Anthony Cody noted a very interesting exchange of comments about the Gates Foundation on Mercedes Schneider’s blog. Schneider wrote about a perceived conflict of interest when the Gates Foundation funds media and even meets with their representatives.
One of her examples was a grant to establish the “Education Lab” at the Seattle Times. The Lab is supposed to report on “success” stories. Focusing on “success” is itself a form of bias , Schneider said. Cody added, “What would stories have looked like in the 1960s if reporters covering the Vietnam War were supported with grants that encouraged them to “focus on success”?”
Then followed, on Schneider’s blog, an exchange between Wayne Au, a professor at the University of Washington, and Claudia Rowe, a reporter for Education Lab.
My bet: Education Lab will never write an article that questions the role of the Gates Foundation in steering American education to satisfy the whims of Bill Gates. A free press must be free of its sponsors.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Similar to John Arnold’s sole funding of “Pension Perils” to be broadcast on PBS. Only after the fact that it was….”solely funded by Arnold”…. was exposed by David Sirota (the only investigative reporter left in America?) did PBS agree to not air the show. And it took public outcry for PBS to respond and drop it after initially stating the airing would continue.
LikeLike
While I agree with the concept of sharing success stories so as to facilitate improved outcomes being emulated by others who seek to improve the development of their students, it is important to recognize the devasted nature of the daily print newspaper industry.
This industry had enjoyed virtual monopoly positions for two centuries and thus had
fostered poor management habits. Many of those at the helm of papers are third and fourth generation legacies of founders who had lived a life of opulance while being surrounded by yes men.
Newspapers enjoyed a typical 20% net income to sales, a very healthy profit. In addition, newspapers have enjoyed a powerful position in reporting and offering opinions on public officials and on candidates for political offices.
The selectivity and cost advantages of the Web allowed advertisers to target key markets and thus became a preferred route of gaining awareness.
When the ad revenues dropped, many papers, most particularly The Dallas Morning News fired dozens of writers who had built up trust with readers over decades of interaction. This prompted many subscribers to drop their subscriptions as the quality of the pieces plummeted. Many newspapers were filled with nothing but wire service pieces.
The typical daily print newspaper today is but a shadow of its once prominent power and profitability. Thus, any source of cash is probably going to be seriously considered, regardless of its potential conflict with what was once known as journalistic ethics.
LikeLike
It’s a problem when the media corporation does not disclose who owns it — or pwns it, as the kids say.
LikeLike
If you examine Form 13D of the proxy form that publicly held companies file with the SEC, you can see the ten largest shareholdings.
LikeLike
“Bill Gates wrote the Common Core” (to the tune of “Micheal row your boat ashore”)
(apologies to Peter, Paul and Mary)
Bill Gates wrote the Common Core, All-to-fool-ya!
Funds think tanks and much much more, All-to-fool-ya!
Propaganda’s deep and wide, All-to-fool-ya!
Lots of money on reformers’ side, All-to-fool-ya!
Deasy helps to fill the sales, All-to-fool-ya!
Apple storms and Pearson gales, All-to-fool-ya!
Duncans, Rhees and Campbell Browns, All-to-fool-ya!
Coming to your states and towns, All-to-fool-ya!
Pearly Gates for Gulen-Rhee, All-to-fool-ya!
Gates of Hell for you and me, All-to-fool-ya!
Bill Gates wrote the Common Core, All-to-fool-ya!
Funds think tanks and much much more, All-to-fool-ya!
(feel free to add your own verses and pass it around)
LikeLike
Rowe’s contention that the newsroom and editorial pages are separate and that is fiercely protected MAY be true but I have a hard time believing it.
My own local paper, the Detroit News, has “news” stories that usually fit specific narratives. There is a very narrow acceptance of what will be reported. For example, John Covington’s EAA departure was nowhere to be found in the News for days after it happened. But while Covington was running the EAA he had countless puff pieces about the system published.
By controlling WHAT gets published, newspapers can very much influence what the public believes. (In WWII, kamikaze attacks were not published so as not to panic Americans about a potentially lengthy fight against the Japanese.) This is why the Detroit Free Press weeklong series on charter schools garnered interest. It was the first time charters received any negative press here in Michigan.
