Latest news with #propaganda
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Study claims US news outlets served as 'megaphones' for Hamas in Gaza war
EXCLUSIVE: A new study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) alleges that major U.S. and European news outlets served as uncritical megaphones for Hamas-linked narratives during the war with Israel in Gaza, amplifying claims that ultimately undermined a U.S.-backed food relief operation while shielding the terrorist group from scrutiny. The 102-page report, titled "The 4th Estate Sale: How American and European Media Became an Uncritical Mouthpiece for a Designated Foreign Terror Organization" concludes that outlets including MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, and Reuters published or promoted unverified claims sourced from the Gaza Health Ministry without disclosing that it is controlled by Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. These narratives, according to the study, falsely blamed the U.S.-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) for deadly incidents and fed conspiracy theories that spread across global media and social networks. "We need to audit the media," a senior researcher at NCRI and lead author of the study who wished to remain anonymous told Fox News Digital. "What we found is not just bias — it's the laundering of information warfare. When a terrorist-linked health ministry makes a claim, and that claim becomes the basis for international headlines without independent verification or source transparency, that is not journalism. That is narrative laundering, and it puts real people at risk."AS US-BACKED GROUP DELIVERS 70 MILLION MEALS, UN AND NGOS FIGHT TO DISCREDIT GAZA AID RIVAL Rev. Johnnie Moore, president of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, told Fox News Digital that the report validates what he and his team have been enduring on the ground since launching aid operations in early 2024. "On one level, I wasn't surprised by the findings because I've been experiencing the effect of these lies for weeks," Moore said. "But — on the other hand — I was shocked by the sheer scale of it all. Let's be clear: media outlets in the United States, the UK, and in continental Europe are literally doing the work of terrorists. They have become the default press secretaries for designated terrorist organizations. As absurd as that sounds, that's exactly what has happened." According to GHF, the group has delivered over 70 million meals to Gazan civilians since May 2024, without a single aid truck being looted. The NCRI report cites this as a direct threat to Hamas's control over Gaza's traditional aid economy, which has long relied on systems that the terror group can exploit, divert and GAZA AID GROUP LAUNCHES BOLD NEW SYSTEM TO DELIVER FOOD DIRECTLY TO FAMILIES "They write papers and letters and sign documents, and yet we're doing it," GHF interim executive director John Acree said in response to NGO criticism. He implored those groups to "please, come. Come and help us." "We believe Hamas made over one billion dollars last year just from manipulating the system of aid managed by the United Nations and others," Moore said. "They take free food, then sell it. They hoard it for their fighters. They use it to recruit. So when we came in and disrupted that pipeline, Hamas saw us as a threat to their business model and their control." According to NCRI, "every time the GHF distributed aid, antisemitic and conspiratorial online narratives increased in intensity", including claims the group was feeding Palestinians drug-laced food. These spikes in disinformation, the report says, often coincided with milestones like new site openings or meal delivery totals, suggesting a coordinated effort to discredit the operation online. The study documents a pattern in which major media platforms published or aired claims that were later found to be incorrect, often without public correction or transparency. In one widely circulated example, CNN posted on June 1, 2025: "At least 31 Palestinians were killed amid chaotic scenes near an aid site run by a US-backed private foundation in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health." The NCRI's study had this to say about their report: "CNN blamed the IDF and the US-backed GHF for the deaths of over 30 civilians based solely on the Hamas Health Ministry's word. The CNN tweet, which went viral and garnered nearly half a million views, did not include context about the health ministry's terror ties, nor did it indicate the unverified nature of the claim beyond stating that CNN could not independently confirm the details." The report further notes: "CNN later updated its story, citing an Israeli denial and including more context, but the viral post remained unchanged. This illustrates the speed at which misleading narratives can spread — and the slow, often inadequate pace of correction." In response to Fox News Digital's inquiry, CNN stated: "There was never any doubt that the aid center in question was a GHF aid site, and we did not 'associate the GHF' with the incident. The shootings occurred along the approach route to the aid distribution site, approximately 800 meters from it, and involved people walking there to get aid — a point which no one disputes." CNN added that their reporting relied on multiple sources, including eyewitnesses and background confirmation from an Israeli official, and that the story was labeled as developing and updated according to standard editorial practices. In its later updates, CNN stated that it "cannot independently verify who was responsible for the shooting," noting that the international media does not have access to later added Israel's denial to its full story, quoting the IDF: "Findings from an initial inquiry indicate that the IDF did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site and that reports to this effect are false." However, this denial was not included in CNN's original viral tweet, which only cited the Gaza Health Ministry. It appeared later in the same thread and was eventually added to the full article. In an exclusive statement to Fox News Digital, the IDF confirmed that it allows the U.S.