https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/17/exclusive-facebook...
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/13/exclusive-facebook...
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...
I just noticed that they even publish stuff in opposition to Trump: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/11/exclusive-text...
Note that I found "right wing investigative journalism publishing sources" to be ambiguous, because you could mean a "publishing source" as in a place that publishes things or specifically that you want a list of references as found in academic papers or on wikipedia. If I guessed wrongly, perhaps you could clarify.
I'd love counter examples, This is not about filter bubbles.
EDIT: on Further consideration, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist might qualify, but they typically don't seem to do expose pieces.
Even Fox News does some actual investigative reporting, notwithstanding that most of their airtime is spent on opinion and propaganda.
I actually read Fox News daily for a few months to try and see this, but I didn't, and eventually stopped after they autoplayed played someone getting fatally hit by a truck on their front page.
https://www.foxnews.com/category/news-events/fox-news-invest...
Where you find things like this:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/veterans-face-more-delays-on-agen...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jon-stewart-burn-pit-victims-psa
It's not sexy contentious lies, it's factual reporting about veterans and 9/11 first responders. So naturally, it doesn't get promoted by algorithms designed to push clickbait to the fore.
It would be more helpful to think of churches/parochial schools as businesses.
If parochial schools are businesses then school vouchers are sending retirees social security checks rather than operating state-run homes for the elderly. It allows people to buy what they want in the market (from businesses) instead of being restricted to a choice between a government facility and nothing -- not even a refund of the tax dollars not needed to pay for it when you don't use it.
People are free to choose as it is. No reason to provide the public’s democratically distributed money.
Reason and Cato are corporate funded think tanks pushing a corporatist agenda. If you look at CATO's front page piece right now, for instance, it's not an investigation it's an opinion piece on how hard it is to complain in the WTO inspired by their backers:
https://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/trade-...
https://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-deleting-call-records
You also get pieces like this, which are full of factual information whether or not you agree with their policy position:
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/new-nation...
And it's hard to see which "corporatist agenda" pieces like this are pushing:
https://reason.com/2019/11/21/with-this-forfeiture-trick-inn...
Which isn't to say that they're unbiased. Everybody has an opinion. But everybody has an opinion; that's why you need more than one news source.
That doesn't mean we should totally ignore what media and think tanks have to say, they can still produce good critiques and investigations -- whether Brookings or Cato. Even explicitly partisan muckrakers like Greenpeace or O'Keefe's Project Veritas occasionally expose a valid case of wrongdoing no one else noticed. These organizations are very selective and hyperbolic in what they focus on, due to their narrow mission and ideology and the natural limit of time/energy, but if you combine all of their varied output you can get enough slices to approximate the pie.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrat...