I am so pleased with the Substacks as a news source. Their insight and honesty beat the newspapers by far. They are my main source of current affairs now.
Maybe there is the natural evolutionary state of man climbing down from trees. Thence to picking berries and forging. Then farming with workers now doing the heave duties as owners accumulate. Then a primitive form of collective self rule followed by sets of democratic forms of government which is followed by Tyrannical forms with Kim Sung Un and Putin being the most evolved.
The human species is toast. Can’t wait to vaca in Panmonjum for a little R & R. If I can bring some weight losing drugs like that little blue diabetes pill from Jardiance to Mr. Un, I’ll be a hero to the autocrats.
We, the people, have a collective survival instinct. The worst thing we can do is assume it won't work. The second worst thing we can do is assume that all we have to do is sit back and watch it work without our help. The minimum we must do is assume it will work with our active participation.
My thanks to our ancestors for doing the minimum, and I know they did because they would not otherwise have had descendants. Let's get together and pay that debt forward.
James Carey, I agree with you, and I'm frustrated that I don't do enough to spread the word to the "I don't watch the news about politics, because it is so upsetting" crowd. I send election postcards, etc., but the best thing I can think of is forwarding Heather's Letters to 15 friends, hoping that the "upset" among them will educate themselves and help to save this nation.
“One thing, I don’t know why; It doesn’t even matter how hard you try.” —Linkin Park, from “In the End”
The reason it doesn’t matter how hard you try is because of the butterfly effect (small actions have enormous long-term effects). The thing that does matter is making sure your small actions support the moral “everyone matters” team and not the immoral “we matter, and you don’t” team.
You can say that now, but you won't be able to say that on the day we live in a nation where people will not be judged by the chromosomes of their genome but by the content of their character.
The corporate media has failed egregiously to report "warts and all" about Trump, aiding and abetting the normalization of his malignant narcissism and sociopathy. It no longer holds power to account. We should hold it to account by withdrawing our readership.
I gave up on WAPO a month ago. I follow: Civil Discourse Joyce Vance, The Status Quo, What Did Joe Biden Do Today, Robert Reich, Adam Kinzinger, Rick Wilson’s Substack, The Hartmann Report, Chop Wood Carry Water, among others.
Thanks! I follow the same except what did joe and chop wood. I will check them out. I pay for joyce (and her chickens), cafe insider and shero. I, also, like Tiedrich. He often has a tidbit not revealed elsewhere.
yes, and his substack, "Thinking about..." - and anything else he's written. His Yale course, "The Making of Modern Ukraine," posted on YouTube is excellent, along with many other of his discussions posted there.
If the WAPO published this news today: "Trump accepted a $10 million injection of cash from Egypt’s authoritarian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. It is against the law to accept direct or indirect financial support from foreign nationals or foreign governments for a political campaign in the United States." It's HCR's lead, and nobody did anything about it when Barr sat on it, does that mean it can't be another prosecution? Oh, I see. Another "official act" with immunity? This is another felony from the lying SOS and his Scorruptus.
HCR, Hubbell, sometimes Robert Reich, often Joyce Vance. I don't have time to do much more - and I often find it useful to read as many posts in the comments section as I have time for.
In addition to everyone already mentioned, don't forget Jess Piper (The View From Rural Missouri). Also, for someone who doesn't consider himself progressive. who is a former Republican (but is very honest and very smart), Daniel Drezner. For people who care about Israel/Palestine, there is Peter Beinhart. Unfortunately, I can't afford to be a paid subscriber to all the good folks who are writing substacks that are better than the big media. I wish there was some sort of package subscription deal, where I could choose which 10 of them I wanted to read every morning and my subscription got distributed (in obviously small bits!) to whoever I read.
In addition to all the excellent suggestions so far, if you are a podcast listener, I recommend Stay Tuned with Preet. Preet Bharara is a former US attorney for the Southern District of New York (fired by Trump) and he discusses legal issues in the news with a number of guests. Joyce Vance is on at least once a week. I don’t have time to read as many newsletters as I’d like (usually 3 a day), listening to podcasts while I’m driving or doing housework allows me to add to it and I appreciate learning about the legal ins and outs of issues.
Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Robert Hubble, Dan Rather, Thom Hartman. For economic updates, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman. For an authoritarian watch, Diane Francis and Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I no longer subscribe to newspapers but receive The Guardian's online updates for a voluntary donation. Sometimes, I check the footnotes of the contributors and read their sources. I was following Margaret Atwood for her cheeky point of view, but lately, she has not contributed.
