Climate activists spend millions for friendly Associated Press ‘news.’

When climate activists called for more coverage, the Associated Press went green.

No, it didn’t dive into environmental activism. The news agency had already done that. It dove into a pile of cash — more than $8 million.

AP just announced it sold its gold-standard journalism for 20 bright, shiny new reporters under the benign headline “Climate grant illustrates growth in philanthropy-funded news.” The announcement was adorned with a photo of a polar bear (of course) because journalists do love their cute, man-eating predators.

That $8 million over three years works out to about $133,000 per staffer — in case you’re interested in buying (or renting) a journalist or two.

AP noted it’s “the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants.” But the groups ponying up millions aren’t value-neutral benefactors.

The five climate partners include left-wing groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and Quadrivium. Walton and Quadrivium both fund the radical, eco-leftist Environmental Defense Fund. The pressure group pushes everything from massive pollution regulations to Biden’s Build Back Better plan, which it calls “a long-overdue step to address environmental injustice.”

Just like AP, only more honest.

Quadrivium is the foundation of Kathryn and James Murdoch, which has given more than $14 million to EDF, which signed a 2021 letter demanding America require “carbon-free electricity by 2035.”

Former Obama US Agency for International Development head Rajiv Shah leads Rockefeller. The foundation gave $1 million to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. And it’s no stranger to buying coverage: It previously gave AP $750,000 for “reporting on the increased and urgent need for reliable, renewable electricity in underserved communities worldwide.” With instruction like that, AP is sure to be neutral.

Indeed, the “news” organization has had its hand out to rich people for years. Journalism used to be about who, what, where, when and why. AP is adding “how much.”

“It’s the most recent of a series of grants the AP has received since the mid-2010s to boost coverage in health and science, religion, water issues and philanthropy itself. Some 50 AP journalists have jobs funded through grants,” the article noted. Add another 20 focused on climate.

Maybe the better question is: How many AP staffers aren’t for sale?

Funded news stories carry taglines indicating which pressure group ponied up cash. Will AP institute donor patches for staffers to wear like NASCAR racers promoting advertisers?

AP proudly admits that it’s in bed with its funders’ agenda. It explained that such setups didn’t happen before because news outlets weren’t yet poor and “philanthropists didn’t see the need, or how journalists could help them achieve their goals.”

Money changes everything.

Its “news” article was more like a 1,000-word rationalization for memory-holing decades of journalistic-conduct rules. It’s especially sad because AP has a massive code of ethics. It insists: “We avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest that compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.”

The easy way around that is for AP to just decide that whatever sketchy stuff it does isn’t a “conflict of interest.”

Voila! Ethics!

Interestingly, the AP code of ethics is weaker than the Society of Professional Journalists’. SPJ’s code doesn’t leave wiggle room. It states: “Journalists should: Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”

Real or perceived. Even if the greedy leftists at AP claim this isn’t a conflict, they have to admit someone else sees it that way.

So what do the funders get for their largesse?

AP’s “climate hub” page is topped with a huge photograph of more than a dozen offshore windmills because everyone knows windmills are green. Right? Except even AP admits they aren’t. A Feb. 27, 2021, article observes that “states are facing an increasingly worrisome dilemma of dealing with the massive amounts of waste created by the wind industry.”

The reason: The blades aren’t recyclable. A 2019 AP story notes: “Critics of wind energy say the blades’ march to a landfill weakens the industry’s claim it’s an environmentally friendly source of energy.”

That’s right, windmill blades are headed to landfills. They should bury them next to another useless relic — AP’s code of ethics.