Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales reportedly stormed out of an interview after being pressed on why he referred to himself as the site’s “founder.”
The incident occurred while Wales was speaking with Tilo Jung for the German political podcast “Jung &amp; Naiv.” When Jung pressed him to clarify if he’s the founder or co-founder, Wales responded, “I don’t care. It’s the dumbest question in the world.”
Jung pressed the topic, asking if there was a “dispute” over the issue. “What are the facts?” Jung asked. “Well, it’s not a fact, it’s an opinion, so you can have whatever opinion you like,” Wales replied. 
Jung tried to nail down that detail again, saying, “For you, you’re the founder?”
“Can I just say again, it doesn&#8217;t matter. I&#8217;ve answered your question four times,” Wales said firmly. He then stood up and said, “You know what? I&#8217;m done. Thank you.”
“What&#8217;s going on?” Jung asked as Wales seemed to head for the exit, prompting Wales to say over his shoulder, “It&#8217;s stupid. Don&#8217;t ask me stupid questions.”
“How is that stupid?” Jung wondered.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia&#039;s founder/co-founder - Jung &amp; Naiv: Episode 792" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uswRbWyt_pg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This isn’t the first time this particular issue has caused strife. During a 2023 <a href="https://lexfridman.com/jimmy-wales-transcript/#chapter1_origin_story_of_wikipedia">interview</a> with Lex Fridman, Wales also called the question of who founded the most popular online encyclopedia “unimportant” and “not that interesting.” 
“I actually think Larry Sanger doesn’t get enough credit for his early work in Wikipedia, even though I think co-founder’s not the right title for that,” he said at the time.
Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger, but Sanger exited the project in 2002 and has been speaking out against it ever since.
“Wikipedia is badly biased. The original policy long since forgotten, it no longer has an effective neutrality policy. It now touts controversial opinions on politics, religion, and science. And examples have become embarrassingly easy to find,” Sanger <a href="https://x.com/lsanger/status/1260975408167759873">shared on X</a> in 2020 alongside a link to a blog post detailing some of the worst offenses. 
Those listed included a “Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing ‘Obamagate’ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.” 
“It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one,” Sanger wrote in the post. “Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to concede any such thing; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.”
In September, President Donald Trump announced that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was investigating Wikipedia over alleged pro-Kremlin, anti-Western, and anti-Israel bias, and that it was raising serious concerns given that AI chatbots heavily rely on the site’s information, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-goes-to-war-with-wikipedia-over-political-slant">reported</a>.
Sanger expressed his gratitude for the probe, saying, “I am glad that Congress is investigating the use of foreign and U.S. government funds to pay for biased editing on Wikipedia. … There is clearly massive support for this sort of investigation.”
The co-founder added that Wikipedia “makes broad editorial decisions about what constitutes reliable sources, which must be respected by large numbers of participants. … The Wikipedia Foundation could address the situation, but does not.”  He noted that the Wikipedia Foundation also “refuses to reveal the identity of its most powerful editors or to override decisions by editors.”