Public Notice, Talking Points Memo, Timothy Snyder Thinking About) who is author of On Tyranny and more recently On Freedom, Robert Reich, Joyce Vance and You Tubes Midas Touch Network: Legal AF
I canceled the NYTimes after their call for Biden to withdraw from the bid for the presidency "for the good of the nation," and THEN said absolutely NOTHING about the copious lies and blather that came out of TFG the night of the so-called debate, and routinely made no mention of the obvious decline in TFG's cognition and reasoning, or the fact that he IS A CONVICTED FELON.
I've flat-out had enough of people making excuses -- any excuses -- for why TFG should be anyone's choice for the Presidency.
There was also that extremely strange comment from the NYT executive editor (whose name I keep spacing) about how it would be fun / challenging / exciting / whatever to cover another Trump presidency. This guy's priorities, thought I, are completely screwed up.
Yep...same reason for me. The editorial board was blatantly showing a weird bias for a paper with their reputation...I couldn't stomach it anymore. I cancelled over the phone so I could tell a human working there why I was cancelling. I said I was cancelling because of journalistic negligence and am hoping it was passed on. I was taking the digital only version, but at least three or four people in my condo building were taking the print version and have noticed recently when I pick up my Denver Post in the lobby there were zero Times in the bundle. I hope they feel the financial and reputational fallout.
The Guardian was the last media I cancelled. Was a subscriber and then they both-sided when that report came out with the politically hatchet job on Biden's supposed memory issues. Heather is pretty much the only news I consume. While there's nothing wrong with following all of the Midas touch-oriented content (substacks included), it all feels like beating a dead horse to me and does nothing for me.
Definitely worth it. I get both the US and UK editions. Most of what I know about the UK and Europe more generally I get from either the Guardian or Al Jazeera.
All of the above except WaPo &....for breaking news I go to Daily Kos. Almost everyday I read HCR & I Robert Hubbell. Intermittently: Lucian Truscott, Mary Trump, Hopium Chronicles, Your Local Epidemiologist, Steve Schmit & That's another fine mess.
Well, the NYT and the WAPO are the sources for much of this muckraking that is distilled, summarized, and clarified here in this Substack. They also provide data on maps covering a wide range of topics that are not political. Thus, I will continue to subscribe to both. Ditto for ProPublica and the Economist, and I forget what else.
Since I can afford to donate to political campaigns, I feel it is also important to support the actual sources of data used to illuminate truth.
I give less weight to their editorial pages, though.
ProPublica, unlike the other sources you note, is nonprofit. They do work in cooperation on some pieces with the NYT, but ProPublica's focus appears to be more specifically on citizen's rights, investigating and reporting corruption (kudos again for their great reporting on SCOTUS, particularly Thomas). Democracy oriented.
The MSM still has the international resources and contacts and there are still some old-school journalists who believe in using their position for the purpose of speaking truth to power as well as the general public. The story of Trump getting $10 million from el-Sisi of Egypt to donate to his own campaign could only be done by a large organization with international resources and national clout, not to mention paying journalists while they researched. But as the sole source of information, they have blind spots as well as deliberate obstructive policies when it comes to stories such as the Palestinian genocide.
I heard about the Trump-al-Sisi story yesterday on MSNBC's Deadline Whitehouse, where Carol Leonnig appeared. Let's see what Bill Barr does to wash the newest stink off of himself.
What was the general reporting about Trump's meeting with el-Sisi, the invite, etc.? I seem to remember that I was more horrified than the general reaction that an authoritarian leader was being treated like a close friend.
Interesting. If a media sources digs up dirt about someone you hate, they're accurate, and if they are not as hard on someone else you hate, with all their sources, they're blind.
They have a chance to turn it around. Bezos has been asked to reconsider his choice of CEO. They don't have to stay in the gutter. We will welcome them back as allies of democracy when they once again report responsibly.
There have been so many great substacks/podcasts mentioned. I haven't noticed yet, but might have missed it in someone's remarks, Marc Elias' great work on Democracy Docket. So worthy of subscribers, including paid. He and is team are doing Herculean work for our imperiled democracy.
Of course, considering the lowered journalistic standards at the WaPo and the NYTimes in their reporting about US politics these days, it's possible Heather might decline to compromise her own standards to be published by them.
