Who exactly is it that is giving the Sun $1.4 million? Why don't their policies match their actions? Lastly, 'cause it's Friday, packing silage.

Who exactly is it that is giving the Sun $1.4 million?

According to the article linked first below, it's a grant from the American Journalism Project (AJP)  Try to dig much deeper than that, however, and you'll come up to a wall.

Let's peel back the layers.  AJP gives money to the Sun.  What do we know about AJP?

The second link below is to AJP's main page.  Their priorities, what they're pushing, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that's read the Colorado Sun.  These two organizations fit like a hand in a glove.  

There is a lot there, but AJP's own one sentence summary is (quoting):

"We make grants to nonprofit news organizations, partner with communities to launch new organizations, and coach leaders as they grow and sustain their newsrooms. Read more about our programs below."

If you look up AJP on Influence Watch,, the second paragraph of that site's (link is third below) top summary is (quoting with footnote links left intact for the curious):

"In an interview with Inside Philanthropy, AJP CEO Sarah Berman stated that AJP works with news organizations that do not have enough revenue to sustain operation without government funding, and it selects organizations that best align with it argues is public service. Berman also stated that publicly funding news organizations allow them to focus on 'other priorities,' which she describes as 'public health,' 'climate,' and 'thriving democracy.' ²"

As I said above, they and the Sun fit hand in glove.

As you go deeper with the funding, the story gets murkier.  Looking at AJP's own page again, you will see their funders listed in the fourth link below.  There is a whole spectrum of funding amounts from (presumably--the bottom number isn't given) $0 up to $5 million plus.  

Looking again at AJP's Influence Watch site, you will see the major funders listed in the top summary, many of which match AJP's own list of major donors.  Quoting from the Influence Watch site with links left intact:

"American Journalism Project (AJP) is a left-of-center organization that funds the creation or operations of local nonprofit news outlets. It receives funding from major left-of-center grantmaking organizations including Knight Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Emerson Collective, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and Democracy Fund. ¹"

I followed the links in the quote above to open up those groups' Influence Watch pages and the results justify my use of the word "murky" above.  Let's look at some highlights.

Just as the AJP choosing to fund the Sun isn't surprising, the groups funding AJP shouldn't come as a shock. In a show of symmetry, they are all left of center (to varying degrees) funding organizations.  

It is, in fact, left of center all the way down:  a group of left of center orgs funding a left of center journalism org funding a left of center newspaper.  

The Democracy Fund is a funding octopus.  It got its start from a former eBay founder and has worked with and spun off money to all manner of leftist social change organizations.  It's got a lot of its fingers in a lot of political pies, albeit not directly.  It chooses to fund spinoffs to do the work.  I think it's fair to be suspicious of these folks and what they're wanting when they give money to news organizations.  

I took a screenshot of Arnold Venture's Influence Watch page and attached it as screenshot 1.  Take a look at what I highlighted in red and blue there.  Hardly a paragon of transparency as to who gives them money, where and how it's spent.  Not to be tedious, but I want to hammer home this point (you'll see it again later):  Arnold Ventures changed their organization SPECIFICALLY to avoid transparency in what they do and who funds them.

I found a couple of non-contiguous quotes from the Emerson Collective's Influence Watch page and made one picture.  This is attached as screenshot 2.  Similar to Arnold above, this organization has been structured to limit transparency.  Like Arnold, too, they are pretty engaged in political activity.  

Lastly, I went to Craig Newmark Philanthropies' Influence watch page and took a screenshot (this is screenshot 3).  Note the underlined text in red.  I suppose at least they're not hiding the ball under vague "feel good" terms.

Corey Hutchins' Oct 16th newsletter on media (linked fifth below) had the following quote:

"It’s always prudent for people to take into consideration who is funding news and information they consume, including what you read here."

I couldn't agree more.  This is something I've actively preached for some time now.  The problem here with the Sun's new $1.4 million grant is that this isn't entirely clear.  

Yes, we know who wrote them the check.  What we don't entirely know is where the check writers got their money from.  Who is it that is giving that money?  What motives might they have?

In the second post today, I want to put this fact, what we see here about the funders, up against what the people writing the checks say about their values to see if they match.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/23/colorado-sun-american-journalism-project-grant/

https://www.theajp.org/

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-journalism-project-ajp/

https://www.theajp.org/about/our-support/

Nearly $1M flows to Colorado newsrooms from national Press Forward group

---

All the written policies in the world can't speak louder than actions.

I wanted to follow on the first post about who it is that's giving the Sun $1.4 million by noting the difference between written policy and actions.

In the previous post, I went through the funding behind the American Journalism Project's (AJP) recent grant to the Sun:  who is giving and what their policy directions are.  

As a way to further gauge their intent and credibility, let's look at what the AJP says about those that give to them.  

