This is a wonderful list, Radley Balko. I'll just add, for your less delicate readers (and considering your beat, they should all be less delicate), the expertise and analysis and lots of cusses from Wonkette.com.
Radley, thank you for this list and for your work. I've been a fan of yours since The Rise of the Warrior Cop; you've only gotten better at what you do.
I'd like to add to your list the work of States Newsroom, a 50-state network of online publications covering specifically state-level news. There's no paywall; they're philanthropically funded, and I know from personal experience that their lean staffs deliver a lot of news that just isn't getting covered anywhere else. Gannett has been particularly egregious in hollowing out its capital bureaus, and States Newsroom (the Wisconsin Examiner here in Cheeseland) is filling that gap. (Full disclosure: I'm married to the deputy editor of the Examiner.)
Thanks again for helping us all understand our world better.
Thank you for the excellent list of publications worth supporting in this difficult time for journalism. A small addition I would make to your list is Bellingcat (https://www.bellingcat.com/), which, as an independent international investigative reporting consortium, is also well positioned to resist pressure from the US government.
It is interesting that you cite Pro Publica and Mother Jones as being stellar examples of "journalism." I had the "pleasure" of being interviewed (for one hour) by Annie Waldman of Pro Publica, and for two hours by Eddie Rios of Mother Jones, both regarding a Trump appointment who had been one of my writing partners. Both writers were clearly intending to write hit pieces according to a hard-left narrative in which facts were left by the wayside.
Now, both writers tried to use manipulative ways to get me to trip me up or to say something about this person that they could use against her, but neither succeeded. (Waldman paraphrased what I said at the end of her hit piece and Rios decided not to write another article, since he couldn't trick me into saying anything incriminating against this person.) But what characterized both writers was the fact that both stuck to hard leftist narratives and that they were not willing to see anything outside of that bubble.
I also was involved in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case and dealt directly with a number of journalistic outfits, most notably the NY Times. It was quite clear that none of those outfits, save a couple (not the NYT or the Washington Post) were interested ONLY in pushing a hard, leftist narrative and nothing else. The NYT even got Peter Neufeld to say that DNA really didn't matter in rape cases. Yes, the NYT wanted us to believe that three young men could beat, rape, ejaculate into both the vagina and mouth of a victim, and not leave a trace of DNA even though no one used any bleach or other chemicals or anything else to get rid of the evidence. That is a stretch, even for the New York Times. Most of the other publications you mentioned also assumed guilt in that case.
Nor should we forget that Rolling Stone gave us the infamous "A Rape on Campus" story that made no sense even from the outset. The storyline was so comical that only a True Believer could think it was true. Yes, they went through the "we are sorry" charade afterward, but my guess is that they have not changed the narratives they use when approaching a story and I doubt seriously that since 2014, they only have printed the truth.
I have subscribed to your Substack page for the same reason I always have read your material. I still believe your reporting is accurate and that you have not substituted a narrative for the facts the same way I saw Annie Waldman and Eddie Rios and Rolling Stone and the NY Times do things. I only hope that continues.
After the Intercept ran a story claiming that inflation harms ONLY the so-called One Percent, I stopped taking that publication seriously. As an academic economist who has been publishing for 40 years and who has taught college economics for more than 30 years, I can give chapter and verse as to why the so-called One Percent actually benefit more from inflation than anyone else, but I suppose that the Intercept immediately would dub me an "enemy of the people" if I were to answer them.
I agree that good journalism comes in all forms and that people on the left -- and those on the right -- will produce good work along with the bad. I try to read across the spectrum and flesh out what seems to be true and ignore what seems to be propaganda. But I would not cite any of the aforementioned publications as being generally authoritative. Yes, I suppose that Pro Publica can do good journalism, but I am wary of any publication funded by George Soros (who has his own political agendas) just as I would be of anything funded by Elon Musk.
I will continue to subscribe to your Substack because I have followed your work for a long time (beginning with your Reason Magazine piece on Corey Maye) and I still believe in the work you are doing. But having had my own dealings with Pro Publica, Mother Jones, and the NYT and seeing their dishonesty firsthand, I will come to a different conclusion as far as they are concerned.
