Green agenda is infiltrating news through financial means.

Have you ever read a news article and wondered if it was truly objective or if it had an agenda? Unfortunately, it seems that the latter is becoming more common, especially when it comes to environmental issues.

Examining Biden’s controversial energy policy and assigning it the positive spin of “hard-hat environmentalism” is something that makes sense as a White House press release or something from the Biden campaign, but not the AP, a purported objective carrier of the news.

Take, for example, the Associated Press (AP), which recently referred to Joe Biden’s energy policy as “hard-hat environmentalism.” This positive spin is more fitting for a White House press release or a campaign ad, not a supposedly objective news outlet.

But this is not an isolated incident. A recent analysis found that the AP mentioned phrases like “climate change” and “global warming” hundreds of times since receiving $8 million in grants for its “Climate Journalism Initiative.” The purpose of the initiative is to employ 20 new reporters to “transform how the AP covers the climate story.”

It’s concerning to think that this money may have influenced the AP’s coverage of environmental issues, including Biden’s energy policy. And it’s not just the AP. The green movement is providing money and reeducation to reporters to fill the void with its own version of the news.

The Troubling Pattern of Eco-Money

For example, the Poynter Institute recently offered $15,000 grants to reporters or newsrooms willing to cover the Great Lakes area with some eco-strings attached. Reporters must disclose what they cover and how they will cover it before the money flows. The program receives “funding support” from the Joyce Foundation, which received millions from billionaire and climate darling Michael Bloomberg.

By following the bouncing ball of eco-money, there’s a troubling pattern of a frontline journalism association offering grants to reporters, provided they disclose how they will report their stories, by using money that can be traced back to a billionaire with a big green agenda. If it all seems confusing, that’s because it was designed that way.

Proponents of the green movement are putting millions into grants to sneak content supportive of their agenda under the umbrella of news outlets. Even more insidious is that those stories are then offered to local newspapers under the guise of free content. Cash-strapped newsrooms welcome the money, the stories, or the new personnel with promises that journalistic integrity will be upheld, but also with an implied whisper that the content had better be what the funders want … or the funding will stop.

In the end, what we’re left with is only all the green news that’s fit to print.