If you go to the page where AJP lists their sponsors, and scroll down to the bottom, you will see the following quote (with links left intact):

"The American Journalism Project is guided by the same principles of transparency and independence as our grantees, who adhere to the ethics and standards of the Institute for Nonprofit News [INN] Read our gift acceptance policy here."

I went to those links and took a couple screenshots of what I saw there.  Screenshot 1 is from the ethics policy in the first quote and screenshot 2 is from the AJP's gift policy.  

Given what I cover in post 1 (go and read about just who is giving money to AJP and what some are hiding), these words, these lofty policies and statements, carry no weight.  Words don't match actions here.

AJP says that they hold to the "ethics and standards" of INN.  If INN members don't allow for anonymous donors, why does AJP accept money that could be, in part, from anonymous sources?  

If INN members commit to financial transparency, why does AJP accept money from groups that have purposefully configured (or reconfigured) themselves to be better able to participate in politics and hide the sources of their money?  

If AJP "rejects" gifts from groups that don't hold to the values they claim to adhere to, why do I even have to ask the two questions above?

AJP is not on the level with their policies.  Given that, how are we to trust their intentions when giving money to outlets like the Sun?

The Sun's own policy not matching their actions is something I have written about more times than I can count, so I won't delve into that here, but, before ending, let me touch on a common rebuttal to who funds the news.

Policies of the AJP and the Sun almost always include a statement about editorial independence:  "just 'cause we take their money doesn't mean that we write what they tell us."

Perhaps not in the direct sense.  Do I honestly think that, say, AJP has someone sitting in on Sun meetings, or looking over their shoulders and telling them what to do?  No.

But money ALWAYS has strings attached, and it always incentivizes behavior.  It matters.  If you doubt, ask yourself how much grant money these papers have taken from right-leaning organizations, or, say, oil and gas companies.  

The funders chose the Sun because they like their stories--what they choose to cover and how they do it.  In order to keep funders happy, and in order to open up the possibility of other grants in the future, the Sun has a strong incentive to continue focusing on what made them successful before; they will push the narratives that that keep the money flowing.  

In a finite world, every minute spent on one thing is a minute that cannot be spent elsewhere.  Even assuming no direct pressure, we can fully expect that, to keep them dollars coming, The Sun will intensify the kinds of coverage that got them the grant in the first place, at the cost of wider ranging reporting that might run counter to the narratives those groups want to see.

The lofty words about independence and transparency notwithstanding.

https://www.theajp.org/about/our-support/

---

Why pack silage?

That time of the week again, last post til Sunday (unless something catches my eye), and thus time for something interesting and not related to politics.

Do you know what silage is?

I had heard the term prior to my moving out to the Plains.  I can definitely say I have much greater familiarity with it now.  The comments are open to fixing any of my errors, but in essence it's a way to store food for cattle.

You take the entire corn plant and grind it up.  Then you pack it and put it under a tarp.  Done right, it doesn't rot or spoil and provides a nutritious meal to hungry ruminants.  I'm not sure, but I would say it also likely is a more efficient use of corn because it is more than just the grain (and also because it's my understanding that feeding too much grain is not good for cattle--messes with their gut).

The first link below is to a Wikipedia page on the subject.  If you want more detail, you'll find it there.

When I first came out to the Plains and saw the silage being put up as I drove back and forth along I-76 (see the image at the top of this post), I had the idea that the tractors I would see driving back and forth along the piles were there just to mound it up prior to tarping.

I was wrong.  I've since learned that the tractors driving back and forth across the pile are there to pack the silage down.  The equipment and procedure may vary, but my understanding is that it's done a lot like when you put in fill dirt for construction.

With fill dirt, you pack it in what is known as "lifts"; that is, you put in, say, 6" of fill, pack it, put 6" more in, pack, and so on til the hole is full.  Silage, I was told, goes in with 4" lifts.  

That still leaves the question of why.  Why put the silage in 4" thick layers with compaction from tractors between?

Air.  By putting up your silage in layers, you squeeze out the air so that it ferments correctly and won't spoil.  Links 2 and 3 below go into more detail (with link 3 being more technical for those who are inclined to want more a more in-depth look).  Done right, the silage will last as long as you want it to.  Interstingly, it apparently gets so hot as to possibly cause burns and steam when the outside air is cold enough.

One last niblet.  I have a colleague who's grandfather made them a treat from his Depression-era youth:  silage soup.

Yeah, tasted about as good as you might imagine.

That's it for now.  Back at it Sunday.  Have a good rest of your Friday!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage#:~:text=Silage%20undergoes%20anaerobic%20fermentation%2C%20which,complete%20after%20about%20two%20weeks

https://agromatic.net/why-do-we-pack-silage/

https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/forage/drive-over-silage-pile-construction/#:~:text=Packing%20forces%20air%20and%20oxygen,of%20the%20ensiled%20dry%20matter