Mickey Huff: 50 Years of Media Misfires (w/transcript)
"The system worked"? Unfortunately, no.
Fifty years after Watergate, political and media elites are still telling themselves the same comforting lie: “the system worked.”
But it didn’t. As Project Censored’s Mickey Huff discusses here, the press showed up late to this critical story, missed the deeper and more structural problems, and then watched as the Reagan Revolution — later embraced by Democrats — cemented a harsh political order. Today’s media landscape is the logical result: junk food news, “news abuse,” and stenographic coverage of power from Gaza to Russiagate. Mainstream news consumption has itself become a badge of political identity: MAGA for thee, MSNBC for me (or vice versa). Meanwhile, polls show that the public is often way ahead of the press on its understanding of issues like genocide, inequality, and billionaire greed.
If there’s any way out of this Tower of Babel, it will come from the very thing Carl Jensen built Project Censored to defend: independent, muckraking journalism that respects its audience enough to tell them what’s really going on.
It was a great conversation with Mickey, as always. Quotes and transcripts below.
MICKEY HUFF is the director of Project Censored, the president of the nonprofit Media Freedom Foundation, and Distinguished Director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, where he is also a professor. Huff joined Ithaca College in New York fall of 2024, where he now also serves as the and Professor of Journalism. Since 2009 he has coedited the annual volume of the Censored book series with associate director Andy Lee Roth.
All my posts are freely accessible, but this work is only possible thanks to reader support. If you find it worthwhile, please help out with a paid subscription through Substack (discounted here) or on Patreon.
You can also make a one-time donation here.
Many thanks.
Selected Comments
from Mickey ...
“(Project Censored founder) Carl Jensen’s question after Watergate wasn’t ‘thank goodness the press covered those crimes’; it was, why did it take so long?”
“(Jensen) looked to the independent press as a canary in the coal mine — a distant early warning system for stories the corporate media couldn’t or wouldn’t hear.”
“Carl said journalism schools should be producing more muckrakers and fewer buckrakers.”
“Supporting independent media is one of the best ways to show people how truth-telling journalism can still make a difference.”
“We’re not competitors or rivals — we have to elevate and amplify each other’s work, not fight over scoops.”
... and Richard:
“Journalism isn’t just spewing a few random facts — it’s connecting the dots, providing context and interpretation.”
“To certain mainstream outlets, even facts about (the Gaza genocide) become ‘editorializing’ if they challenge the official narrative.”
“People are ahead of the journalistic profession on Israel, inequality, and corporate power; they’ve figured out for themselves what the media won’t say.”
“Instead of looking down on their audience, journalists might want to start looking slightly up to them.”
Links:
https://www.ParkIndyMedia.org
https://www.ProjectCensored.org
Brief biography of Carl Jensen
Transcript:
Richard: It’s the 50th anniversary of Project Censored, and it’s the time of year when they publish their retrospective uncensored stories of the year. So first of all, Mickey, welcome back.
Mickey: RJ, thank you so much for having us back on the program to talk about the work we’ve been doing for almost 50 years now. Next year is our 50th anniversary.
It’s always an honor to be in dialogue with you. I have great respect for you, your program, and the important work that you do.
Richard: Well, thank you. I really appreciate that. It’s certainly mutual.
Let’s start with the 50th anniversary. In your introduction to the book on the news that didn’t make the news, so to speak, you pulled what I thought was a nice authorial move in your foreword.
You set up this very dramatic picture: our country stands in an oppressive abyss, the United States teetering perilously, rising economic inequality, nuclear threats, threats to civil rights, and so on. And then you pull the bait and switch and say it would be reasonable to conclude that this preceding passage describes our present circumstances — which of course it does.
But it could just as easily have referred to the nation in the mid-70s: the withdrawal from Vietnam, the wake of the Watergate crisis, and so on. With that, you create a kind of wormhole between the mid-2020s and the mid-1970s.
If it doesn’t seem like too off-the-wall a question, how relevant do you think those parallels are to the mission of Project Censored 50 years on?
Mickey: I think they’re profound, and I think Carl Jensen, the founder, was prescient. I’m a historian by trade — I was a professor of history for 25 years in Northern California — so I live in that world of storytelling from past to present, journalism in the public interest, and independent media.
Thinking about why Project Censored came about in the first place: it wasn’t spearheaded by big financiers. It wasn’t greeted warmly by the establishment press or media at the time, despite the fact that Carl had the support of the great I.F. Stone, Izzy Stone, and the support of Walter Cronkite, Hugh Downs — some pretty big names in both print and broadcast journalism.