-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to operate independently within distribution zones, adding that forces have implemented safety upgrades including fencing, signage, and new access routes to minimize friction with civilians. The NCRI report also singles out MSNBC last month for amplifying unverified claims: "MSNBC aired a segment alleging that Israeli forces fired on a crowd near a food distribution site affiliated with GHF, citing the Gaza Health Ministry's claims. At no point in the segment was the health ministry identified as being run by Hamas." The clip that aired on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" remains online with "clarification," not correction, added in the description. NCRI analysts noted that "MSNBC aired no comparable editorial scrutiny of the Hamas-run ministry." MSNBC later referenced the broader controversy in a follow-up segment the next morning on June 20. NCRI also flagged a Reuters report as an example of misidentification in headline summaries. The report included references to an unnamed private foundation, which NCRI claims contributed to "confusion, misattribution, and reputational harm." A Reuters spokesperson told Fox News Digital: "An advisory issued to update the headline of this story misnamed the organization that was listed on the report. We regret the error in the advisory. The report we reviewed bears the name Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, not Global Humanitarian Foundation. We stand by our reporting." By contrast, the NCRI study highlighted The Washington Post's social media activity as a prominent example of how unverified claims can rapidly spread. According to the report, "On June 1, the Washington Post tweeted: 'At least 30 people were killed in northern Gaza while waiting for food aid trucks to arrive, the Gaza Health Ministry said.'" The tweet did not mention Hamas or the ministry's affiliation with the group. "The tweet quickly went viral, garnering more than 2.4 million views in under 24 hours," NCRI noted. It was subsequently "amplified by numerous prominent influencers" and even cited by "at least two foreign government officials as a rationale to impose sanctions on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation." The NCRI study states that "The tweet was never corrected or contextually clarified by the Washington Post or its social media editors." However, following inquiries and public scrutiny, The Washington Post deleted the tweet and issued a correction on X. "The article failed to make clear if attributing the deaths to Israel was the position of the Gaza health ministry or a fact verified by The Post," the outlet wrote. "The early versions fell short of Post standards of fairness and should not have been published in that form." Fox News Digital has reached out to The Washington Post for further comment but has not received a response as of publication. Both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the U.S. State Department issued statements to Fox News Digital affirming support for GHF, while criticizing those who have undermined it. "A track record of distributing over 68 million meals to date all while preventing Hamas looting is absolutely incredible and should be commended and supported," said a State Department spokesperson on background. "We call on other aid agencies and the UN to participate in this secure aid delivery system." The spokesperson continued: "The fact of the matter is, many of these NGOs and the UN fail to protect their aid deliveries, using phrases like 'self-distribution' to describe Hamas robbing from them. Yet they take time to attack the one system that is securely delivering critical aid to Palestinians in Gaza. The attacks against GHF are unacceptable — perhaps they should support the only system that is working instead of criticizing from the sidelines." The IDF, in a separate on-background statement, said it "allows the American civilian organization GHF to distribute aid to Gaza residents independently, and operates in proximity to the new distribution zones to enable the distribution alongside the continuation of IDF operational activities." "Following incidents in which harm to civilians who arrived at distribution facilities was reported, thorough examinations were conducted in the Southern Command and instructions were issued to forces in the field," the IDF stated. Yet those measures were mostly absent from the reporting in many U.S. media outlets, which instead portrayed GHF as operating under Israeli military control, which was an intentional distortion, Moore claims. "The relationship is intentionally misrepresented. They want to present us as part of the IDF, which we aren't," he said. Moore also accused the UN of stonewalling GHF for political reasons. "We actually want to work with the UN to help more people, and we've extended our hand to them from the beginning," Moore said. "But the UN is behaving like a mafia. They're organizing opposition against us, in effect joining forces with Hamas because there's no difference in their policies. They've never boycotted Hamas, but they've boycotted us." Earlier this month, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini called for the "end to the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation," labeling the program "an abomination" that "provides nothing