Tag Archive for: the washington post

The Washington Post Is Being Gutted

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Journalists cry foul while Bezos cries financial bleeding. 

This week, the Washington Post announced dramatic layoffs that will sharply reduce the size of its newsroom and affect nearly every department. International, metro, sports, editing, and specialty desks are all being cut as the paper attempts to stem mounting financial losses.

The reaction from journalists and labor unions was swift and emotional. Statements accused ownership of abandoning the paper’s historic mission. Some went further, arguing that the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, should step aside if he is no longer willing to “invest” in the institution.

That framing may be comforting inside the newsroom. It is also deeply misleading.

Because the reality facing the Washington Post is not unique. It is not the result of one owner’s priorities. And it is not the product of a single bad year.

It is the reality confronting every print-based news organization in America.

The myth of “investment” in legacy media

When unions and journalists say Bezos should keep “investing,” what they really mean is continuing to subsidize structural losses indefinitely.

That is not an investment. That is life support.

The Washington Post has reportedly lost close to $100 million in recent years. Its daily circulation has collapsed from roughly 250,000 in 2020 to under 100,000 today. Digital subscriptions surged briefly during election cycles and political flashpoints, then evaporated just as quickly when trust eroded.

No serious business model can survive on the assumption that a wealthy owner will absorb unlimited losses forever.

At some point, math asserts itself.

The uncomfortable truth journalists avoid

Most coverage of the Post’s downsizing treats the problem as a technological issue. Advertising moved online. Social media fragmented attention. Readers no longer consume news the way they once did.

All true. Still incomplete.

What is almost never discussed is the collapse of reader trust, particularly in daily publications that increasingly confuse reporting with persuasion.

Millions of readers do not want to pay money to be lectured. They do not want to open a news app and be told, implicitly or explicitly, that they are morally defective, politically dangerous, ignorant, or part of a fascist fringe simply because they hold dissenting views.

That fatigue cuts across ideology. It applies to the left and the right.

People are willing to tolerate bias when it is honest and labeled. What they reject is bias injected into supposedly neutral reporting, especially when they are asked to pay for it.

That problem is routinely understated, and it matters more than most newsroom leaders will admit.

Why people tolerate bias online but not in print

One of the great ironies of modern media is that people flock to online news even when they know it is slanted.

Why?

Because they are not being billed for it.

If a reader disagrees with an editorial frame on X, Substack, YouTube, or an independent blog, they can leave instantly. There is no subscription guilt, no sunk cost, no sense of being trapped in a moral scolding they paid to receive.

Legacy newspapers ask readers to open their wallets for a product that increasingly blends news with judgment. In a competitive market with endless alternatives, that is a losing proposition.

The internet did not just break the advertising model. It broke the patience model.

The monopoly mindset never adjusted

For decades, large metro papers operated as near-monopolies. If you lived in a city, you had one dominant paper. Classifieds paid the bills. Scarcity protected authority.

That world is gone.

Yet many newsrooms kept the same staffing levels, the same international footprint, the same institutional assumptions, long after the economic foundation disappeared.

The Washington Post’s leadership finally acknowledged this when it admitted the paper was still structured like a monopoly newspaper in a non-monopoly world.

That recognition came late, but it is not wrong.

Bezos is not the story. The system is.

It is convenient to personalize the crisis by pointing at Bezos. It avoids harder questions about journalism itself.

But even if Bezos sold tomorrow, the next owner would face the same facts:

  • Shrinking readership
  • Fragmented attention
  • High labor costs
  • Low willingness to pay
  • Deep skepticism toward ideological framing

No owner, billionaire or otherwise, can reverse those forces with sentiment alone.

The real question is not who owns the Washington Post. It is whether legacy journalism is willing to relearn humility, separate reporting from advocacy, and rebuild trust with readers who no longer accept lectures disguised as news.

Until that happens, layoffs will continue. Not just in Washington, but everywhere.

