International
Independent Media “The Free Press” hits 1 Million subscibers
Free Press founder Bari Weiss interviews Peter Thiel
| By Bari Weiss |
The rise of The Free Press happened simply and honestly: story by story.
Christmas and Hanukkah celebrate otherworldly miracles. But this Chrismukkah—the holidays fell on the same day this year—we at The Free Press added a miracle of an entirely human kind. We reached one million subscribers.
Grateful—and hopeful—doesn’t begin to cover it.
I have been beaming since Wednesday morning, when I refreshed my screen and got the good news in Nellie’s childhood home. (We captured the moment; this was before I cried.) Mostly I’m pinching myself, thinking back to how this all began, and wondering how we got here.
The easy answer would be: Americans’ faith in the legacy press has collapsed, with curious and independent-minded readers unsubscribing from The New York Times, pausing their donations to NPR, and searching for trustworthy alternatives.
And that’s certainly part of what happened. It was definitely the beginning.
But we quickly discovered that you can’t build something new—or certainly not something lasting—based only on rejecting the old. You have to build something people value. Something people need.
At The Free Press, that something is the truth—the only goal of real journalism. That’s what we’ve run hard and fast toward. From day one, we’ve had a single guiding principle: Pursue the truth and tell it plainly. No shortcuts. No exceptions.
From day one, we’ve been reporting stories the legacy media was scared to touch or had overlooked as a result of its incuriousness, politesse, or entrenched interests. We’ve aimed to pair the political freedom of the new world with the professed standards of the old. And because we’ve been a subscription business from the start, we’ve been liberated from the need to please advertisers or get clicks. That’s allowed us to do ambitious journalism, driven by a desire to bring our readers great work that informs them about the world as it is.
We’ve done all this very lean. We don’t have hordes of consultants, mammoth business teams, or special strategies for ranking on social media or Google. Until a few weeks ago, we didn’t even have a metered paywall, let alone a product manager.
And when I say we—I don’t just mean our editorial team, which is the hardest working in the industry. I mean all of us. All one million, especially those who have been here from our earliest days.
Back then, honestly, a paid subscription didn’t get you anything so different from a free one. Now we’ve expanded to offer a whole fleet of content and events and podcasts. Soon, we’ll have even more. But our early subscribers didn’t sign up when we had any of that. They believed deeply in the mission, and that belief allowed us to grow.
In other words: there were no fancy tricks. The rise of The Free Press happened simply: story by story. Podcast by podcast. Debate by debate. Video by video. Interview by interview. And subscription by subscription.
As I’ve told our newsroom on more than one occasion: There is no secret business—no gaming or cooking app, for now at least. The business is the stories we tell. If a story is excellent, if it tells our readers something new, something revelatory, if it explains something in a new way, if it deepens trust, we will grow. If it doesn’t do these things, we won’t. Our readers are discerning: They love and reward quality.
This is all a way of saying: We reached this milestone because of you.
The Free Press began as a question I asked myself after resigning from The New York Times, scratching my head at what I saw there. Is there still a market for real journalism? For fearless, fair, independent journalism that treats readers like adults? Journalism that presents the facts—even the uncomfortable ones—and allows people to draw their own conclusions?
The answer, it turns out, is a resounding yes.
That “yes” from one million of you—and counting—has given me hope not just for journalism but for the future.
So here’s to you, the first million members of the Free Press community. Here’s to the next million. And most important of all: Here’s to the next story.
 |
In honor of this milestone, we’re offering a 25% discount to become a paying member of our community. If you’re a free subscriber, there’s never been a better time to upgrade. We’re keeping this sale on annual subscriptions going until midnight ET on December 31, 2024, because we want many, many more of you to join us, officially, in 2025.
If the price—less than $80 a year—is prohibitive, please write to us: [email protected] and put “subscription help” in the subject line.
 |
Technically my assignment for today was to choose my favorite stories of 2024. All week long we’ve been recommending the best of The Free Press. Today was my day. Honestly, I found it an impossible task. But if you’re still wondering what makes The Free Press tick, or if it’s worth supporting our work by becoming a paid subscriber, allow me to recommend . . .
