James O’Keefe and Project Veritas do excellent undercover investigations and are on the leading edge of journalism in my opinion.
O’ Keefe captures Obama official Van Jones and CNN contributor admitting that the Russia investigation is a “nothing burger.”
O’Keefe exposes the corruption of ACORN and brings down one of Obama’s cherished organizations.
O’ Keefe exposes voter fraud in Minnesota.
While I do think that Investigative Journalism is not yet dead, I do worry that it has largely been saved by Donald Trump and, once he leaves the scene, all of the subscriptions that went to the Washington Post or whatever will start to be retracted and everything will be back on the skids. As it is, it seems like every single media source is just re-reporting the Washington Post in condensed form, with a link to their site.
Personally, I think that the Federal government should establish a non-partisan, self-managing organization that independently reviews and double-checks the veracity of each news organization, and offers money to those organizations in equivalence to their rating, where rated by the least factual thing posted in the previous period.
This is a HORRIBLE idea! How many news organizations would risk their “rating” (and attached monetary compensation) to truthfully report on government misdeeds if it might mean a reduction in their government cheddar? This sounds like something almost straight out of 1984’s Ministry of Truth.
Federal government <—> non-partisan…independent(ly)
These days (and possibly from now on) mutually contradictory and mutually exclusive.
For once, I’m in agreement with HD. Government influence on the media is a Bad Thing.
The Washington Post and New York Times have both done a great job the last few years.
I haven’t heard of Teen Vogue being a good source of journalism, but I’ve heard people say good things about Buzzfeed’s journalism.
this is a joke, right?
Given his posting history, I doubt it’s a joke. But he ‘forgot’ the most telling one:
http://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefes-new-york-times-investigation-exercise-pure-stupidity-688959
I prefer citizen journalists to the employees of a billionaire oligarch i.e. the Washington Post.
No. Our elected politicians would soon enough turn it into another tool to damage the “other side”. I don’t know what stable influence can drive truthfulness in journalism, but it sure won’t be our government.
I don’t care where they come from. O’Keefe isn’t even a journalist; he’s a storyteller with no objectivity whatsoever.
Aren’t you missing Fox News right now? Maybe Hannity is coming up with a good, satisfying conspiracy theory.
Fox news is for boomers who ruined this country.
PS- I think Caitlin Johnstone who writes on Medium is pretty good too.
Ergo, the qualifications: independent and non-partisan.
Ergo the qualifications: independent and non-partisan.
Canada punches above its weight with some good journalism — CBC, Macleans, The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.
The Economist, The Guardian, Reuters, Le Monde, El Pais and the BBC are still good.
The New York Times and Washington Post are decent. CNN is occasionally good.
The Atlantic, Newsweek, WSJ, Bloomberg are dependable. Slate and Salon can be good. Buzzfeed has taken a few brave stands but isn’t mainly about news. The Huffington Post started many of the modern trends but has improved by times.
Here’s some more detail about one aspect of the Guardian’s response to the way “instant news” and more reflective reporting are being redistributed in the internet age.
There’s an ongoing knotty issue about press self-regulation in the UK, ever since the phone-hacking scandal broke (in part through the Guardian uncovering shenanigans in, particularly, the Murdoch tabloids, as well as others, and the press companies’ own adjudication council having been found wanting. There seem to be two rival organisations, one putting in for formal status granted by the government, one refusing to have anything to do with government involvement. But this all relates to press improprieties, and mainly about improprieties in collecting information about people’s private lives, rather than partial and slanted reporting - every paper has its known biases, much joked about. TV and radio have a different regulatory system, and are in any case bound by their various licences and charters to maintain impartiality in reporting news: that has its own difficulties, of course, but we don’t get blatant editorialising on our TV news shows.
A nice thing with setting up an independent agency that simply rewards truth in reporting is that it doesn’t prevent anything. There are no 1st amendment violations. No one is required to take the money. No one is prevented from earning money through selling news (or false news) to the general public. It’s purely a safety measure to make sure that some number of truth seekers can be supported financially, even if there is no market for it.
While overall it has shrunk down to little more than a quick free read at your motel of choice, USA Today occasionally does quality investigative journalism - for example, this story about sleazy exploitation of short-haul drivers (many of them poor immigrants) by port trucking firms that carry freight for major retailers.
With something like that, Watergate would never have seen the light of day.