"Outstanding" journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post are nothing more than puppets bowing to oligarchs and nepos. These major resources have lost their way, the independence long cherished left with the falling profits. When Jaime Dimon and George Clooney are given front page editorial space to inform the reader of their superior knowledge? Journalism is dead.
Dr Richardson is much more insightful re: the actual machinations of today's politics than any of the journalists working for the big three are. Unfortunately, these important elements now need to be vetted. This is not John Peter Zenger's editorial or publishing world.
You say Dr. Richardson is "much more insightful..." and that journalists at legacy media are puppets. That seems to contradict the fact that today's letter starts, "...Aaron C. Davis and Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post reported..." I appreciate that Heather takes the time to read widely, pull together the threads of today's and, where appropriate, tie it to history.
"Outstanding" journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post are nothing more than puppets bowing to oligarchs and nepos.
You paint with much too broad a brush. Both papers have serious problems with fearless and independent reporting, but to say that all the reporters are salaaming puppets is highly inaccurate. Many of the stories Heather writes about are based on reporting from these papers.
Maybe don't read just the editorials. I find them most unsatisfying. Any article that doesn't substantiate its assertions is just a writer getting paid by the word, not for excellence in reporting.
Thank you, Heather C Richardson, for your Herculean (and Sisyphean) work panning for nuggets in mainstream media. I just cancelled my NYT subscription precisely because those nuggets are buried beneath so much rubbish. A recent «news» item included a reference to «President Donald J Trump» followed within the SAME paragraph by a reference to «Ms Harris». This outrageous slander was corrected post publication and probably buried with other nuggets on the back pages—too late, the damage had already been done. I read thousands of similar examples of this normalization.
If the quality of the articles in a pub like Wash post or NYTimes is MOL randomly distributed—some good, some bad, some in the middle—it’s going to be true by definition that stories like the one Heather relied on today are uncommon. They may have worked on thst for a year, employed other reporters and technical people. I can hardly image the cost of that story—quarter million $ has to be too low, half million, closer to a million? Takes very deep pockets and strong motivation to stay committed to that work. I’m willing to continue sending both of those orgs my few dollars each month to help with this work even though I’m VERY unhappy with lots of things they’ve been doing lately
Carole Leonig is a consistently wonderful reporter in the Washington Post. I believe the current article is a result of research done for a book she is writing with her co-author. It may be that she is still with the Post because they allow her the time and space (and resources) to do this type of deeply researched long-form investigative journalism. However, the NYT is just awful, and has been for some time. If the best they can offer is Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, that says it all.
Joan I find that there is some excellent investigative reporting in the WaPo, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Politico, and even in the NYT. Even the WSj apparently has the occasional worthwhile investigative report.
I agree that the ‘age factor’ reporting by the NYT and WAPo was dreadfully slanted. HOWEVER, with President Biden no longer the candidate, I sense a sharper tone against Trump—at a minimum, they should simply report accurately what he says.
The Week magazine has some excellent coverage of both sides of a major story reported in the press.The Economist is better on financial than political investigative reporting.
I just think we have to avoid the curmudgeon factor and damn the press in toto when there are excellent investigative reporters. We can't all be in little cubbyholes
Goodness...all those years the news was shared and we had no idea what was really going on ( So America for example ...Chile)
Abandoning the Times and the WaPo, not a good plan from my point of view
Newsletters are great,* particularly Letters from an American, but they aren’t all as reliable as HCR’s and have nothing like the breadth and depth of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The "breadth" and "depth" of the Sulzberger Sniper and the Bezos Bugle are used to put the organizational thumb on the scale in favor of Trump because the MSM lost half their subscribers/readers/viewers after Trump left office, and the intergalactic widgetmakers who own them demand they become "profitable" again. They see another Trump term as the way back to eyeballs and subscriptions. Profitability is their sole concern. The Executive Editor of the New York Times is on the record in an interview back in June that "defending democracy" is not the job of the Times, and that indeed 'democracy" is just another "issue," like inflation.
So, you go ahead and think you still live in the 1970s when the Times published the Pentagon Papers and the Post published Woodward and Bernstein. But be assured, those days are long gone.
"They see another Trump term as the way back to eyeballs and subscriptions. "
I think that is Bezos' least concern. Another Trump term will give him and the other billionaires absolute power because the Orange Felon will destroy democracy, crippling the power ordinary people (might) have over the self-absorbed billionaire kings. THAT is why they want him back in the White House: to have democracy utterly destroyed, so they can simply BUY the power they want. And they know that the Orange Blob can be bought to do anything, if the price is right... If money equals power, they will be all-powerful.