I appreciate the time you have taken to share real experience addressing the issue at hand--how to support journalism (I answer: keeping journalists honest and calling out attempts to subvert that ideal).
I'd also add: I think it helps to send an occasional "attaboy!" e-mail to a journalist who has done something good, especially for places like WaPo which already pay their journalists. It doesn't cost anything, but might make the world a slightly better place. I doubt that the big columnists read their e-mails, but individual reporters seem to. They often respond with a "thank you."
My requirement on top of everything else is the cancellation CANNOT REQUIRE a phone call. If I can click to sign up, then I can click to cancel. I recently cancelled my Houston Chronicle subscription for the predatory requirement of a phone call. And on my phone call, there was an argument over how that wasn't a legit reason. Guaranteeing I will never return. Thank you for the list.
You have my support. I’ve followed you since reading The Rise of the Warrior Cop when it was published. I’m so sorry that you receive death threats and your wife receives creepy, disgusting threats. The depths people lower themselves to - willingly & even gleefully - never ceases to astound and disgust me.
"Groups like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice litigate important free press/speech cases, though both also advocate on a number of other issues — IJ from a libertarian perspective, and the ACLU from a more conventionally liberal vi ewpoint. Both still do important First Amendment work on precedent-setting cases."
Does the ACLU still care about the First Amendment? In recent years the ACLU has become notorious for its embrace of scientifically baseless gender identity ideology and its doctrinaire advocacy for harmful practices such as so-called gender affirming care for minors.
In fact, the ACLU's ferocious lady lawyer Chase Strangio is such a zealous advocate for free speech that she said of Abigail Shrier's gender critical book "Irreversible Damage" "stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100 % a hill I will die on." https://x.com/DonovanCleckley/status/1327490159076585477
The ACLU has taken some positions that I find objectionable in recent years. But the group continues to defend the free press, the rights of the accused, and is on the right side of numerous other important issues. I think the good far outweighs the bad.
As for trans issues, I really don’t have the time to engage in a debate about the science. It seems clear from your comment that you and I aren’t going to agree on much. I think people should be able to live their lives in ways that make them happy, so long as they don’t harm others. Trans people are currently under attack, and I’m glad the ACLU is working to defend their rights.
Interesting Media Consumption List. You certainly confirm many of my choices when I did such a list recently. (https://happening-here.blogspot.com/2024/12/media-consumption-diet-2024.html) I'm always looking for new sources -- and even as the "mainstream" media shrivels, I keep finding them. But I do wonder how the workers who make all this are going to get paid ...
You're good to be so loyal to your colleagues, Radley, but the truth is that the professionalism of journalism has been collapsing for a long time.
And that has consequences. As one example, the personal nastiness with which Al Gore was treated--including by Washington Post writers--wasn't defensible. We are going to suffer trillions of dollars of loss and untold numbers of lives in climate change because journalists chose to trash Al Gore and prop up the climate bothsiderism funded by the fossil fuel companies.
This nation has been reeling from crisis to crisis because the press has torn down the competent and honest people in Washington and protected the incompetent and dishonest ones. George W. Bush was never suited to the presidency, nor was Donald Trump. Any halfway reasonable reporting on those two would have knocked them out of the running.
And, sure, there are great journalists at the Post. Just not many of them. And there are a lot of pretend-journalists normalizing the insurrection and lying about Hunter Biden.
By accurately representing the present, good journalism helps predict the future. That has economic value. I'm happy to pay for it. But junk news is worth less than nothing.
So let's be honest: journalism is in its death throes at almost every major newspaper, including The Times and the Post. But God bless you for defending the few who still can tell the difference between truth and lies.
Thank you, Radley Balko! Your response to "How to Support Journalism" deserves acclaim, and sharing it with all of my thoughtful friends who would make the time to read this. I agree that it is non productive to cancel subscriptions to WaPo and NYT to make a statement of disagreement with some of their editorial positions, or their ignoring of important news, or their promoting endless news aboout Trump in favor of underlying truth about issues involved. Some of the columnists are valuable sources of knowledge about our world. This article covers such breadth and depth that all researching this issue of how to support Journalism should save for future reference.
