His standing in the general public may have taken a major dent since the frenzied heights of the coronavirus pandemic, but big money “philanthropist” Bill Gates is still working assiduously behind the scenes to platform his globalist health views. Direct financial payments to self-avowed “fiercely independent” dominant media outlets have been a staple move of his for years, and the brazenness of the entities involved in shrugging off any suggestion of professional compromise seems to be getting easier with every freshly cut check.
We’ll forgo the gratuitous shot at the name of the major world newspaper involved in the latest installment of this ongoing saga. In March, the Gates Foundation announced it was bestowing a $600,783 grant on big-brand UK daily The Independent to “support [its] coverage of global health and development and international aid issues.”
More Than a Million Reasons Not to Offend Bill Gates
Global health and international aid, of course, are the signature planks of the Gates Foundation’s mission. It would be impossible for a media source to cover such a beat without frequently reporting on the organization’s numerous vaccine, agricultural, and other enormous commitments in Africa, a key focus, and throughout the Western world. The billionaire and The Independent are both fully aware of this fact.
And this is the nub of the problem. Big-box media outlets continue to insist they can have it both ways: take money from players involved in the game and still assume the benign role of scrupulously neutral observers with no personal stake in the outcome.
The Independent apparently began accepting Gates’ money in November 2024. That month, the foundation “granted” the newspaper a crisp $727,524 to support its global health reporting. In commercial industry jargon, this is a “good get” for Gates and his agenda.
“In a memo to staff seen by the Financial Times, [Editor-in-Chief Geordie] Greig said the Independent had become the UK’s biggest commercial news website for the first time last year. Ipsos data shows that its UK audience in November was 19.6 million, ahead of the Mail Online, Mirror, Sun and Guardian,” the Financial Times reported in January 2025.
“Greig also said that it had become the largest British-based brand in the US in September [2024], according to Comscore data, and the fifth-largest digital publisher behind The New York Times, USA Today, New York Post and The Washington Post.”
The paper has been “consistently profitable” since scrapping its print edition and going digital-only in 2016, the Financial Times noted, and is actively seeking to expand its newsroom. Yet it still has no qualms in taking money directly from Gates.
Big Media’s Good Guy Complex and the Damage Done
This is the fundamental – and grating – difference between so-called “right-wing” media sources and the progressive establishment left. Conservatives who seek to present an alternative to the lockstep dominant media openly acknowledge that they bring a particular worldview to the table for the reader’s consideration. Establishment outlets, however, insist on being seen at all times as “non-partisan” and “above the fray,” even when their bias cannot be denied, and they still deny it. And demand your respect for their hallowed credentialed professionalism as they do so.
This is the grave danger that comes with indulging the modern big media staffer’s Hollywood Watergate fantasies that he or she provides a vital public service akin to a firefighter or an emergency medical technician.
“When leading media organizations that serve the public interest are equipped to produce coverage of under-researched and underrepresented issues, they play a vital role in keeping the public informed and engaged about issues that matter to them and their communities,” the Gates Foundation writes of its many “Global Media Partnerships.”
They’re doing it all for the public good. Really.
“Funding for journalism globally has risen steadily over the past decade, as misinformation and disinformation have proliferated and the need for credible sources of information has grown more acute,” the foundation asserts. “Notable media outlets including the Associated Press have embraced philanthropic funding to ensure dependable and informative journalism.”
Step One is framing the journalists taking the Gates money as public servants and normalizing the exchange of hard, cold cash. Step Two is issuing bland asseverations that these noble actors are in no way tainted by the sizable financial donations they are receiving from individuals and associations they will be required to cover as part of their jobs.
“We work with numerous foundations and media outlets to ensure that the provision of grant funding does not corrode or challenge longstanding and vital traditions of editorial independence. These protections are important to funders, news outlets, and their audiences, who seek independent, trusted, and fact-based sources of information,” the Gates Foundation assures.
See? It’s OK. The people writing out the checks are telling you there are no strings attached. And the media outlets taking them rigorously vow the same.
In September 2020, the Gates Foundation gave CNN a whopping $4.6 million to help fund CNN as Equals programming. “As Equals is a CNN series that aims to reveal what systemic gender inequality looks like,” the network stated at the time.
“There is a gendered dimension to every one of our major global challenges including, but not limited to: climate change, economic or health inequality, the rise of authoritarianism, mass migration or algorithmic bias. Critical, tenacious journalism is required to expose it all,” the network declared.
“Will the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have any influence on CNN’s journalism?” a bold subheading in a Q&A section on the series at CNN’s website asks.
“No. As Equals’ journalism will be completely editorially independent. All of the output from the series will be held to CNN’s high standards and will be fair, accurate and responsible,” the network replies in answer to its own question.
It all feeds on each other. Bill Gates sees himself as the savior of Planet Earth. Big Media sees itself as the sacred vessel of truth in the public square. Those who oppose either are castigated as bigots and insurrectionists against the common good. And if they’re both so obviously motivated by only the purest of virtues, how can there be any unseemliness when the two mix?
