"Gates's keepers" are mostly publishers that are being paid directly by Bill Gates (e.g. BBC, PBS, NPR, Guardian and hundreds if not thousands more all around the world)

"In January of 1994, Waggener Edstrom began recruiting 100 key editors, 32 analysts, and 150 third-party vendors for the Windows 95 bandwagon. Lining up the national media and the business press was easy. Edstrom had been massaging those relationships for over a decade, sending flowers and cartoons and reminding editors of their spouses' birthdays and wedding anniversaries, earning her "Gates's keeper" reputation. Not only would these people tout Windows 95, they would also be more inclined to show sympathy for Microsoft when competitors started ragging them."

--Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed
by the daughter of Microsoft's Pam Edstrom

Summary: A reminder that what you read in corporate or mainstream media is mostly paid for, not by those looking to inform the population but those striving to indoctrinate (or misinform) it for personal gain

THIRTEEN years ago I put "freelance journalist" in my E-mail signature because I was paid to contribute to an online publication, where I habitually published articles about GNU/Linux. Some of these are still formally referenced in Wikipedia.

Years later I came to realise the misuse of this label to imply that only those salaried to write -- usually by some privileged media barons -- have legitimacy. It is a form of gate-keeping (for those who aren't familiar with the concept, look it up in a credible source, not necessarily composed by a so-called 'journalist').

"All Microsoft has to do is pay the publication (e.g. for advertising) and almost immediately the editor would feel reluctant to publish anything at all that can make Microsoft grumpy."Narratives have long been guarded by a culture of censorship, which in due course begets self-censorship. If words you write aren't removed by the editor (either with reprimanding words or silence), you may write more of the same. Otherwise, you'd stop expressing particular points of view (or risk removal). When it comes to potential journalists there's an overabundance of people willing to write, even underpaid and overworked. So it's very competitive. Sooner or later people may realise that opportunities open up when one writes fluff and puff pieces praising the interests of media owners and perpetuating their wills (and ills).

Now, speaking for myself, in past years I wrote about my experiences, which included censorship for Microsoft. Other writers told me similar stories. All Microsoft has to do is pay the publication (e.g. for advertising) and almost immediately the editor would feel reluctant to publish anything at all that can make Microsoft grumpy. The editor frowns when Microsoft frowns. When safeguarding the business interests of a publication is securing one's bread and butter certain writers with particular views become undesirable. They just don't help attract advertisers. We wrote a great deal about this in relation to the Linux Foundation, which hired a Microsofter to speak for it. From Microsoft and a Microsoft-leaning tabloid he came to become the mouth of something called "Linux" Foundation. Amazing, isn't it? And who in today's "Linux" Foundation would dare say something even remotely negative about Microsoft?

One might joke that the extensive list of "Linux" Foundation members is a list of companies that paid not to be criticised (amongst other things).

"One might joke that the extensive list of "Linux" Foundation members is a list of companies that paid not to be criticised (amongst other things)."Going back to the original point, don't be mesmerised by labels like "journalist"; they're designed to belittle those not salaried by Power. They help maintain an orthodoxy that is often false, e.g. that the only choices one has for hosting is Google or Amazon or Microsoft. Or that every developer needs to have an account in GitHub (proprietary software) and only senile people will reject or refuse to 'own' (rent and carry) a so-called 'smart' phone, which as we're seeing these days is little more than a tracking/surveillance device. Google is about to force-feed the spying. For "health" and for "safety" of course!

Over the years I spoke to a lot of people who covered European Patent Office (EPO) scandals. I even met some in person. I saw some of them sort of 'canceled' for being bold enough to not be a mouthpiece of this glorified criminal, who decided to ban Techrights as far as he could (every single computer in the EPO). Of course António Campinos does the same thing; he's the best phony alive in Munich (though he's probably in Portugal right now).

We're hoping to have more writers soon. We hope to coach more sceptical/critical thinkers, who would stick around and share the sobering reality about software ethics -- an issue that corporate media has long shied away from as if ethics are only for "hippies" and "radicals" (whereas large businesses which plunder the treasury or rob the taxpayers for shareholders' buybacks aren't radical at all).

"We're also under attack, both DDOS attacks and attacks on the credibility of pertinent facts we've published."If we make good use of this whole lock-down period, then our site will be systemd-free (the databases already are), we'll have more writers, and our productivity will go up sharply. Right now we're in transition. We're also under attack, both DDOS attacks and attacks on the credibility of pertinent facts we've published.

We've meanwhile noticed that Microsoft and Gates again 'enlisted' Enderle for some modern propaganda campaigns; Microsoft and Gates throw money around at alarming rates, granting that money to various key publishers for their lies to be published (buying legitimacy) and since media companies are generally cash-strapped they'd do anything to appease such sponsors (sometimes with disclosure, sometimes without). Don't be so easily fooled. The "Linux" Foundation has just announced the next stage of its GitHub-leaning proprietary nonsense and Microsoft meanwhile pretends there's something "Free" about its proprietary prison that it loses money on. Guess to what degree media played along, especially media which by its very own admission got paid to play along... ⬆