FTM: The Energy Foundation and Media, Part 4

Of course, what good does having a message do you if you can't get the word out?  You would expect media to be a big part of any large foundation's work and The Energy Foundation of San Francisco is no exception.

The Foundation has an excellent searchable grants database.  One of the most recent entries is this grant,

"Cater Communications (San Rafael, CA) $150,000, Grant Period: Jan, 2011 – Jul, 2011, To support media outreach on climate change issues."

I don't know why this is listed as a grant.  From what I can gather from their website, Cater Communications is a private PR and consulting firm.  Why should they be treated any differently from an accounting or law firm, providing professional services to a non-profit?


Another recent grant was listed as follows,

"American Security Project (Washington, DC) $40,000, Grant Period: Nov, 2010 – Jan, 2011, To support a radio tour focused on the economic impacts of climate change on specific states."

Presumably, this grant would support the non-profit's efforts to get the word out on its important work.


But then I came upon this grant,

"Kentucky Public Radio Inc. d/b/a Louisville Public Media (Louisville, KY) $40,000, Grant Period: Jan, 2009 – Mar, 2010, To support a series of feature stories on global warming as part of the Ohio River Media Project"

Kentucky Public Radio is that state's public radio network, affiliated with National Public Radio.  As we all know, NPR and its local stations are (partially) tax-payer funded entities and are considered by most to be part of the "mainstream media".  But if they are accepting money from a foundation to do a specific series of stories on a specific topic, how "balanced" would you expect those reports to be?   Would KPR interview anyone who dismisses global warming's impact on the Ohio river?  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

I guess you can judge for yourself here, third story.