What’s the point of National Review?

Seriously — why does this thing exist in the first place?

The answer is as simple and as solid as it has always been: National Review exists because there are things that you just won’t read, stories that you just won’t hear about, and opinions that you just won’t see expressed if all that existed were CNN, the New York Times, and the Atlantic.

In 2020, an American citizen curious about the evidence (now vindicated!) for the lab-leak theory of Covid could have gone to Twitter — but he probably would have been banned. He could have gone to the Times, but he probably would have been called a conspiracy theorist. He could have gone to CNN, but, well, he probably would have been shot into outer space for even bringing it up.

But at NR, we asked Jim Geraghty to write the whole thing up and then we put it on the cover of the magazine. Jim did the research. He knew his stuff. His case was reasonable and solid. But for that decision, he was blasted and NR was attacked for giving the evidence for the lab-leak theory a “platform.”

I’m not going to be shy about this: We’re proud of this work. All of it.

We’re proud of Andy McCarthy’s sober analysis of Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s competing classified-documents scandals.

We’re proud of Maddy Kearns’s articles testifying to the reality of the social-contagion factor when it comes to teens going transgender. Trust me, if you’d like to see what an avalanche of hate (e)mail looks like, take a peek at Maddy’s inbox.

We’re proud of standing up to the bullies and the woke censors and the scolds.

If you’re content with getting your news as curated by 26-year-old Oberlin grads and hipster cable-news producers, hey, it’s a free country. But if you like reading about the truth, whether or not it’s convenient for those in cultural, political, or economic power, please consider supporting National Review.