Humanosphere

World Economic Forum

Bill Gates

Just kidding.

Bill Gates is too shrewd a businessman to want to actually take over a money-losing, failing industry like the media. (Though newspapers today do have something in common with software; one person produces the original product and then millions obtain copies of it for free.)

No, what I want to talk about is the Gates Foundation’s funding of media. I’ve already written plenty about this … maybe too much.

More accurately, I wanted to talk with the media folks at the Seattle philanthropy about their perspective on “partnering” with the media.

These kind of arrangements confuse or disturb some people and I’ve given the media folks at the Gates Foundation a bit of grief over the past few months about the nature of some of these partnerships. This might seem kind of odd, I know, since I work for NPR, which also has been funded by the world’s largest philanthropy to report on global health and development issues — and which is what I do (even though I get no Gates money).

Despite my criticisms and tendency to poke fun at the stories about Bill and Melinda done by these media partners that appear a bit keister-kissing, I think overall this is a good thing. I just believe these arrangements need more scrutiny and, frankly, the media does a poor job of scrutinizing itself.

So I met recently with Kate James, head of communications at the Gates Foundation, Tom Scott, who previously handled advocacy for the global health program and is now in charge of the philanthropy’s media partnerships program as part of its “global brand” strategies, and Melissa Milburn, a former journalist who directly handles media affairs there and has to deal with me on a regular basis.

Here’s some of what they said in answer to my questions:

Q Why does the Gates Foundation fund media?

Kate James: It’s driven by our recognition of the changing media landscape. We’ve seen this big drop-off in the amount of coverage of global health and development issues. Even before that, there was a problem with a lack of quality, in-depth reporting on many of these issues so we don’t see this as being internally driven by any agenda on our part. We’re responding to a need.

Q Isn’t there a risk that by paying media to do these stories the Gates Foundation’s agenda will be favored, drowning out the dissenting voices and critics of your agenda?

KJ: When we establish these partnerships, everyone is very clear that there is total editorial independence. How these media organizations choose to cover issues is completely up to them.

Q But the funding for these media partnerships (now about $20 million in total, for mostly non-profit media organizations) has come through the foundation’s “advocacy” program. Isn’t that an attempt to drive coverage, however well-intended, toward a particular topic and/or strategy?

Tom Scott: That’s an interesting question. What we’ve meant by advocacy when it comes to media is that we are advocating greater attention to these issues. But that’s now been changed as part of an internal shift (organizational restructuring) and these media partnerships will no longer be funded through advocacy. They are now being handled as part of communications and advocacy is separate.

KJ: I should add that, up until now, we didn’t really have a cohesive media strategy. We’re changing that and part of that change is in how we will approach these media partnerships. What we want to see is more coverage and more of it evidence-based.

Q When ABC News announced it was partnering with the Gates Foundation to do a big series on global health, former ABC President David Westin said they met with Tachi Yamada, head of global health at the philanthropy, to ask for story suggestions. Isn’t that evidence of undue influence?

KJ: We meet with news organizations and editorial boards all the time. That kind of discussion would have taken place whether or not we were entering into a media partnership. Again, we believe in editorial independence and it is up to the news organizations to decide what to cover.

TS: We see the real problem here as lack of coverage of these issues as opposed to trying to influence coverage. We just want to raise public awareness and assist the media, by providing more resources, in making that happen.

Q Why do you think European news media, especially in Britain, cover global health and development issues so extensively already — and here in the U.S. the Gates Foundation has to pay them to do it?

KJ: For some reason, there’s always been much more media interest there in stories about international affairs and development. Maybe it has to do with the history of colonialism. Part of our new strategy is to try to improve international coverage as well. We’ve been too U.S.-centric in our approach to media. After all, 75 percent of our work is done outside the U.S.

Q Some still see potential for problems here, not so much because of the Gates Foundation trying to influence coverage directly but because some media organizations are not that well-versed in the issues (especially the back-room arguments) of global health and development. Are you concerned about this, or any other potential pitfall involving your funding media?

KJ: Well, I don’t see the media landscape settling down any time soon. It’s very fragile and these are the kinds of issues that tend to get ignored when budgets get tight. The fact is, we’ve probably gotten the media to pay more attention to these issues and we’re giving them more resources to do the stories. How can that not be positive?