{"id":168181,"date":"2020-09-07T12:00:43","date_gmt":"2020-09-07T11:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=168181"},"modified":"2020-09-13T08:52:44","modified_gmt":"2020-09-13T07:52:44","slug":"eminence-grise-journalisms-gates-keepers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/09\/eminence-grise-journalisms-gates-keepers\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00c9minence Grise: Journalism\u2019s ‘Gates Keepers’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Bill Gates, chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in 2019.
Samuel Habtab\/AP Photo<\/p><\/div>\n

21 Aug 2020 – <\/em>Last August, NPR<\/a><\/strong> profiled a Harvard-led experiment<\/strong> to help low-income families find housing in wealthier neighborhoods, giving their children access to better schools and an opportunity to \u201cbreak the cycle of poverty.\u201d According to researchers cited in the article, these children could see $183,000 greater earnings over their lifetimes\u2014a striking forecast for a housing program still in its experimental stage.<\/p>\n

If you squint as you read the story, you\u2019ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you\u2019re really paying attention, you\u2019ll also see the editor\u2019s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.<\/p>\n

NPR\u2019s funding from Gates \u201cwas not a factor in why or how we did the story,\u201d reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.<\/p>\n

And that speaks to a larger trend\u2014and ethical issue\u2014with billionaire philanthropists\u2019 bankrolling the news. The Broad Foundation, whose philanthropic agenda includes promoting charter schools, at one point funded part of the LA Times\u2019 <\/i><\/a>reporting on education. Charles Koch has made charitable donations to journalistic institutions such as the Poynter Institute, as well as to news organizations such as the Daily Caller News Foundation, that support his conservative politics.\u00a0And the Rockefeller Foundation funds Vox<\/em>\u2019s Future Perfect<\/a>, a reporting project that examines the world \u201cthrough the lens of effective altruism\u201d<\/a>\u2014often looking at philanthropy.<\/p>\n

As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations\u2014a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic\u2014an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.<\/p>\n

I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica<\/em>, National Journal<\/i>, The Guardian<\/i>, Univision, Medium<\/em>, the Financial Times<\/i>, The<\/i> Atlantic<\/i>, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly<\/i>, Le Monde<\/i>, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times<\/em>\u2019 Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for \u201cSuperman\u201d<\/i> supports Gates\u2019s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a \u201cnews site\u201d to promote the success of aid groups. In some cases, recipients say they distributed part of the funding as subgrants to other journalistic organizations\u2014which makes it difficult to see the full picture of Gates\u2019s funding into the fourth estate.<\/p>\n

The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report <\/a>from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines<\/a> on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders. A top-level finding: \u201cThere is little evidence that funders insist on or have any editorial review.\u201d Notably, the study\u2019s underlying survey data showed that nearly a third of funders reported having seen at least some content they funded before publication.<\/p>\n

RELATED:<\/em> \u2018When money is offered, we listen\u2019<\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Gates\u2019s generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the world\u2019s most visible charity. Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates\u2019s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle<\/a> to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise<\/a> to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft\u2019s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works.<\/p>\n

During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covid\u2014even though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. PolitiFact<\/a> and USA Today<\/i><\/a> (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively\u2014both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from \u201cfalse conspiracy theories\u201d and \u201cmisinformation,\u201d like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing covid vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundation\u2019s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead<\/a> and CureVac<\/a>.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture\u2014a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes<\/i><\/a>\u2019s list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decades\u2014like helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malaria\u2014but even these efforts have drawn expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm<\/a>, or distracting<\/a> us from more important, lifesaving public health projects.<\/p>\n

From virtually any of Gates\u2019s good deeds, reporters can also find problems with the foundation\u2019s outsize power<\/a>, if they choose to look. But readers don\u2019t hear these critical voices in the news as often or as loudly as Bill and Melinda\u2019s. News about Gates these days is often filtered through the perspectives of the many academics, nonprofits, and think tanks that Gates funds. Sometimes it is delivered to readers by newsrooms with financial ties to the foundation.<\/p>\n

The Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests for this story and would not provide its own accounting of how much money it has put toward journalism.<\/p>\n

In response to questions sent via email, a spokesperson for the foundation said that a \u201cguiding principle\u201d of its journalism funding is \u201censuring creative and editorial independence.\u201d The spokesperson also noted that, because of financial pressures in journalism, many of the issues the foundation works on \u201cdo not get the in-depth, consistent media coverage they once did.\u2026 When well-respected media outlets have an opportunity to produce coverage of under-researched and under-reported issues, they have the power to educate the public and encourage the adoption and implementation of evidence-based policies in both the public and private sectors.\u201d<\/p>\n

As CJR was finalizing its fact check of this article, the Gates Foundation offered a more pointed response: \u201cRecipients of foundation journalism grants have been and continue to be some of the most respected journalism outlets in the world.\u2026 The line of questioning for this story implies that these organizations have compromised their integrity and independence by reporting on global health, development, and education with foundation funding. We strongly dispute this notion.\u201d<\/p>\n

The foundation\u2019s response also volunteered other ties it has to the news media, including \u201cparticipating in dozens of conferences, such as the Perugia Journalism Festival<\/a>, the Global Editors Network<\/a>, or the World Conference of Science Journalism,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0as well as \u201chelp[ing] build capacity through the likes of the Innovation in Development Reporting fund<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The full scope of Gates\u2019s giving to the news media remains unknown because the foundation only publicly discloses money awarded through charitable grants, not through contracts. In response to questions, Gates only disclosed one contract\u2014Vox<\/a><\/em>\u2019s<\/a>\u2014but did describe how some of this contract money is spent: producing sponsored content, and occasionally funding \u201cnon-media nonprofit entities to support efforts such as journalist trainings, media convenings, and attendance at events.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Over the years, reporters have investigated the apparent blind spots in how the news media covers the Gates Foundation, though such reflective reporting has waned in recent years. In 2015, Vox<\/a><\/em> ran an article examining the widespread uncritical journalistic coverage surrounding the foundation\u2014coverage that comes even as many experts and scholars raise red flags. Vox<\/em> didn\u2019t cite Gates\u2019s charitable giving to newsrooms as a contributing factor, nor did it address Bill Gates\u2019s month-long stint as guest editor for The Verge<\/em>, a Vox<\/em> subsidiary, earlier that year. Still, the news outlet did raise critical questions about journalists\u2019 tendency to cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power.<\/p>\n

Five years earlier, in 2010, CJR<\/a> published a two-part series that examined, in part, the millions of dollars going toward PBS NewsHour<\/em>, which it found to reliably avoid critical reporting on Gates.<\/p>\n

In 2011, the Seattle Times <\/i>detailed concerns<\/a> over the ways in which Gates Foundation funding might hamper independent reporting:<\/p>\n

To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces. Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two years after the story appeared, the Seattle Times<\/i> accepted substantial funding from the Gates Foundation for an education reporting project<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These stories offered compelling evidence of Gates\u2019s editorial influence, but they didn\u2019t attempt to investigate the full scope of the foundation\u2019s financial reach into the fourth estate. (For perspective, $250 million is the same amount that Jeff Bezos<\/a> paid for the Washington Post<\/i>.)<\/p>\n

When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used\u2014often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works\u2014which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.<\/p>\n

For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely cited authority on journalism ethics (and an occasional partner of CJR\u2019s), earmarking the funds \u201cto improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.\u201d<\/p>\n

Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates\u2019s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites, including Africa Check, and noted that she is \u201cabsolutely confident\u201d that no bias or blind spots emerged from the work, though she acknowledged that she has not reviewed it herself.<\/p>\n