Most people in the press saw what Carl was doing as criticism and thought he was hostile. In the 1970s, hostility was kind of all over the place, as you recall. And I think now we’re in a very similar kind of situation.
Different, but, as often attributed to Mark Twain, history might not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I was riffing on those rhymes in the introduction because Carl got the idea for Project Censored after Watergate.
The interesting part wasn’t, “The press came up and Woodward and Bernstein saved the day, they exposed Nixon’s crimes, he resigned, and the system works.” Right after that, in the Church Committee hearings, we learned about a whole bunch of other monstrous crimes that were going on. Then, after a little while, they quietly closed up the Church Committee hearings.
The Pike Commission in the House didn’t get very far with the public. The message became, “Let’s just stop with Watergate, the system worked, and move on.” And of course what came next was the Reagan Revolution and the massive rightward shift in our political culture that was continued by the Clinton administration and the Democrats.
Carl’s more instrumental question coming out of Watergate was this: he went back and looked at the ’72 election and said, Knowing these crimes were being committed — and others Nixon was involved in — why did it take so long for the press to cover this and find out about it? Not “thank goodness they did,” but:
Why were independent and alternative media reporting on it first?
Even after they were reporting on it, why were so few people at places like the Washington Post actually covering it?
Why did the Nixon White House call Walter Cronkite’s boss at CBS to tell him to suppress and turn down an exposé Cronkite was airing on Watergate?
That’s a prior restraint problem. That’s not even censorship by proxy. That’s exactly the kind of censorship the First Amendment allegedly protects against.
So Carl Jensen asked, What else do we not know in enough time to do something about it? He started looking at the independent and alternative press as a canary in the coal mine, as a distant early warning system — people on the ground writing about things and telling stories, trying to amplify them, while the corporate media either couldn’t hear them or had conflicts of interest that made it impossible to act on those stories.
This was before “media literacy” was even a term in academia. Carl was promoting news media literacy by starting a class called Project Censored. He had students — this was pre-cable, certainly pre-Internet, when many cities had multiple dailies and lots of periodicals — and he subscribed to hundreds of these outlets. Students literally pored over independent media documents to find stories that The New York Times missed, that CBS News missed.
So back to that issue: people in the establishment press sometimes looked at Carl as an enemy. Carl said, “No, no. I love the First Amendment, and I think the media has the power to do great good. But we’ve got to get rid of these conflicts of interest. We’ve got to get rid of the notion that journalism is about buckraking and get back to the fact that it’s about muckraking.”
He used to say journalism schools should be producing more muckrakers and fewer buckrakers because he thought the effort would be worth it. And he was right.
Peter Phillips, 20 years later, picked up the baton from Carl. He turned it from a list of annual stories that students and judges vetted — Carl asked people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and others in the media ecosystem to help rank stories — into an annual book. In 1993 he started doing that book, which Dan Simon at Seven Stories Press picked up. We continued that until we started The Censored Press in 2021.
This year’s 50th-anniversary book is the first Censored Press solo publication that looks back at 50 years of Project Censored. It includes Carl’s coining of “junk food news.”
When corporate media pushed back and said, “Hey, this isn’t fair, we don’t ignore stories because of censorship, it’s news judgment,” Carl looked at what they were covering and saw a bunch of sensationalist, titillating garbage. He called that “junk food news” in 1983. Peter Phillips later talked about how they cover serious stories in trivial or contextless ways and called that “news abuse” — propaganda.
Over the years, Project Censored isn’t just about lionizing the independent press and critiquing corporate media. It’s about looking at how junk food news poisons our culture and our news environment; how propaganda is more the norm in establishment journalism than the exception; and how we can work to support nonprofit groups and First Amendment groups that defend free expression and free speech as vital supports for a free press.
I see Project Censored, 50 years later — for better and worse — as more needed and necessary now as we face the challenges of the digital era: everything from “post-truth” to “brain rot,” as the Oxford Dictionary’s favorite words of the year have suggested, and now this year their word is “rage-bait.”
That’s mostly what we see in our media landscape: polarizing half-truths that don’t get to the crux of what George Seldes said the role of media and journalism should be. He said that role is to tell the public what’s really going on so we can be meaningfully civically engaged, have a fair chance at letting our ideas work in society, and try to build a better country and a better world.