By endlessly publishing negative stories about public schools and cheerleading “news” pieces about other schools, a bias was created and perpetrated. The same can be said about the News’ publishing tendencies regarding the MEA (teachers union). They have had “news” stories about those who have opted out due to the RTW law passed in 2012. These were nowhere to be found on the editorial pages. They were printed as news stories.
It’s fair to be skeptical when news organizations receive outside money since they have the ability to determine both what IS news and HOW it gets reported.
LikeLike
We have the same problem here in Michigan. The Gates Foundation (along with Walton and Skillman and others) funds Education Trust Midwest. Education Trust Midwest is the most quoted “educational expert” in our state. The organization provides “research” that calls for all Bill Gates’ reforms. And it reports on the reforms that Gates helps bring to Detroit. So what are the odds that they will find a problem with their sugar daddy’s reforms when they are asked over and over again for their opinion by the media. Their Executive Director Amber Arellano recently was admonished by Michigan legislators when she told them that Michigan would lose its NCLB waiver if it did not approve funding for Smarter Balanced. Incensed legislators dinged the funding. And Arne backed down– for now– and did not pull Michigan’s waiver.
LikeLike
The Albertson Foundation funds Idaho Ed News. Articles published in Idaho Ed News often appear in local media as “news”.
LikeLike
The Albertson Foundation is a major force for charters and other kinds of privatization.
LikeLike
My comment of this issue recyled from Mercedes Schneider’s site 9-6-40014.
Gates is not the only player in shaping what the media cover. Education Week, founded in the early 1980s, has a regular circulation of about 50,000.
EdWeek says “we seek and accept grant funding from the philanthropic community.” “Foundation funding has been instrumental in launching the annual Quality Counts and Diplomas Count reports. Grants also provide the additional resources that enable our newsroom, research center, and Web-production team to produce consistently high-quality, engaging news and information spanning the full range of issues that impact public education.” “Portions of our Editorial Projects in Education are underwritten by 16 individual funders.
”Editorial decision-making and the creation and publication of content—including content produced with support from philanthropic funding—remain in the sole control of Education Week, under the direction of its Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor.”
Doubtful. Foundations shape the topics given special attention, especially when it comes to “innovation” and “reform.” I have not figured out why some of topics being sponsored have the same language. For example,
“supports coverage of school climate and student behavior and engagement;” is the topic for three foundations–The Atlantic Philanthropies, The Raikes Foundation, and The NoVo Foundation.
“supports coverage of educational equity and school reform” is the topic of choice for The HOPE Foundation, and The Panasonic Foundation The Hope Foundation also sponsors non-union “teacher voice groups.”
Other interests are here, with a few probes on the amount of funding found on websites.
The Noyce Foundation “supports coverage of STEM learning—as part of the traditional school day and in informal settings”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “supports coverage of the education industry and K-12 innovation.” (November 2005 grant Purpose: to research graduation rates at the district level, produce an annual Graduation Counts report in Education Week, and related reports Amount: $2,534,757 Term: 48 months)
The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation “provides partial support for the annual Diplomas Count report on the state of high school graduation and reform efforts.”
Lumina Foundation “supports coverage of the alignment between K-12 schools and postsecondary education.
Carnegie Corporation of New York “supports coverage of entrepreneurship and innovation in education and school design”
The Joyce Foundation “supports coverage of policy efforts to improve the teaching profession expanding early-childhood education, and promoting innovations such as charter schools.
The Walton Family Foundation supports coverage of “parental empowerment and initiatives to spur the bold transformation of the national K-12 system of public education.”
The Ford Foundation “supports coverage of more and better learning time”
The GE Foundation supports “coverage of implementation of college- and career-ready standards.” By Catherine Gewertz EdWeek, February 1, 2012 .The GE Foundation’s $18 million common-standards grant (to EdWeek), announced this morning, will focus on helping teachers understand the shifts in instruction necessary for the new standards, and will build a storehouse of free resources for them to use.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation “supports coverage of deeper learning.”
The MetLife Foundation supports “edweek.org’s online Teacher channel.”