Jimmy Wales

Wikipedia Co-Founder Storms Out Of Interview After Being Asked Simple Question

Media

Media Bias

News

Podcast

Politics

Wikipedia

President Donald Trump said on Friday he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave but insisted there was no legal basis for his claim.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has been plunged into its biggest crisis in decades after two senior leaders resigned following accusations of bias, including over the editing of Trump&#8217;s speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters entered the Capitol.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers had initially set a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract its documentary or face a lawsuit for &#8220;no less&#8221; than $1 billion. They also demanded an apology and compensation for what they called &#8220;overwhelming reputational and financial harm,&#8221; according to a letter seen by Reuters.
The BBC, which has admitted its editing of Trump&#8217;s remarks was an &#8220;error of judgement,&#8221; sent a personal apology to Trump on Thursday but said it would not rebroadcast the documentary and rejected the defamation claim.
&#8220;We&#8217;ll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week,&#8221; Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend.
&#8220;I think I have to do that, I mean, they&#8217;ve even admitted that they cheated,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They changed the words coming out of my mouth.&#8221;
Trump said he had not spoken with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with whom he has built a solid relationship, about the issue, but that he planned to call him this weekend. He said Starmer had tried to reach him, and was &#8220;very embarrassed&#8221; by the incident.
The documentary, which aired on the BBC&#8217;s flagship &#8220;Panorama&#8221; news program, spliced together three video excerpts from Trump&#8217;s speech, creating the impression he was inciting the January 6, 2021, riot. His lawyers said this was &#8220;false and defamatory.&#8221;
In an interview with British right-leaning TV channel GB News, Trump said the edit was &#8220;impossible to believe&#8221; and compared it to election interference.
&#8220;I made a beautiful statement, and they made it into a not beautiful statement,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Fake news was a great term, except it&#8217;s not strong enough. This is beyond fake, this is corrupt.&#8221;
Trump said the BBC&#8217;s apology was not enough.
&#8220;When you say it&#8217;s unintentional, I guess if it&#8217;s unintentional, you don&#8217;t apologize,&#8221; he said.
BBC Chair Samir Shah sent a personal apology on Thursday to the White House and told lawmakers the edit was &#8220;an error of judgement.&#8221; The following day, British culture minister Lisa Nandy said the apology was &#8220;right and necessary.&#8221;
The broadcaster said it had no plans to rebroadcast the documentary and was investigating fresh allegations about editing practices that included the speech on another program, &#8220;Newsnight.&#8221;
The dispute has escalated into the broadcaster&#8217;s most serious crisis in decades. Its director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness quit this week over the controversy amid allegations of bias and editing failures.
Starmer told parliament on Wednesday he supported a &#8220;strong and independent BBC&#8221; but said the broadcaster must &#8220;get its house in order.&#8221;
&#8220;Some would rather the BBC didn&#8217;t exist. Some of them are sitting up there,&#8221; he said, pointing to opposition Conservative lawmakers.
&#8220;I’m not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever.&#8221;
The BBC, founded in 1922 and funded mainly by a compulsory license fee, faces scrutiny over whether public money could be used to settle Trump&#8217;s claim.
Former media minister John Whittingdale said there would be &#8220;real anger&#8221; if license payers&#8217; money covered damages.
(Reporting by Nandita Bose and Andrea Shalal in Washington, Costas Pitas in Los Angeles and Sam Tabahriti in London; editing by Leslie Adler, Tom Hogue and Shri Navaratnam)

Donald Trump

Trump Says He’ll Likely Sue BBC For Up To $5 Billion Over Edited Speech

Courts

World

The BBC issued an official apology to President Donald Trump on Thursday for a misleading edit of his January 6 speech, though it rejected his allegation of defamation.
In its apology, the BBC admitted to splicing together portions of Trump’s January 6 speech in a way that made it appear that he was calling for violence. The apology comes after Trump threatened to file a $1 billion defamation suit against the media outlet over its “Trump: A Second Chance?” documentary broadcast by BBC Panorama. 
“This program was reviewed after criticism of how President Donald Trump’s 6th January 2021 speech was edited,” the outlet said in a statement on its Corrections and Clarification page. “During that sequence, we showed excerpts taken from different parts of the speech. However, we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”
“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added. 
In a separate letter to the White House, BBC Chair Samir Shah again apologized to Trump. 
&#8220;While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim,” he <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo">said</a>. 
For the last week, the BBC has been roiled over the controversy, with two executives <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bbc-execs-resign-after-j6-doc-twists-trump-footage-out-of-context">announcing</a> their resignation on Sunday over the incident and a leaked internal memo discussing problems of “systematic bias” at the outlet. 
&#8220;Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable,” said Tim Davie, one of the executives who stepped down last weekend. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”
In a separate <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/bbc-doctored-trump-speech-second-time-newsnight/">report</a> on Thursday, The Telegraph said that BBC Newsnight had edited Trump&#8217;s January 6 speech in a similar manner in a 2022 episode. A lawyer for Trump told The Telegraph that it was “now clear that BBC engaged in a pattern of defamation against President Trump.&#8221;
Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against news outlets over defamation allegations. In one instance, he was paid $15 million by ABC News after he sued the outlet over false claims made by anchor George Stephanopoulos.

MixCollage-14-Nov-2025-07-28-AM-8897

BBC Apologizes To Trump For Misleading Jan 6 Clip, But Won’t Own Up To Defamation