I found sixteen examples of Africa Check examining media claims related to Gates. This body of work overwhelmingly seems to support or defend Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation, which has spent billions of dollars<\/a> on development efforts in Africa. The only example I found of Africa Check even remotely challenging its patron was when a foundation employee tweeted an incorrect statistic<\/a>\u2014that a child dies of malaria every 60 seconds, instead of every 108.<\/p>\n

Africa Check says it went on to receive an additional $1.5 million from Gates in 2017 and 2019.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur funders or supporters have no influence over the claims we fact-check\u2026and the conclusions we reach in our reports,\u201d said Noko Makgato, executive director of Africa Check, in a statement to CJR. \u201cWith all fact-checks involving our funders, we include a disclosure note to inform the reader.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, McBride added NPR public editor to her list of duties, as part of a contract between NPR and Poynter. Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through ten charitable grants\u2014all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works.<\/p>\n

NPR covers the Gates Foundation extensively. By the end of 2019, a spokesperson said, NPR had mentioned the foundation more than 560 times in its reporting, including 95 times on Goats and Soda<\/em>, the outlet\u2019s \u201cglobal health and development blog<\/a>,\u201d which Gates helps fund. \u201cFunding from corporate sponsors and philanthropic donors is separate from the editorial decision-making process in NPR\u2019s newsroom,\u201d the spokesperson noted.<\/p>\n

NPR does occasionally hold a critical lens to the Gates Foundation. Last September, it covered<\/a> a decision by the foundation to give a humanitarian award to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, despite Modi\u2019s dismal record on human rights and freedom of expression. (That story was widely covered by news outlets\u2014a rare bad news cycle for Gates.)<\/p>\n

On the same day, the foundation appeared in another NPR headline: \u201cGates Foundation Says World Not on Track to Meet Goal of Ending Poverty by 2030.\u201d That story cites only two sources: the Gates Foundation and a representative from the Center for Global Development, a Gates-funded NGO. The lack of independent perspectives is hard to miss. Bill Gates is the second-richest man in the world and might reasonably be viewed as a totem of economic inequality, but NPR has transformed him into a moral authority on poverty.<\/p>\n

Given Gates\u2019s large funding role at NPR, one could imagine editors insisting that reporters seek out financially independent voices or include sources who can offer critical perspectives. (Many NPR stories on Gates don\u2019t: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>.)\u00a0Likewise, NPR could seek a measure of independence from Gates by rejecting donations that are earmarked for reporting on Gates\u2019s favored topics.<\/p>\n

Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined \u201cBill Gates Addresses \u2018Tough Questions\u2019 on Poverty and Power<\/a>.\u201d The \u201ctough questions\u201d NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter <\/a>posted to his foundation\u2019s website. With no irony at all, reporter Ari Shapiro asked, \u201cHow do you\u2026encourage people to be frank with you, even at risk of perhaps alienating their funder?\u201d<\/p>\n

In the interview, Gates said that critics are voicing their concerns and the foundation is listening.<\/p>\n

In 2007, the LA Times<\/i> published<\/a> one of the only critical investigative series on the Gates Foundation, part of which examined the foundation\u2019s endowment holdings in companies that hurt those people the foundation claimed to help, like chocolate companies linked to child labor. Charles Piller, the lead reporter on the series, says he made strenuous efforts to get responses from the Gates Foundation during the investigation.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor the most part they were unwilling to engage with me. They were unwilling to answer questions and pretty much refused to respond in any sort of way, except in the most minimal way, for most of my stories,\u201d Piller said.\u201cThat\u2019s very, very typical of big companies, government agencies\u2014to try to hope that whatever controversial issues have been raised in reporting will have limited shelf life, and they\u2019ll be able to go back to business as usual.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked about the dearth of hard reporting on Gates, Piller says the foundation\u2019s funding may prompt newsrooms to find other targets.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think they would be kidding themselves to suggest that those donations to their organizations have no impact on editorial decisions,\u201d he says. \u201cIt\u2019s just the way of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two journalists who have investigated Gates more recently cite what appear to be more explicit efforts by the foundation to exercise editorial influence.<\/p>\n

