We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

I ran across an interesting story on X yesterday, and it says a lot about how the Pravda media “journalists” work, think, and try to trap their targets in such a way that the “reporters” come out looking intrepid and the victims of their smears come out looking guilty of charges that are completely made up. 

Advertisement

ProPublica, the “nonprofit” investigative journalism site that does a lot of the day-to-day propaganda for the left, was “investigating” a story that Pete Hegseth has lied multiple times about getting admitted to West Point and turning down the offer. 

It’s unclear why they decided to look into this rumor–as far as I know, nobody has publicly questioned Pete’s claim, and it seems an odd one for a “journalist” to dig into unless they had a tip from a source. In this case, a clearly partisan-motivated source who shopped a falsehood to a reporter, and who, if indeed there was a source, the reporter is not calling out for having lied. 

The story was clearly already written, and the “journalist” Justin Elliot tried to ambush Pete Hegseth with a bogus claim that he was working on a deadline (a ridiculous claim since it was an investigation and not breaking news). He asked Pete to prove he wasn’t a liar–he used that term–within an hour. 

He sent this in an email to a man who is in the midst of a whirlwind confirmation process for Secretary of Defense, and it could easily have been lost in the no-doubt hundreds of emails Pete would get at any time. 

Advertisement

Miraculously, Pete saw the email, dug out his admittance letter from West Point, and demonstrated that the story was completely bogus. In 99 out of 100 cases, this would never have been possible in the limited timeframe, and I am blown away that Pete was able to crush the slander before publication. 

Where the story gets really interesting is how the editor of ProPublica has responded to criticism about the entire affair. Obviously, people are upset that the organization was prepared to slander Hegseth, ambushed him, called him a liar, and demanded he prove his integrity so quickly in the midst of everything else he is doing. After all, if the story were real they could have waited a day without being scooped–nobody else was chasing this non-story. 

The editor, though, sees the whole affair in a different light: it was a journalism success story!

Advertisement

No doubt Jesse Eisinger is disappointed that ProPublica wasn’t able to embarrass Hegseth, but since the story was killed before it was published and then refuted, he is probably pleased that the organization dodged a bullet. 

Think about the circumstances, though: a reporter at ProPublica was fed a bogus story, was given false information by a West Point official, accused a nominee of being a liar, and when miraculously, Hegseth was able to swat down the story within the ridiculously short time allotted, dropped the story and shrugged. 

Both Eisinger and Justin Elliot don’t seem at all concerned that both their source, whoever he is, and the spokesperson for West Point LIED TO THEM to slander Pete Hegseth. 

Advertisement

That seems like an interesting story, doesn’t it? And since the source lied, he or she has no expectation of journalistic anonymity. As for the West Point spokesman, HIS lying about the next Secretary of Defense should be a scandal and investigated. Why is somebody employed by the Department of Defense trying to slander the future Secretary of Defense? 

Doing so, by the way, is a crime:

Both Parlatore and Cotton called for a thorough investigation into the matter and noted that West Point’s actions may have violated the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits federal agencies from disclosing personnel records without the individual’s express consent.

The only exceptions to the statute involve records that are demanded by law enforcement or asked for via a Freedom of Information Act request — neither of which applied here, according to Parlatore.

Technically, all West Point records are under the purview of the Department of the Army in the Pentagon, which Hegseth, an Army combat vet, will oversee if a majority of the Senate confirms him in the 119th Congress.

In addition to “reputational harm,” Parlatore added, the potentially criminal fabrication could “undermine public trust” in the US military.

“In light of these concerns, I urge you to investigate this matter thoroughly and take appropriate corrective action to prevent future violations. As a fellow Service Academy graduate, I am sure that we both agree that it is imperative that our Service Academies uphold the highest standards of privacy, accuracy, and integrity in their communications.”

Making false statements as an executive branch employee with the intent to mislead is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine.

Advertisement

ProPublica isn’t interested in those stories because, well, they are inconvenient to The Narrative™. In fact, according to Eisinger, government officials lie all the time, and ProPublica has no interest in that at all–as Pravda media, their job is to amplify, not examine, what these liars are selling, apparently. 

More than that, individuals and foundations give grants to ProPublica to cover certain stories and types of stories in a sort of “pay to play” scheme where a nonprofit kicks in a sum of money to have ProPublica highlight something for them, such as “racial equity” or other lefty causes.  

This is actually becoming common in the Pravda Media–grants are given to “news” organizations to push out propaganda for buyers. 

It’s “philanthropy-funded news.” Uh-huh. 

What’s great about this story is that Eisinger commits a “Kinsley Gaffe” by accidentally telling the truth that he doesn’t care when his sources lie, as long as the lies are useful. 

We see this all the time. Think of the thousands of lies published about Russiagate, and no reporter has outed a source that lied to him. The deal when it comes to anonymity is that it is granted assuming that the information is genuine–otherwise, the reporter is publishing falsehoods with no accountability at all to anybody. If you are lied to, then the lie should be the story and the liar outed. 

Advertisement

But it doesn’t work like that because the reporters WANT to print the lies, and anonymous sources are a convenient way to get the lie out there. 

This is how journalism works these days: it is a conspiracy between the reporters and the creators of The Narrative, and that’s why so many honest reporters have struck out on their own.