Journalism is fledgling, and trust in the Fourth Estate is flagging, but I think a lot of faith can be restored by looking at the top independent stories each year — the ones we cover in the Project Censored Top Censored Stories list and also the Izzy Award winners, named after Izzy Stone, that we recognize every spring at the Park Center for Independent Media.
Richard: Let me start with this. First, for those who don’t know: I.F. Stone was a distinguished journalist who basically had to publish independently, self-publish, in order to write what he wanted to write. I.F. Stone’s Weekly lasted for decades.
By the way, Mickey, you’ll appreciate this: in a used bookstore, I found a collection of Izzy’s writings — I think it ended in ’54 — from I.F. Stone’s Weekly. It was like the first five years.
Mickey: ’53, ’54, yeah. Sorry, go ahead, RJ.
Richard: I think the Weekly started in ’49, if I’m not mistaken.
Mickey: I thought it was the early ’50s, but nevertheless—
(Editor’s note: Mickey was right, of course. I.F. Stone’s Weekly was first published in 1953. The book I mentioned is called The Truman Era and consisted of pieces Stone wrote for other publications from 1945 through 1952.)
Richard: In any case, this book was published in the ’50s. It was really the equivalent of what we think of as blog posts today — what Truman was doing that day, what was happening in Washington. It was exactly the street-level “inner machinery made comprehensible” that journalism should be — daily, weekly, monthly, in book form, whatever.
Before we go on, you used a phrase that triggered a lot in me because I remember how I felt at the time. I riffed on it a bit with you and maybe I’ll write about it. I was pretty young when Watergate happened — college age, or leaving college — but I remember this: “The system worked.”
I really hated that expression and that mindset then, and I think it still lives in different forms. It was what self-satisfied, highly paid news anchors loved to say after Nixon resigned: “The system worked.”
But wait a minute. I could drive home blind drunk and say, “If I make it home, driving drunk works. I got home.” That’s just one data point. From the journalistic point of view, the one story they told us about got semi-resolved. It didn’t really get resolved, because all the people Nixon brought in — Kissinger and those other monsters — stayed in power. So it didn’t get resolved.
And what about all the stories you never told us about? The system didn’t work there, because we didn’t even hear about them. But they assume because one thing turned out “okay,” the system always turns out okay. That’s the opposite of reality. That’s analysis by anecdote, and to me that’s antithetical to journalism.
The last thing you said was that Seldes said the journalist’s obligation is to tell the public what’s going on. That doesn’t just mean spewing a random set of facts with parentheses at each end so you can make a story. It means connecting the dots, providing context, interpretation — which is not only not cherished anymore in journalism, it’s actively abhorred and objected to.
In certain mainstream outlets, if a journalist tries to say, “The occupation of Palestine has been going on for X number of years, with these initial events,” they’re told: “Oh no, don’t editorialize.” Somehow facts become editorial. “Don’t report on October 6th. Don’t contextualize that.”
Isn’t that part of the mission of the projects you’re working on — that we cannot, as journalists, abdicate that responsibility even when it makes people unhappy with us or, God forbid, limits our job opportunities?
Mickey: Exactly. That’s why we especially need to support independent public interest journalism guided by the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. We need to follow the facts where they lead.
I love your unpacking of “the system worked,” because the irony is that it did — for the people in power. Nixon enjoyed an incredibly hagiographic restoration for the rest of his life. Kissinger died with people still lionizing him as some great foreign policy expert rather than, as you categorized him, the murderous monster he was. Anthony Bourdain even said anyone who’s been to Cambodia probably wants to strangle Kissinger.
I’m not advocating violence, but it’s unpopular to say what’s really happening. In corporate, for-profit media, they have too many things at stake, too many conflicts of interest, too many paymasters to please.
So stories get filtered. Some stories don’t get covered at all — that’s a real problem. Even when they do cover a story, as you suggested, they both-sides it to death.
I’ll be outside in a monsoon getting soaked, and they’ll say, “Tell us about the weather.” I’ll say, “It’s really raining out here.” Then they’ll go to someone else who says, “Well, I was just out there; it’s not raining at all.” “You’ve just heard both sides. Now, off to a commercial about why you don’t need rain gear.”
It’s turned into a stenographic machine for people in power.
Richard: And we’ve seen that in this administration too. I want to pause and break this apart, because you’re really talking about two problems when you get to stenography.