1. Uri Berliner would never describe himself as brave, but I will. His bombshell essay, “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.,” captured how the public radio network lost its way—and shaped conversation for months. If you want to understand why The Free Press is an urgent project, read this.
2. One of the best things to happen to The Free Press this year was my friend Niall Ferguson joining us as a columnist. Start with his inaugural and provocative essay, “We’re All Soviets Now.”
3. Abigail Shrier is one of the most important reporters working today. We were thrilled that she officially joined as a contributing editor this year. Her recent investigation—“The Kindergarten Intifada”—exposes a widespread, pernicious campaign in American public schools to indoctrinate children against Israel.
4. Free Press columnist Coleman Hughes is a generational talent: cool-headed, hyper-rational even as he touches the hottest subjects in our politics and culture. His review essay of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s new book, The Message, is definitive: “The Fantasy World of Ta-Nehisi Coates.”
5. In “They’re Black Democrats. And They’re Suing Chicago Over Migrants,” our reporter Olivia Reingold reminded Americans that you can never, ever make assumptions about what any cohort of voters thinks or believes.
6. And in “I’m 28. And I’m Scheduled to Die in May,” Rupa Subramanya illustrated, in harrowing detail, why a mentally ill person would end her own life in a country where death is seen as a cure.
7. Douglas Murray’s Sunday column, “Things Worth Remembering,” is a weekly jewel. I particularly loved this one, about what makes a great conversationalist: “Conversation Is an Art.”
8. Maddy Kearns’s story on British citizens getting arrested for silently praying was one of the most troubling dispatches I’ve read on the perilous state of free expression in the West: “She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head.”
9. Not only does she deliver TGIF every week, but Nellie Bowles somehow managed to write a book this year. This excerpt—“The Day I Stopped Canceling People”—is a deeply personal account of going along with the crowd before realizing other things, like love, are more important than fitting in.
10. The Free Press decamped to Israel earlier this year to report from the ground. But our man in Jerusalem, since the start of the war, had been Matti Friedman. Don’t miss his piece “Why I Got a Gun,” a sobering tale of how terror transformed a family.
 |
Beyond the Best of The Free Press, here’s what summed up my 2024. . .
Best thing I read this year: The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig.
Best thing I watched: Ratatouille! This is the first—and only—movie our daughter has seen. We watch it in 10-minute increments, so I don’t yet know how it ends. Highly recommend the movie—and this methodology.
Best thing I heard: Beyonce’s Cowboy Carter. And I don’t know if this quite qualifies, but I’m also going with the Roast of Tom Brady. Cultural glasnost, brought to you by Netflix. The beginning of the great un-freezing.
Best thing I bought: These $45 jeans from Amazon. Are they flattering? Absolutely not. But you will not find more comfortable pants.
Best thing I ate: This Alison Roman recipe, which I make in a tagine, never fails. Also: Courage Bagels in LA are worth the wait.
Biggest regret of the year: Not pausing to celebrate wins. And every bedtime I missed because of work. Resolutions, both.
Best thing that happened: The birth of our gorgeous (enormous) son in July.
New Year’s resolution: Become a Pilates mom.
What I am most looking forward to in 2025: Building The Free Press—and spending time with the talented, tireless people I get to build it alongside.
From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss
On the eve of a possible trade war with the United States, Canadian policymakers have a valuable bargaining chip they can play in any negotiations—namely, Canada’s “supply management” system.
During his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said he may impose “25 per cent” tariffs on Canadian and Mexican exports into the United States on Feb. 1. In light of his resounding election win and Republican control of both houses of congress, Trump has a strong hand.
In response, Canadian policymakers—including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—have threatened retaliation. But any retaliation (tariffs imposed on the U.S., for example) would likely increase the cost of living for Canadians.
Thankfully, there’s another way. To improve our trade position with the U.S.—and simultaneously benefit Canadian consumers—policymakers could dismantle our outdated system of supply management, which restricts supply, controls imports and allows producers of milk, eggs and poultry to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. Government dictates who can produce, what can be produced, when and how much. While some aspects of the system are provincial (such as certain marketing boards), the federal government controls many key components of supply management including import restrictions and national quotas.
How would this help Canada minimize the Trump threat?
