Yes, thanks for the link. That was my post earlier in the thread. Pro Publica sounds a bit like what I was dreaming about a few months ago. Here's what I posted back in May:

Let's consider the concept of a non-profit foundation to establish a core of independent journalists who are free to pursue both topical stories of the day and longer term investigative pieces. These journalists would not be motivated by the high salaries paid to MSM luminaries, but would be dedicated to pursuing truth in the public interest. I'm thinking something on the order of the McClatchy Washington Bureau, supplemented with a small percentage of the current AP reporters now employed by hometown papers and making salaries in the range the foundation would be able to match. Perhaps a small network of international reporters would be possible, as well. Revenue, though not the driving force, could come from both individual and MSM subscriptions to the resulting new wire service.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests a network of 150 reporters, at $100,000 per year for salaries, benefits, travel and research costs each, would cost about $15 million per year. An endowment of $300 million, yielding annual income of 5%, would fund the operation entirely, without need for revenue. That sounds like a huge pile of money, but easily will be eclipsed by fundraising for the 2008 election cycle. Where would your contribution be better spent?

Obviously, with the numbers Pro Publica is putting out, over $10 million a year for 24 journalists and 12 support staff, my numbers were low, but the intent here is similar.

I get stuck, however, on a point that Cooper does mention:

I think it's a fabulous idea, concentrating the sort of resources --human and financial-- on important stories that few outlets want to underwrite. The big question is, will influential news organizations precisely like the Times, take any of their work?

As I posted upstream, corporate ownership and the profit motive of those owners will, in my opinion, override public interest in choosing what, and when, to publish regarding the investigative pieces. We need look no further than the NYTimes decision to sit on the warrantless wiretapping story until after the 2004 elections to see how this plays out under the current ownership arrangements. Only when the ownership of the media organizations is no longer tied to any other set of priorities can the conflict of interest be resolved. Maybe we don't have to go all the way to my pinko idea of non-profits controlling media outlets. Maybe we only need to make each outlet (no more than 5 newspapers/radio/television outlets per company and no network owned stations?) truly independently owned with no corporate relationship to any other business.

their feet just touched.

the Pentagon? NPR is reporting this morning that the ACLU has received heavily redacted documents showing that the Pentagon has filed nearly 500 NSL's since 2000. They have no domestic law enforcement responsibilities, yet they are spying at this level. Bruce Fein, in an interview with NPR for the story, asks whether nearly 500 Pentagon employees are suspected of collaborating with terrorists.

Definitely worth a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15276516

"We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late," Bush said.

"So to prevent another attack --- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America."

Receiving applause, Bush said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

If the illegal program set up in spring 2001 did not catch those phone calls, what was the purpose of the program?

Actually, the rest of the article on CNN.com has additional useful information. It is reporting on a newly released study.

The study, conducted by New York University's Center on Law and Security, tracked 510 cases billed as terrorism-related when arrests were made.

But it found only 158 of those people arrested since al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks were prosecuted for terrorism.

In a statement issued Monday afternoon, the Justice Department said the report "reflects a serious misunderstanding" of anti-terrorism efforts and includes "wildly inaccurate" statistics.

The study found only four people -- including confessed al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid -- were convicted of planning attacks within the United States.

"The vast majority of cases turn out to include no link to terrorism once they go to court," the report found. The analysis "suggests the presence of few, if any, prevalent terrorist threats currently within the U.S."

The report questioned the usefulness of the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act, passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks, finding prosecutors relied primarily on previous laws.

Of course, the Justice Department has to hurl some chaff at this report. It goes to the very heart of what our government has been doing over the last six years. Many of our basic constitutional rights have been cancelled for an effort that found a grand total of four people and is best carried out using other, entirely constitutional, methods.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/15/terror.study/index.html