Tuesday, September 22, 2026

Story Hunters

For decades I worked with my fellow reporters producing stories. We would study the patterns in the events we were following, trying to connect the dots so we could beat other reporters to the story.

In the process, there were times that we were tempted to cut corners.

During the process of landing a big investigative story, we usually had identified a bad guy or a group of bad guys who were responsible for the situation we were trying to expose.

As part of that work, we would become interested in the bad guy’s psychology, and on occasion we would consult with psychologists to better understand that.

This was particularly important when we were tracking ongoing behavior, such as a series of crimes by a perpetrator not yet apprehended by the authorities.

So in those cases we were much like cops or intelligence agents, some of whom were often tracking the same targets as we were.

This is how journalists acquire some of their most valuable sources -- fellow investigators with similar objectives, which in all cases is catching the bad guy.

But this is also where problems can develop. One issue is when journalists get confused about whose agenda they are pursuing. As long as there is alignment, there is nothing wrong with a reporter and, say, a D.A. working to break the same case.

But their objectives are different -- the prosecutor is seeking to build a legal case, whereas the reporter is seeking to tell an accurate story.

While its may seem that those objectives are consistent with one another, the devil is in the details. There is a world of difference between what is legally provable in a court of law and what is publishable.

While all of this is happening in real time, any reasonably self-aware investigator starts turning inward to ask a few questions: “Why am I doing this work? Who am I to judge others? Which ends justify which means?”

There are many different possible answers to these questions. All I know for sure is that to continue with this kind of work over many decades, you need to have found the ones that work for you.

Otherwise you will stop.

(This is an edited version from an essay I wrote in 2021.)

HEADLINES:

  • Trump to address U.N. General Assembly and meet with world leaders as he navigates Iran, Gaza, Ukraine conflicts (CBS)

  • Natalie Harp Reportedly Showed Trump Critical News Coverage Before Media Ban (Forbes)

  • Major TV networks stand with CNN, decline to replace its White House pool crew (CNN)

  • President’s UN trip will not have a TV camera (Axios)

  • Paramount and state AGs settle lawsuit, allowing Warner Bros. merger to proceed (CNBC)

  • Paramount wins Warner Bros takeover after settling states, union lawsuits (Reuters)

  • Newsom Signs Bills Meant to Prevent Trump’s Interference in Midterms (NYT)

  • ICE officer shoots Venezuelan man delivering food in Austin, lawyer says (NBC)

  • Trump ally Stephen Miller leads sweeping push to accelerate removal of migrant children (Guardian)

  • US strikes on alleged drug boats could be crimes against humanity, says UN (BBC)

  • As Trump and Xi Meet, the U.S. and China Are ‘Shin-Kicking Under the Table’ (NYT)

  • Russia’s pro-Putin party set to win election as Ukraine exposes war’s growing reach into Moscow (CNBC)

  • Auto Industry Workers Protest in Germany Against Job Cuts, Industrial Policy (WSJ)

  • Even Republicans Are Figuring Out That Pete Hegseth Is a Disaster (Nation)

  • Inside the squishy toy nightmare (BI)

  • California declares statewide emergency ahead of epic El Niño storms (LAT)

  • Gates Foundation launches coalition to build more representative language data sets for AI (AP)

  • Is this how the world ends? Extinction scenarios are taking over the AI debate. (WP)

  • US proposes AI incident alert system in talks with China, Bessent says (AP)

  • Report: Other Tailgate Looks More Fun (Onion)

Monday, September 21, 2026

Seeking Truths

Forty-some years ago, when we were writing our textbook, Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, Dan Noyes and I described what we called the hypothesis-driven method of journalism.

It’s a tricky business, this hypothesis methodology. You’ve got to have some basic evidence that indicates a pattern plus a suspicion, an instinct, a guess about what you’ll find as you keep searching.

But a hypothesis is not the same as a conspiracy theory, and you don’t publish your hypothesis. You use it, just like a scientist would, to investigate where the truth lies. We understand that this may frustrate true believers who wish reporters would just substantiate their theories.

An example historically is the JFK assassination on November 22, 1963. Perhaps no other event in the 20th century inspired more complex yet largely unfounded theories.

Many wondered how something like this could have happened without a conspiracy. As years passed, even though no credible evidence emerged to substantiate any of the wilder theories, certain individuals continued to stoke the conspiracy fires and keep them burning.

Oliver Stone exploited this more skillfully than most, imagining how the conspiracy might have unfolded in his movie, “JFK”, which has shaped subsequent generations’ views about the event. That he patched in real footage, including the Zapruder footage that is the only known visual evidence of the shooting, made his docudrama feel more realistic than it actually was.

As a result, if you ask people, say, in their 50s or younger today about the assassination, they probably believe we all witnessed it on television as it happened. But that is incorrect: Nobody saw it on TV, because there was no live coverage of Kennedy riding in his motorcade at all. 

In fact we never saw any video evidence until a full decade later, when the Zapruder film of Kennedy’s head exploding was finally declassified and released to the public.

All of this only complicated the effort of journalists like me who actually tried to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination. Maintaining our commitment to stick to the facts is not as sexy as publishing fantasies based on conjecture. But all we can do is stay alert and adjust our hypothesis in light of any new evidence as it emerges. We can’t afford to get wedded to any one hypothesis until and unless the preponderance of evidence becomes obvious.

