Dark money site claiming to have concerns about dark money and media ethics

PLEASE NOTE THIS PIECE WAS UPDATED MAY 15, 2024 AFTER RECEIVING UPDATES FROM JULIE PITTA ABOUT HER JOURNALISM BACKGROUND WHICH HAS BEEN CORRECTED. I PAST MISREPRESENTED THAT JULIE PITTA HAD 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN JOURNALISM FIELD, PRIOR TO HER NEW MORE ADVOCACY FOCUSED ROLE.

A new dark money site claiming to have concerns about dark money and ethics was created this week. That’s not a headline from the satire news website the Onion. That’s what happened this week. Below are the details.

There has been a lot of media coverage about Julie Pitta’s firing from the Richmond Review after she got caught ripping up political signs in a coffee shop. She then pivoted and with no basis claimed it was a dark money attack on the media, and said she was starting a new organization called Phoenix Project to address dark money in politics and media. As someone who specializes in media ethics, I want to point out several troubling items regarding the new organization.

It is important to define some terms to start, so please bear with me to get the full picture. The definition of dark money in the media means that donors are not disclosed and there is no transparency. This could be through a number of mechanisms — a for-profit company that decides not to disclose where the funding comes from, or a specific designation of nonprofit called a 501c4. This is not to be confused with a 501c3 type of nonprofit. The difference is one, a 501c3, must legally disclose their donors, and the other, a 501c4, does not. A 501c4 is the definition of a dark money organization, and it is the exact coding that exists to define it in government and legal terms.

Next, the term nonprofit often tends to make people think there is some purity, nobility or lack of partisanship. The term non-profit is just a tax structure — and it has nothing to do with ethics or political alignment of the organization.

The third word is media — this is a tool for communicating. There are all different sorts of types of people who use media of all forms to communicate. That’s called free speech. It is the American public that needs to be informed enough to know the difference between journalist and venture capitalist in the press.

The next term is journalist, who is someone who takes a certain ethical standard to report. The words dark money and journalism are oxymorons because to be a journalist you must admit where you are taking money from and fully disclose it. You must be completely transparent about it. The terms journalist and activist are oxymorons because you are supposed to remain unbiased and not activating for any cause as a journalist. The term for an “activist journalist” is a public interest PR person, which I spent my life doing. It is a very different field than any other form of PR, and in many ways attracts people with more ethics than the journalism field. These are people who want to fight for a specific moral cause, and they do have an agenda.

In fact, the Medium post I am writing right now is an example of public interest public relations. I am not getting paid by anyone to do this. I am doing it because I care. I am also not a journalist, but I am someone who specializes in media ethics. I have done public interest public relations on social issues ranging from worker rights, environment, sexual violence, women’s rights, racial issues, criminal justice, and so much more. I help reporters tell these stories in ways that make better laws for people. You may see stories for instance that criticize when reporters would say “had sex with a minor” rather than rape. Another example would be campaigning to change the language of “committed suicide” to “died by suicide.” That’s my work — helping correct how language is used to be more accurate. That’s called public interest public relations.

We advocate for better ways to tell stories and call out journalists when they make mistakes. I am accountable to the public and not someone who funds me. My work has appeared on the front page of the New York Times and other outlets many times and led to many instances of positive change to help people tell their own stories with dignity. I do indeed have an agenda, despite how pure it is, but a journalist is not supposed to have one. Our job is to keep journalists accountable to the public in the best way possible.

Last, the word independent is a vague one, especially in 2024, because one needs to describe what that means. Lately, I am observing a trend to see independent used in ways that are misleading at best as described below. What are they independent from? Money? Corporations? Government? The police? The tech industry? Mom and Dad? Independent from whom? The vagueness of the term can be misleading and manipulative. I have yet to see any truly, entirely independent media outlet in our capitalist system. A journalist’s job is to recognize that and be transparent about it. There are decades-long laws against payola and plugola and the newer FTC endorsement regulations for this very reason.

As media consumers, we need to be very wary of anyone who says they are independent. It should raise red flags for questioning. What does this mean?