One is the “both-sides-ism” problem. Reporting on Gaza in the last year, at best, in the mainstream media has been both-sides-ism: “The Gaza Health Ministry says another 10,000 people have died; Israel denies that.” That’s the frame.
But a year before that, and really since the 1940s, there’s been another problem: the stenography problem. And this is bipartisan — under Biden as well as Trump, George W. Bush, or whomever. “Anthony Blinken says blah blah blah.” Or Hillary Clinton says, “There was a ceasefire on October 6,” which would be news to a lot of dead Palestinians. Thousands of Gazans have been killed in the first quarter of the 21st century.
You talked about junk food news, which I think of as dumb human-interest stuff — and it can bleed into the news: “Harry and Meghan,” celebrity drama, all that. But then there’s also what I think of as spiked food news: news that is stenography, news that encourages you to believe that whatever Mike Pompeo, Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden, or Donald Trump says is “the truth,” along with the political assumptions of the news class.
To them, “fake news” can include news that challenges their narrative. They’re not just giving us junk food; they’re often spiking the food with an ideological perspective and a stenographic role to power. It’s also incumbent on those of us who consider ourselves media critics to call that out. What do you think?
Mickey: Every year we do a chapter in the book called News Abuse, and that’s exactly what it is: accepting official narratives without question, without challenge, even when we know there are facts that contradict them. It’s willful ignorance.
The stenography is: “I’m just writing down what I’m supposed to tell you.” Anything outside that Overton window doesn’t count as news or information, even if you have all the evidence in the world. It’s treated like a cardinal sin to think independently.
Emma Goldman once said the most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. Journalists need to be independent, critical thinkers so they can help people contextually understand complicated stories, rather than just telling the story they’re being paid to tell. They should be telling the story that deserves to be told based on evidence and on how it affects us in the real world.
You mentioned Izzy Stone building off George Seldes. This goes back to Upton Sinclair and The Brass Check in 1919, and the golden era of muckraking with Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell. We had journalists really telling the public what was going on. The powerful noticed and turned it into yellow journalism and sensationalist tripe, watering it down and weakening the Fourth Estate, turning it into an adjunct of the advertising business as media became radio, television, cable, and now the Internet.
We’ve had a lot of people along the way — from Sinclair and Seldes and I.F. Stone to Carl Jensen, Ben Bagdikian with The Media Monopoly, Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky with Manufacturing Consent. And there’s an historian most people forget, who wrote one of the most important books of the 1960s: Daniel Boorstin’s The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. He was actually a pretty centrist conservative historian who predicted this mess of social media, confirmation bias, propaganda, and fake news.
He spread the blame around, which I thought was brilliant: not just the political establishment and commercialization of media, but the American public for having extraordinary expectations, demanding instant gratification, expecting impossible things, and then expecting to pay for it — so media would generate the narratives and myths they thought we wanted to believe.
So we have this bizarre symbiotic system of mis-, dis-, and mal-informative propaganda that’s created this epistemic crisis, this post-truth conundrum we inhabit. “Team Red” and “Team Blue” aren’t even talking about the same issues in the same way. They’re ships passing in the night. There’s not even a common language, culturally or politically, where we can sit in a room with people who have very different ideas and still understand each other meaningfully enough to go out and make the world better.
I see the failures of the Fourth Estate as chief among the reasons we’ve become this Tower of Babel culture. But I don’t think it’s hopeless. The Fourth Estate needs to reverse the trend. Journalists have an obligation not to stand by while the President of the United States refers to a working journalist as “piggy” or attacks someone in the press corps.
Journalists have an obligation to stand together in solidarity and say, “This is unacceptable. This violates the social contract and the rules we all have to play by.” It was wrong when Biden did it and shut down debate and dissent over the pandemic. It’s wrong when Biden does it to shut down dissent around Gaza. It’s wrong for Trump to do it now around Israel–Gaza. It’s wrong for Trump to push loyalty compacts in higher education. It’s wrong for him to go after dissidents, protesters, and students, and try to deport people in the name of protecting “free speech” for some two-bit grifter we all know he’s referencing.
The right has never been interested in free speech and expression for anyone other than themselves. They routinely wrap themselves in its cloak as they label people they disagree with “fake news” and trample their careers and reputations. The Democrats helped pave the way to this hellhole we’re in too, RJ. That’s why we need independent journalistic angles — to go after the tough stories, call it like it is, and remind the American public that this experiment we’re floundering through in our 250th year has no guaranteed future.