What Legacy Media Forgot About Trust

At Christian Action Network, we report the facts. We lay out what happened, who was involved, and why it matters. Do we lean in a political direction? Of course we do.

The difference is that our readers know that from the start. We do not hide our worldview, and we do not deceive readers by smuggling perspective into reporting while pretending to be neutral.

We are explicit about our position and disciplined about our facts.

That discipline is not optional. Our work is scrutinized relentlessly by legacy media outlets eager to find even the smallest factual error. The microscope they hold over us is unforgiving, and it forces rigor.

Each of our stories is fact-checked by three separate agencies before we post. We pass the truth threshold because we have to.

People voluntarily support Christian Action Network because they trust us.

That trust was earned through transparency, accuracy, and honesty about perspective. Much of legacy media lost that trust while refusing to acknowledge that paying subscribers now hold them to the same standard they once imposed on others.

The layoffs we are witnessing are not a mystery. They are the market’s verdict on credibility, and credibility cannot survive where humility has been replaced by moral pretense.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.

Ex-FDA Commissioners Against Higher Vaccine Standards Took $6 Million From COVID Vaccine Makers

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Ten of the twelve former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioners and acting commissioners opposed to the Trump administration’s stiffer standards for vaccines quietly disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry, a Daily Caller News Foundation review shows.

The FDA old guard criticized the new leadership in a Dec. 3 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) letter over a higher regulatory bar for vaccines, namely the expectation that most new vaccine approvals will require randomized clinical trials, arguing it could hamper the market.

“Insisting on long, expensive outcomes studies for every updated formulation would delay the arrival of better-matched vaccines when new outbreaks emerge or when additional groups of patients could benefit,” the former commissioners wrote. “Abandoning the existing methods won’t ‘elevate vaccine science’ … It will subject vaccines to a substantially higher and more subjective approval bar.”

But while the former commissioners disclosed their conflicts of interest to the medical journal — per standard practice in scientific publishing — reporters didn’t relay them to the broader public in reports in the Washington Post, STAT News and CNN.

The headlines about a bipartisan rebuke from former occupants of FDA’s highest office give the impression that the Trump administration is contravening established science, but closer inspection reveals a revolving door between pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies overseeing them.

Three of the signatories have received payments totaling $6 million from manufacturers or former manufacturers of COVID vaccines.

Scott Gottlieb has received $2.1 million in cash and stock from his position on the Pfizer board of directors, where he has advised on ethics and regulatory compliance since 2019, according to company filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stephen Ostroff has received $752,310 from Pfizer in consulting fees since 2020, according to OpenPayments.

Mark McClellan has received $3.3 million from Johnson & Johnson as a member of the board of directors since 2013, SEC filings also show. McClellan also consults for the new pharmaceutical arm of the alternative investment management company Blackstone, which invested $750 million in Moderna in April 2025.

Gottlieb and McClellan did not respond to requests for comment. Ostroff could not be reached for comment.

FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad outlined the higher standards and shared the results of an internal analysis validating 10 reports of children’s deaths following the COVID-19 vaccine in a Nov. 28 memo to staff. He called for introspection and reform at the agency.

The NEJM letter criticizes Prasad for cracking down on a practice called “immunobridging” that infers vaccine efficacy from laboratory tests rather than assessing it through real-world reductions in disease or death. The FDA under the Biden administration expanded COVID vaccines to children using this “immunobridging” technique, extrapolating vaccine efficacy from adults to children based on antibody levels.

Norman Sharpless — who in addition to previously serving as acting FDA commissioner also served as the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute — consults for Tempus, a company that collaborates with COVID vaccine maker BioNTech. He has helped steer $70 million in investments in biotech through a venture capital firm he founded in November 2024. Sharpless also disclosed $26,180 in payments in 2024 from Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese pharmaceutical company that markets mRNA technology among other drugs, on OpenPayments.

