Investigative Journalism Being Reborn Through the Web?

Combating the stigma that investigative journalism is dead or dying, the Huffington Post has just launched a new venture to bankroll a group of investigative journalists to take a look into stories about the nation's economy. "The popular Web site is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to launch the Huffington Post Investigative Fund with an initial budget of $1.75 million. That should be enough for 10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers, said Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post. Work that the journalists produce will be available for any publication or Web site to use at the same time it is posted on The Huffington Post, she said. The Huffington Post Web site is a collection of opinionated blog entries and breaking news. It has seven staff reporters. Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of laid-off journalists for the venture."

Comments

Investigative?

[geek]

HuffPo is an extreme left-wing wannabe news outlet. By investigate, what they really mean is "smear machine."

They did a bang-up job investigating when they posted the John Gibson remarks which were obviously fake and it only took them the better part of a week to retract, grudgingly so.

If HuffPo is what passes for investigative reporting then it's truly the end of journalism as we know it.

Re:Investigative?

[ArcherB]

Did the recession start when we cut taxes with a surplus of money or years later after two wars ate into the available funds leftover from "giving the extra money back?"

Nah, had to be 10 months after the Democrats took control...that makes MUCH more sense.

(Here's the answer to your question: Anyone who doesn't blame the Republicans and Bush's leash on Congress from 2001-2007 is full of shit. The Democrats get some blame, but I reduce it some by considering the Rove-ian campaign that was led from 9/11 and on to make every Democrat look unpatriotic for questioning Bush's policies. Between that and Bush's grip on Congress, they had little effect on changing the money spending, tax cutting policies. After 2007, the Dems have no excuse and get the full blame for helping run it all into the ground by failing to change what the previous 6 years massively fucked.)

First, what was the vote for the Iraq war in the Senate? Wasn't it something like 99-0? How is that Bush's war again?

Anyone who goes around trying to place blame on anyone should really have some sort of idea as to what they are talking about. Republicans held the Senate for only four years of Bush's eight. That means that Democrats held the Senate exactly half the time that Bush was in office, not six years. It also happens to be the first two and the last two that Democrats held the power in the Senate. Strangely enough, those were also the years that the economy dropped in the Bush administration. Coincidence? Either way, you were exactly 50% off. So, are you fuckin ignorant or just a fuckin liar? Judging by your post, I'm going to guess a whole lot of both.

Wait, wait wait. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton. I'm sure you thought he did a great job right? Republicans held the house and senate for six of his eight, maybe THAT'S what you were thinking of.

As for being unpatriotic for questioning Bush, how long did that last? Let me guess, you think that any country in the world would have done anything for the US, but Bush fucked it up, right? Well, if that were true that any country in the world would have done ANYTHING, then it would have been impossible for Bush or anyone else to fuck it up. Then again, as we learned in the last paragraph, you are either too stupid or dishonest to understand the irony in that.

As for Bush's "money spending, tax cutting policies", I have to agree with you about the spending part, but that's what happens you don't have a strong majority. You need to bribe the other side to get them to shut up and sit down. But, if you were upset about the spending then, why are not just LIVID about the spending now? Shouldn't you be talking about that instead?

Now, as for the taxing, I've shown several times, and it's easy to research for yourself, that the government actually made MORE MONEY after Bush cut taxes! I know, it's hard to understand if you are simple minded. May I suggest you look up the Laffer curve for an explanation.

Listen, I don't mean to make you look stupid. You did that with your ignorant comment. But seriously, you really should educate yourself with the facts before you spout off. Don't bitch about Bush's economy and act like you don't remember Alan Greenspan. Before 2007, wasn't he called the Maestro because the economy was so strong? Greenspan received honorary Knighthood from the Queen of England the economy was so friggin strong! Don't act like you don't remember. Don't lie to us and especially don't lie to yourself to try to justify your hatred.