Why I still believe in independent journalism

Reader support makes it possible.

For more than two decades, Karl Stefanovic was one of Australia’s most recognisable and highest-paid television personalities, helping to shape breakfast television for millions of viewers.

So when Channel Nine parted ways with him after an interview with Tommy Robinson on his independent podcast, it once again sparked the familiar debate about free speech in the media.

Robinson is a polarising British figure. His critics describe him as a far-right, anti-immigration activist, while his supporters argue he has been willing to raise issues that others are reluctant to discuss.

Whether you agree with Robinson, or with Stefanovic’s decision to interview him, is beside the point.

Journalism has never required reporters to agree with the people they speak to — particularly in podcasting, where the boundaries between journalism, commentary and entertainment are often blurred.

What stood out to me, however, was something Stefanovic said afterwards.

Speaking with Piers Morgan this week, he observed that to survive in high-profile anchor roles, presenters often become “bland” in order to stay within the bounds of what the establishment will accept.

To me, it was a quiet admission that staying in those roles often means narrowing the range of questions you're prepared to ask.

I had learned the same lesson years earlier when I was fired from the ABC.

Large institutions, including media organisations, have invisible boundaries. No one sits you down and explains where they lie — you only discover them after you cross one.

While making factual documentaries for the national broadcaster, I came to understand that journalism often makes institutions uncomfortable when it asks questions they would rather not confront.

You don’t necessarily get into trouble because your reporting is inaccurate — mine wasn’t. More often, it’s because you’ve moved outside the range of opinions your organisation is willing to defend.

Years later, while reporting for The BMJ on topics such as regulatory capture, Covid vaccines and the UK Covid Inquiry, I encountered a similar problem. Certain experts would quietly become off-limits. Some were regarded as too controversial to interview. Others, I was told, had effectively been “blacklisted.”

But journalism isn’t about protecting audiences from difficult voices. It’s about challenging claims, testing arguments, and trusting readers to weigh the evidence for themselves.

That’s why the Stefanovic story resonated with me. Not because I hold any strong view about Tommy Robinson — to be honest, I knew very little about him until this controversy broke, and I wasn’t a regular viewer of breakfast television.

What interests me is the larger question it raises — why have we become so uncomfortable listening to people we disagree with?

Journalists have always interviewed controversial figures. It’s part of understanding the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

What worries me is that we’ve become less confident—both in our own ability and in the public’s—to hear competing ideas without feeling threatened.

A healthy democracy should trust its citizens to listen, think critically, and reach their own conclusions.

I’ve now spent enough time in both mainstream media and independent journalism to know that neither model is perfect.

Every approach comes with its own pressures and incentives — advertising, sponsorships, algorithms, and the constant need to capture attention in a crowded media landscape.

The internet is full of commentators, influencers and entertainers competing for attention. Many have built successful businesses around opinion, outrage and the free speech debate. Good luck to them. Audiences clearly value that kind of content.

I didn’t become an independent journalist to become an influencer. I did it because I want my work to be influential.

My goal has always been to produce original reporting — obtaining documents, interviewing sources, scrutinising evidence, and holding powerful institutions to account.

That kind of work is slower and often less financially rewarding than reacting to headlines, but I believe it still matters.

I've deliberately chosen to remain free of advertising on Substack and independent of industry funding. I'm fortunate that the Brownstone Institute helps supports me through a fellowship, giving me the freedom to pursue investigations that might otherwise be difficult to sustain.

I still hope that, over time, MD Reports will be sustained primarily by readers who value careful, evidence-based, independent journalism.

If you believe this kind of reporting still matters, I’d be grateful if you considered becoming a paid subscriber.

A subscription costs US$75 / year, which amounts to about US$6.25 / month, and helps fund the time and research required for this work.

If you’re already a paid subscriber, thank you — your support means a lot to me. And if you know someone who might value this kind of journalism, I’d appreciate it if you considered gifting them a subscription.

Thank you for reading, for sharing my work, and for making it possible for me to keep digging into important stories and asking the tough questions.

Maryanne

---

For a once off payments you can donate HERE or on PayPal below:

---