I & I Editorial BoardWe find it hard to believe, but according to Mike Benz, a former State Department official, the Biden White House lavished a multinational media syndicate with hundreds of millions of dollars. For its “investment,” the administration apparently received hit pieces against a political enemy.
If that’s the price for supporting a corrupt regime, what could we get for trying to hold government accountable for its abuses and malpractice and misfeasance?
Benz, deputy assistant secretary of State under President Donald Trump, tweeted earlier this week that “The Biden Admin paid Reuters over $300 million in government contracts. 11 different Biden government agencies targeted Elon’s businesses. All 11 agencies paid millions to Reuters. Reuters then won the Pulitzer Prize for ‘their work on Elon Musk and misconduct at his businesses.’”
He included the receipts, as the kids like to say, showing which departments and agencies funded which lines of attack on Musk’s businesses, and the amounts they sent.
In another tweet, Benz says that Reuters, “between its newswire services, its network intelligence services & its data services” has raked in more than “$1.56 billion dollars in U.S .government contracts.”
“Does Reuters’ customer relationship with government agencies taint its news coverage of government actions?” he asks.
Well of course it does.
So far, the legacy media with all its resources, has yet to dig into the story. Probably because they see it as another Hunter Biden laptop problem. But it sure looks as if a legacy media company was bought to spread government propaganda.
We have no such good fortune at I&I. In fact, we’re are frequently demonetized (and censored) by Google for publishing facts that don’t fit the narrative spun and maintained by the Democrat-media cartel.
Just last month, Google told us our Nov. 21 editorial “Unburdened By What Has Been, Trump Is Poised To Deliver Bigly” contained “unreliable and harmful claims” and disabled ads that bring us a modest amount of revenue that would have appeared with that editorial.
It wasn’t the first time. A search of our site shows Google’s history of demonetizing I&I because we dare challenge the account that the political powers and their media lackeys are feeding the public.
Google, Facebook, and other tech giants – who now serve as arbiters of what people can read – were more than happy to let the Biden administration outsource its censorship campaign to them.
There’s a chance this industrial-censorship-complex will come to an end under the next administration. President-elect Trump has tapped Andrew Ferguson – who promised to “hold big tech accountable and stop censorship,” and “protect freedom of speech and fight wokeness” – to head the Federal Trade Commission.
We’re not looking for a $300 million payout. Heck, we’d be happy if Ferguson got Google to pay us back for the ad revenue its censorship campaign has cost us.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
“There’s a chance this industrial-censorship-complex will come to an end under the next administration.”
Don’t count on it, the big brother/government/industrial/military, ie. marxist complex will just “go underground” until they figure out how to regain control in the next election. They were/are sooooo close to their goal of total control that they will not stop and there is a lot of really big, obscene money backing this crap.
I agree that the press is fully owned and controlled by a variety of forces such as the intelligence community and corporate puppeteers. But the “big brother/government/industrial/military” are classic capitalists and near fascists, their engineered “journalism” is neocon/liberal ie world economic domination, and thus they are by no means in any way, “Marxist.”
You have to have a very sheltered educational life that ended maybe 40 years ago to use the term Marxist for anything happening in or controlling the US, where even communes of hippies (if you can find one) are capitalists too – selling some woke product or service to the public for profit.
Using the term Marxist as you do is just an angry epithet, & demonstrates you don’t understand institutions and processes, or aren’t educated, or are just filled with wild neuroses.
Use their Whole name:
VON Reuters. Then you can get an idea of what’s going on
Does Reuters have any licenses that could be revoked? Can a DA in a State where Reuters does business use the “Bragg ‘Gain of Function’ Process” to charge a Reuters executive with a misdemeanor, and then elevate it into a felony? Ditto for the Biden Government Officials.
That’s the only way to stop this stuff. As it is now nothing will happen, and Reuters makes billions selling out to the US Government. Why shouldn’t they, or other Leftist House Organs, do this again? There is no reason not to, especially if they know there will be no consequences no matter how shady their actions are.
This is outright Fascism between Reuters and the Biden administration.
This editorial is not only a reflection of the Biden Administration (and its odious corrupt employees) but also signals the depths that the Pulitzer committee has sunk to.
Reuter’s hit job on Musk was awarded a Pulitzer as was the NY Times for it’s Russian hoax. Articles and columns at the Times were devoted to this shabby-and eventually obvious-charade.
But while everyone with any brains would have seen through this facile facade of fabrication, the NY Times-and their award winning investigative journalists- apparently could not.
And neither could the Pulitzer Committee. It has refused to ask for the bestowed Pulitzer to be returned.
The “Russian, Russian Hoax” shows the slime-iness of Biden (and, of course, of the NY Times). Biden was always an evil con-man; he shouldn’t be revered because he now is also a demented old con-man.
Back to the Times and Reuters who gladly-Reuters for a price and the Times so that they could freely print their progressive slander-piled on Trump and Musk. This, even though Trump had a noteworthy and very successful 2016 term
And, of course, Musk’s has had a lifetime inundated with many worthy achievements . Perhaps, the Pulitzer Committee should have bestowed their prize on him?
It is interesting: The Times refused to return their Pulitzer-even after the hoax was confirmed and properly debunked. I wonder if Reuters will return their Pulitzer?