Defamation

Executive

January 6

The BBC is in dire straits. 
The BBC is a state-funded enterprise in much the same way that NPR is a state-funded enterprise. The BBC has been the dominant broadcast platform in the United Kingdom for decades, going all the way back to World War II.
For the last several decades, they have just been a left-wing agitprop organization. But now they are absolutely falling apart thanks to their extraordinarily dishonest attacks on President Trump.
According to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/bbc-chairman-apologizes-for-error-in-edit-of-trump-speech-0fe74118?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqf781o2BxWmESpy94akpjS_SOnvktxokVenvnnMPy6tJ-fywHqZCCn9uJ3C1xM%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69138fec&amp;gaa_sig=kc-AZqr5Ns4_DEx0ceuxv-1KbM20bCfSonvth9cyYdEk3d0ZpXL-gT6wLovg8uQpQ_IJ8IQY6HUYgz6HF0v35Q%3D%3D">The Wall Street Journal</a>:
<blockquote>President Trump has threatened to file a $ 1 billion lawsuit against the BBC over the way the U.K. state broadcaster edited one of his speeches in a documentary last year. BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the controversy, which has plunged the broadcaster into crisis. The apology came a day after BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News Chief Executive Deborah Turness said they were leaving the organization following criticism from the White House. </blockquote>
What happened? There was an episode from the BBC’s flagship investigative series called Panorama, which ran one week before the 2024 United States election.
You may ask, did that affect the election? It doesn&#8217;t matter. The job of the BBC is to cover the news, not make the news up. 
One week before the election, they ran a piece in which they spliced together things that President Trump said on January 6, 2021, to make it look as though he himself personally was leading an armed insurrection at the Capitol building.
That was not true.
In order to achieve this effect, they had to cut out 24 pages of material. They cut from one part of the speech, and then they fast-forwarded 50 minutes and cut together the last part of the speech to clip them together, and then basically put in ellipses in order to make it seem as though President Trump himself was personally calling on people to follow him to the Capitol building and to assault the Capitol building.
If you watch that original clip, they had a music bed underneath, which connected the first part of the statement to the last part of the statement. It is not as though they had some sort of interpolation from a narrator explaining that much later in the speech, President Trump made the second part of the statement.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2315-member-exclusive?elementPosition=4&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The Journal continued:
<blockquote>According to a letter from Trump’s lawyers, the BBC faces a legal claim for at least $1 billion unless the documentary is retracted, an apology published and compensation paid to the president. The letter set a deadline of Friday. The broadcaster said in a statement that it would “respond in due course.”</blockquote>
This follows hard on a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/">19-page memo</a> that was put out by a top staffer at the BBC named Michael Prescott. He was an independent adviser to the BBC&#8217;s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, and he wrote a 19-page memo pushing the idea that the BBC had become a biased and ridiculous organization. He wrote: 
<blockquote>Dear Board Members,
You may know that I have been one of the two independent external advisers working alongside the EGSC. I held this role for three years and stood down in the summer.
I departed with profound and unresolved concerns about the BBC. Since leaving, I have thought long and hard about what, if anything, to do about this.
My conclusion is that these concerns are serious enough for me to draw them to your attention, in your oversight role of the BBC.
What follows is a summary of what were, in my view, some of the most troubling matters to come before the EGSC during my term.
My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all. </blockquote>
Prescott pointed out that there was tremendous bias with regard to the U.S. election. He specifically pointed out that edit in the Panorama program. He said, “This was one of the most shocking sets of issues uncovered during my time with the EGSC. If BBC journalists are to be allowed to edit video in order to make people ‘say’ things they never actually said, then what value are the Corporation’s guidelines, why should the BBC be trusted, and where will this all end?&#8221; 
And yet top members of the staff said, “There was no attempt to mislead the audience about the content or nature of Mr. Trump’s speech before the riot at the Capitol. It’s normal practice to edit speeches into short form clips.”
These kinds of shenanigans occurred repeatedly. They did this with comments that President Trump made about Liz Cheney. There are reports in which the BBC routinely ignored its own guidelines, giving excessive coverage, for example, to that rogue Iowa poll that suggested that Kamala Harris was going to win the state by a substantial margin. Of course, President Trump won the state pretty easily.
“During my time as an advisor to the EGSC it became clear the BBC fell too easily for putting out ill-researched material that suggested issues of racism when there were none,” Prescott wrote. Then he listed chapter and verse across the BBC in which they basically manufactured a bunch of racial issues where no racial issue existed.
They went out of their way to promote idiocies about biological sex and gender. Prescott noted:
<blockquote>I was told that time and time again the LGBTQ desk staffers would decline to cover any story raising difficult questions about the trans-debate. The allegation made to me was stark: that the desk had been captured by a small group of people promoting the Stonewall view of the debate and keeping other perspectives off-air. Individual programmes had come to lack their own reporters as a counterweight. &#8230; 
There was also a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. &#8230; There&#8217;s a constant drip feed of one sided stories, usually news features celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity.</blockquote>
One example of this might be a report that happened in 2024 from the BBC, in which they reported that male breast milk was just as nutritious for babies as female breast milk. You may be asking yourself, what is male breast milk? The answer is that if you pump men full of estrogen, you will get some secretions from the nipples that are not actually like female breast milk.
But the BBC had an interest in pretending that males can become females. And so <a href="https://x.com/millihill/status/1987836199969382892">they ran with this report</a>.
This is what the BBC is. It’s true on a wide variety of issues.
It&#8217;s particularly true about the Hamas-Israel war. According to the UK Telegraph, the BBC was forced to correct two stories every single week about the Gaza conflict since the October 7 attacks on Israel.
That’s insane. How many stories can you retract before you finally lose all credibility? BBC Arabic had to make 215 corrections and clarifications over the past two years on stories that were found to be biased, inaccurate, or misleading.
The BBC despises Israel, and it’s not possible for them to make it any clearer. For example, in November 2023, BBC editor Jeremy Bowen falsely reported that Israel had blown up the Al Ahli Hospital in the Gaza Strip.
That wasn’t true. He later <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/bbc-jeremy-bowen-admits-got-194844026.html">admitted he got it wrong</a>, but said he didn’t feel bad at all that he got it wrong, saying, “I don&#8217;t regret one thing in my reporting, because I think, I think I was measured throughout. I didn&#8217;t race to judgment.” 
Interviewer: “But you said that the building had been flattened.”
Bowen replied, “Oh, yeah. Well, I got that wrong because I was looking at the pictures and like, what I could see was a square that appeared to be flaming on all sides. And there was a, you know, sort of a void in the middle. And it was, I think it was a picture taken from a drone. And so, you know, we have to piece together what we see. And I thought, ‘Well, that looks like the whole building&#8217;s gone.’ And that was my conclusion from looking at the pictures. And I was wrong on that. But I don&#8217;t feel too bad about that.”
It doesn&#8217;t feel bad at all, because this is the way the BBC operates. They start with the conclusion, and then they backfill the news in order to reach that particular conclusion.
So, is it any surprise that the BBC is a disaster area or that they&#8217;re in serious trouble now?
It is long past time for the BBC to admit what it is, which is an agitprop organization on behalf of the political Left. They have been for decades. Nothing has changed.
And this latest brouhaha is just more evidence that the government should not be subsidizing media organizations such as NPR, PBS, or the BBC in Britain, because you wind up with left-wing media sponsored by taxpayers.