but starvation and gunfire." His remarks came in an open letter signed by more than 230 NGOs including Amnesty International, Save the Children and the Norwegian Refugee Council, which calls for a return to the traditional UN-led aid system. Moore added that the UN refused to condemn Hamas for the killing of 12 of GHF's local Gazan aid workers. "They similarly didn't issue a statement when two Americans were hit by a Hamas grenade a few days ago. It's an absolute scandal and an insult to the United States," he said. At the time of publication, the United Nations did not return Fox News Digital's request for comment. Asked what keeps his team going in the face of such hostility, Moore said, "Our team believes in the mission entirely, and they get strength every day from the Gazans we serve, who are so grateful. "We see something every day we haven't seen in the Gaza Strip in a long time: smiles. The people need us and rely on us. We have to show up for them." An NCRI senior researcher agreed, but warned that the reputational cost of ignoring this media pattern goes far beyond one aid group.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats and climate groups ‘too polite' in fight against ‘malevolent' fossil fuel giants, says key senator
The Democratic party and the climate movement have been 'too cautious and polite' and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industry's 'huge denial operation', the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said. 'The fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,' the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview on Tuesday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. 'It is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidy' of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by the burning of fossil fuels. 'I think the more people understand that, the more they'll be irate [that] they've been lied to.' But, he added, 'Democrats have not done a good job of calling that out.' Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate. He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even 'use the word 'climate' and 'change' in the same paragraph'. While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blasts Republicans for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior 'has been downright evil', he said. 'To deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts – if that's not a good definition of evil, I don't know what is.' The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade association, says on its website that 'API and its members commit to delivering solutions that reduce the risks of climate change while meeting society's growing energy needs'. Long before Donald Trump reportedly told oil company CEOs he would repeal Joe Biden's climate policies if they contributed $1bn to his 2024 presidential campaign, Republicans went silent on climate change in return for oil industry money, Whitehouse asserted. The key shift came after the supreme court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which struck down limits on campaign spending. Before that, some GOP senators had sponsored climate bills, and John McCain urged climate action during his 2008 presidential campaign. But Citizens United, Whitehouse said, 'told the fossil fuel industry: 'The door's wide open – spend any money you want in our elections''. The industry, he said, promised the Republican party 'unlimited amounts of money' in return for stepping away from bipartisan climate action: 'And since 2010, there has not been a single serious bipartisan measure in the Senate.' Whitehouse said that after delivering 300 climate speeches on the Senate floor, he has learned to shift from talking about the 'facts of climate science and the effects on human beings to calling out the fossil fuels' massive climate-denial operation'. He said: 'Turns out, none of [the science] really matters while the operation is controlling things in Congress. I could take facts from colleagues' home states right to them, and it would make no difference because of this enormous, multibillion-dollar political club that can [punish] anyone who crosses them.' Most Republicans even stay silent despite climate change's threat to property values and other traditional GOP priorities, Whitehouse said. He noted that even the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell – who is not known for his climate bona fides, he said – testified before the Senate in February that in 10-15 years there will be whole regions of the country where nobody can get a mortgage because extreme weather will make it impossible to afford or even obtain insurance. Democrats can turn all this to their advantage if they get 'more vocal and aggressive', Whitehouse argued. 'The good news is that the American people hate dark money with a passion, and they hate it just as much, if not more, in districts that went for Trump as in districts that went for Biden.' Democrats also need to recognize 'how much [public] support there is for climate action', he said. 'How do you have an issue that you win 74 [percent] to 12 [percent] and you don't ride that horse as hard as you can?' Whitehouse said he was only estimating that 74% figure, but that's exactly the percentage of Americans who want their government to take stronger climate action, according to the studies informing the 89 Percent Project, the Guardian and other Covering Climate Now partner news outlets began reporting in April. Globally, the percentage ranges from 80% to 89%. Yet this overwhelming climate majority does not realize it is the majority, partly because that fact has been absent from most news coverage, social media and politicians' statements. Related: 'Spiral of silence': climate action is very popular, so why don't people realise it? Democrats keep 'getting caught in this stupid doom loop in which our pollsters say: 'Well, climate's not one of the top issues that voters care about, so then we don't talk about it'', said Whitehouse. 