The Wallace Foundation “supports coverage of public school leadership, extended and expanded learning time, and arts learning.”
EdWeek reserves it prime “reader space” to a Commentary section that usually draws readers comments. For example, the current issue of EdWeek (Aug 27) published my 300 word comment on a long rant that had been in a prior issue (Aug 6) on the topic “Teachers’ Unions Must Embrace the Future.” The author, Leslie C. Francis, is a self-identified “communications expert,” and represented himself as a democrat and former union activist.
The Francis “commentary” drew fire. I focussed on his caricature of what unions do. He opined that unions recruit, train, and license teachers, and also decide on the school calendar. He chastised unions for not endorsing the latest gadgets and “innovations.” He even blamed unions for “egg crate schools.” This commentary is one of many examples of polemics that appear without fact checks, with the same tired rhetoric of “blame the unions,” and a blizzard of other distractions from budget cuts, charter school ripoffs, and so on.
This week the prime real estate in the Commentary section of EdWeek, goes to Chester E. Finn, Jr. president emeritus of the Thomas B. Fordham (among other roles) who pulls Diane Ravitch into the orbit of his reflections on American Education in 2014, (but not beyond a one-liner in the second paragraph). Highlights from his commentary follow.
Finn thinks mayoral control and “recovery districts” are a good idea. He likes the idea of non-educators in positions of leadership. He plugs the content in E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum (Finn sits on the board of Core Knowledge).
He wants fewer teacher education programs and thinks the ratings financed by Gates and published in Newsweek are fine. He is a fan of charter schools, “choice,” not neighborhood schools and elected school boards. He thinks technology is great. He likes “ambitious teacher-evaluation systems,” the “softening of job protections” for teachers along with judging schools by annual achievement tests based on standards, not by the old fashioned method of looking at “inputs.”
He wants more standardized tracking of investments in the education of individual students so resources can follow the students most in need, and the schools they attend. The unstated endorsement is for voucher-based budgeting.
He is concerned about complacency among parents who think their own child’s school is fine even if the larger system is terrible.
He is concerned about complacent reformers who don’t follow up to see if the reforms are working.
He is concerned about “greed” from two sources: teachers’ unions that exist only to look after member’ pay, pensions, and job security; and
venture capitalists/entrepreneurs who only care about profits, not kids.
Not mentioned anywhere: Finn was a founding partner and senior scholar with the Edison Project, the private company set up to operate public schools on a for-profit basis.
LikeLike
As noted above. It’s always “follow the money.” Anyone who thinks that money is not a corrupting force in media is in self-denial. Foundations will only renew their donations and grants if they are pleased with the results and promotions. Ms. Rowe can argue about a firewall all she wants but if she suddenly starts criticizing Gates Foundation core beliefs or questioning their research findings, I’d be willing to bet that one of the following would occur:
Grant withdrawn
Reduced grant
Increased grant on the condition of future support
Let’s not act like money is thrown around without the purpose of extending or spreading influence. Just because no one openly says or admits that this is the purpose, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.
LikeLike
Just finished reading this yesterday. Eye-opening and enlightening.
PBS Self-destructs
http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/pbs-self-destructs/
LikeLike
So It is behind a pay wall.
LikeLike
Should be: ” Sorry it’s behind a pay wall” Apologies to all for the tease.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The First Amendment states that a ‘free press’ is a national right. How has that worked in a capitalist society? Print media was never perfect. But there seemed to be a general balance among (a)public demand for info [newspaper purchasers] and (b)advertisers, whether they had a political agenda to sell or wished to advertise a non-political product to the newspaper-buying public.
Therefore for 2 centuries we did not need to declare a free press a ‘public good’, with all the potential tax-support and behind-the-scenes shenanigans that might entail.
I believe the troubles we are having at the moment with billionaire-bought print media reflects the changeover from print to digital media. Though I agree we should excoriate NYT etc for their one-sided [billionaire-slanted] articles, the fact is, those who really want a balance of info can find it by supplementing with the internet. Ultimately I think print media will have to toe a more neutral line or seal their fate as obsolete.
LikeLike