Writing in De Correspondent<\/a><\/em>, freelance journalists Robert Fortner and Alex Park examined the limitations and inadvertent consequences of the Gates Foundation\u2019s relentless efforts to eradicate polio. In HuffPost<\/a><\/em>, the two journalists showed how Gates\u2019s outsize funding of global health initiatives has steered the world\u2019s aid agenda toward the foundation\u2019s own goals (like polio eradication) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to disease outbreaks, like the Ebola crisis. (This narrative has been lost in the current covid-19 news cycle, as outlets from the LA Times <\/i><\/a>to PBS<\/a> to STAT<\/a><\/em> have portrayed Gates as a visionary leader on pandemics.)<\/p>\n

During the course of Fortner and Park\u2019s reporting these two stories, the foundation went over their heads to seek an audience with their editors. Editors at both publications say this raised questions about Gates attempting to influence editorial direction on the stories.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019ve dodged our questions and sought to undermine our coverage,\u201d says Park.<\/p>\n

During Park and Fortner\u2019s investigation for De Correspondent<\/em>, the head of Gates\u2019s polio communications team, Rachel Lonsdale, made an unusual offer to the duo\u2019s editor, writing, \u201cWe typically like to have a phone conversation with the editor of a publication employing freelancers we are engaging with, both to fully understand how we can help you with the specific project and to form a longer term relationship that could transcend the freelance assignment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The news outlet said it rejected the proposition because of its potential to compromise the independence and integrity of its journalistic work.<\/p>\n

In a statement, the foundation said Lonsdale \u201cwas conducting normal media relations work as part of her role as a senior program officer. As we wrote to Tim in December 2019, \u2018As with many organizations, the foundation has an in-house media relations team that cultivates relationships with journalists and editors in order to serve as a resource for information gathering and to help facilitate thorough and accurate coverage of our issues.\u2019\u2009\u201d<\/p>\n

Park says his editors stood behind his work on both stories, but he doesn\u2019t discount the foundation\u2019s efforts to put \u201ca wedge between us and the publication\u2026if not to assert influence outright, to give themselves a channel through which they could assert influence later.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fortner, meanwhile, says he mostly avoids pitching articles to Gates-funded news outlets because of the conflict of interest this presents. \u201cGates funding, for me, makes a good-faith pitching process impossible,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

Fortner, who authored CJR\u2019s 2010 story<\/a> on Gates\u2019s journalism funding, self-published a follow-up<\/a> in 2016 that examined how Gates funding is not always disclosed in news articles, including fifty-nine news stories the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting funded in part with Gates\u2019s money. The center also declined to tell Fortner which fifty-nine articles had Gates\u2019s funding.<\/p>\n

If critical reporting about the Gates Foundation is rare, it is largely beside the point in \u201csolutions journalism,\u201d a new-ish brand of reporting that focuses on solutions to problems, not just the problems themselves. That more upbeat orientation has drawn the patronage of the Gates Foundation, which directed $6.3 million to the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN) to train journalists and fund reporting projects. Gates is the largest donor to SJN\u2014supplying around one-fifth of the organization\u2019s lifetime funding. SJN says more than half of this money has been distributed as subgrants, including to Education Lab, its partnership with the Seattle Times<\/i>.<\/p>\n

SJN acknowledges on its website<\/a> \u201cthat there are potential conflicts of interest inherent\u201d in taking philanthropic funding to produce solutions journalism, which SJN cofounder David Bornstein elaborated on in an interview. \u201cIf you are covering global health or education and you are writing about interesting models,\u201d Bornstein said, \u201cthe chances that an organization [you are covering] is getting money from the Gates Foundation are very high because they basically blanket the whole world with their funding, and they\u2019re the major funder in those two areas.\u201d Asked if he could provide examples of any critical reporting about Gates emerging from SJN, Bornstein took issue with the question. \u201cMost of the stories that we fund are stories that look at efforts to solve problems, so they tend to be not as critical as traditional journalism,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