How is someone’s “independent” blog different from the independent New York Times, for instance? The answer is that the structure of New York Times and most media that is of the traditional format follows a specific structure. The independence is based on the concept that advertisements and ownership are kept separate by a wall where journalists do not interact with it. The independence in that situation means it is kept separate from the funding, and so reporters are not beholden to funding to influence their coverage. But it also adheres to strict guidelines about how advertisements can be set up.

I have been around for a long time in this industry, before most of the media that exists today was even created and the existence of social media, and I have never seen a breach in this wall. Never. It would be illegal. It really works how it is supposed to work. It is easy to see who funds the New York Times. The New York Times is not hiding who funds them. The conflicts are reported in the business model alone. Those who write for the New York Times have no interaction with the ownership or the advertisers, and they do not report to them. I know a lot of progressives want to think that it works different, but it just doesn’t. Knowing media literacy is key, so that people can understand the greater issues. Discrediting the traditional format for the sake of what is happening now with dark money has some real risks. When referring to independent when it comes to those outlets, that is what we mean.

If someone is claiming that no one is supporting them financially, and does not justify how, then they are probably not being truthful or covering it up. We live in a capitalist system. Everyone is getting paid somehow. We can not fault workers for participating in the current system. Journalism should be invested in and costs money. No one should be doing journalism and not getting paid. Yet, being independent means acknowledging that and showing exactly how as part of your business model that you are not tied to misrepresenting the dollars based upon those connections.

For instance, I claim I write this independently, and I mean that no one is paying me. These are my own thoughts based on my experience in my career field. This is a medium post. I also explain that I do public interest public relations for a living and what that means. That means I have a bias. I have explained that bias. I am someone who supports and donates to progressive causes and media ethics. That should give you all the information that you need to know on if you buy what I am telling you. It’s all revealed. Anyone who does not give you those details is deliberately misleading you especially when using the word independent. The only thing I am dependent on in this piece is my set of moral boundaries.

All these points are very important for people to know regarding media literacy and maintaining a healthy democracy.

Now that we have defined key terms , let’s get back to the new 501c4 Phoenix Project website. A 501c4 is a dark money organization, by definition, and that. This means they do not have to disclose donors. And as of May 15, 2024, they do not, but I am told that this will soon be updated.

Sometimes 501c4 organizations have another reason for incorporating that way. In those cases, some of those organizations make the decision to disclose their donors anyway even though they legally don’t have to do that. Julie could do that, but she doesn’t.

For example, I am not a Garry Tan supporter and disagree with him politically, but it is not sensical to attack Garry Tan as a dark money donor and run an ad about that, as Phoenix Project is doing. Garry Tan is self-disclosing he donated to politicians. He is bragging about it. He has never claimed to be an unbiased source or journalist. That’s the defined opposite of dark money. That’s broad daylight saying you donated to a politician. I also donated to a politician. I donated to Shahid Buttar and Pamela Price and many others. Whether you think what he is doing is right or wrong — it’s by definition not dark money.

We can trace from public records, exactly how much he donated and where and for what reason. This allows consumers to make their own choices about whether they believe what he is saying or not. You can’t claim that someone is secretly donating money when they are posting it online for everyone to see and doing media interviews about it. He is vocally donating money to politicians. Unfortunately, that is how our current capitalism system operates.

As a media relations ethics expert, I am disappointed that I have to convince my progressive friends that dark money media is a real term with a definition. It doesn’t just mean anyone who has money that you don’t like, and therefore, they are likely nefarious. Such accusations lead to racism and all sorts of other problems.

The Phoenix Project is the dark money media operation at this given time.

Below are a few other points to document that will show exactly how it is unethical and happening at all sides of the political spectrum in San Francisco.

As Mission Local documents, progressives were all in an outrage when San Francisco Standard originally started as a dark money media outlet under a different name called Here/Say Media. This criticism caused the organization to restart in full transparency, listing the donors as Michael Moritz and Harriet Heyman. This no longer makes them dark money as they are open and transparent about who is involved and their agenda to get Chesa Boudin recalled.

