Date: 2024-12-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00019797
Media / News
Mother Jones
The importance of truly fearless and independent journalism
Peter Burgess
|
Date: 2024-12-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00019797 | |||||||||
Media / News | |||||||||
|
Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess | |||||||||
| David Corn didn't mention this earlier. Inbox Monika Bauerlein, Mother Jones Unsubscribe 1:56 PM (2 hours ago) to me Mother Jones MoJo Reader, I wanted to add a couple of things to David Corn's email from this morning, below. First, the Mother Jones community is incredible: $20,000 in donations have come in so far today, which leaves $20,000 left to hit our big $350,000 goal by the end of the day. If you can right now, please pitch in to support our reporting so we can finish strong and be ready for all that's (gulp) ahead. The other thing I wanted to add shows why fearless, independent journalism matters so much: Four years ago today, David was the first to write about the FBI investigating Trump's ties to Russia, before the 2016 election. Deciding to publish this story was not an easy call for editors and newsroom leaders. No news organization had gone forward with the information, even though others clearly knew about it, and it wasn't something reporters are used to covering: Allegations of a campaign cozying up to a foreign power who was actively attacking our election. Just hours before we hit 'publish' four years ago this afternoon, the New York Times ran a story saying, essentially, that the FBI had found no there there—something it would, much later, acknowledge was basically government spin. (They also, much later, had to issue a correction on their claim that no news organizations reported on this story before the election: 'Mother Jones magazine did.') The Times buried the lede—that the FBI was investigating Trump's connections to Russia—choosing instead to foreground what the FBI was emphasizing to them, the lack of conclusions early in the investigation. David's story, on the other hand, was the one the FBI didn't want told. And we didn't hesitate to go for it: David's reporting was solid, the public clearly deserved to know, and we didn't have skittish investors or timid bosses to hold us back. Our bosses, readers like you, want us to charge hard. And we know that time and again you have always had our back when we do. I was shocked that no other news organization ran the story in the final eight days before the election. We'll never know if things would have turned out differently had this revelation gotten the attention it deserved—whether the information would have swayed any of those 77,000 voters across three states that gave Trump the Electoral College win. But I do know that it shows the importance of having a variety of news sources and not relying on just a handful of companies to decide what is in the public interest. And I know that our model of reader-supported journalism lets us do things differently, and that I'd be grateful if you're able to support our work with a donation to help us hit that big $350,000 goal by the end of the day. Thanks for reading, and thank you so much for always having our backs. Whether or not you can pitch in today or ever, I'm glad you're with us at a moment like this. There's more from David below. –Monika MoJo Reader, Can a democracy on the brink of authoritarianism recover? That's the title of my column that went up earlier this week, and what's on my mind in the days before an election unlike any other. It's also what I'd like to focus on as I ask you to support Mother Jones journalism on the final day of our fall fundraising drive. We need your help to raise $40,000 today and hit our big and ambitious $350,000 goal. If you can, please chip in to help us get there. It's no accident that I'm asking for your support at this historic time when we're all full of both anxiety and hope. So to the question at hand. Donald Trump's presidency has been a boon for at least one particular pocket of political science: the study of democracies and autocratic regimes. Since Trump strode into the White House and started trampling norms, there has been a flood of articles and numerous best-selling books on the fall of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. History is indeed replete with vivid examples of the decline of democracies—and with the transition of repressive states into democracies. At one end of the spectrum, there is the Weimar Republic descending into Nazi Germany; at the other, South Africa shedding apartheid. But there is one slice of the democracy-authoritarianism dynamic that has not been examined as extensively as the clear instances of full transformation, and that subset could be particularly relevant for the United States at the present moment: democracies that slipped toward authoritarianism but recovered before it was too late. With Trump questioning election results, attacking the free press, calling for the arrest of political opponents, violating anti-corruption safeguards, implementing nepotism, advocating measures that limit voting, seeking more control of the civil service, claiming unbridled executive power, treating the federal government (even the White House grounds) as his own private duchy, and embracing and idealizing autocrats around the world, he has prompted justified concerns about the strength of democracy within the United States. And about the future of our democracy. I hope you'll read my full column, because I talked with experts about how democratic erosion like this in other countries has been reversed. There have been U-turns when nations have started falling into authoritarianism and then changed course. The road to democratic decline is not always an inevitable path that ends with a strongman regime. The takeaway from one set of experts: 'vertical accountability' (elections and popular action) 'were more promising actions of democratic resistance' than a reliance on state actors and institutions stepping up to save democracy, and what matters most in times of democratic crisis are mechanisms of 'diagonal accountability'—that is, the media and civil society. Let me translate their academic lingo: Elections, collective action, and a free and fearless press are the key to thwarting wannabe autocrats. That's why I hope you've already voted or will and that you'll also consider supporting Mother Jones' truth-telling journalism with a donation during this profoundly consequential moment for our democracy. Trump's destructive and divisive presidency may be coming to an end, and if you're reading this email you know that my team in DC and I have engaged in the type of reporting on Trump that not many others have done since he announced his presidential bid. We were the first to write about the FBI investigating Trump's ties to Russia, before the 2016 election. We were the first to treat his conflicts of interest seriously (when others didn't think he was a viable candidate). We reported extensively on a mysterious $50 million loan he has that is being investigated by the New York attorney general, and the emails we obtained from one of Roger Stone's associates became a key part of the Mueller investigation. There are more stories than I can list here to make the case that Mother Jones journalists are up for the coming challenges, no matter what happens next week and in the weeks and months ahead. I'm not a natural fundraiser. Who likes asking anyone for money? But I do recognize a basic fact: The only reason we can do this important work is because readers like you have our back. Your support lets us dig deep and call things like they are without fear or favor. It lets us write stories that take time and effort to get right. That sort of independent and hard-driving journalism isn't generally incentivized in today's media landscape. And thankfully, we don't have risk-averse investors holding us back or ultrawealthy benefactors calling the shots. Instead, we have you, a community of readers who see the value in our reporting and pitch in so we can do kickass work. The only thing that limits us is the amount of money we have to invest in our high-quality journalism. That's why it's so important to close the gap and hit that $350,000 goal today. If you value our journalism and think it's needed right now—and if you're in a position to help in these difficult times—please pitch in with a donation of any amount. You know what they say: Every bit helps. I can tell you that is dead-on true. I don't know what's going to happen on Tuesday or the days and weeks after. But I know that we won't be out of the woods. Whatever the results, American democracy will remain in need of serious repair. And my squad here at Mother Jones and I will keep reporting on corruption, abuses of power, and malfeasance—no matter who occupies the halls of power. I hope you'll join our team and help us do that with a donation today. Thanks for reading. We'll be in touch as the election results start to come into focus next week. Good luck to you and your family. Please be strong and stay safe. David Corn David Corn Washington, DC Bureau Chief Mother Jones Donate P.S. If you recently made a donation, thank you! And please accept our apologies for sending you this reminder—our systems take a little while to catch up. | |||||||||