'So it never becomes one of the top issues that voters care about. [But] if you actually go ask [voters] and engage on the issue, it explodes in enthusiasm. It has huge numbers when you bother to engage, and we just haven't.' Nevertheless, Whitehouse is optimistic that climate denial won't prevail forever. 'Once this comes home to roost in people's homes, in their family finances, in really harmful ways, that [will be] motivating in a way that we haven't seen before around this issue,' he said. 'And if we're effective at communicating what a massive fraud has been pulled on the American public by the fossil fuel industry denial groups, then I think that's a powerful combination.' This story is part of the 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now. • This article was amended on 11 July 2025. An earlier version said Sheldon Whitehouse spoke with Covering Climate Now on Monday. The interview actually took place on Tuesday.
Russia Today
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers
There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds 'freedom campaigns' through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who's really pulling the strings. Yet that's precisely what Britain's Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of 'democracy support' and 'combating disinformation.' Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn't be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless. This covert campaign didn't happen in a vacuum. It's merely the latest incarnation of Britain's longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – 'Russian disinformation,' 'violent extremism,' 'authoritarian propaganda' – but the machinery is strikingly similar. Only now, it's all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and 'evidence-based interventions.' Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia's near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers. A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow's narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren't setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn't wander into critiques of NATO or London's chosen regional allies. This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it's the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it's 'building resilience against disinformation,' it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that's undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently. It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn't the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn't London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries. In truth, 'disinformation' has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there's a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s. Likewise, 'freedom' in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain's worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it's what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc's approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation. This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural 'nudge' industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement. The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated. If that's what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.
Russia Today
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
UK secretly paid YouTube influencers for propaganda
The UK Foreign Office gave millions of pounds to a media contractor to secretly shape public opinion in foreign countries, Declassified UK has reported. The agency, Zinc Network, is believed to have received nearly £10 million ($13 million) to recruit influencers across Europe. Zinc is a London-based company that pays YouTubers and internet personalities in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics to produce political content. While the company says it is committed to transparency, the creators it employs are bound by strict non-disclosure agreements not to disclose ties to the British government. Former employees have described the operation as 'state propaganda.' One told Declassified that the relationship between Zinc and the influencers was 'extremely exploitative.' Another claimed that Zinc had interfered in Slovakia's 2023 elections by targeting young voters with influencer content designed to boost turnout for Progressive Slovakia, a pro-European party. The vote was ultimately won by Robert Fico's Smer party, which has advocated maintaining friendly relations with Russia and draws support from older voters. Zinc had previously been exposed for running covert Muslim news platforms. In 2021, it was also reportedly looking to recruit comedians and YouTubers to run psyop campaigns in the Baltics to shift the opinions of Russian-speaking communities. Aside from the UK government, the company has also received millions in funding from the US, as well as from the Belgian government, according to public documents. The full scale of Zinc's operations is unclear as the Foreign Office has only partially disclosed its contracts with the company, despite repeatedly being ordered to do so by the UK's Information Commissioner. The UK government has defended the operation as a way to 'counter disinformation' and 'champion truth and democratic values.' Meanwhile, Russia's security services have recently accused several British institutions, including the British Council and Oxford Russia Fund, of running covert campaigns to destabilize Russian society and promote Western agendas.