People on these substacks are cancelling the NYTimes. MeidasTouch.......2.7 million......David Pakman....3 million online subscribers.......there is no need for the Times anymore.......waste of $$$$$$$
I kept a subscription to the NYT - though I was reading it less and less, and when I was, was so often infuriated by their clearly deliberate headline misframing. After eight or nine years of watching this odd - and intentional - misframing of reports on those they wished to either undermine (Biden) or to elevate (DJT), I cancelled my subscription when the Times did their one-two punch by publishing Thos. Friedman's piece calling for President Biden to drop out, followed quickly by their editorial board calling for the same. The reason I gave when I cancelled via the Times' online form: "You didn't say the felon should drop out."
I could have offered many more reasons, going back years.
As has been noted, the NYT does offer occasional truly outstanding, indepth articles that can only be done with resources like theirs (the expose of DJT's years' long tax fraud; the genocide of the Yazidis at the hands of ISIS - a story that deserves follow up now; and more.) But I'd finally had it with their campaign against President Biden. That was it, for me. President Biden deserved better. So do Americans.
Did he say democracy is not worth defending or did he say it’s not the NYTimes job to defend democracy? A newspaper’s job is to report news and present fact-based, well reasoned opinions. Doing that job is vital to the health and well being of a democracy. When a demagogue like Trump gets traction and threatens to sabotage our democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime it is a newspapers job to report what’s happening and present opinions about what’s happening. That’s different from attacking and trying to defeat the demagogue. In a democracy, the people, hopefully well informed by a free press, deal with the demagogue themselves.
The NYT (and other msm outlets, too) softballed trump in its framing/headlinig of reports on him - to give him an advantage. And it has done negative framing/headlining of reports on Biden. It's been obvious and consistent.
The msm depends on the weirdness of trump to get clicks and revenue. So, they're sustaining him by the angling of reports because they think they need him. And by doing so, they are influencing voters on trump's behalf.
The Executive Editor of the New York Times is on the record in an interview back in June that "defending democracy" is not the job of the Times, and that indeed 'democracy" is just another "issue," like inflation.
IMO that's not the same as saying Democracy is not worth defending. The job of the news media is to provide us with information so we citizens can defend Democracy - the responsibility to defend it by voting. Voting should be mandatory. L&B&L
When will Heather be published in major newspapers and regularly reported on in the major news outlets?
I am so pleased with the Substacks as a news source. Their insight and honesty beat the newspapers by far. They are my main source of current affairs now.
I understand President Maduro, I mean former President Trump employ the same cook, I mean crook.
Maybe there is the natural evolutionary state of man climbing down from trees. Thence to picking berries and forging. Then farming with workers now doing the heave duties as owners accumulate. Then a primitive form of collective self rule followed by sets of democratic forms of government which is followed by Tyrannical forms with Kim Sung Un and Putin being the most evolved.
The human species is toast. Can’t wait to vaca in Panmonjum for a little R & R. If I can bring some weight losing drugs like that little blue diabetes pill from Jardiance to Mr. Un, I’ll be a hero to the autocrats.
We, the people, have a collective survival instinct. The worst thing we can do is assume it won't work. The second worst thing we can do is assume that all we have to do is sit back and watch it work without our help. The minimum we must do is assume it will work with our active participation.
My thanks to our ancestors for doing the minimum, and I know they did because they would not otherwise have had descendants. Let's get together and pay that debt forward.
James Carey, I agree with you, and I'm frustrated that I don't do enough to spread the word to the "I don't watch the news about politics, because it is so upsetting" crowd. I send election postcards, etc., but the best thing I can think of is forwarding Heather's Letters to 15 friends, hoping that the "upset" among them will educate themselves and help to save this nation.
“One thing, I don’t know why; It doesn’t even matter how hard you try.” —Linkin Park, from “In the End”
The reason it doesn’t matter how hard you try is because of the butterfly effect (small actions have enormous long-term effects). The thing that does matter is making sure your small actions support the moral “everyone matters” team and not the immoral “we matter, and you don’t” team.
I believe XX-chromosome people have a collective survival instinct. I'm not at all sure about the XYs.