In the U.S., farmers backed Trump by a three-to-one margin in the 2024 election, and given Trump’s overall views on trade, the new administration will likely target Canadian supply management in the near future. (Ironically, Trump has cried foul about Canadian tariffs, which underpin our supply management system.) Given the transactional nature of Trump’s leadership, Canadian negotiators could put supply management on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to counter demands that would actually damage the Canadian economy, such as Trump’s tariffs. This would allow Trump to deliver increased access to the Canadian market for the farmers that overwhelmingly supported him in the election.
And crucially, this would also be good for Canadian consumers. According to a 2015 study, our supply management system costs the average Canadian household an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually, and higher prices hurt lower-income Canadians more than any other group. If we scrapped supply management, we’d see falling prices at the grocery store and increased choice due to dairy imports from the U.S.
Unfortunately, Parliament has been moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, which recently passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate, would entrench supply management by restricting the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to use increased market access as a tool in international trade negotiations. In other words, the bill—if passed—will rob Canadian negotiators of a key bargaining chip in negotiations with Trump. With a potential federal election looming, any party looking to strengthen Canada’s trade position and benefit consumers here at home should reject Bill C-282.
Trade negotiations in the second Trump era will be difficult so our policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces must avoid self-inflicted wounds. By dismantling Canada’s system of supply management, they could win concessions from Team Trump, possibly avert a destructive tit-for-tat tariff exchange, and reduce the cost of living for Canadians.
Alex Whalen
Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute
Jake Fuss
Squadron primarily used for transporting VIPs around D.C. was apparently familiarizing new pilot with area.
Wednesday night, shortly before 9pm ET, an American Airlines flight carrying 64 people was on its final approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport when it collided with an Army helicopter with three soldiers on board, about 400 feet off the ground, killing everyone on both aircraft.
The Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk had departed from Fort Belvoir in Virginia with a flight path that cut directly across the flight path of Reagan National Airport
 |
This final approach is probably the most carefully controlled in the world, as it it lies three miles south of the White House and the Capitol.
According to various media reports, military aircraft frequently train in the congested airspace around D.C. for “familiarization and continuity of government planning.”
Less than 30 seconds before the crash, an air traffic controller asked the helicopter, whose callsign was registered as PAT25, if he could see the arriving plane.
‘PAT25 do you see a CRJ? PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ,’ the air traffic controller said. A few seconds later, a fireball erupted in the night sky above Washington DC as the two aircraft collided.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the following statement on X:
 |
It seems that Blackhawks from the 12th Aviation Battalion out of Davison Army Airfield are primarily used for shuttling VIPs around the D.C. area. The following appears to be a helicopter from this battalion.
 |
On the face of it, it strikes me as very imprudent to conduct training flights at night that cross the final approach to Reagan D.C. To me, the word “training” suggests a potential for making errors that an instructor is called upon to correct.
It also strikes me as very strange that Army Blackhawk helicopters operating in this airspace at night are not required to operate with bright external lights, especially when crossing the final approach to Reagan D.C.
Finally, though it’s nothing more than a vague intuition, it seems to me that there is something very strange about this disaster and the timing of it. I wonder if, for some reason, risk management of such training activities was impaired.
World Economic Forum pushes digital globalism that would merge the ‘online and offline’
What the Left Did to Me and My Family
President Trump Signs Executive Order Banning CBDCs
DeepSeek: The Rise of China’s Open-Source AI Amid US Regulatory Shifts and Privacy Concerns
-
International2 days agoElon Musk calls for laws ‘short enough to be understandable by a normal person’
-
Alberta1 day agoAMA challenged to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review
-
National1 day agoAll 6 people trying to replace Trudeau agree with him on almost everything
-
Business1 day agoTariffs Coming April 1 ‘Unless You Stop Allowing Fentanyl Into Our Country’
-
espionage2 days agoCSIS Officer Alleged “Interference” In Warrant Targeting Trudeau Party Powerbroker
-
espionage2 days agoDemocracy Watch Calls Hogue Foreign Interference Report “Mostly a Coverup”
-
Alberta2 days agoWhen America attacks
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump’s ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Agenda Will Likely Take On An Entirely New Shape