Anna Molly said:
The Texas Tribune lists their donors, members, and corporate sponsors. It's right there on their website.
https://www.texastribune.org/support-us/corporate-sponsors/
https://www.texastribune.org/support-us/donors-and-members/
Yup.infinity ag said:richardag said:Maybe he was not aware the money was laundered through other organizations?infinity ag said:
Politico CEO claimed he was not getting any money from USAID.
Politico rejects Trump's claim that it received government funding
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/politico-rejects-trump-s-claim-that-it-received-government-funding/3474516Quote:
US political news website Politico denied allegations by President Donald Trump that it received millions of dollars in government funding, calling the claim "flat-out false."
In a statement Thursday, Politico's CEO Goli Sheikholeslami and Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris said the news outlet has "never received any government funding no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years."
The response follows a post by Trump on his Truth Social platform where he claimed that billions of dollars had been stolen from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), with some of it allegedly going to the media as a "payoff" for favorable coverage of Democrats.
Trump specifically named Politico, suggesting that it received $8 million.
Politico said that its subscription service, Politico Pro, is used by private companies and government agencies that pay for access to policy and legislative tracking tools.
"This is not funding. It is a transaction," the statement said.
If that is so, he should sue Trump for defamation.
TheNotoriousP.I.P. said:
Gotta be careful how far some of these things get taken. While I'm sure there are plenty of wasteful subscriptions that can be cut, you don't want your regulators to not have easy access to outlets that discuss industry trends.
And they all walked in lockstep with the same talking points, and the same narrative.SociallyConditionedAg said:
It makes so much sense now why media conglomerates didn't care about their ratings.
taxpreparer said:4 said:infinity ag said:
Politico CEO claimed he was not getting any money from USAID.
So you're saying he was LYING?!!!
NOOOOOOOO....
No, he was paid by Politico; Politico got it's money from USAID. He didn't take any money from USAID. Lefty think in action.
Quote:
It's not just "right-wing influencers." People across the spectrum are disgusted. Obviously no one can "substantiate" that millions in fees were made "in exchange for coverage." The money speaks for itself, as a Reuters reporter should know. If your bottom line is anchored by ongoing payments for an overpriced boutique product that essentially only institutions can afford, you're in a particular kind of business. But that's not even the issue. These cash cushions are just last data points on a list of revelations, exposing legacy press as a small part of an endless information operation, churning out manufactured political narratives.
The problem isn't that Politico "sells" $8 million a year in services to agencies like USAID and the DoD and the Departments of Energy and Commerce and the Interior and so on. It's that when a USAID contractor like Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance gets dragged into a public controversy as it did when Anthony Fauci's emails became public in 2021, Politico instantly ran "Attacks on Fauci grow more intense, personal and conspiratorial," a story containing the following elements:
The caption should read on the "woman" hitting herself, "Trump did this to me" after she reports the assault to police.rocky the dog said:
APHIS AG said:The caption should read on the "woman" hitting herself, "Trump did this to me" after she reports the assault to police.rocky the dog said:
^ This!Jugstore Cowboy said:
Just came across this Matt Taibbi piece that makes my point more eloquently than I could:
https://www.racket.news/p/the-media-is-busted
Idk how many snippets STAFF allows from paywalled content, but this might be worth a trial sub.Quote:
It's not just "right-wing influencers." People across the spectrum are disgusted. Obviously no one can "substantiate" that millions in fees were made "in exchange for coverage." The money speaks for itself, as a Reuters reporter should know. If your bottom line is anchored by ongoing payments for an overpriced boutique product that essentially only institutions can afford, you're in a particular kind of business. But that's not even the issue. These cash cushions are just last data points on a list of revelations, exposing legacy press as a small part of an endless information operation, churning out manufactured political narratives.
The problem isn't that Politico "sells" $8 million a year in services to agencies like USAID and the DoD and the Departments of Energy and Commerce and the Interior and so on. It's that when a USAID contractor like Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance gets dragged into a public controversy as it did when Anthony Fauci's emails became public in 2021, Politico instantly ran "Attacks on Fauci grow more intense, personal and conspiratorial," a story containing the following elements:
Agree - or be bought out by a Billionaire.Trajan88 said:
Q: Would these media outlets crash and burned like Air America w/o taxpayer infusion of $s?
Magic 8 Ball says: "Yes"
Decay said:
Politico said that the only money they got was subscriptions from government officials who just liked their content.
These subscriptions cost $10,000/year and up per person!
Even if that was the whole story, why the hell is our taxpayer money paying that?
And of course the actual problem is that these were just cover stories for allowing Dems to put money back into Dem mouthpieces, in exchange for their pro-Democrat coverage.
The least we can do is annihilate this entire system. Bare minimum.
