The New York Times published an article by journalist Tina Rosenberg about Bridge International Academies and its plans for expansion in Liberia and other African nations. The article is balanced, on the surface, yet overall presents a positive picture of the investors who want to replace universal public education with an African version of charter schools. Although this is presented as smart philanthropy, it will eventually be a highly profitable business, when 200 million children are enrolled.
Bridge International Academies includes investors such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Pearson.
Public education activist Leonie Haimson described the article this way:
“This is at least the 2nd time that Tina Rosenberg of Solutions Journalism has favorably written in the NYT on an ed company funded by Bill gates or Gates Foundation w/out disclosing that Sol Journalism is also funded by Gates foundation.
She also did a column last year on New Classrooms/School of One that has gotten funding fr/ Gates w/out disclosing this connection —
despite this statement on the Solutions website:
http://solutionsjournalism.org/ethics-funding/
We recognize that there are ethical concerns inherent in using philanthropic funding to support journalism that explores efforts to advance solutions. The reality is that the ecosystems of philanthropy and social change are interconnected. It is, therefore, inevitable that some newsrooms and journalists we support will report on issues that involve our organization’s funders, some of which are large-scale foundations that have supported thousands of organizations in dozens of fields.
We believe that it would be a disservice to society to exclude critical reporting on social innovations funded by these sources. On the other hand, it is critically important that such relationships not conflict with the principles of independent journalism. SJN’s grant recipients, whether newsrooms or individual journalists, should adhere to the highest standards of conduct as set forth in by bodies such as the Society of Professional Journalists.
We require that our grant recipients remain completely transparent about any potential conflicts of interest that could arise in the context of reporting on an issue of interest to a Solutions Journalism Network funder. Just as important, news organizations that receive support from the Solutions Journalism Network have full editorial control over their coverage.
see http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
Journalists should:
– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Cross posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Africa-The-Virtues-of-For-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Charter-School-Failure_Conflict_Diane-Ravitch_Disclose-160615-376.html#comment602152
“The article is balanced, on the surface….”
Some day the world will wake up and understand the fraud that has been perpetrated in “journalism” by pretending to be “balanced”. You can’t present “both sides” in an argument where there is a clear right answer and call it “balanced”. “Is The Earth Flat or Round? The Balanced Approach”.
Here’s a masterful and hilarious take down of so-called “objective” journalism by the great Alexander Cockburn. The particular target is PBS and its sleeping pill-equivalent “MacNeil-Lehrer Report,” but it fits the Times like a glove…
http://www.harpers.org/archive/1982/08/the-tedium-twins/
Great link – thanks!
And this: “The reality is that the ecosystems of philanthropy and social change are interconnected.”
Well, that might be the current reality, but that’s not some sort of set-in-stone, divinely directed reality. There’s no reason why it should be that way and every reason why it shouldn’t be. But, sigh, y’know, neoliberalism. There Is No Alternative.
Dienne: yes, as if that interconnectedness is an unquestionably good thing.
On the other hand…
Cui bono?
😎
“the ecosystems of philanthropy and social change are interconnected.”
Yes, like a parasite is connected to its host.
Eventually, once the oligarchs and their private sector corporate world have replaced traditional, community based, democratic, transparent, non-profit public education with their own autocratic, opaque, for profit and often fraudulent education system, we will all owe our souls to the company store.
And Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song about that world.
Before the Progressive Movement launched by the Roosevelt starting with Teddy in 1900, more than 40% of Americans lived in harsh and crushing poverty, working for poverty wages if they worked at all and owed their souls and survival to monopolies/corporations that also owned the stores where those poor Americans shopped.
The autocratic, for-profit privatization movement is not only after the public schools but it is also going after the public prisons, wants to take over all the public roads that public taxes built, and set up toll booths to make the people pay to use the roads they paid to build, take over public utilities, the police and firefighting, destroy all democratic labor unions, take over fighting the wars with for-profit mercenaries that work for corporations, and end our volunteer public military, etc. This list could go on for probably pages. The evidence is there. All you have to do is look for it. Here are a few examples:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/return-of-the-mercenary/388616/
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/private_police_mercenaries_for_the_american_police_state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-service-is-being-gutted.aspx
The traditional public schools are not the only target. We are in a war for our own souls and it is being waged on many fronts.
Thanks, Lloyd! My dad grew up on a dirt farm in east Texas, joined the Navy to see the world and ended up in Boston, where he met my mom and raised 6 kids. I remember him sitting at the kitchen table on Saturday mornings singing his poor imitation of Tennessee Ernie Ford.
Agree. Who polled the nation’s voters asking them if they want their schools owned by White, Silicon Valley oligarchs, raking off a return, estimated, by BIA’s co-founder, at 20%?
No conscience in effect, when Gates and Z-berg promote a path that stomps out democracy and makes them a tidy sum, on the backs of the poorest.
I am sorry to hear that the New York Times has been so heavily influenced by the Gates Foundation. Technology driven education is ineffective, and punitive teacher evaluation processes are destructive.
I think Eli Broad has (finally!) released his plan for “public” schools in low and middle income areas in the US:
Click to access 2016_GPSN_Plan-ALL_v2-LowRes-2.pdf
Maybe she could do a companion piece- compare/contrast- which billionaire is better- Broad or Gates?
We could do a report card, even!
Broad’s “Great Public Schools Now” looks like a variation of the Third Way. They invade public schools, put in their cheap under paid “faux” teachers, and run our the back door with a bag of money faster than you can say, “takeover.” It’s a glossy long con game! If the people of Los Angeles fall for this, I pity them.
In Harvard Business Review, BIA’s co-founder put a number on the ROI, 20%, making it a higher percentage than charter school debt’s return to Wall Street.
That pesky question about adverse effect on community economic multiplier, when 20% of education dollars are taken from neighborhoods, never seems to reach “journalistic” radar.
Disclosure is not fidelity.
There is a name for people who report on the projects of those who fund them.
Hint: It is not “journalist” — and starts with a “p” or “w”.
From the article, “We operators are asked, as far as possible, to live within that amount.” In other words, like in the US, the venture philanthropists provide money to skew results. Then, when public schools are gone, so will the philanthropic dollars that tilted the scale, be gone.