CTV News
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- CTV News
Rome, Navalny widow blast Italy invite for pro-Kremlin maestro
Valery Gergiev at the Mariinsky Theatre in Russia, on May 1, 2013. (Dmitry Lovetsky / AP) Italy's culture minister joined the widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny on Tuesday in condemning an invitation for maestro Valery Gergiev to perform near Naples, saying it risked being propaganda for Moscow. Russian conductor Gergiev, a personal friend of President Vladimir Putin who has since December 2023 led Moscow's world famous Bolshoi Theatre, has been shunned by the West since the start of the Ukraine war for failing to denounce Russia's invasion. But he has been invited to conduct what organisers described as an 'unforgettable symphony concert' on July 27 at the former royal palace of Reggia di Caserta, near Naples in southern Italy. Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation has called for the concert to be cancelled and his widow, Yulia Navalnaya, pressed the case in an editorial on Tuesday in Italian daily La Repubblica. 'Any attempt to turn a blind eye to who Valery Gergiev is when he's not conducting and to pretend that this is merely a cultural event with no political dimension... is pure hypocrisy,' she wrote. Just hours later, Italian Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli issued a statement warning the concert 'risks sending the wrong message'. 'Ukraine is an invaded nation and Gergiev's concert could transform a high-level... musical event into a platform for Russian propaganda,' he said. 'For me, this would be deplorable.' Stand-in for Putin Giuli is a member of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's hard-right government, which has strongly backed Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022. He noted the concert was part of a programme of events promoted and paid for by the region of Campania. Campania regional leader Vincenzo De Luca, from the centre-left Democratic Party, has defended the concert, saying that 'culture is a tool to keep dialogue open'. On social media on Friday, he noted an Israeli conductor was also on the programme, adding: 'We don't ask those men of culture to answer for the political choices of those who lead their respective countries.' He repeated his position on Tuesday, condemning Putin's actions in Ukraine but saying that refusing to engage in dialogue 'only serves to fuel the rivers of hatred'. But Navalnaya, whose husband died in an Artic penal colony last year in what she and his supporters say was a killing on Putin's orders, was scathing. 'As Putin's cultural ambassador, Valery Gergiev implements Russia's soft power policy. One of his current goals is to normalise the war and Putin's regime,' she wrote. She described the Caserta concert as a 'test balloon' for boosting Putin's image in Europe and noted it was being praised by Russian authorities. 'Forgive me, but if the Kremlin is happy with you in 2025, then you are definitely doing something wrong,' she wrote. Other members of the Democratic Party have called for the concert to be cancelled, as have other cultural figures outside Italy. Peter Gelb, general manager of New York's Metropolitan Opera and a staunch supporter of Ukraine, told AFP that Gergiev 'is no less than an artistic stand-in for Putin'. He added: 'There can be no 'cultural exchange' with mass murderers and kidnappers of children, which is the current modus operandi of the Russian regime.' Gergiev has stood by Putin's policies for more than two decades and performed propaganda concerts in honour of Russian military victories in the past. In one of his most criticised moves, Gergiev conducted a concert in the ruins of Syria's Palmyra after Moscow's intervention in the country on the side of dictator Bashar al-Assad. He also conducted a triumphant concert in Georgia's Tskhinvali region after the Russian invasion in 2008, just a few metres (feet) from a detention centre where Georgian civilians were being held.