That is also the case for the journalism Bornstein and fellow SJN cofounder Tina Rosenberg produce for the New York Times<\/i>. As contract writers for the \u201cFixes\u201d opinion column, the two have favorably profiled Gates-funded education<\/a>, agriculture<\/a>, and global health<\/a> programs over the years\u2014without disclosing that they work for an organization that receives millions of dollars from Gates. Twice in 2019, for example, Rosenberg\u2019s columns exalted the World Mosquito Project,<\/a> whose sponsor page lands on a picture of Bill Gates.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do disclose our relationship with SJN in every column, and SJN\u2019s funders are listed on our website. But you are correct that when we write about projects that get Gates funding, we should specifically say that SJN receives Gates funding as well,\u201d Rosenberg noted in an email. \u201cOur policy going forward with the NY Times will be clearer and will ensure disclosures.\u201d<\/p>\n

My cursory review of the Fixes column turned up fifteen installments where the writers explicitly mention Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation, or Gates-funded organizations. Bornstein and Rosenberg said they asked their editors at the Times <\/i>to belatedly add financial disclosures to several of these columns, but they also cited six they thought did not need disclosure. Rosenberg\u2019s 2016 profile<\/a> of Bridge International Academies, for example, notes that Bill Gates personally helps fund the project. The writers argue that SJN\u2019s ties are to the Gates Foundation, not to Bill Gates himself, so no disclosure is needed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a significant distinction,\u201d Rosenberg and Bornstein stated in an email.<\/p>\n

Months after Bornstein and Rosenberg say they asked their editors to add financial disclosures to their columns, those pieces remain uncorrected. Marc Charney, a senior editor at the\u00a0Times,<\/i> said he wasn\u2019t sure if or when the paper would add the disclosures, citing technical difficulties and other newsroom priorities.<\/p>\n

Likewise, NPR said it would add a financial disclosure to a 2012 story<\/a> it published on the Gates Foundation, but did not follow through. (In the vast majority of articles about Gates, NPR makes disclosures.)<\/p>\n

Even perfect disclosure of Gates funding doesn\u2019t mean the money can\u2019t still introduce bias. At the same time, Gates funding, alone, doesn\u2019t fully explain why so much of the news about the foundation is positive. Even news outlets with no obvious financial ties to Gates\u2014the foundation isn\u2019t required to publicly report all of the money it gives to journalism, making the full extent of its giving unknown\u2014tend to report favorably on the foundation. That may be because Gates\u2019s expansive giving over the decades has helped influence a larger media narrative about its work. And it may also be because the news media is always, and especially right now, looking for heroes.<\/p>\n

A larger worry is the precedent the prevailing coverage of Gates sets for how we report on the next generation of tech billionaires\u2013turned-philanthropists, including Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates has shown how seamlessly the most controversial industry captain can transform his public image from tech villain to benevolent philanthropist. Insofar as journalists are supposed to scrutinize wealth and power, Gates should probably be one of the most investigated people on earth\u2014not the most admired.<\/p>\n

______________________________________________<\/p>\n

Reporting for this piece was supported by a fellowship from the Alicia Patterson Foundation.<\/i><\/p>\n

ICYMI: Portland\u2019s independent journalists team up to cover the front lines<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Correction:<\/strong> An earlier version of this story referred to an investment the foundation had made in a company, CureVax. It is, in fact, CureVac.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Tim Schwab is a freelance journalist based in Washington, DC.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original – cjr.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations\u2014a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic\u2014an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":168182,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[242],"tags":[1913,958,550,555,1017,125,378,1855,2157],"class_list":["post-168181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exposures","tag-bill-gates","tag-control","tag-corruption","tag-elites","tag-freedom-of-information","tag-freedom-of-the-press","tag-journalism","tag-mainstream-media-msm","tag-philanthropy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168181\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/168182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}