Richard: As you were talking, Mickey, I was thinking I have to read that Boorstin book now. One phenomenon that I think is new in the last 10 years — or at least new in its intensity — is that the consumption of news has become, in many cases, a declaration of tribal identity, a branding exercise.
Mickey: Team Red, Team Blue, self-branding.
Richard: Exactly. Instead of wearing a soccer shirt that says Team Red, you say, “I watch Fox and listen to these right-wing types.” Or Team Blue: “I watch MSNBC.”
I really noticed it around Russiagate. I remember 2017 when everybody was saying, “Russia did this, Russia did that, Trump is a Russian asset, there’s kompromat,” and so on.
Mickey: Marty Baron at the Washington Post trumpeting blatant propaganda.
Richard: Right. The claim that they hacked a Vermont nuclear plant — we could go on and on. I kept saying there was no evidence for any of this. We were getting it from John Brennan or James Clapper — a documented—
Mickey: Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress.
Richard: Exactly, a documented perjurer — along with silly assertions that RT television changed the election outcome. What, the 3,700 people who watched RT?
I remember a Democratic backer of my show ranting about this stuff. When I started to give my usual spiel, they said, “Oh, that’s right, you’re a Russia skeptic.”
Mickey: Or “You’re on the payroll, Putin’s paying you.”
Richard: Oh, I got that a lot. But this was classier — “Russia skeptic.” I said, “I’m an everything skeptic. That’s the job.”
Another friend, a great person, was saying, “Trump did this, Trump did that,” and I said, “You really can’t get your information from MSNBC — this is liberal fake news.” And she said, “Listen, this is important: I know. But it’s fun.”
Mickey: Yeah. It’s like a guilty pleasure: “The other side does it, so if we don’t, we’re losing or missing out.” FOMO. Nolan Higdon and I wrote a piece back then in CounterPunch and a few other places called “From Russiagate with Love.”
Richard: Good title.
Mickey: We listed 10 or 20 things like the ones you rattled off. Yes, there are problems with Russia and with internal repression there. We’re not lionizing them. But we get nowhere by repeating blatant falsehoods just because they support some Team Blue propaganda against Trump.
There are plenty of real things we could be criticizing and talking about, instead of manufacturing whole cloth what MSNBC turned into a cottage industry.
That all feeds into what you said: if you actually know those stories are bogus, you’re left asking, “What happened to these institutions?” In United States of Distraction, we wrote about how the Fourth Estate got sucked into the dark carnival of the three-ring circus. They’re no longer outside covering it; they’re inside, access-compromised, back to stenography, telling each other the stories they think they want to hear — and they’ve completely lost sight of what’s going on in the general American public.
Richard: And this has become — Roxy Music said “Love is the drug.” Now fake news is the drug.
Mickey: I prefer music, but yes.
Richard: I do too.
Thinking about the censored stories: people can get the book, the stories are important — but the concepts are the deeper issue. One thing I think has been lost, in both politics and journalism (which are now unfortunately grafted onto one another like some horror-movie experiment), is summed up in one word: respect.
Respect for the reader, respect for the voter. Yellow journalists and Fox types haven’t had that for a while, but I’ve seen it lacking across the board. I’ve talked privately with politicians on both sides of the aisle, and there’s a marked absence of respect there. And I’d argue in the profession of journalism, there’s a marked absence of respect too. There’s a widespread belief that people are just too dumb.
This is ancient — as old as America. It’s Hamiltonianism. It’s the Lippmann–Dewey debates. It’s Edward Bernays’ “bewildered herd.”
Mickey: The bewildered herd and Eddie Bernays: “We’re the smart people.”
Richard: Right: “We’re the smart people. We have to guide them, or just give them whatever they want so we can get a bonus.”
And this contempt for Trump voters — as if we in journalism aren’t more guilty than the average person. We haven’t told them the full story. Democrats are certainly guilty, but journalists haven’t shown people how things could be. They haven’t deeply explained what’s fallacious about Trump and his movement. They dance on the surface.
Mickey: They dance on the surface.
Richard: Exactly — while trying to preserve the systems in place that they benefit from.
Mickey: And then “the system is working” again. The system is still working, RJ. Still working.
Richard: “Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.”
They think people will be impressed when Democrats bring out John Kasich or some other desiccated Republican at their convention to say, “We stand at a crossroads,” while he’s literally standing at a crossroads. And then they wonder why it doesn’t move anybody.