For the record, I am a Chesa Boudin supporter and working on media about that is how I met Julie Pitta, of the Phoenix Project, in the first place. This is a life-long passion of mine due to my own experience with the criminal justice system after experiencing child sex abuse. At any rate, I am not seeing the same outrage about Julie’s organization, which is essentially a worse version of the same thing. How do we know that Phoenix Project is not funded by the same people? We don’t. Maybe someone out there in the tech industry hates Garry Tan and gave this organization money to run ads on him? We have no idea. Anything can be possible. I have seen a lot in my time in Washington. Not only that, but when you buy political advertising, the laws on libel are very laxed. It is very hard to sue someone for lying about you in a political ad, so this is a loophole for spreading disinformation using dark sources.

Phoenix Project is doing the same thing. Where is the outrage from the progressives? I seem to be the only one among them willing to speak out. Two wrongs do not make a right. Both Grow SF and Phoenix Project are 501c4s — what is the difference between them? Why is one better than the other? Grow SF discloses their funding sources in more cases than Phoenix Project. On the scale of dark money, Phoenix Project is off the charts. Any journalist who is covering this and not noting that both are dark money organizations is engaging in malpractice.

A similar situation happened when DSA, which also is a 501c4 dark money organization, started their own news organization, San Francisco Independent Journal, to run articles in favor of local politician Dean Preston. This had major problems because it didn’t list who was involved, who was funding it, and even some of the reporters and stories were entirely made up and didn’t even exist at all. Dean Preston was sending them press releases directly and some of his staff were very active in the club and paying dues, so technically they were funding it. That’s not news. That’s propaganda. Switch any organization in here that you disagree with for DSA…maybe AIPAC, which is the same type of organization, and see if you still think the practice is ethical. Over the top, ten alarm fire level of unethical. When Heritage Foundation is taking the high road in terms of ethics, in comparison to your organization, that’s not good.

The connection with an elected official Dean Preston at any level is the opposite of independent. It doesn’t matter how much I agree with Preston and the DSA politically. Switch Preston for Trump and see if you still agree. It’s still unethical. It is the same tactic that organizations like the Heritage Foundation, another 501c4, use with Donald Trump to tell news stories about him. But in that case, they are at least transparent about what they are doing. DSA makes no attempt to deny that they are not a pure news source and in fact failed to disclose anywhere that it was an initiative of the DSA. The DSA seemed to not understand the issue or journalism ethics and then lied about how they were set up when I confronted them about it — trying to claim not only that they are a pure news source, but that somehow it is more ethical because they are a nonprofit. They are a c4 nonprofit. See defined terms above. Those same people will now support Phoenix Project.

Until January 31, 2024, Pitta was on the board of the San Francisco Berniecrats, which is part of Our Revolution, a national dark money 501c4 organization. Taking part in a 501c4 would presents a conflict of interest of being a reporter. However, Pitta was not serving in a journalism role at the same time as she was working with them. This is a critical point of distinction. The confusion between journalist and activist and other roles is problematic in our world of media literacy.

In fact, Bernie Sanders himself was against the set up of Our Revolution because it went against the very topic he spoke out against — dark money. I was involved in the Bernie movement since before it started. What we started and where we are now is not what I support.

How do we know that it is not a Silicon Valley company that is funding the new organization? We don’t. The website also refers to it as a coalition — that is not the definition of the word coalition. Usually a coalition is multiple organizations combined. This is not the case here. It’s a small team. If we look at who is involved, we will notice that many of them worked in the office of local politician Dean Preston — again. See what happened when they tried this before at DSA.

Dean Preston is a multi-millionaire, elected official running for office right now. Who is the loudest one speaking out against him?…Garry Tan. Unbelievable that we now see a dark money organization attacking Garry Tan. Is Dean Preston a secret funder? We don’t know, and that is the point. We do know that Dean’s staff is part of this new organization. Anyone who can tell me with a straight face that they are not concerned about this has no credibility in saying their true concern is dark money and not some sort of secret political motivation.

