29.7 F
New York
Saturday, February 8, 2025

Congressional Report Exposes Advertising Cartel’s Efforts to Defund Conservative News Outlets

- Advertisement -

Related Articles

-Advertisement-

Must read

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Congressional Report Exposes Advertising Cartel’s Efforts to Defund Conservative News Outlets

Edited by: Fern Sidman

A recent congressional report has unveiled troubling actions by a little-known advertising cartel that controls 90% of global marketing spending. This cartel has been implicated in efforts to defund major news outlets, including The New York Post, by using blacklists compiled by a government-funded group that claims to protect consumers from “misinformation,” according to the information provided in the The Post report that appeared on Thursday. The House Judiciary Committee’s interim report, released Wednesday, sheds light on the operations of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative.

 

The WFA represents 150 of the world’s top companies, such as ExxonMobil, GM, General Mills, McDonald’s, Visa, SC Johnson, and Walmart, along with 60 ad associations. As was detailed in The Post report, through its GARM initiative, the WFA has been accused of orchestrating efforts to suppress online free speech by defunding news outlets and platforms deemed unfavorable. The House Judiciary Committee’s 39-page report details how GARM encouraged its members to use a blacklist compiled by the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a shadowy government-funded organization based in London.

The report’s findings suggest that GARM’s actions likely violate antitrust laws and pose a threat to fundamental American freedoms. “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms,” the Republican-led panel stated, The Post report indicated.  The committee expressed alarm over the collusive conduct of WFA and GARM to demonetize disfavored content, highlighting the potential for significant legal repercussions.

GARM represents 150 of the world’s top companies.
World Federation of Advertisers

House Republicans have previously investigated how the US government has circumvented free speech norms by pressuring platforms to censor content. This has been done directly through the Biden White House and the Department of Homeland Security or by funding external groups that compile blacklists of outlets for advertisers to avoid, as per the information in The Post report. The new report establishes connections between the WFA’s “responsible media” initiative and the GDI, which in 2022 released an ad blacklist targeting conservative and libertarian news outlets, including The Post, RealClearPolitics, and Reason magazine.

Documents obtained by Congress reveal that even within GARM, there were doubts about the validity of the GDI’s blacklist. One employee expressed bewilderment that the New York Post was categorized as the “most at risk” paper for disinformation in the United States. Despite these internal reservations, the GDI’s blacklist was still promoted to members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) as a reliable tool for identifying and demonetizing disfavored outlets.

The committee’s suggestion of possible antitrust violations opens a potential avenue for Justice Department action. This possibility becomes especially relevant if Donald Trump wins back the White House on November 5. The report calls attention to the need for further investigation into the WFA and GARM’s practices to determine the full extent of their impact on free speech and market competition.

The revelations in the congressional report raise serious concerns about the influence of powerful advertising entities on media independence and free speech. By using blacklists to defund certain news outlets, these organizations, including The Post effectively limit the diversity of information available to consumers. This practice not only undermines the principles of free speech but also threatens the economic viability of news organizations that do not align with the views of the advertising cartel.

Rob Rakowitz, WFA’s initiative lead for the GARM program, responded to the concerned employee by defending the use of independent fact-checkers like GDI to filter out misinformation, The Post report indicated. He emphasized that GDI was one of several tools, including NewsGuard and the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), recommended to members for managing their advertising supply chains.

In a separate email, Rakowitz reinforced the importance of using inclusion and exclusion lists informed by trusted partners such as NewsGuard and GDI. These lists, he asserted, were crucial for ensuring that advertising dollars were not spent on platforms disseminating misinformation.

Prior investigations revealed that the GDI received substantial funding from the U.S. government, including $100,000 from the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and $545,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy, according to the information contained in The Post report. However, both entities have since indicated that they do not plan to provide additional funding following the exposure of GDI’s biases.

The congressional report also places an emphasis on the problematic nature of these financial ties, especially given the allegations of bias in the GDI’s blacklist. This funding controversy raises questions about the role of government in supporting initiatives that may inadvertently suppress certain viewpoints and contribute to an uneven playing field in the media landscape.

 

Established in 2019, the GARM initiative has undertaken several controversial efforts, particularly as the concept of “disinformation” has been applied to various reports and theories. Notably, The Post reported that claims labeled as disinformation included The Post’s articles on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, which linked President Biden to his son’s and brother James’ foreign dealings, and the COVID-19 lab leak theory—both of which have gained broader acceptance over time.

The application of the disinformation label without substantial evidence has been a point of contention, as it pointed to the potential misuse of these blacklists to suppress legitimate journalism and critical discourse, the report in The Post said. The GARM initiative’s reliance on tools like the GDI blacklist raises concerns about the broader implications for media freedom and the integrity of the information ecosystem.

The congressional report’s findings also suggest that GARM’s activities might violate antitrust laws and threaten fundamental American freedoms. The collusion between powerful advertising entities and government-funded organizations to defund certain news outlets under the guise of combating misinformation poses a significant threat to free speech and media independence.

