This is exemplified by a Wikipedia definition of advocacy journalism. It is frankly astounding. 

“Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed…. we must absolutely not feel bound by them.

If we are ever to create meaningful change, advocacy journalism will be the single most crucial element to enable the necessary organizing.

It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists. For many, this will require a different way of identifying and pursuing goals.”

Advocacy journalists are often paid by an outside organisation with an undisclosed agenda and can be (and very often are) influenced by governmental policies.

For example, the NY Times recently described a new hire as:

“Joining The New York Times as a technology reporter covering disinformation and all of its tentacles.”

That is frankly astounding because the pejorative use of the word ‘tentacles’ shows what biases this new reporter is expected to have. The implication being that any information not disseminated by the US government is disinformation, whether the topic be on climate change, diversity, elections, human rights or infectious diseases.

Clearly advocacy journalism is another way of describing of propaganda.

Solutions Journalism

There is another style of journalism that is rapidly becoming one of the largest factors in the general population’s lack of trust in our main stream media outlets.

This subset of advocacy journalism is known as solutions journalism. It is primarily used to used to influence governments, citizens and leaders.

People, including journalists, often assume that solutions journalism articles advocate for a particular solution by highlighting solutions to social problems.

The very name, solutions journalism, can mislead journalists, readers and other professionals.

Here’s why.

Large donors or sponsors and various dark state government departments are giving large donations to main stream media corporations in order to bias their reporting via solutions journalism.

These sponsors can be non-governmental organisations, national governments or organisations like the Zuckerberg-Chan initiative, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations, the World Health Organization or the World Economic Forum.

These groups seek out private-public partnerships which some might say is a euphemism for what Benito Mussolini once defined as fascism.

In order to promote their agendas to the global population these organisations use advocacy and solutions journalism in order to sway public opinion.

Sometimes they even fund specific investigations. When this happens, who is compromised? Clearly, Truth and Integrity are the immediate casualties.

Solutions journalism is also the term that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation use to describe their funding mechanisms.

Below are links to some interesting analysis of Solutions Journalism.

Link to Solutions Journalism Imposters Analysis.

Link to An Investigation Into Rigours of Solutions Reporting.

Link to How Government Propaganda Used To Divide and Conquer.

Gotcha Journalism

Gotcha journalism is where a reporter uses a variety of ploys to draw out information from an interviewee which they can later weaponise to support the pre-determined storyline that their publication wishes to promote.

Often this starts with a sort of confidence game, like a con artist might employ.

In order to get the subject to let down their guard and agree to an interview the journalist will flatter or use phrases like, “I just want to help you to get your story out”.

After establishing a relationship with the subject, the journalist will then draw out personal details using increasingly aggressive questioning which focuses on supporting the true agenda behind the article.

These personal details will be woven into the story line in order to delegitimise the interviewee or reveal some salacious character flaw in them.

Then the article drops, and the naive interviewee suddenly finds that they have been duped into revealing personal details which have been weaponised to support a pre-determined narrative.

Here’s the Wikipedia definition of Gotcha journalism:

“Gotcha journalism” is a pejorative term used by media critics to describe interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation.

Conflicts of Interest?

Is it possible that there are conflicts of interest between the main stream media and those funding the use of advocacy and solutions journalism?

We now know that the US Government has paid over a billion US dollars to the main stream media in order to promote their propaganda on how the COVID vaccines are safe and effective:

In a press release it detailed how the HHS authorised the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to both public and private entities in order to…

“Carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”

Following a freedom of information request filed by BLAZE Media they published the following statement:

“In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations.

These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines.

The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.”

In November, 2021 documents revealed that Bill Gates had also donated to the major main stream outlets, to the tune of $319m!

“According to MintPress News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated at least $319 million to fund media projects at hundreds of organizations including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic, raising questions about those news outlets’ ability to report objectively on Gates and his work.”

It is important to understand that biases and opinions have always been a part of journalism. Previously such articles were called editorials. When these editorials were grouped together, they formed the publications opinion page.

Of course, we all knew that biases crept into reporting. Lets face it, every newspaper’s reputation was built on those biases. 

However solutions journalism is different. This is allowing a non-profit governmental organisation, a corporation or worse a national government to control the content of a newspaper or magazine through secret hand-shakes, grants and contracts.

Solutions journalism is allowing psy-ops a front row seat into influencing the minds of the reader.

This is a whole other ball-game, and it needs to stop or at the very least, be called out and recognised for what it is – corporate and state-sponsored propaganda.

Trusted News Initiative

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) is basically a treaty management organisation managed by the U.K government’s British Broadcasting Corporation. This insidious system uses advocacy and solutions based journalism in order to control the content of the main stream news, including social media platforms, throughout the free world.

How does the TNI or global information control fit into the globalist campaign against disinformation?

Essentially the TNI try to ensure that only the news or PR spin which a government or world body wishes to be advanced is allowed to be published or electronically distributed.

In other words the TNI is facilitating world-wide propaganda and censorship.

Advocacy and solutions journalism, which promotes a certain viewpoint or an agenda fits right in with the TNI model. 

The scope of TNI censorship ranges from election interference to COVID-19 vaccine information and shows the extent to which power corrupts.

It should be noted that those being corrupted often have no idea that they are being corrupted.

The advocacy and solutions journalists are trained or coopted into buying into the idea that there is only “one truth, one right answer, and that all government agencies are honest brokers in the assessment of their version of truth is “fair and balanced”.

This makes these so called journalists as naive as they are dangerous. Governments do lie, and what they offer the public as truth is perhaps better described as mis- dis- and mal- information.

In a democracy the people must be allowed to make appropriately informed choices.

Therefore the news they see must be free of interference from government and the influence of corporate interest groups.

The news must be reported from all angles, from all points of view – not just one narrow expression of the apparent truth, as presented by the Big Brother state.

The ethical morass that this type of journalism creates is huge.

This is precisely why advocacy journalism (ergo propaganda) is dangerous.

And Finally….

If you listen to the voices of disenchanted old school journalists (print and broadcast) again and again you’ll hear the famous rant from the 1976 movie “Network”, where Howard Beale says:

“I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more”.

Their words may be more nuanced today but they all revolve around them being unwilling to comply with corporate demands to mislead the public in various ways.

The voices of insiders and whistleblowers all tell of widespread soul-destroying corporate media censorship and propaganda which they just cannot tolerate anymore.

These voices are coming from small local newspapers all the way up to the major networks – the old school can no longer tolerate the ethical erosion of their chosen profession.

Many have resigned from the main stream and gone independent. Some have succeeded, others not.

All we can hope is that institutions teaching journalism begin to recognise the dangers of promoting advocacy or solutions journalism and return back to the core principles of reportage – those being telling the truth with integrity, objectivity and neutrality.

We hope you found this post informative and useful. Please share it with your friends.

We leave you now with a tune from the late great Leonard Cohen – Everybody Knows – the lyrics say everything.

Author: Anonymous

Special thanks to

Robert Malone. MD, MS Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, scientist and physician.