“I was grateful for the opportunity to serve as NCI Director and Acting FDA Commissioner in the first Trump Administration, and strongly support many of the things President Trump is trying to do in the current Administration,” Sharpless said in an email.

Margaret Hamburg, another former FDA commissioner and signatory of the NEJM letter, has since 2020 earned $2.8 million as a member of the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which markets RNA interference (RNAi) technology.

Hamburg did not respond to a message on LinkedIn.

Most signatories disclosed income from biotech companies testing experimental cancer treatments. These products could face tighter scrutiny under Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist long wary of rubberstamping pricey oncology drugs — which Prasad points out often cause some toxicity — without plausible evidence of an improvement in quality of life or survival.

The former FDA commissioners disclosed ties to Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; OncoNano Medicine; incyclix; Nucleus Radiopharma; and N-Power, a contractor that runs oncology clinical trials.

Andrew von Eschenbach, who like Sharpless formerly served both as FDA commissioner and the head of the National Cancer Institute, disclosed stock in HistoSonics, a company with investments from Bezos Expeditions and Thiel Bio seeking FDA approval for ultrasound technology targeted at tumors.

Some FDA commissioners who signed onto the letter opposing changes to vaccine approvals have ties to biotechnology investment firms, namely McClellan, who consults Arsenal Capital; Janet Woodcock, who consults RA Capital Management; and Robert Califf, who owns stock in Population Health Partners.

Califf did not respond to an email requesting comment. Woodcock did not respond to requests for comment sent to two medical research advocacy groups with Woodcock on the board. Eschenbach did not respond to a LinkedIn message.

The two signatories without pharmaceutical ties may find their judgement challenged by the FDA investigation into COVID-19 vaccine deaths, having either implemented or formally defended the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of vaccines and boosters to healthy adults and children.

David Kessler executed Biden’s vaccination policy as chief science officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, helping to secure deals for shots with Pfizer and Moderna.

Meanwhile Jane Henney chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report published in October 2025 that praised the performance of FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine surveillance during the pandemic — underwritten with CDC funding.

That assessment clashes with that of a Senate report, citing internal documents from FDA, finding that CDC never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, and that top officials in the Biden administration delayed warning pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after their approval in some children in May 2021, months after Israeli health officials first detected it in February 2021. The Senate investigation named Woodcock, a signatory of the NEJM letter, as one of the FDA officials who slow-walked the warning.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

FDA Chief Medical Officer Demands ‘Introspection’ By Staff After Report Tracing 10 Children’s Deaths to COVID Vaccine

Biden Admin Spent Weeks ‘Downplaying’ COVID Vaccine Risks Before Issuing Formal Warning, Senate Report Alleges

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CIA Analysts Who Helped Cook Up Phony Russiagate Intel Still Thriving In Deep State, Former Spy Says

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Two analysts who helped Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan discredit President Donald Trump through weak or phony intelligence on Russian election interference continue to cash paychecks from the agency, according to a former CIA operations officer.

“At least two still do work there. That doesn’t mean that all of the other people have left. Those are just the two that I’m aware of,” former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

One of former authors remains in possession of a “blue badge,” meaning they remain a CIA employee, while another possesses a “green badge” and continues to do work for the agency as a contractor, Wright said. Others may retain their security clearances.

Wright has not held back his opinion about his former boss: He said in a recent op-ed that he should “rot in prison” for undermining the integrity of the Republic.

“These men thought they knew what was best for America, and they didn’t give a damn what voters like you thought,” he wrote.

Brennan — whose tenure at CIA spanned decades — likely cultivated generations of like-minded CIA employees, Wright said. The former CIA director’s influence probably continues to shape the agency’s culture by way of mentorships, friendships, promotion panels and hiring offices. 

The CIA did not respond to requests for comment. A request for comment from Brennan through his consulting firm WestExec Advisors did not receive a reply.