This is a wonderful list, Radley Balko. I'll just add, for your less delicate readers (and considering your beat, they should all be less delicate), the expertise and analysis and lots of cusses from Wonkette.com.
Radley, thank you for this list and for your work. I've been a fan of yours since The Rise of the Warrior Cop; you've only gotten better at what you do.
I'd like to add to your list the work of States Newsroom, a 50-state network of online publications covering specifically state-level news. There's no paywall; they're philanthropically funded, and I know from personal experience that their lean staffs deliver a lot of news that just isn't getting covered anywhere else. Gannett has been particularly egregious in hollowing out its capital bureaus, and States Newsroom (the Wisconsin Examiner here in Cheeseland) is filling that gap. (Full disclosure: I'm married to the deputy editor of the Examiner.)
Thanks again for helping us all understand our world better.
Thank you for the excellent list of publications worth supporting in this difficult time for journalism. A small addition I would make to your list is Bellingcat (https://www.bellingcat.com/), which, as an independent international investigative reporting consortium, is also well positioned to resist pressure from the US government.
It is interesting that you cite Pro Publica and Mother Jones as being stellar examples of "journalism." I had the "pleasure" of being interviewed (for one hour) by Annie Waldman of Pro Publica, and for two hours by Eddie Rios of Mother Jones, both regarding a Trump appointment who had been one of my writing partners. Both writers were clearly intending to write hit pieces according to a hard-left narrative in which facts were left by the wayside.
Now, both writers tried to use manipulative ways to get me to trip me up or to say something about this person that they could use against her, but neither succeeded. (Waldman paraphrased what I said at the end of her hit piece and Rios decided not to write another article, since he couldn't trick me into saying anything incriminating against this person.) But what characterized both writers was the fact that both stuck to hard leftist narratives and that they were not willing to see anything outside of that bubble.
I also was involved in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case and dealt directly with a number of journalistic outfits, most notably the NY Times. It was quite clear that none of those outfits, save a couple (not the NYT or the Washington Post) were interested ONLY in pushing a hard, leftist narrative and nothing else. The NYT even got Peter Neufeld to say that DNA really didn't matter in rape cases. Yes, the NYT wanted us to believe that three young men could beat, rape, ejaculate into both the vagina and mouth of a victim, and not leave a trace of DNA even though no one used any bleach or other chemicals or anything else to get rid of the evidence. That is a stretch, even for the New York Times. Most of the other publications you mentioned also assumed guilt in that case.
Nor should we forget that Rolling Stone gave us the infamous "A Rape on Campus" story that made no sense even from the outset. The storyline was so comical that only a True Believer could think it was true. Yes, they went through the "we are sorry" charade afterward, but my guess is that they have not changed the narratives they use when approaching a story and I doubt seriously that since 2014, they only have printed the truth.
I have subscribed to your Substack page for the same reason I always have read your material. I still believe your reporting is accurate and that you have not substituted a narrative for the facts the same way I saw Annie Waldman and Eddie Rios and Rolling Stone and the NY Times do things. I only hope that continues.
After the Intercept ran a story claiming that inflation harms ONLY the so-called One Percent, I stopped taking that publication seriously. As an academic economist who has been publishing for 40 years and who has taught college economics for more than 30 years, I can give chapter and verse as to why the so-called One Percent actually benefit more from inflation than anyone else, but I suppose that the Intercept immediately would dub me an "enemy of the people" if I were to answer them.
I agree that good journalism comes in all forms and that people on the left -- and those on the right -- will produce good work along with the bad. I try to read across the spectrum and flesh out what seems to be true and ignore what seems to be propaganda. But I would not cite any of the aforementioned publications as being generally authoritative. Yes, I suppose that Pro Publica can do good journalism, but I am wary of any publication funded by George Soros (who has his own political agendas) just as I would be of anything funded by Elon Musk.
I will continue to subscribe to your Substack because I have followed your work for a long time (beginning with your Reason Magazine piece on Corey Maye) and I still believe in the work you are doing. But having had my own dealings with Pro Publica, Mother Jones, and the NYT and seeing their dishonesty firsthand, I will come to a different conclusion as far as they are concerned.