The findings detail how these organizations have actively sought to demonetize disfavored news outlets and target key figures such as Elon Musk, the Post report revealed.  Internal communications suggest that decisions were not based on an objective rubric but rather on a concerted effort to monitor and find justifications for exclusion, raising significant concerns about media freedom and the influence of powerful advertising entities.

Documents obtained by Congress indicate that GARM members closely monitored disfavored outlets to find reasons to demonetize them, rather than using objective criteria. The Post report said that John Montgomery, an executive at GroupM, the world’s top ad agency, illustrated this approach in an October 2021 email to Rob Rakowitz, GARM’s initiative lead. Montgomery recounted how Breitbart was carefully watched until it provided justification for its exclusion.

“Before Breitbart crossed the line and started spouting blatant misinformation, we had long discussions about whether we should include them on our exclusion lists. As much as we hated their ideology and bulls—, we couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion. We watched them very carefully and it didn’t take long for them to cross the line,” Montgomery wrote, as was reported by The Post. This admission reveals a strategy of deliberate scrutiny to find faults that could warrant blacklisting.

The report also highlights GARM’s targeted campaign against Elon Musk following his purchase of Twitter (renamed X). Musk’s acquisition, marked by his promises to uphold diverse viewpoints and reduce political censorship, was met with immediate resistance from GARM. The Post reported that according to the report, GARM advised its members to cease advertising on Twitter after Musk’s takeover on October 28, 2022.

A GARM member explicitly recommended halting all paid advertisements on Twitter, a move that significantly impacted the platform’s revenue. Indicated in The Post report was that in a February 2023 email, Rakowitz boasted, “You may recognize my name from being the idiot who challenged Musk on brand safety issues. Since then they are 80% below revenue forecasts.” This statement points to the deliberate efforts to undermine Musk’s management of Twitter.

Further evidence of this campaign includes communications from Danish energy company Ørsted. In late 2022, Ørsted contacted GARM to discuss the potential for a boycott of Twitter. The report in the Post affirmed that by April 2023, an Ørsted employee confirmed in an email to Rakowitz and other WFA leaders that, based on GARM’s recommendations, they had stopped all paid advertisements on Twitter. The email also expressed a desire to return to the platform, acknowledging its importance in reaching their audience.

The congressional report’s findings raise significant antitrust concerns, suggesting that GARM and WFA’s coordinated actions to demonetize certain outlets and platforms may violate antitrust laws. The Republican-led panel emphasized that these activities likely threaten fundamental American freedoms and consumer choice.

 

This is not the first time House Republicans have scrutinized the intersection of government influence and media suppression. The Post report said that previous investigations revealed how the U.S. government pressured platforms to censor content through direct intervention or by funding groups that compiled blacklists of outlets for advertisers to avoid.

The report highlights a critical timeline: the committee first contacted GARM about potentially anticompetitive conduct on March 22, 2023. Ørsted’s initial email to GARM seeking advice on ceasing paid advertising on Twitter predates this contact. The Post report said that Rakowitz’s subsequent email disclaiming any recommendation for a boycott came after GARM was notified of the committee’s interest, casting doubt on his denial.

“Mr. Rakowitz’s denial of any wrongdoing, in the face of clear written evidence, is not credible for many reasons,” the report states. This sequence of events suggests that Rakowitz’s email was an attempt to cover tracks rather than a genuine pushback against the boycott recommendation.

The report also details how GARM and its members targeted Joe Rogan, a prominent podcaster, comedian, and UFC commentator, due to his controversial views on the COVID-19 vaccine. The Post reported that Joe Rogan’s podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” has a massive following and has often featured discussions that challenge mainstream narratives.

GroupM, the world’s leading advertising agency, played a pivotal role in this saga. According to the congressional report, GroupM’s primary interest was to pressure Spotify into censoring Rogan’s controversial content. Despite the fact that none of GroupM’s clients advertised on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the agency leveraged its influence to induce platform-wide policy changes at Spotify.

On January 27, 2022, Joe Barone, Managing Partner Brand Safety Americas at GroupM, confirmed in an email to colleagues that the agency did not buy advertising on Rogan’s podcast. “GroupM does not buy Joe Rogan, and therefore we had no client exposure,” Barone wrote, The Post reported. Nevertheless, he conveyed to Spotify that Rogan’s content endangered all of Spotify’s advertising deals with GroupM clients. This tactic was aimed at leveraging broader financial stakes to achieve content censorship.

In the April 23, 2021 episode of the podcast, Rogan advised against young adults getting vaccinated, telling his guest, comedian Dave Smith, “You’re 21 years old and you say to me should I get vaccinated? I go, no.”

In the December 31, 201 episode of the podcast, Rogan hosted Dr. Robert Malone, an early mRNA researcher and COVID-19 vaccine skeptic. The episode was removed by YouTube but remained available on Spotify, leading to significant backlash.

According to The Post report, these incidents led GARM and its members to pressure Spotify to take action against Rogan, highlighting the influence of advertising networks in shaping platform policies and content availability.

