RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, off the beaten path here for just a second. Have you noted, have you recalled, have you remembered…? Mr. Snerdley, you might. I’ve often asked on this program, “How in the world is it that all these media outlets that are losing audience, that have no audience…? How is it that they are still operating?”
We have the answer. China. BizPac Review story. “The Wall Street Journal did not respond to a request for comment about its relationship with China Daily. The Los Angeles Times also did not respond to a request for comment.” “Beijing-Controlled News Outlet Paid U.S. Newspapers Millions To Publish Propaganda This Year.” That’s the headline from BizPac Review.
On one hand, some of these publications — CNN, primarily publications, Web publications, print publications — their loss of audience is staggering. If we had had that kind of loss of audience here at EIB, there’s some question as to whether we would still be here, ’cause I’ll guarantee you we wouldn’t have taken ChiCom money.
The loss of audience of some of these newspapers, websites is staggering, and you know that some of them are starting to sell out, starting to merge. They’ve been sued by any number of people, any number of times. They’ve paid out millions because they’re really bad at journalism. Lin Wood has scored gazillions of dollars from the Washington Post, CNN for the Covington kids and others.
Well, according to this story, these publications have been kept afloat by communist China. “An English-language newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda department paid U.S. media companies nearly $2 million for printing and advertising expenses over the past six months, even amid heightened scrutiny over Beijing’s disinformation efforts in the West.”
And, according to this, BizPac Review, “China Daily paid the Wall Street Journal more than $85,000 and the Los Angeles Times $340,000 for advertising campaigns between May and October…” Now, I have to tell you that paying the Wall Street Journal $85,000 is not gonna mean a thing to keeping them afloat.
So, I don’t know what that is, but $85,000 is the definition of chump change when you’re talking about News Corp, which is Rupert Murdoch, his family, which owns the Wall Street Journal. Eighty-five grand would not constitute keeping the Wall Street Journal afloat. “China Daily also paid Foreign Policy magazine $100,000, The Financial Times, a U.K.-based newspaper, $223,710, and $132,046 to the Canadian outlet Globe & Mail for advertising campaigns, according to the filing. The Beijing-based outlet paid several newspaper companies a total of $1,154,666 for printing costs, including $110,000 to the Los Angeles Times, $92,000 to the Houston Chronicle and $76,000 to the Boston Globe.”
Hey, look, every little bit helps. Advertising campaign, could be anything. You know, the Mueller report, you know what the extent of Russian meddling was that they spent 200 grand on Facebook ads after the 2016 election. “Some American newspapers have cut ties with China Daily in response to the criticism of the pay-for-print arrangements. … The New York Times quietly scrubbed its website of advertorials it had published as part of a deal it had with China Daily.”
The bottom line of this, folks, is that the ChiComs are helping American journalism, the ChiComs are helping defray the costs of American journalism by buying phony advertising campaigns just to infuse cash. The amounts here are not enough to keep any of these operations running, but they are enough to be of assistance. No wonder. And it’s all propaganda, by the way, the ChiComs.