The People I Read and Listen To

When I point out problems with today's national press corps, I always try to let it be known that there are still some good reporters out there. And after my American Prospect piece today, some folks have asked me which journalists I read and trust. So in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I figured I would follow up my media criticism with a list of some journalists I think are actually doing a terrific job.

Remember, this is a list of reporters, not opinion writers, and in no special order. They are the people/publications I stop to regularly read not because they agree with my political perspective (many of them don't), but because they cover the serious issues:

- Knight Ridder's Washington, D.C. Bureau: no news organization come close to the kind of serious reporting these guys do on the most important issues.

- Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker: No matter what criticism he gets, he still breaks real stories.

- David Cay Johnston, New York Times: The best tax reporter in America. Period.

- Daniel Gross, Slate: Always has the incisive take on the days economic news that other reporters miss.

- Robert Pear, New York Times: The longtime expert on health care and labor issues as they relate to Congress.

- Bill Moyers/PBS Frontline crew: This one doesn't need an explanation.

- Ellen Schultz, Wall Street Journal: The best reporter in America when it comes to the unglamourous yet critical task of covering retirement/pension issues.

- Matt Taibbi, New York Press/Rolling Stone; Frank Rich, New York Times; James Wolcott, Vanity Fair: These are the few big journalists willing to write honestly about how big of a joke the national media has become.

- Tom Edsall, Washington Post: One of the few who actually takes reporting on the connection between money and politics seriously, and doesn't treat it like a punchline.

- Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Where other reporters cower, he has never, ever been afraid to challenge the White House.

- Connie Schultz, Cleveland Plain Dealer: She won a Pulitzer Prize for taking on the powers that be. Enough said.

- David Rogers, Wall Street Journal; Dan Morgan, Washington Post: These guys are among the last to do the kind of hardscrabble reporting on Capitol Hill politics that gives people a glimpse into what really goes on in Congress.

- Businessweek Magazine: People who need accurate information-based news in order to make a living aren't interested in what's on the President's Ipod, and they aren't interested in self-important punditry. Businessweek caters to people who want real news, about real issues.

- Ron Brownstein, LA Times: I don't always love what he has to say, but he is probably the best-informed television pundit/news analyst out there. Yes, he (like most in his genre) is a little too obsessed with the horse race of it all - but I respect him because he's serious about doing his homework and he always provides a wealth of information.

- Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: I have trouble watching television chat shows anymore because they have become so inane - but Olbermann does his best to cut through the crap and tell it like it is.

- William Greider, The Nation: Putting aside the fact that I agree with his political slant, it's hard for anyone to argue that this guy is not a great writer. You may not agree with him, or you may always agree with him, but he's always interesting, and he's always covering the most important issues.

- Michael Hersh, Newsweek: While Iskioff gets most of the headlines (and is a good reporter, despite the recent flap), Hersh doesn't get as much ink. But he's a very good reporter - especially his stuff about national security issues.

- Ted Koppel, Nightline: Again, no description needed. He asks tough questions. Period.

- Bill O'Reilly, Fox News: JUST KIDDING! (Did you really think I was serious?)

This is by no means a comprehensive list - it's really just off the top of my head. But as I put it together, I realized something quite interesting. Most of these reporters are issue/beat reporters or investigative journalists, meaning they have a specific ISSUE focus of their work. That stands in contrast to the general "political" reporters whose main focus is covering the horse race and actually IGNORING issues. It is these "political" reporters where the problem really lies - these people have no expertise in any ISSUE at all. Their expertise is on the soap opera. And its a big part of the why much of today's national political coverage is vapid.

To be sure, there are many more decent journalists working in the trenches. And that's really the larger point than a list. Few argue that the national press corps as a whole has done great damage to American journalism and to our political system. But in every barrel of rotten apples, there are still some good ones. And they should give us hope that things still can change for the better.