I live in a pet free building and do not have a dog. I enjoy my daughter and son-in-law's dog, Nucky. He loves journalists.
photo © Carol Bergman 2026
If you're going to be in journalism and you want to be loved, you'd better get a dog.
-Dan Rather, in the Netflix documentary
A shabbily dressed woman is sitting in front of Stewart's on Rte. 32 on a bitterly cold day. She has a child's backpack and is wearing pajama bottoms flapping in the high wind. Is she waiting for a bus, I ask? Is she hungry? I'm about to offer her the bag of peanuts I have just bought, but she shakes her head "no" so hard she almost falls off the bench, as if to say, Please don't look at me, no, no no, go away. Despite my best intentions, she wants to be left alone. Oh, how I would have preferred to talk to her, to get her story, and to write about it here, or for the local paper.
New Paltz, NY is an upscale town; poverty is nearly invisible. There are homeless people sleeping on benches and pushing shopping carts filled to the brim with belongings, yet they remain quietly unseen, or forgotten once they have been seen. Ivan Echenique, the Director of Family of New Paltz, a not-for-profit in town, once complained to me that the closest shelter is a 30 minute drive away. Ten years since he took the job, and there is still no shelter in New Paltz. I cannot testify as to why this should be so, unless I launch an investigative report. But more than one friend has warned me of getting too engaged as a journalist "so close to home." That worries me. For what is a journalist to do but find out what is behind the curtains of our well-furnished rooms?
I do not write this blog, or anything else, to be loved, but I do expect to be read, and appreciated for whatever understanding I contribute. I do not self-censor my chosen topics, such as this one, for example. As a reader you are free to delete it, or to block my emails, but please do not tell me what to write about, or what not to write about.
Are we all now reliant only on the "citizen journalists" flooding social media for our "news" ? Does it matter that they are untrained, opinionated so-called "watchdogs." I believe it matters a lot. And though I have strong opinions myself, I attempt to temper them with knowledge, experience and professional standards.
Another local friend has prevailed upon me not to quote her. She wrote a heart-rending email to me about her work as a volunteer English teacher to a refugee family, all facing deportation, and begged me not to write about the family or her work. It might make matters worse, she said. Indeed, that is the point. If the situation is super sensitive, and even the lawyers are worried, and the press is silenced or self-censored, then where are we, exactly, as a democracy with a free press?
Except for public radio and television, the media in the United States has always been market driven. Even public radio and television is to some extent. More so, now, as funding has been eviscerated. But over our 250 year history there has also been an underground, alternative press similar in spirit to the Samizdat publications behind the Iron Curtain. Consider the Village Voice, for example, the first of the alternative papers. Founded by Dan Wolf, Ed Fancher, and Norman Mailer in 1955, it introduced "free-form, high-spirited, and passionate journalism into the public discourse," according to their mission statement. Still publishing, it has received three Pulitzer Prizes, the National Press Foundation Award, and the George Polk Award. Even Ramparts, Rolling Stone and, unbelievably, Playboy, ran investigative stories in the day disregarding pressure from advertisers. That firewall broke down a long time ago.
I anticipate the rise of new publications free of corporate constraints or conspiracy theories. Unlike Substack, blogs and podcasts, they will have editors, fact checkers, and the courage and budget to commission investigative reports. And they'll need legal teams that won't cower under threat.