William A. Schambra of the Hudson Institute has this, on how blogs are affecting the coverage of liberal non-profit groups that try to influence public policy (like Pew, the Ford Foundation, etc.). I’m biased, because Schambra credits my reporting on Pewgate with changing how foundations are looked at “forever,” but I think he makes a lot of good points about how blogs will prevent these people from pulling the same crap again:

Any foundation interested in public-policy activism can now expect its implicit political inclinations to be vetted far more thoroughly and publicly than before. It will be much more difficult for donors to operate beneath the radar, justifying their low profile by saying that they are simply objective servants of the public interest. After all, the new networks were born of a reaction against precisely that claim by mainstream news media, and so are inclined to suspect hypocrisy whenever it is made. All foundations — not just those on the right — that want to shape public policy will now be treated as political actors.

Pew discovered what that means, when its response to the allegations by Mr. Treglia came out this way on Fox News: Pew said “it did nothing wrong and is proud of the $40-million it spent to get other people’s money out of politics.” Unfair? Of course. That’s politics; be sure to wear a helmet.

As for the conservative network, I hope it will pay more attention to philanthropy, studying and reporting on its trends, fancies, procedures, and technologies.

He’s right that things have changed. And he’s right that conservatives have to keep on these people like stink on a monkey, because the mainstream media won’t do it. Philanthropy reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post were quite aware of the scam I uncovered when I wrote about Pewgate, but they never followed up — not even to try to discredit me or my reporting (because they couldn’t).

They just ignored it. And they’ll continue to.