Documents declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in recent days have revealed that President Barack Obama’s intelligence chiefs spun, cherrypicked and in some cases wholly manufactured raw intelligence reports to support the narrative — predetermined in leaks to the media — that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “clear preference” for Trump and “aspired to help his election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”

The resulting 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment touched off years of Russiagate media frenzy. Though technically endorsed by the “big three” — the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency — just five CIA analysts under Brennan wrote the assessment, according to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report declassified on July 23. The analysts were plucked from a “Fusion Cell” Brennan had formed months earlier to examine Russian election interference, according to a CIA self-assessment declassified on July 2.

Those analysts worked hand-in-glove with Brennan, churning out an assessment in less than a week in the days leading up to Christmas. Brennan hid the “sensitive intelligence” — the unverified, slanted and irrelevant raw intelligence reports — from other elements of the intelligence community until a two-day review process. The review happened using a card copy that was shuttled between Langley, Washington, DC, and Fort Meade, the report indicates.

Despite the revelations, there have been few assurances that analysts whose names are unknown and may remain embedded in the Deep State no longer play a role in U.S. national security.

It’s not atypical for the CIA to conduct internal investigations of its personnel, from audits of timecards to counterintelligence probes to ensure foreign spies do not infiltrate U.S. intelligence, Wright said.

Yet the CIA assessment of its own “tradecraft” in assembling the ICA omitted full details about the significant flaws of the raw intelligence reports underlying its judgements. The deputy director of CIA for analysis, who is unnamed in the report, wrote that CIA analysts were subject to “procedural anomalies” and Brennan’s outsized influence. The CIA assessment also concedes its ICA was weakened by the inclusion of the Steele dossier, a salacious Democratic opposition research file on Trump. Yet the report also claims the ICA had “analytic rigor” which “exceeded that of most IC assessments.”

The report conceded that the CIA’s “high confidence” that Russian authorities “aspired” for Trump to win was unwarranted given it was based in only one report. But the CIA’s self-assessment did not give full insight into the weaknesses of that report.

“While the DA Review identified specific procedural and tradecraft issues with the one judgment, these issues should not be interpreted as indicative of broader systemic problems in the IC’s analytic processes or standards,” the CIA deputy director wrote.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford proclaimed the report a “whitewash” within hours of its release, setting in motion the declassification of his committee’s more strident report.

“The report was produced in the 116th Congress under Devin Nunes despite extraordinary restrictions placed by the CIA. Among those restrictions are a prohibition on transporting the document to secure spaces on Capitol Hill,” Crawford said.

It would only become apparent when the congressional investigation’s report was declassified three weeks later that the “aspired” judgement relied on a fragment of a sentence from a single human intelligence report.

“Putin had made this decision [to leak the DNC emails] after he had come to believe that the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory,” the report read.

The “aspired” judgement hinged on the clause “whose victory Putin was counting on,” which five CIA officers interpreted five different ways, the report states.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe himself called attention to a lack of accountability around intelligence failures and deceptions in a 2023 op-ed. CIA senior bureaucrats hold lifetime appointments, maintaining their rank and pay even when overseeing major failures — a practice Congress should move to end, Ratcliffe wrote.

“Officials who betray the public trust—either by bad acts in office or by politicizing their credentials after leaving—should be stripped of their security clearances,” Ratcliffe wrote.

But experts told the DCNF that Ratcliffe could encounter a hostile CIA culture in implementing any reforms.

CIA officer training includes a video of drafters of an intelligence estimate alleging Iraqi weapons of mass destruction expressing regret, according to Wright. Few analysts would want to see themselves as responsible for an intelligence failure that could set back their careers.

At the same time, a lack of accountability could contribute to a culture of stagnation and decline in professionalism in Langley.