Otherwise all you end up with are conspiracy theories.

To this day, whether someone else in addition to assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the Kennedy murder remains unproven. And that is the truth.

(This is an edited version of an essay I’ve published previously.)

HEADLINES:

Sunday, September 20, 2026

On a Free Press

  • “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed. … If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.” — Hannah Arendt, political theorist

  • “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.” — Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court justice

  • “Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive. And it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power.” — George W. Bush

  • “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” — Thomas Jefferson

  • “Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. ... And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply ‘give the public what it wants’ — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.” — John F. Kennedy

  • “But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.” ― The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

HEADLINES:

 

Saturday, September 19, 2026

The Tyrant's Media Ban

In a revealing slip of the tongue Friday, Trump argued that the reporters he didn’t like shouldn’t be able to come into “my… (pause) … the people’s house.” The tyrant clearly considers the White House “his.”

Besides the three outlets he banned, Trump also threatened the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the “fake news” with future bans.

Trump’s purported ban is unconstitutional and will not stand up to legal challenges, but it is another of his repeated attempts to accumulate unrestrained power. And it will result in disruptions among the media outlets he attacked in the short term.

This is the latest evidence that we have a very dangerous man in the White House who represents the greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War.

His attacks on the press will ultimately fail, but the First Amendment may be wounded in the process. And as long as Trump remains in power, his assault on democracy will continue, weakening our most vital institutions one by one.

HEADLINES:

Friday, September 18, 2026

Storytellers

Of all the courses I taught over a long teaching career, only one was explicitly about writing.

All of the others focused on journalism methodology — how to gather information and validate, organize and defend it once published.

But there is another component to the whole process and that is how to tell a story once it’s in your hands. Partly in reaction to receiving too many poorly-told story drafts, I incorporated “how to investigate the story” into my teaching curriculum..

The problem was and is that students (and most everybody else) gets too caught up in the twists and turns of a reasonably complicated story to stay in control of the narrative. They just surrender and let the details take over.

To counter this we studied pace, rhythm, structure, character development and transitions. We talked about beginnings and endings. If I were to teach a course on story-telling today we would read short stories by writers like Chekov and listen to songs by Dolly Pardon and watch movies like Casablanca.

Some people seem to be natural story-tellers but the rest of us can learn to be better through hard work and practice. 

So that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

HEADLINES:

Thursday, September 17, 2026

Time for the Goods

Over the past week, the links to AI stories in my daily headlines have gone from the bottom of the list to the top.

Why?

Because we’ve reached that moment when we all have to know this stuff. I’ve focused a lot of attention on Plan A from the AI Futures Project because I think it is a reasonable scenario for the steps forward we should take as a species to survive extinction at the hands of super intelligent AI.

I can hardly believe I just wrote “survive extinction” but I had to.

And yet I remain optimistic humanity can get through this.

Why?

Because there are more good people in the world than bad people — perhaps only by a whisker — and the good people should prevail.

At present that is happening. All sorts of good people inside the AI industry are calling on the rest of us to help them slow down the existential threat of runaway AI.

What can we do?

One easy option is to read the plan. Another is to skip the plan and just support the nonprofit doing this work. Or call your representative in the House of Representatives or the Senate and urge them to get to work on AI.

HEADLINES:

Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Nation on Edge

As the midterm elections approach, it’s worth remembering that the beauty of our system is the “little people” who help make sure it works.

They turn over their garages for polling places, gather up and transport the ballots, count the votes and accept the results in victory or defeat. 

But this year election officials are steeling themselves for a frightening possibility — that as Reuters says in a special report “the biggest threat to November’s elections might come not from foreign meddling or technical failures, but from the Trump administration itself.”

  • “Reuters interviewed more than 50 state and local election officials from both political parties, including a dozen secretaries of state, the top election officials in their states. Nearly all said they are adopting new strategies to prepare for political interference, misinformation, cyber attacks and even threats of violence ahead of the midterms..“

  • “Their efforts span jurisdictions large and small, in areas controlled by Trump’s Republican Party as well as the opposition Democratic Party.”

  • “The preparations reflect growing alarm among state and local officials that the biggest threat to November’s elections might come not from foreign meddling or technical failures, but from the Trump administration itself, as the president seeks to expand the federal government’s role in elections…”

  • “More than a dozen local and state election officials said they are hiring outside lawyers or seeking legal training for themselves and their staff to prepare for potential demands by the administration for access to sensitive voting records or election equipment.”

  • “Nearly twice that many said they are expanding public outreach and social media campaigns to counter misinformation, including the false claims made by Trump and Republican allies that voting machines are unreliable and mail-in voting is inherently corrupt.”

  • “And most said they are scrambling to fill gaps left by the Trump administration’s cuts to programs that help safeguard elections from cyber attacks and physical security threats. That includes ongoing work to fortify election offices with camera systems and bulletproof glass – a trend that began after Trump disputed his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, igniting waves of violent threats by Trump supporters against election workers.”

There is much more in this article, which captures the mood among those on the frontlines of a nation on edge. It’s most definitely worth a read.

HEADLINES: