In today’s media landscape, a group of powerful individuals quietly hold the reins of what information reaches you — the news articles you read, the videos you watch, the content you engage with. Yet, their names remain largely unknown to the public, although they wield significant influence in determining which messages are allowed to be exposed. These gatekeepers control the narrative through both direct and indirect means, effectively shaping public discourse.
At the apex of this influence network are global elites affiliated with institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). These entities have established a universal framework replete with guidelines and ratings designed to enforce their approved narratives while penalizing opposing viewpoints. This situation may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it is far from secret or speculative.
The WEF and the WFA have developed platforms dedicated to shaping the future of media, entertainment, and culture. The latter, representing mega-corporations that control a staggering 90% of the world’s advertising revenue, includes household names like Anheuser-Busch InBev, Procter & Gamble, Disney, and Hershey. Their influence extends to Fortune 500 CEOs, prominent philanthropists, governments, and woke nonprofits, with many figures associated with these organizations.
The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), established by the WFA in 2019, has garnered significant attention. This cross-industry alliance brings mega-corporations together with tech giants like Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Google-owned YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest. Their Brand Safety Floor & Suitability Framework is effectively a censorship mechanism, aiming to restrict content deemed inappropriate for advertising support. Violating these guidelines can lead to exclusion from 90% of advertising revenue sources.
While the framework initially addressed universally agreed-upon issues like child pornography and terrorism, it has expanded to encompass subjective terms such as “hate speech.” Moreover, the criteria are purposefully ambiguous, granting the gatekeepers discretion in enforcement. This framework is increasingly used to control content, shaping the stories that make it to your screen.
One player in this scenario is NewsGuard, an organization that rates American media outlets based on a supposedly apolitical scale. However, these criteria often lean toward left-wing positions, leading to skewed ratings. Even during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, NewsGuard inaccurately labeled and downgraded news sites based on their narrative, later apologizing for their errors. These ratings disproportionately favor left-leaning organizations over conservative ones, perpetuating the bias.
The Media Research Center, a free-speech nonprofit, has revealed glaring instances of bias in NewsGuard’s ratings. Media outlets like BuzzFeed and USA Today received high scores despite instances of flawed reporting or misleading information. This uneven treatment extends to social media platforms, where independent content creators also find their work subject to the scrutiny and potential censorship of globalist powers like the WEF, WFA, and GARM.
These global entities, in collaboration with social media companies, work to suppress what they label as misinformation, often stifling diverse viewpoints. Additionally, they pour substantial resources into disseminating narratives that align with their preferred agendas, regardless of accuracy or potential harm.
In a free society, diverse perspectives are crucial to a well-informed populace. However, the actions of the WEF, WFA, and GARM reflect a dangerous desire to control the narrative, shaping public perception according to their preferences. This orchestrated approach restricts access to information and threatens the principles of open discourse and free expression that underpin democratic societies.