I remember a lot of our fans saying it for the last few years too... Totally transformed under Howe.

Thanks. You too

The expose be compromised, might be personal, might just be lazy journalism. I don't know. But their 'scoop' is all public information and they even say in the article that most of the journalists they spoke to knew about the funding already and didn't think it mattered.

I totally agree that it's important to know who is funding the media and for that to factor in how you read their output. I would argue that the OCCRP is actually way more transparent about that than most other sources and I can still appreciate their output, even if I don't like US foreign policy.

Do you know that or does it just feel right? Have you got any skin in the game or are you just responding reflexively? I've been to these places and met with the journalists investigating the nasty bastards. They aren't all CIA. And even if they are, the nasty bastards still need investigating.

I agree it's good to be sceptical about everything, but my point is that I've looked at the actual output of OCCRP and I think it's pretty good regardless. I think if you read this 'expose' with a cynical eye, you would say that it's pretty thin gruel.

I was responding directly to a comment that said they had concealed their funding. Anyway, I don't disagree that this model of funding journalism has drawbacks - but which one doesn't? Even if donors don't give red lines, they might be implied or inferred. That doesn't mean OCCRP is an op...

It was established to boost the quality of investigative reporting in the Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe (which it has definitely contributed to). There is a long tradition of US journalism and organisations better suited to run those stories - what does it matter if OCCRP doesn't do that?

From the Mediapart article, I can't see where they are concealing the influence. Its donors are listed on the website and anyone can quite quickly find out the proportions from the public filings. The article says most of their partners knew about US funds and weren't concerned.

I do, but no one group is going to report on all things at all times. OCCRP has a niche and they report on that. From what I can tell the things that they report are worthwhile. Others can and should report on what they don't. Who benefits from immediately labelling everyone cops/CIA?

I get that the Americans (and anyone else) will fund journalism that they see as advancing their interests, but I don't think that means that journalism is explicitly tainted. Was it bad that the OCCRP exposed the Aliyev family's London property empire? Or how major banks launder criminal proceeds?

OK. In your critical assessment, is the OCCRP's work investigating and reporting on organised crime and corruption a net negative? I've followed their work closely over a number of years and I would say it's a valuable service.

I would be genuinely interested to know what you think those strings are and how they operate. Of course the State Department supports this work for its own geopolitical reasons. But is anyone in receipt of their funding automatically discredited in your eyes? I think reality is more complex.