Beyond that, another trend in media manipulating comes from outside actors. In this piece, I document how some of the progressive outlets were taking money from a former Google Executive, turned supposed progressive PR person, who happens to now be doing the PR for Pamela Price to prevent her recall right now. We are in a repeat of 2020, except replace Boudin with Price. As I note in my piece, William Fitzgerald bragged he gave money to media outlets, and this was not disclosed by outlets that are legally required to do so, like 48 Hills and Mission Local. The burden is on the media outlets and not William, in this case, to report who funds them. Either William is lying and never funding them or these reporters quoted William after he paid them, and they never disclosed it.

In a now deleted post that I screenshot, William brags that while working for Google, he paid off “think tanks,” also known as dark money organizations, to publish whatever they wanted. In light of Pamela Price recalls, could the same thing be happening again? You can search that part directly in my piece above, however, I hope that you would take the time to read the whole thing. I would be very grateful, because it is a very concerning trend in elections with an entirely bigger picture. I note items like how when DSA created their fake news website, it was the same month they were creating fake narratives and smear campaigns that were racist in nature about another political candidate.

Google is investing in many nonprofit news media outlets, which gives me grave concern, especially in the San Francisco market about how tech companies are co-opting our progressive movements. I have seen a mix of complacency, lack of information, and timidity in terms of reasons why people will not call it out. Yet, as long as it is transparent, it is technically ethical and legal. The issue becomes a problem when is not transparent. Is Google funding the Phoenix Project? Who knows. It is on consumers to decide if they think it is right or wrong. They can’t make that decision if they don’t know.

I am very concerned that in this time of media layoffs that dark money outlets are going to take over and present a real challenge to truth in America. In fact, as I write this, I see that Congress is meeting on the very subject right now to prevent election disinformation through media manipulation just like this. As someone who has been studying deepfakes and other elements like this for years, I am very worried about truth and integrity.

We are heading toward an information war and an uninformed public that will have grave consequences if we do not do something quickly. I have 20 years’ experience in the progressive media relations field, especially focused on media literacy. I am a progressive, but I am also very worried about the actions progressives are taking that will destroy the media ecosystem and truth in elections. What my politically like-minded peers are doing is wrong, and I can’t stand for it as someone who professionally works in this field and takes it very seriously. I have to speak out. Ultimately, it comes down to media literacy. I am on a mission to help people get better media literacy.

Please note that this was sent to over 300 members of the media in the San Francisco market.

A local “independent” journalist for Oaklandside, a google funded publication, Ali Winston responded he thinks it is a joke. This is someone who has been covering the recall of Pamela Price. I am not joking, but I am wondering what they are hiding.

Not one of them included any part of it in their coverage. Some of the coverage about the Phoenix Project fails to note that it is a dark money media outlet. Many of the articles fail to note that Grow SF and Phoenix Project are the same type of organization. One is noted as a noble non-profit and the other is not, and it is based on partisanship and not truth. We have a real problem, and I am worried it is not going to be fixed for a while.

If I am wrong, the comments are open. Anyone can correct me. Many times over I have given my phone number 202–351–1757 and email address patricia@matchmapmedia.com for anyone to tell me I am making a mistake. I will be glad to fix it. Not one person has been able to tell me that I am wrong thus far, so I don’t know why we are accepting it.

As someone who really watched the efforts of my “friends” in preventing recalls of Pamela Price and Chesa Boudin — it was absolute incompetence from the progressives to run any sort of campaign to keep them in office. In the school board recall, the San Francisco Berniecrats leadership spent so much time making weird charts and harassing people online that no one paid attention to rather than running a campaign to do anything productive. I will stand by that. I told them that they were infiltrated by the tech movement that they claim to be against, but they preferred to argue over signs and waste time with petty fights online than do anything productive. There was a very easy way to defend the media narrative with a nimble amount of staff and volunteers, (I showed up with a lot of experience and resources and offered to help them pro bono) and SF progressives did everything they could not to do that from what I observed. It’s really unnecessary for wealthy people to spend money to end those campaigns. It doesn’t usually work. Money doesn’t usually outrun a community. It did this time because progressives’ behavior was so bad. They tuned people out rather than bring them in. They did a just fine job of ruining themselves — despite my hardest efforts to prevent them from doing it. The sad part is that it is the national movement I poured my heart into that suffers. Shame on everyone. I hope they learn, but it looks like we are on a repeat again of the same thing.