You can say that now, but you won't be able to say that on the day we live in a nation where people will not be judged by the chromosomes of their genome but by the content of their character.
Sad compilation Bill, too close to call yet…but thoughts and prayers🤦♀️
Wow, who pissed in your cornflakes? Is that why you say human species is toast?
Who are your top follows? I need to replace WAPO, whom I recently canceled.
The corporate media has failed egregiously to report "warts and all" about Trump, aiding and abetting the normalization of his malignant narcissism and sociopathy. It no longer holds power to account. We should hold it to account by withdrawing our readership.
I agree.
I gave up on WAPO a month ago. I follow: Civil Discourse Joyce Vance, The Status Quo, What Did Joe Biden Do Today, Robert Reich, Adam Kinzinger, Rick Wilson’s Substack, The Hartmann Report, Chop Wood Carry Water, among others.
I also follow Everyone Is Entitled To My Own Opinion. His rants are laden with swear words, but reading his Substack is cathartic.
Thanks! I follow the same except what did joe and chop wood. I will check them out. I pay for joyce (and her chickens), cafe insider and shero. I, also, like Tiedrich. He often has a tidbit not revealed elsewhere.
Ruth Ben Ghiat, Jay Kuo.
Right: I forgot to mention Jay Kuo among my follows.
I will add Ruth to my follows. Thanks!
Robert Reich and Joyce Vance.
The Guardian
Been reading lots of Books on fascism and
Read Timothy Snyder's "Road to Unfreedom".
yes, and his substack, "Thinking about..." - and anything else he's written. His Yale course, "The Making of Modern Ukraine," posted on YouTube is excellent, along with many other of his discussions posted there.
I just got it!
Definitely the Guardian, and pay attention to Al Jazeera. I dropped the NYT after 2016 and am about to drop WaPo.
I hang onto the WaPo just for Jennifer Rubin. She's great.
If the WAPO published this news today: "Trump accepted a $10 million injection of cash from Egypt’s authoritarian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. It is against the law to accept direct or indirect financial support from foreign nationals or foreign governments for a political campaign in the United States." It's HCR's lead, and nobody did anything about it when Barr sat on it, does that mean it can't be another prosecution? Oh, I see. Another "official act" with immunity? This is another felony from the lying SOS and his Scorruptus.
She and Eugene Robinson are pretty much all that's keeping me onboard for now.
Thanks! Will do. And the Tim Snyder on You tube!
Robert Reich shared his last course on Wealth and Poverty on You Tube. Excellent!
HCR, Hubbell, sometimes Robert Reich, often Joyce Vance. I don't have time to do much more - and I often find it useful to read as many posts in the comments section as I have time for.
In addition to everyone already mentioned, don't forget Jess Piper (The View From Rural Missouri). Also, for someone who doesn't consider himself progressive. who is a former Republican (but is very honest and very smart), Daniel Drezner. For people who care about Israel/Palestine, there is Peter Beinhart. Unfortunately, I can't afford to be a paid subscriber to all the good folks who are writing substacks that are better than the big media. I wish there was some sort of package subscription deal, where I could choose which 10 of them I wanted to read every morning and my subscription got distributed (in obviously small bits!) to whoever I read.
Yes re Jess....😊 ...I agree, there are many who I wud read if I cud subscribe.....worthy idea!!!!
Robert Hubbell, TC in LA, Rick Wilson too
Click around when people comment about different writers and you will find your trusted news sources.
I’ll check on Hubbell. Thanks!
In addition to all the excellent suggestions so far, if you are a podcast listener, I recommend Stay Tuned with Preet. Preet Bharara is a former US attorney for the Southern District of New York (fired by Trump) and he discusses legal issues in the news with a number of guests. Joyce Vance is on at least once a week. I don’t have time to read as many newsletters as I’d like (usually 3 a day), listening to podcasts while I’m driving or doing housework allows me to add to it and I appreciate learning about the legal ins and outs of issues.
Just read in another comment you already follow Cafe Insider. I’ll leave the comment in case it’s helpful for anyone else.
Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance, Robert Hubble, Dan Rather, Thom Hartman. For economic updates, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman. For an authoritarian watch, Diane Francis and Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I no longer subscribe to newspapers but receive The Guardian's online updates for a voluntary donation. Sometimes, I check the footnotes of the contributors and read their sources. I was following Margaret Atwood for her cheeky point of view, but lately, she has not contributed.
similar to who I read and follow. Really enjoy Atwood's take
Heather, Reich, Vance…
Public Notice, Talking Points Memo, Timothy Snyder Thinking About) who is author of On Tyranny and more recently On Freedom, Robert Reich, Joyce Vance and You Tubes Midas Touch Network: Legal AF
Another fervent democracy booster is Robert Hubbell. His Substack is called Today's Edition.