 

Barone further escalated the situation by informing Spotify that GroupM would initiate a comprehensive Trust & Safety review of the platform’s policies. This move was intended to apply pressure on Spotify to align with GroupM’s content standards. The report in The Post said that the next day, Barone forwarded his email to akowitz and they agreed to discuss the matter with GARM’s Steer Team. This team functions as a board of directors for GARM, comprising representatives from major corporations like P&G, Unilever, Mars, Diageo, 4As, GroupM, ISBA, and ANA.

In the following month, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek sought to arrange a meeting with Rakowitz, stipulating that the discussion should be limited to Spotify and GARM. However, Rakowitz wanted to involve the Steer Team, escalating the impasse. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Indicated in The Post report was that Rakowitz accused Spotify of a “lack of seriousness” and expressed grave concerns about the platform’s policies and decision-making processes. He threatened to take the issue to the press if they couldn’t connect to discuss the issues.

In an email to Barone and Steer Team member Ben Jankowski, Rakowitz wrote a single word: “Throttled,” signaling their strategic maneuvering to pressure Spotify into compliance, The Post report said.

Rakowitz, in an email to the House committee, claimed that his use of the word “throttled” was meant to convey his frustration with the negotiations. However, the committee rejected this explanation, citing earlier emails where Rakowitz explicitly stated, “I’m about to throttle this guy,” as was noted in The Post report. The report concluded, “This after-the-fact rationalization defies common sense, as one definition of throttled is ‘to defeat,’ which comports with the threatening nature of Mr. Rakowitz’s email.”

The report also delves into GARM’s influence on political content, particularly during the 2020 presidential campaign. An executive at Unilever, which owns brands like Ben & Jerry’s, Hellman’s, and Lifebuoy soap, flagged a Facebook ad paid for by Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, as per The Post report. The ad suggested that Joe Biden was wearing an earpiece during the first presidential debate, a claim that Facebook defended by stating it did not violate its anti-misinformation pDonatebalance of natureolicies.

Facebook explained that political ads from presidential campaigns are not eligible for fact-checking, emphasizing the importance of allowing the public to see political statements for accountability purposes. This explanation, however, was deemed “Honestly reprehensible” by Rakowitz in an email exchange with Unilever’s executive vice president of global media, Luis Di Como, the report in The Post said. Rakowitz’s response underscores the tension between GARM’s content standards and the policies of social media platforms regarding political speech.

The congressional report raises significant ethical and legal concerns regarding GARM’s practices. The strategic use of corporate influence to pressure platforms like Spotify and Facebook to censor or moderate content raises questions about the balance of power in the media ecosystem. The report’s findings suggest potential antitrust violations, as GARM’s actions may undermine free speech and limit consumer choices.

Under questioning from the House committee, Rakowitz defended his actions by expressing concerns about the “lack of consistency on policies” and the need for “having different policies and not having a clear line,” according to The Post report. However, the committee strongly disagreed with Rakowitz’s explanation, particularly regarding Facebook’s policy on political advertisements.

The committee noted that Facebook’s policy was indeed clear: it does not fact-check advertisements by political candidates to ensure that the public can see what politicians are saying, thereby holding them accountable and making informed decisions. The Post indicated that the committee’s report stated, “Facebook’s policy on political advertisements seems perfectly clear: Facebook does not fact-check advertisements by political candidates because ‘people should be able to see what politicians are saying so that they can hold their elected officials accountable and make informed decisions about who will lead them.’”

Rakowitz’s response to this policy—describing it as “Honestly reprehensible”—was interpreted by the committee as a clear indication that he believed Facebook should have labeled President Trump’s campaign advertisement as misinformation.

GARM and the WFA’s influence extended beyond political advertisements to broader media coverage. In November 2021, after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide and other charges in the deaths of two individuals during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a GARM member criticized Fox News for its coverage of the case, The Post reported. The member’s email emphasized the need to address narratives on mainstream broadcast media as well as on digital platforms, highlighting the potential for such narratives to undermine diversity initiatives.

A WFA consultant responded on the same email chain, accusing Fox News of “praising or calling for the murder of protestors.” Stephan Loerke, CEO of the WFA, agreed with this sentiment, asserting that the standards for hate speech and harmful content enforcement applied to all media, not just platforms. The Post reported that Loerke stated, “From a brand-owner perspective, the reasoning which has led us to put pressure and hold to account platforms on hate speech and harmful content should also apply to a media owner. We’ve always made it clear that the standards which we [GARM] want to see platforms enforce should be valid irrespective of media.”

Loerke proposed convening the GARM Steer Team to discuss the issue of condemning Fox News’s news gathering and reporting. However, the report did not clarify the outcome of this discussion or whether it took place.

The congressional report’s findings raise significant ethical and legal concerns about GARM’s practices. The strategic pressure applied to media platforms and news outlets to modify or censor content highlights the profound influence of corporate interests in shaping public discourse. The actions taken by GARM and its members could potentially undermine free speech and limit the diversity of viewpoints available to the public.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest article

- Advertisement -