[input_sh]

The key difference is that ProPublica is a non-profit. There are very few non-profit investigative journalism orgs in the world, but their funding is fundamentally different than for-profit news orgs. They rely on public grants to keep things running, so therefore, they don't have to abuse their brand in similar ways.

That's also why they publish only a couple of stories per day instead of hundreds, why they never cover breaking news, why there's a donate button (as opposed to now-standard paywalls), why there's no ads, why the interface appears cleaner etc. If we were talking about tech companies, it'd be like comparing Wikimedia/Mozilla/Internet Archive to traditional for-profit tech companies. To an untrained eye there is no difference, but a somewhat trained eye quickly realises that their incentives are completely different.

(Disclaimer: I work for a different non-profit investigative journalism organization.)

[SAI_Peregrinus]

It's also why ProPublica's content niche is so small. They don't cover anything except corruption and abuses of power. No sports, no celebrity news, no news about new movies or music, etc. They can't afford more, and their charter doesn't allow it anyway.

[coliveira]

They are funded by NGOs controlled by billionaires, so in the end there is a number of things they cannot investigate if they want to maintain the NGO money.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

Hopefully there are multiple organizations with different funding sources who aren’t beholden to each other, so they can fill whatever gaps in coverage they see. That would be a better outcome than everyone refusing journalism as a career because you will always have a conflict of interest with whoever is paying you.

[input_sh]

That's not how grants work, they don't come with a "you can't report on us specifically" clause.

[klyrs]

While this is technically correct, it is the wrong response to GP.

Yes. ProPublica is biased to look in certain directions. Every single reporter, editor, publisher, is biased in this way. The answer to this is more, not less.

FIRE rose from decisions the ACLU took about representing cases. This is a fundamentally good thing, speaking as a diehard ACLU supporter.

Speaking as a huge fan of ProPublica, I'm hoping that they're investigating all of the supreme court justices (for example), because we won't pass laws to reign in judicial corruption without bipartisan action. But if they aren't, I desperately hope that there's a market for a conservative-focus investigative outfit that can stick to the facts like ProPublica.

[coliveira]

There is no such clause because that would be unlawful, but there is certainly the "unwritten clause" of whether the NGO likes your work or not.

[TheCoelacanth]

It's common wisdom that you "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

[chihuahua]

But it could be that if you don't follow the unwritten rules, you don't get another grant next year.

[pyuser583]

I’ve seen a lot of non-profit journalism outfits coming out of the woodwork.