I recently cancelled the NY Times and now get my news from The Guardian and HRC.
I canceled the NYTimes after their call for Biden to withdraw from the bid for the presidency "for the good of the nation," and THEN said absolutely NOTHING about the copious lies and blather that came out of TFG the night of the so-called debate, and routinely made no mention of the obvious decline in TFG's cognition and reasoning, or the fact that he IS A CONVICTED FELON.
I've flat-out had enough of people making excuses -- any excuses -- for why TFG should be anyone's choice for the Presidency.
There was also that extremely strange comment from the NYT executive editor (whose name I keep spacing) about how it would be fun / challenging / exciting / whatever to cover another Trump presidency. This guy's priorities, thought I, are completely screwed up.
Yep...same reason for me. The editorial board was blatantly showing a weird bias for a paper with their reputation...I couldn't stomach it anymore. I cancelled over the phone so I could tell a human working there why I was cancelling. I said I was cancelling because of journalistic negligence and am hoping it was passed on. I was taking the digital only version, but at least three or four people in my condo building were taking the print version and have noticed recently when I pick up my Denver Post in the lobby there were zero Times in the bundle. I hope they feel the financial and reputational fallout.
I will make it a point to read the Guardian more consistently. Thanks.
The Guardian was the last media I cancelled. Was a subscriber and then they both-sided when that report came out with the politically hatchet job on Biden's supposed memory issues. Heather is pretty much the only news I consume. While there's nothing wrong with following all of the Midas touch-oriented content (substacks included), it all feels like beating a dead horse to me and does nothing for me.
Definitely worth it. I get both the US and UK editions. Most of what I know about the UK and Europe more generally I get from either the Guardian or Al Jazeera.
For a challenge, try Quora.
The Guardian has some good writers and articles.
All of the above except WaPo &....for breaking news I go to Daily Kos. Almost everyday I read HCR & I Robert Hubbell. Intermittently: Lucian Truscott, Mary Trump, Hopium Chronicles, Your Local Epidemiologist, Steve Schmit & That's another fine mess.
Well, the NYT and the WAPO are the sources for much of this muckraking that is distilled, summarized, and clarified here in this Substack. They also provide data on maps covering a wide range of topics that are not political. Thus, I will continue to subscribe to both. Ditto for ProPublica and the Economist, and I forget what else.
Since I can afford to donate to political campaigns, I feel it is also important to support the actual sources of data used to illuminate truth.
I give less weight to their editorial pages, though.
ProPublica, unlike the other sources you note, is nonprofit. They do work in cooperation on some pieces with the NYT, but ProPublica's focus appears to be more specifically on citizen's rights, investigating and reporting corruption (kudos again for their great reporting on SCOTUS, particularly Thomas). Democracy oriented.
Me too! The world has changed. We can no longer look to mainstream media for honest, impartial reporting.
The MSM still has the international resources and contacts and there are still some old-school journalists who believe in using their position for the purpose of speaking truth to power as well as the general public. The story of Trump getting $10 million from el-Sisi of Egypt to donate to his own campaign could only be done by a large organization with international resources and national clout, not to mention paying journalists while they researched. But as the sole source of information, they have blind spots as well as deliberate obstructive policies when it comes to stories such as the Palestinian genocide.
I heard about the Trump-al-Sisi story yesterday on MSNBC's Deadline Whitehouse, where Carol Leonnig appeared. Let's see what Bill Barr does to wash the newest stink off of himself.
What was the general reporting about Trump's meeting with el-Sisi, the invite, etc.? I seem to remember that I was more horrified than the general reaction that an authoritarian leader was being treated like a close friend.
Interesting. If a media sources digs up dirt about someone you hate, they're accurate, and if they are not as hard on someone else you hate, with all their sources, they're blind.
Got it.
Just a point, WaPo did publish the investigative report at the top of their page. So I'm confused.
I subscribe to WaPo and my local paper. They aren’t perfect, but I believe in supporting them even in their imperfection.
They have a chance to turn it around. Bezos has been asked to reconsider his choice of CEO. They don't have to stay in the gutter. We will welcome them back as allies of democracy when they once again report responsibly.
Martha, it's doubtless because Carol Leonnig works for the WaPo, and book will appear on the shelves soon.
There have been so many great substacks/podcasts mentioned. I haven't noticed yet, but might have missed it in someone's remarks, Marc Elias' great work on Democracy Docket. So worthy of subscribers, including paid. He and is team are doing Herculean work for our imperiled democracy.
Problem being the limited reach of these sources of information .
But we can spread the word -- We The People!
Mine too! Only honest news communications in the nation.
Of course, considering the lowered journalistic standards at the WaPo and the NYTimes in their reporting about US politics these days, it's possible Heather might decline to compromise her own standards to be published by them.
In general, I agree. However, HCR cites here and pretty often the work of specific outstanding journalists at WaPo and the NYT.
That's different. She is citing sources, she is not buying the whole kit and caboodle.
That's why I said, above, that HCR cites specific journalists at those outlets.
And major outlets provide resources for journalists that is an important element for their reporting. That's not saying those outlets aren't flawed.
"Outstanding" journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post are nothing more than puppets bowing to oligarchs and nepos. These major resources have lost their way, the independence long cherished left with the falling profits. When Jaime Dimon and George Clooney are given front page editorial space to inform the reader of their superior knowledge? Journalism is dead.
Dr Richardson is much more insightful re: the actual machinations of today's politics than any of the journalists working for the big three are. Unfortunately, these important elements now need to be vetted. This is not John Peter Zenger's editorial or publishing world.
You say Dr. Richardson is "much more insightful..." and that journalists at legacy media are puppets. That seems to contradict the fact that today's letter starts, "...Aaron C. Davis and Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post reported..." I appreciate that Heather takes the time to read widely, pull together the threads of today's and, where appropriate, tie it to history.
"Outstanding" journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post are nothing more than puppets bowing to oligarchs and nepos.
You paint with much too broad a brush. Both papers have serious problems with fearless and independent reporting, but to say that all the reporters are salaaming puppets is highly inaccurate. Many of the stories Heather writes about are based on reporting from these papers.
Maybe don't read just the editorials. I find them most unsatisfying. Any article that doesn't substantiate its assertions is just a writer getting paid by the word, not for excellence in reporting.
Thank you, Heather C Richardson, for your Herculean (and Sisyphean) work panning for nuggets in mainstream media. I just cancelled my NYT subscription precisely because those nuggets are buried beneath so much rubbish. A recent «news» item included a reference to «President Donald J Trump» followed within the SAME paragraph by a reference to «Ms Harris». This outrageous slander was corrected post publication and probably buried with other nuggets on the back pages—too late, the damage had already been done. I read thousands of similar examples of this normalization.
Use good information when you find it. You can find a diamond in a rubbish heap but you have to be able to recognize it when you see it.
Few and far between…
In this piece HCR is citing the WaPo reporters who researched and broke this huge story. There is some excellent reporting
Unfortunately the "good stuff" is the minority of what shows up.
If the quality of the articles in a pub like Wash post or NYTimes is MOL randomly distributed—some good, some bad, some in the middle—it’s going to be true by definition that stories like the one Heather relied on today are uncommon. They may have worked on thst for a year, employed other reporters and technical people. I can hardly image the cost of that story—quarter million $ has to be too low, half million, closer to a million? Takes very deep pockets and strong motivation to stay committed to that work. I’m willing to continue sending both of those orgs my few dollars each month to help with this work even though I’m VERY unhappy with lots of things they’ve been doing lately
Carole Leonig is a consistently wonderful reporter in the Washington Post. I believe the current article is a result of research done for a book she is writing with her co-author. It may be that she is still with the Post because they allow her the time and space (and resources) to do this type of deeply researched long-form investigative journalism. However, the NYT is just awful, and has been for some time. If the best they can offer is Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, that says it all.
Joan I find that there is some excellent investigative reporting in the WaPo, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Politico, and even in the NYT. Even the WSj apparently has the occasional worthwhile investigative report.
I agree that the ‘age factor’ reporting by the NYT and WAPo was dreadfully slanted. HOWEVER, with President Biden no longer the candidate, I sense a sharper tone against Trump—at a minimum, they should simply report accurately what he says.
The Week magazine has some excellent coverage of both sides of a major story reported in the press.The Economist is better on financial than political investigative reporting.
