Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism: Funded by Democrats critical of Bush

Source: New York Times

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: October 15, 2007

As struggling newspapers across the country cut back on investigative reporting, a new kind of journalism venture is hoping to fill the gap. Paul E. Steiger, who was the top editor of The Wall Street Journal for 16 years, and a pair of wealthy Californians are assembling a group of investigative journalists who will give away their work to media outlets.

The nonprofit group, called Pro Publica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations....“It is the deep-dive stuff and the aggressive follow-up that is most challenged in the budget process,” said Mr. Steiger, who will be Pro Publica’s president and editor in chief. He gave up the title of managing editor of The Journal in May, but is staying on through the end of the year as editor at large; during his tenure, the newsroom won 16 Pulitzer Prizes.

Pro Publica is the creation of Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, based in California, which was one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. They have committed $10 million a year to the project, while various foundations have provided smaller amounts. Mr. Sandler will serve as chairman of the group, which will begin operations early next year.

The Sandlers are also major Democratic political donors and critics of President Bush. Last year, they sold Golden West to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.

Pro Publica plans to establish a newsroom in New York City and have 24 journalists, one of the biggest investigative staffs in any medium, along with about a dozen other employees....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/business/media/15publica.html

articles online? It could be a GREAT SOURCE!

the work of some of the conservative "think tanks" that have had such an influence on our media.

''A decade ago, when Norm Pearlstine was running Time, Inc., we chatted about how exciting it would be to launch an investigative magazine. I said, 'Just put the country's best investigative reporters in one newsroom and watch the magic begin.' He loved the idea but didn't think it could ever be profitable. Today we're in a far worse environment. Most major magazines and newspapers have cut back dramatically on the little investigative reporting they were doing even 10 years ago. So Paul's approach makes plenty of sense.

''Most investigative reporters I know have been struggling to hold onto their jobs, while others have just given up and found other ways to make a living. Meanwhile, there are hundreds, even thousands of important stories that aren't getting reported today. Or else editors expect that that award-winning pieces can be knocked out with a week or two of reporting. Anyone who cares about great journalism better hope that Paul succeeds. There's plenty of talent out there he can harness. He'll probably have 100 great resumes on his desk by noon.''

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/the_state_of_journalism/richard_behar_there_is_a_dire_need_for_pro_publica_69036.asp

I'm excited at the prospect of a revival of investigative reporting in this country!

as their backers (large corporations) don't want them publishing or airing things that make them or the political connections look bad. I feel that even if good reporting was available for free, it won't get press because the corporatocracy doesn't want it. Still, I hope this takes off and that smaller papers are willing to pick up the stories and educate the smaller, regional and rural areas about what is happening in this country.

This will be an interesting test of the theory that there is no conspiracy to manage people's access to information in America.

The smaller the paper, the greater the commitment to local journalism. Owners of small papers pay as little as possible to a wire service for, in practical terms, filler.

The thinking is that readers look to metro newspapers and other media for national and international news. It's correct thinking, since small-town newspapers are usually the only source of local news.

If this "experiment" is going to take off anywhere, I predict it'll be with alt-weeklies, which typically operate with the smallest of staffs and often aren't locked into the rigid editorial policies of conventional papers.

local events--high school football, etc.--AND Bushite corruption. A great paper! They don't have a lot of money/resources for investigation, but they do what they can (for instance, they give lots of space to investigators and activists, in interviews and other coverage), and I'd bet they would LOVE to have an investigative service. Above, it says that this new news service--Pro Publica--is going to GIVE the investigative stories to news rooms. Give! So, apparently they're not expecting to make a profit from it--they have adequate funding to develop it and provide it for free--but want to use it simply to improve journalism and the info that the general public gets.

The Lone Star Iconoclast got into trouble with local business advertisers, because of their hard-hitting editorials and news articles on the Bush Junta--but I believe they were saved by people from around the country buying ads and subscribing, in support of their courageous newspaper. Also, they've gone on-line. http://lonestaricon.com/ So this is a somewhat ambivalent example for local newspapers covering BOTH local news and doing a good job on national political news and government/corporate corruption. It can get you in trouble with your local rightwing advertisers--and you have to find a way to ride that out, and fight back. One big difference, too, is that the Lone Star Iconoclast is independent. Most local papers are owned and controlled by huge rightwing corporate news monopolies. When the Iconoclast had a drop advertising, the owners and staff stuck with it. They were not answerable to big money bosses.

http://freepress.org/columns/display/12

He did a lot as an editor of a local rag, untill the "powers that be" ran him out of town...

Is there any other kind? Does a Democrat exist anywhere who is not critical of Bush? I mean, beside our elected officers... ;)