The long-term decline in newspaper circulation presents the
conservative movement with an excellent opportunity to increase its
influence with the media. Falling readership and tighter budgets
are forcing newspapers to dedicate fewer staff to investigative
reporting. As a result, they are increasingly relying upon
nonprofit organizations to fill the gap.
A 2005 Arizona State University study found that 37 percent of
the 100 leading daily newspapers had no full-time investigative
reporters. A majority had two or fewer.
Although the largest newspapers have usually been reluctant to
use reporting from other organizations, experts say the resistance
is breaking down as they get squeezed financially.
Stephen B. Shepard, dean of the City University of New York’s
Graduate School of Journalism and a former BusinessWeek
editor, says newspapers are “looking for alternative means of
paying for ambitious journalism.”
If conservative nonprofit organizations significantly increase
their use of investigative reporting, then the movement will be
able to partly offset the liberal bias of the mainstream media.
Despite their political agenda, newspapers and TV networks like
scandals simply because they make great headlines. Experience shows
that they will cover scandals exposed by conservatives.
For instance, the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) has
been successful in publicizing earmark abuse and criminal
profiteering from government spending.
In March 2006, following a 10-month investigation, NLPC filed a
criminal complaint with the US Justice Department. It charged that
Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), a member of the House
Appropriations Committee and then-ranking Democrat on the House
Ethics Committee, illegally profited by funneling millions of
dollars in earmarks to friends and associates who then cut him in
on lucrative business deals.
NLPC suspected that Mollohan was shady because his personal
wealth, as disclosed on his Financial Disclosure Form, which all
congressmen must file every year, went from extremely modest assets
to having $6 million to $24 million in assets over a four-year
period.
The story was extensively covered by the Wall Street
Journal, the New York Times, the Washington
Post, Associated Press, CNN, ABC, and other news outlets.
Mollohan was subsequently forced to resign from the Ethics
Committee, due in part to pressure from Nancy Pelosi who wasn’t
thrilled that Mollohan put the lie to her charge that Republicans
had fostered a “culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill.
A federal Grand Jury is currently investigating Mollohan.
NLPC BROKE THE Mollohan story only because it had the staff,
expertise and time to conduct a thorough investigation. It is
highly unlikely that a major newspaper would have bothered to do
such research. Even newspapers that have the investigative tools
are unlikely to pursue such a story because they aren’t certain it
will necessarily lead to a headline-grabbing scandal.
The Mollohan case clearly shows that by aggressively getting
involved in investigative journalism conservative nonprofit
organizations stand to enormously change the terms of the media
debate, perhaps in much the same way that Fox News and Talk Radio
revolutionized media coverage.
However, the media’s increasing reliance on nonprofits also
poses a threat.
The Left understands the importance of nonprofit investigative
journalism as well. And, unfortunately, the Left has more money and
is rushing to fill this media vacuum.
Herbert and Marion Sandler, liberal billionaires with close ties
to George Soros, announced in October that they will donate $10
million annually for at least three years and maybe more to create
a nonprofit organization exclusively dedicated to investigative
reporting. The organization, called ProPublica, will be led by Paul
Steiger, former editor in chief at the Wall Street Journal, and
employ 24 journalists. When it starts operations in January 2008,
ProPublica will be the nation’s largest nonprofit center for
investigative journalism
ProPublica will most certainly push a liberal agenda. The
Sandlers are fervent activists. In 2004, they gave MoveOn.org $2.5
million and, along with Soros, help fund the Center for American
Progress, a liberal think tank established in 2003 to counter the
influence of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
To hear Herb Sandler speak, the mission of ProPublica will be
strictly nonpartisan and “on the side of the underdog.” According
to Sandler, “I am deeply opposed to wealthy people who exploit the
poor, powerful people who prey on the weak, and government
representatives who betray the trust of the people they supposedly
represent.”
ProPublica will seek to expose abuses in government, business,
universities, nonprofits and supposedly labor unions.
Steiger told the Sandlers that he would only get involved with the
organization if it was truly nonpartisan.
When he asked them what would be their response to a
hypothetical article “devastating to the biggest union supporters
of the Democratic Party,” the Sandlers said, “No problem.”
This is not believable.
HERB SANDLER CLAIMS that one of the reasons for promoting nonprofit
journalism is because the media doesn’t pay enough attention to
important issues such as global warming. What a ridiculous
assertion. Global warming is without a doubt the most overhyped
issue in the world today.
Indeed, it is astounding and downright frightening that
the scientifically unproven threat of man-made global warming is
accorded religious-like acceptance by the Left and the media. The
real story here is how this Luddite hysteria has managed to
permeate the popular culture.
Yet, Sandler sees global warming as just the kind of issue the
ostensibly nonpartisan ProPublica should cover because of
inadequate mainstream media attention. And combating the global
warming phantom will not be the only liberal position pushed by the
group.
Sandler, like Soros, is a political philanthropist. His passion
in life is to fund groups that counter the “vast right-wing
conspiracy.” There is no way he is going to waste $10 million per
year on an organization that does not advance that agenda.
Soros’ Open Society Institute is also donating money to
nonprofit journalism centers. It is reasonable to assume that Soros
will increase his support for these groups in the future.
CONSERVATIVES CAN easily get disillusioned by the huge sums of
money that liberals shower on nonprofits. But there is good news.
It doesn’t take a lot of money or staff to do solid investigative
reporting.
An investigator seeking to expose corruption in government must
have expertise in the often Byzantine congressional appropriations
process, campaign finance law, the Freedom of Information Act,
ethics laws and open government laws.
Mastering the intricate details of these multi-faceted
activities takes a lot of time and hard work. However, it does not
require an especially large financial investment.
In fact, many conservative nonprofits already have the necessary
infrastructure and trained staff to add investigative reporting to
their missions. Of course, there are some organizations in which
investigative journalism is not feasible or beyond their mission.
Nevertheless, many conservative nonprofits are well-positioned to
add investigative journalism to their portfolios.
A critical reason for the success of the conservative movement
is its ability to counter the biases of the media establishment
through talk radio and the Internet. Conservatives can similarly
revolutionize the media by filling the void in investigative
reporting caused by the decline in newspaper circulation.