Yes I read all those sources too
I just think we have to avoid the curmudgeon factor and damn the press in toto when there are excellent investigative reporters. We can't all be in little cubbyholes
Goodness...all those years the news was shared and we had no idea what was really going on ( So America for example ...Chile)
Abandoning the Times and the WaPo, not a good plan from my point of view
Newsletters are great,* particularly Letters from an American, but they aren’t all as reliable as HCR’s and have nothing like the breadth and depth of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
*Here’s another one of my favorites:
https://james-newsletter-62b730.beehiiv.com/
The "breadth" and "depth" of the Sulzberger Sniper and the Bezos Bugle are used to put the organizational thumb on the scale in favor of Trump because the MSM lost half their subscribers/readers/viewers after Trump left office, and the intergalactic widgetmakers who own them demand they become "profitable" again. They see another Trump term as the way back to eyeballs and subscriptions. Profitability is their sole concern. The Executive Editor of the New York Times is on the record in an interview back in June that "defending democracy" is not the job of the Times, and that indeed 'democracy" is just another "issue," like inflation.
So, you go ahead and think you still live in the 1970s when the Times published the Pentagon Papers and the Post published Woodward and Bernstein. But be assured, those days are long gone.
"They see another Trump term as the way back to eyeballs and subscriptions. "
I think that is Bezos' least concern. Another Trump term will give him and the other billionaires absolute power because the Orange Felon will destroy democracy, crippling the power ordinary people (might) have over the self-absorbed billionaire kings. THAT is why they want him back in the White House: to have democracy utterly destroyed, so they can simply BUY the power they want. And they know that the Orange Blob can be bought to do anything, if the price is right... If money equals power, they will be all-powerful.
Is it just me, or is convicted felon DonOld looking and acting more and more like Jabba the Hut?
He is the face (and putrid body) of evil, but the web supporting him is just $$$/💪
Yes. Looking, acting AND talking, I'd say.
I can only say “wow” to the NYT executive editor. Democracy is not worth defending. We don’t have a chance when we lose this support.
The NYT should have subscribers leave - that line - 'Democracy is not worth defending' - is awful.
People on these substacks are cancelling the NYTimes. MeidasTouch.......2.7 million......David Pakman....3 million online subscribers.......there is no need for the Times anymore.......waste of $$$$$$$
I kept a subscription to the NYT - though I was reading it less and less, and when I was, was so often infuriated by their clearly deliberate headline misframing. After eight or nine years of watching this odd - and intentional - misframing of reports on those they wished to either undermine (Biden) or to elevate (DJT), I cancelled my subscription when the Times did their one-two punch by publishing Thos. Friedman's piece calling for President Biden to drop out, followed quickly by their editorial board calling for the same. The reason I gave when I cancelled via the Times' online form: "You didn't say the felon should drop out."
I could have offered many more reasons, going back years.
As has been noted, the NYT does offer occasional truly outstanding, indepth articles that can only be done with resources like theirs (the expose of DJT's years' long tax fraud; the genocide of the Yazidis at the hands of ISIS - a story that deserves follow up now; and more.) But I'd finally had it with their campaign against President Biden. That was it, for me. President Biden deserved better. So do Americans.
Did he say democracy is not worth defending or did he say it’s not the NYTimes job to defend democracy? A newspaper’s job is to report news and present fact-based, well reasoned opinions. Doing that job is vital to the health and well being of a democracy. When a demagogue like Trump gets traction and threatens to sabotage our democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime it is a newspapers job to report what’s happening and present opinions about what’s happening. That’s different from attacking and trying to defeat the demagogue. In a democracy, the people, hopefully well informed by a free press, deal with the demagogue themselves.
The NYT (and other msm outlets, too) softballed trump in its framing/headlinig of reports on him - to give him an advantage. And it has done negative framing/headlining of reports on Biden. It's been obvious and consistent.
The msm depends on the weirdness of trump to get clicks and revenue. So, they're sustaining him by the angling of reports because they think they need him. And by doing so, they are influencing voters on trump's behalf.
The Executive Editor of the New York Times is on the record in an interview back in June that "defending democracy" is not the job of the Times, and that indeed 'democracy" is just another "issue," like inflation.
IMO that's not the same as saying Democracy is not worth defending. The job of the news media is to provide us with information so we citizens can defend Democracy - the responsibility to defend it by voting. Voting should be mandatory. L&B&L