“The CIA has become so severely politicized that it has fundamentally lowered its standards of integrity in collecting and assessing intelligence, and analysts come up with what are often very weak intelligence assessments,” said J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy. “I used to think it was grossly irresponsible hyperbole to compare the CIA to the KGB, but you really have to wonder, have the CIA and other intelligence community elements become a state within a state?”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Deep State Operative James Clapper’s Russia Hoax Wasn’t His First Intel Scam — He “Manufactured” the WMD Lie That Led to the Iraq War

John Brennan, James Clapper In Damage Control After Russiagate Revelations

Top Republicans Call For Declassification Of Thumb Drives Containing Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Comer Expands Epstein Probe, Subpoenas Clintons And Trump Admin’s DOJ

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WaPo’s New Direction Draws First Blood As Longtime Op-Ed Editor Ruth Marcus Quits

/in , , , , , , /by

Ruth Marcus, a longtime editor of The Washington Post’s editorial page, resigned and accused CEO Will Lewis of spiking her piece criticizing the paper’s new direction in an email obtained by Semafor’s Maxwell Tani.

In her departure note, Marcus claimed Lewis scrapped an editorial “expressing concern about the newly announced direction for the section,” according to screenshots obtained by Tani.

The paper’s owner Jeff Bezos announced a new direction for the editorial section in February, claiming they will focus on “personal liberties and free markets” and will not be publishing criticism of those two pillars.

Marcus claimed she attempted to write an op-ed “respectfully dissenting” from Bezos’s position and was rejected.

“The traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded,” she said in a message she wrote directly to Bezos and Lewis, according to Tani.

“Jeff’s announcement that the opinion section will henceforth not publish views that deviate from the pillars of individual liberties and free markets threatens to break the trust of readers that columnists are writing what they believe, not what the owner has deemed acceptable,” she also wrote, according to Tani.

Marcus had worked at the paper for over 40 years. She started in 1984 as an editorial writer and columnist, eventually becoming the deputy editorial page editor in 2016, according to her LinkedIn profile.

The act of rebellion follows a pattern. Multiple prominent WaPo employees also quit in protest after the paper’s editorial board chose not to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

AUTHOR

Robert McGreevy

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Legacy Media Die-Off In Full Swing As WaPo Set To Lay Off Dozens: REPORT

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights resevered.

ROOKE: Harris Campaign’s 11th Hour Looks Like A Nightmare

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

With just eight days left in the presidential election, there are clear signs that Vice President Kamala Harris is on unsteady ground.

Democrats started whispering to their friends in the corporate press about their election-day fears that Harris could lose to former President Donald Trump.

“A growing number of top Democrats tell us privately they feel Vice President Harris will lose — even though polls show a coin-toss finish 11 days from now,” Axios reported. “Democrats admit they tend to be hand-wringing, bed-wetting, doomsdayers. But what’s striking is how our private conversations with Democrats inside and outside her campaign reveal broad concern that little she does, says — or tries — seems to move the needle.”

It’s never a good sign when Democrats (even anonymously) tell the media their candidate is going to lose and that nothing she does “seems to move the needle.” The polling shows that while the election is still close and could go either way, Trump has a shot to win not only the Electoral College vote but also the popular vote.

The RealClear polling average has Trump up just 0.2% in the national poll, the first time he’s led since Harris first entered the race. Emerson, NY Times/Sienna and CNN all have polls showing that Harris and Trump are tied for the popular vote. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes polls both show that Trump wins the popular vote by two points.

A Republican presidential candidate hasn’t won the popular vote since former President George W. Bush in 2004. Trump’s support was on full display Sunday in Manhattan when voters turned out in droves, occupying block after block in dark blue New York City wearing MAGA hats and other Trump gear to hear him speak.

The media did their usual dog and pony show, attempting to connect Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to the Nazi Party rally held there in 1930. Outside of Harris’ staunch supporters, regular voters see this rhetoric for what it is — Democrat propaganda. It’s hard to make people believe the lie that “Trump is a Nazi” when there are supporters from every race and religion in the crowd.

To make matters worse for Harris, CNN reported that executives from major Big Tech firms, like Apple, Meta, Google, and Amazon, have all recently knocked on Trump’s door.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg talked with Trump after he survived his first assassination attempt in July. Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly called Trump to discuss his company’s legal issues in Italy. Google CEO Sundar Pichai contacted Trump about his dominance in Google’s algorithm after his appearance at the Pennsylvania McDonald’s, the former president said. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy even called Trump to “check in,” the outlet reported.

“There are some that seem to be waking up to the fact that, like, ‘Holy sh*t, this guy might get elected again. I don’t want to have him, his administration, going after us,’” a person close to Trump told CNN. “What he’s saying out loud, I think they hear, and they’re taking it seriously.”

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of Amazon and The Washington Post, blocked his outlet’s editorial team from endorsing Harris for president. Robert Kagan, a member of the opinions section who resigned in protest, told CNN Friday, “This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump in the anticipation of his possible victory.”

The New York Post reported this morning that Bezos attended a call with reporters upset over his decision to stay out of the race, giving them a “mandate to add more conservative voices to its opinion section.”

While it’s impossible to predict the outcome of the 2024 election, it has to terrify Democrats to see their national popularity slipping to a man they claim is a threat to (big D) democracy.

Harris is heading into Nov. 5 without the popular vote lead she needs to help push her over the line in critical swing states, without the explicit support from corporate media outlets and with the knowledge that even Big Tech CEOs are lining up outside Trump’s office to “check-in.”

AUTHOR

Mary Rooke

Commentary and analysis writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ROOKE: These Are The Early Results That Will Tell Us The Winner On Election Night

ROOKE: Media Hit On Trump Accidentally Confirms Harris Has Major Election Problem Brewing

Walz Reportedly Had Romantic Relationship With China’s Wang In His 20’s

Republicans Ask Supreme Court To Block Some Provisional Ballots In Swing State For People With Mail-In Errors

‘Americans Don’t Trust The News Media’: Bezos Speaks Out After WaPo Chose Not To Endorse Harris

New York Voter Delivers Two-Word Response When MSNBC Asks If ‘Threat To Democracy’ Attack On Trump Resonates

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved,

A Very Racist Poll About Racism

/in , , , , , /by

There’s good reason for being suspicious about this Washington Post poll because it has black people echoing woke lefty talking points even when they clearly contradict previous polls, for example having black people dismiss more police in favor of lefty holistic solutions to crime.

But let’s zero in on this absurd and racist result.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 75 percent of Black Americans polled are worried that they or someone they care about will be physically harmed because they are black…

How often does that happen?

We’re not talking about staged white supremacist terror attacks like Buffalo or Charleston.

Seventy percent of Black Americans polled said they believed half or more white Americans hold white supremacist beliefs compared to 19 percent who believed fewer than half white Americans do.

That would be a widespread conviction that most white people are not only racist but white supremacists.

In the breakdown, 35% believe that most white people hold white supremacist views, while another 27% say that half of white people do.

Only 8% say very few.

That’s not a survey of racism, it’s a racist survey.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED ARTICLES:

Audi features hijabbed woman holding gay flag in video celebrating diversity

A Crash at the Intersectionality Intersection

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Media Wage Harassment Campaign Against Freedom Convoy Donors Doxxed In GiveSendGo Hack

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

  • Media outlets are continuing to message small-dollar donors to the Freedom Convoy whose identities were leaked to the public after a hack of crowdfunding site GiveSendGo.
  • Several major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, ran stories earlier this week based on the leaked data analyzing the origins of Freedom Convoy funding. Both outlets published the names of Freedom Convoy donors and reported contacting small-dollar donors to investigate their contributions.
  • Local newspapers have also begun to dig into the data and message donors as well as publish names of individuals included on the list; Delaware Online published a story Friday naming a high-level officer of the Delaware Transit Corporation whose name appeared in the leaked data.
  • Prominent media figures and politicians from across the political spectrum have criticized the practice of publications messaging small-dollar donors, including Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who ripped into a journalist reporting on the harassment of an Ottawa business owner.

