What, do tell, dear lady and honorable friend, is the online equivalent of a STANDING OVATION? Whatever that is, I am giving you one now. You have always written well, never minced words, and I have seen you taken to task and shown in the wrong enough to know full well that you do not see yourself as any final authority on anything but your own convictions, which you discuss and defend with grace, wit, and a ladylike restraint.
So when I see Svetlana Voreskova, one of my very favorite writers in a language not her first one, come as close to unglued as I happen to believe she is capable of or permits herself to, it is something to see. Having witnessed this example of what I know, as a longtime reader and co-correspondent, is your outer limits of passions expressed, is an honor. To have become already so familiar and at ease with the soul and humility and decency behind it, a privilege.
Enough of that. I also know, both that you know how to take praise, and that you do not seek it as a motivation to do what you do.
So to illustrate for your relief and edification, that all is not lost in the realm of genuine journalism, I offer you here an example of one of the finest, most honorable examples of genuine investigative reportage I have ever seen in fifty years:
This interview is long and mostly mundane, on a story that ought to be a gargantuan scandal, and has instead enjoyed a near-invisible obscurity that measures well the absurdity of the Age of TMDI (too much dis-information).
I’d suggest you put it on while puttering around the house, there is nothing visual to miss as the shot you see here is the whole of its visible content. What is there, is a thought process, a professionalism between two reporters, a show of ongoing conscientiousness in service of who, what, where, when and how absent the self-indulgent childish speculation of the “why”. And, as fine an example of the once-venerated formula of the public’s right, desire, and need to know things, as you will find anywhere in the profession.