Mass media — not just specialty or left media — have to be able to say, “People are smart enough, by and large, that if we tell them the truth, they’ll get it.” Polling shows people are turning against Israel’s occupation, outraged at corporations and billionaires, supportive of higher taxes on the rich. People are catching on even without journalists. People are ahead of the journalistic profession.
So instead of looking down on them, maybe journalists should look slightly up to them — and skew their reporting toward what people can already comprehend but journalists dare not or will not tell them.
Mickey: So well put, RJ. The key word there is respect — or the lack of it. The press is at a low point in public trust not only because it has lost respect for the public, but because it has lost respect for itself as a venerable institution.
It’s been sucked into name-calling and the circus, and it fails to stand in solidarity when people in the profession are run roughshod over, called petty names, fined millions of dollars, or thrown under the bus at the behest of billionaire owners. The Fourth Estate needs to regain its own self-respect and urgently regain the respect of the American public.
The best way to do that, going back to George Seldes, is to tell the public what’s actually going on.
At Project Censored, for 50 years we have:
Championed and promoted independent public-interest journalism.
Held corporate media to account when they fail to adequately inform the public as community members and global citizens.
Provided hands-on critical media literacy training to students and made that work public — we practice what we teach and try to lead by example.
Worked to increase public awareness of, trust in, and support for independent journalists, because that’s essential to every movement addressing injustices at home and abroad.
Supporting independent media is a great way to show people how truth-telling journalism can make a difference — and, dare we say, maybe even turn a profit. As you suggested, RJ, people are turning against establishment narratives. If corporate media started exposing, as the independent press does, the issues the public already suspects and senses, they could have a groundswell of new support and audience. People might begin to trust the media again as partners in solving the challenges we face, rather than a petty adjunct of the billionaire class.
Richard: I’ll bet people can support that work at ProjectCensored.org, by the way.
In closing — and then I’ll give you the last word, Mickey — I’ll say this: I’m not big on awards or “best of the year” collections, but I’ve been in a couple, and it feels nice when somebody says, “You did good work this year.”
Mickey: It does. That’s true.
Richard: One of the reasons I love to amplify Project Censored and your work on underreported news stories is that I want it to function as a kind of behavioral-mod program. I want journalists to say, “I got into this because I wanted to investigate, not just make a nice living. I’d like to make a nice living, but what I’d really love is to be in Project Censored’s anthology next year.”
You’ve said some of this already, but you can tell us what Project Censored will be doing in the next year or two — and maybe the next 50. My hope is that it continues to expand its role in turning “journalists by name” into journalists by profession.
Mickey: RJ, I’m really glad you brought that up. The kind of work you do and the reporting you do are, in my estimation, exactly the kind of work we honor at Project Censored and at the Park Center with the Izzy Awards.
For all the people who end up in the books and get the awards, there are so many others in the independent ecosystem doing amazing work. Last year we had a record number of Izzy nominations at the Park Center — 90 nominations.
Next week, at ParkIndyMedia.org, we’re launching our new website and opening nominations for the Izzies.
At Project Censored, you can nominate stories anytime for our students to research. RJ, you can self-nominate; you can send your own work in. When we celebrate the people on stage, we’re really celebrating everyone who makes that work possible and supports the ethos behind public-interest journalism and the role of critical media literacy in fostering it.
You can go to ProjectCensored.org to check out the book. We’ve got the whole list of stories going back to 1976 for free. The radio show is free. There’s so much of our work online at no cost.
I’d love to see you and many others celebrating the Izzies in April at Ithaca College. And Project Censored is having a big 50th-anniversary event at Ithaca in October with the Union for Democratic Communications. I hope we don’t have such a long gap between conversations again. There’s a lot of work to do, RJ, and I really appreciate being in the same ecosystem with people like you who get up and do it every day for all the right reasons.
Richard: Me too. Likewise. We all need solidarity as human beings, and building solidarity among independent journalists is a service to everyone.
Mickey: We’re not competitors and we’re not rivals. We’ve got to do this together, and we’ve got to elevate and amplify each other’s work as we can. It’s not about scooping each other; it’s about building that shared pile of knowledge and information.
Richard: Independent but mutually supportive.
Mickey: Exactly.
Richard: And with that, Mickey Huff, Project Censored — when the new website comes online, let me know and we’ll put it up at ZeroHourReport.com. As always, thanks for your great work, and thanks for coming on the program.
Mickey: Thanks, RJ. People can go to ProjectCensored.org and ParkIndyMedia.org.