Media outlets are continuing to message small-dollar donors to the Freedom Convoy whose identities were leaked to the public after a hack of crowdfunding site GiveSendGo.

The personal information of roughly 90,000 donors to the Freedom Convoy, a group of truckers and hackers protesting Canada’s vaccine mandates and COVID-19 restrictions, was leaked after hackers breached GiveSendGo late Sunday. The leaked data included names, email handles, IP addresses and zip codes, and was provided to “journalists and researchers” by Distributed Denial of Secrets, an activist group hosting the information.

Several major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, ran stories earlier this week based on the leaked data analyzing the origins of Freedom Convoy funding. Both outlets published the names of Freedom Convoy donors and reported contacting small-dollar donors to investigate their contributions.

While The Times did not respond to the DCNF, The Post defended its reporting.

“We were reporting on a matter of public interest and reached out to people listed in the data in order to confirm its authenticity,” Shani George, the Post’s vice president of Communications, told the DCNF in a statement.

The Intercept published two stories Thursday based on the data, the first examining a $100 donation reportedly made by former Canadian politician Richard Ciano. The Intercept alleged Ciano, who denied donating to the Freedom Convoy, may have in fact made a small contribution, citing the hacked data.

“The Intercept did not contact individual donors because we did not identify them, except where that information was newsworthy, such as in the case of Silicon Valley billionaire Thomas Siebel or prominent political operative Richard Ciano, who apparently wasn’t telling the truth when he told the media that he did not donate,” a spokesperson for The Intercept told the DCNF in a statement Friday.

Local newspapers have also begun to dig into the data and message donors as well as publish names of individuals included on the list. Delaware Online published a story Friday naming a high-level officer of the Delaware Transit Corporation whose name appeared in the leaked data. The publication did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Salt Lake Tribune political correspondent Bryan Schott, who wrote an article analyzing the leaked data to identify Utah donors by zip code, tweeted he had “reaching out to people from Utah who appeared on the leaked Canadian trucker donation data,” characterizing the responses he received as “aggressive.” He deleted the tweet after receiving harsh criticism on social media.

Schott declined to comment further when reached by the DCNF, but apologized in a tweet thread Thursday, saying it was “not my intention” to “cause any grief or upset.”

Several Canadian outlets such as the Toronto Star and Global News have also published stories in which they contacted small-dollar donors and published contributors’ names, the DCNF previously reported.

Prominent media figures and politicians from across the political spectrum have criticized the practice of publications messaging small-dollar donors, including Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who ripped into a journalist reporting on the harassment of an Ottawa business owner.

“I fail to see why any journalist felt the need to report on a shop owner making such a insignificant donation rather than to get them harassed,” Omar tweeted. “It’s unconscionable and journalists need to do better.”

Several individuals whose names appeared in the donor lists have reported experiencing harassment and negative consequences; Tammy Giuliani, who donated $250 to the Freedom Convoy fundraiser, was forced to close her gelato store after receiving threats of violence over her donation. Marion Isabeau-Ringuette, communications director for the Ontario Solicitor General, is no longer employed in the state government after her donation to the Freedom Convoy was revealed, according to Toronto CityNews.

COLUMN BY

AILAN EVANS

Tech reporter. Follow Ailan on Twitter @AilanHEvans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Twitter Declines To Censor Tweets Reportedly Linking To Hacked Freedom Convoy Donor List

Arizona AG Demands GoFundMe Preserve Documents Related To Removal Of Freedom Convoy Fundraiser

A Canadian Gelato Shop Owner Said She Was Vilified And Threatened For Donating To Canadian Truckers

‘It’s A Beautiful Day’: Trucker Stands His Ground As Police Enclose On Him

Motorist Confronted By Canadian Police Officers At Border

‘Hold The Line’: Canadian Police Arrest Leaders Of Freedom Convoy, Several Others Amid Crackdown

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.