We often hear about the nexus between progressives and the media. Make no mistake, there is most certainly a bias. And the relationship was on full display in last week’s Black Lives Matter newsbreak by the Associated Press.
The scoop in question concerns a 63-page financial disclosure form about BLM financial flows, given its status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Per the IRS, these forms — termed 990s — are a matter of public record, so the public can scrutinize nonprofits operating tax-free. BLM recently filed its 990 for the year 2020-21, during which its expenditures came into question. Watchdogs had been awaiting the recent filings, to get a better look at BLM’s finances.
Before the report was to be released, though, BLM leaked it to the Associated Press. This gave the AP an “exclusive” story that no other outlet possessed — a story that would minimize criticism and maximize the (few) positives. This story would then be picked up by other outlets, whose coverage would riff off the AP in an effort to run something as quickly as possible.
In short, BLM did this to lay the groundwork for more favorable coverage of itself. Indeed, while the document was factual, and the AP’s report gave readers insight into BLM finances, the analysis was skewed. The report touted BLM’s “scrappiness” as a young foundation and assumed that “black charities” are often wronged by the “white philanthropic landscape.” This, while including details such as the following:
The tax filing shows that nearly $6 million was spent on a Los Angeles-area compound. The Studio City property, which includes a home with six bedrooms and bathrooms, a swimming pool, a soundstage and office space, was intended as a campus for a Black artists fellowship and is currently used for that purpose, the board member said.
This arrangement was essentially public. As the AP’s copy reads: the “Form 990 [was] shared exclusively with The Associated Press” — moments before it was to be shared with the world. Plus, curiously, BLM has also been promoting the AP’s story on its own website — encouraging viewers to read it in order to combat “misinformation” about the group.
So this worked out well for them.