I appreciate the time you have taken to share real experience addressing the issue at hand--how to support journalism (I answer: keeping journalists honest and calling out attempts to subvert that ideal).
I'd also add: I think it helps to send an occasional "attaboy!" e-mail to a journalist who has done something good, especially for places like WaPo which already pay their journalists. It doesn't cost anything, but might make the world a slightly better place. I doubt that the big columnists read their e-mails, but individual reporters seem to. They often respond with a "thank you."
My requirement on top of everything else is the cancellation CANNOT REQUIRE a phone call. If I can click to sign up, then I can click to cancel. I recently cancelled my Houston Chronicle subscription for the predatory requirement of a phone call. And on my phone call, there was an argument over how that wasn't a legit reason. Guaranteeing I will never return. Thank you for the list.
You have my support. I’ve followed you since reading The Rise of the Warrior Cop when it was published. I’m so sorry that you receive death threats and your wife receives creepy, disgusting threats. The depths people lower themselves to - willingly & even gleefully - never ceases to astound and disgust me.
"Groups like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice litigate important free press/speech cases, though both also advocate on a number of other issues — IJ from a libertarian perspective, and the ACLU from a more conventionally liberal vi ewpoint. Both still do important First Amendment work on precedent-setting cases."
Does the ACLU still care about the First Amendment? In recent years the ACLU has become notorious for its embrace of scientifically baseless gender identity ideology and its doctrinaire advocacy for harmful practices such as so-called gender affirming care for minors.
In fact, the ACLU's ferocious lady lawyer Chase Strangio is such a zealous advocate for free speech that she said of Abigail Shrier's gender critical book "Irreversible Damage" "stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100 % a hill I will die on." https://x.com/DonovanCleckley/status/1327490159076585477
The ACLU has taken some positions that I find objectionable in recent years. But the group continues to defend the free press, the rights of the accused, and is on the right side of numerous other important issues. I think the good far outweighs the bad.
As for trans issues, I really don’t have the time to engage in a debate about the science. It seems clear from your comment that you and I aren’t going to agree on much. I think people should be able to live their lives in ways that make them happy, so long as they don’t harm others. Trans people are currently under attack, and I’m glad the ACLU is working to defend their rights.
Interesting Media Consumption List. You certainly confirm many of my choices when I did such a list recently. (https://happening-here.blogspot.com/2024/12/media-consumption-diet-2024.html) I'm always looking for new sources -- and even as the "mainstream" media shrivels, I keep finding them. But I do wonder how the workers who make all this are going to get paid ...
You're good to be so loyal to your colleagues, Radley, but the truth is that the professionalism of journalism has been collapsing for a long time.
And that has consequences. As one example, the personal nastiness with which Al Gore was treated--including by Washington Post writers--wasn't defensible. We are going to suffer trillions of dollars of loss and untold numbers of lives in climate change because journalists chose to trash Al Gore and prop up the climate bothsiderism funded by the fossil fuel companies.
This nation has been reeling from crisis to crisis because the press has torn down the competent and honest people in Washington and protected the incompetent and dishonest ones. George W. Bush was never suited to the presidency, nor was Donald Trump. Any halfway reasonable reporting on those two would have knocked them out of the running.
And, sure, there are great journalists at the Post. Just not many of them. And there are a lot of pretend-journalists normalizing the insurrection and lying about Hunter Biden.
By accurately representing the present, good journalism helps predict the future. That has economic value. I'm happy to pay for it. But junk news is worth less than nothing.
So let's be honest: journalism is in its death throes at almost every major newspaper, including The Times and the Post. But God bless you for defending the few who still can tell the difference between truth and lies.
Thank you, Radley Balko! Your response to "How to Support Journalism" deserves acclaim, and sharing it with all of my thoughtful friends who would make the time to read this. I agree that it is non productive to cancel subscriptions to WaPo and NYT to make a statement of disagreement with some of their editorial positions, or their ignoring of important news, or their promoting endless news aboout Trump in favor of underlying truth about issues involved. Some of the columnists are valuable sources of knowledge about our world. This article covers such breadth and depth that all researching this issue of how to support Journalism should save for future reference.