When this has happened to certain erstwhile left outlets in the US that became intelligence assets (naming no names at this point), the plan seems to be as follows:
(1) Announce a fund drive.
(2) At the start of the fund drive, announce an “angel donor” prepared to put up a matching half of the required funds, if the remainder can be found among donations. For the Fraudian this would be $20 mill. So the fund drive is to raise the other 20 mill. The angel donor is supposed to be, like, a rich lawyer or celeb who wishes to remain anonymous, anti-rightwing market trader, or some such convincingly left-enough rich boy.
(3) Turn the screws big-time on the readers/listeners/viewers, saying that if their 20 mill is not raised, the match will not be forthcoming either and its THE END.
(4) At some point towards the deadline of the fund drive, stop giving numbers for funds raised because they are obviously not going to make the goal, but tell the audience “we are on track to be closing down immediately” and “if not us then who?” (The same line used, by the way, by Democrat party candidates on the Black community, so it is tried and tested). But also naturally accepting “we could do some things better, and we intend to” :-)
(5) After the fund drive ends “We reached our fundraising goal this time around! Can be found on the media entity’s website” as validation for the skewed output - which then continues on as normal to the next fund drive, in fact, slapping in the faces of the audience with a particularly egregious article of some kind.
- I assume this, then, to be the new model for government funding: Some intelligence cutout pledges $20 mill. The permanently impoverished media entity in question genuinely tries to raise some or all of the remainder in good faith. When that naturally fails, mockingbird backstops just enough of the shortfall for an invaluable asset to continue to limp along, perhaps with a loan in place also, to keep it permanently weak and begging.
I could be wrong, but they always reach the goal, always continue to exist, and never respond to criticism.
Re: Fake fund drives ..
Posted by Sir Michael Mouse on February 20, 2024, 9:07 am, in reply to "Fake fund drives .."
Sounds very likely...hollywood also seems to have got more blatently propagandistic as they incrementaly reduced their dependence on ticket sales in favour of blackrock funding.
Posted by Auribus on February 20, 2024, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Fake fund drives .."
Yes, as Shyaku says, the two salient paras from AAV below.
"The Guardian Media Group is owned by the Scott Trust Limited which is a private wealth fund worth £1.2447 billion. This fund exists to bankroll the Guardian newspaper operation but it’s run as a profoundly undemocratic cartel, with Guardian staff, readers, and subscribers having absolutely no say who is appointed to the board."
"Of course it’s difficult to turn a profit when you deliberately insult and abuse your own readers, and work tirelessly in opposition to what they want, but a £39 million loss doesn’t look all that bad when it only adds up to a tiny fraction of the £1.2 billion slush fund behind your liberal-capitalist propaganda operation."
But it looks like even the CIFers are tired of this commentator rag and brochure masquerading as a newspaper site.
Great to see AAV around btw.
Well put.
Posted by Shyaku on February 21, 2024, 12:54 pm, in reply to "Fake fund drives .."
..
Re: Is the Guardian dying?
Posted by RaskolnikovX on February 20, 2024, 5:36 am, in reply to "Is the Guardian dying?"
Interesting article; thanks.
"TelAviv Keith" has been trending for three days on twitter/x...which was nice. They are talking about Keeves and not the LBN's K264 btw Sturmer really is a turd that won't flush.
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.