General Discussion

Behind the Bastards isn't investigative journalism either, just a high quality podcast. It doesn't mean these podcasts are somehow "lesser," they just aren't what Woodward and Bernstein did to dig at the truth.

Investigative journalism is fucking expensive. Very few outlets want to give their reporters lead time, leeway, and the budget to pursue leads for long periods of time. Instead we report what "both sides" say and throw in a few pundits to comment. It's cheaper, it's faster, it helps feed the content machine, it doesn't require as much wrangling and fact-checking or legal department scrutiny.

What Rachel Maddow does is valuable and of course has tons of fans on the left. People shouldn't take it as a personal attack that no, what she does doesn't fall under the definition of investigative journalism for the most part. It's commentary. Her research department is great at providing context and background information on issues, but they aren't pounding the pavement and meeting Deep Throat in a parking garage to break massive stories.

Rachel doesn't hang around the White House for months doing interviews on background with everyone she can, she can't afford to do stuff like that with her schedule and her work. Yes, Woodward is a pompous blowhard who still can't pronounce "reporter" correctly, but he still does that kind of thing because they give him the time and budget to do it. Which results in people pissed he saves shit for the books! But again, investigative journalism is expensive and slow! Woodward's books require WAY more expensive legal advice than something like Ultra. So I can see why his reliable bestseller status is needed for him to keep in the game.