Trump Threatens $1b Lawsuit Against BBC Over ‘Defamatory’ Coverage

How Bias And Dishonesty Brought Down The BBC

Ben Shapiro

England

Great Britain

Lawsuit

Legacy Media

Opinion

Television

According to the BBC, President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/11/10/britain-bbc-crisis-trump-panorama/8fe0a43a-be1e-11f0-8eee-a78486b4c797_story.html">sent a letter</a> to the news outlet threatening legal action after the network aired an edited clip of Trump’s January 6, 2021, remarks in a documentary that was presented out of context.
BBC Director General Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness have both <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vn25d5dq7o">stepped down</a> following revelations that the documentary misled viewers by deceptively editing Trump’s speech.
According to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/">The Telegraph</a>, a leaked internal BBC memo revealed that the program spliced together separate portions of Trump’s remarks, making it appear he explicitly encouraged chaos at the Capitol. The memo also reportedly warned of “systemic problems” of bias within the BBC&#8217;s coverage, including its Arabic service’s reporting on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The fallout was immediate. Davie, who had served as director general for five years, admitted, “There have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.” Turness, who ran the BBC’s News and Current Affairs division, followed suit, saying that the documentary controversy had “reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC &#8230; The buck stops with me.”
The edited clip showed Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
In reality, Trump stated, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” More than <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial">8400 words later</a>, he declared, “Most people would stand there at 9 o&#8217;clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something&#8217;s wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don&#8217;t fight like hell, you&#8217;re not going to have a country anymore.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
NEW &#8211; Internal whistleblower memo claims BBC edited footage of Trumps Jan 6 speech by splicing footage together to mislead viewers, in a documentary aired last year — Telegraph <a href="https://t.co/5vhtP8l35B">pic.twitter.com/5vhtP8l35B</a>
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) <a href="https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1985388625480090070?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
BBC Chair Samir Shah has since apologized, admitting the broadcast represented an “error of judgment.” But critics argue the damage is already done, pointing to years of mounting accusations that the BBC’s news division has drifted leftward.

MixCollage-10-Nov-2025-09-43-AM-9060

Trump Threatens To Sue As BBC Scrambles Over Misleading J6 Documentary

deceptive editing

Fake News

Two BBC executives announced their resignations on Sunday after controversy erupted around the U.K. public broadcaster over its portrayal of President Donald Trump in a documentary on the January 6 Capitol riot.
BBC Director General Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness announced their resignations less than a week after an internal BBC memo surfaced, saying a documentary on the events of January 6, 2021, painted Trump dishonestly. The documentary removed key context from Trump’s rally speech that day, falsely portraying Trump as having encouraged rioting at the Capitol.
“Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable,” Davie said in a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k02vr1my2o">statement</a>. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”
Turness released her own statement, saying that the controversy around the BBC Panorama, which created the documentary, “has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC.”
“In public life leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down,” she said, adding in defense of the BBC, “[w]hile mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”
The documentary at the center of the departures is titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” and it first aired a week before the 2024 presidential election.
Last week, the contents of an internal memo written by former outside editorial standards adviser Michael Prescott were leaked and published in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/">The Telegraph</a>.
The documentary “completely misled” viewers, the memo said. It had included Trump telling his supporters to “fight like hell” while omitting that he had encouraged rally-goers in Washington, D.C., that day to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”
The report in The Telegraph sparked a response from Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., who suggested that the BBC is “FAKE NEWS.”
“The FAKE NEWS ‘reporters’ in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s*** as the ones here in America!!!!” Trump Jr. <a href="https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1985415134903161307">posted</a> on X after the contents of the BBC memo were published.
The memo has motivated backlash in the U.K. from the country’s opposition Conservative Party.
“These are extremely concerning revelations that could seriously undermine the brand and reputation of the BBC,” Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture secretary, told The Telegraph. “The BBC license fee is justified on the basis of impartiality and trust. There can be no justification for this kind of deliberate manipulation and the spreading of misinformation.”

BBC Execs Resign After J6 Doc Twists Trump Footage Out Of Context

BBC Execs Resign As UK Broadcaster Roiled Over Doctored Trump Footage In J6 Documentary

In a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/bbc-arabic-bias-pushed-hamas-lies/">blistering internal report</a> that reads like an indictment of the BBC’s own integrity, whistleblower documents reveal that BBC Arabic deliberately downplayed Israeli suffering in the Gaza war while racing to air unverified, Hamas-sourced claims designed to cast the Jewish state as the villain. The memo, written by Michael Prescott, a former adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines Committee, accuses the Arabic service of systemic bias, misinformation, and a shocking tolerance of antisemitic voices.
According to the report, BBC Arabic repeatedly parroted Hamas talking points while omitting or minimizing Israel’s perspective — even when evidence contradicted militant propaganda. Allegations against Israel were rushed to broadcast “without adequate checks,” suggesting not mere carelessness but, as Prescott wrote, “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel.”
The BBC’s English-language coverage told one story; its Arabic wing, quite another. In July 2024, after Hezbollah rockets killed nine children in the Israeli town of Majdal Shams, the BBC’s English site mentioned the victims and Israel’s retaliation. BBC Arabic? It omitted the children’s deaths entirely, highlighted Hezbollah’s denials, and the next day suggested Israel might have faked the attack.
Prescott’s letter accuses BBC Arabic of providing a platform to extremists who openly glorify violence against Jews. One contributor, Samer Elzaenen — who once posted “We shall burn you as Hitler did” — appeared on the network 244 times. Another, Ahmed Alagha, who called Jews “devils” and “not human beings,” appeared more than 500 times. Yet BBC executives defended these individuals as “eyewitnesses,” not staff reporters. Prescott wasn’t buying it: “Most viewers would consider hundreds of appearances… to amount to being part of the BBC’s reporting team.”
The report also blasted the BBC for amplifying Hamas propaganda about Gaza’s death toll, long after the United Nations revised down its own inflated statistics. BBC Arabic continued to treat Hamas-run agencies as credible sources, even after internal reviewers warned that claims of Israeli “mass graves” and “genocide” lacked any independent verification.
In one instance, BBC coverage suggested Israeli forces buried thousands of Palestinians in hospital courtyards — a narrative later disproven, as the graves were dug by Palestinians themselves. Another blunder involved a claim that 14,000 babies were “hours from starvation,” when the real number referred to children at risk over a year. The BBC quietly corrected the article online — but repeated the falsehood the same night on “Newsnight.”
Perhaps most damning, the BBC misreported that the International Court of Justice had ruled Israel’s war a “plausible genocide.” That was false — and took months to correct. Former BBC television director Danny Cohen condemned the leadership’s response: “Having made such serious and misleading errors, BBC executives chose to hide them from the public rather than correct the record.”
When internal reviewers flagged these issues, senior managers brushed them aside. Jonathan Munro, the BBC’s news content chief, praised BBC Arabic’s “exceptional journalism” and even bragged it was “almost as trusted as Al Jazeera.” Prescott shot back: “Is Al Jazeera the new gold standard? The BBC exists to reflect British values — not echo Qatar’s propaganda outlet.”
The scandal follows another major credibility crisis for the corporation — a Panorama documentary that doctored a Donald Trump speech to make it appear he incited the Capitol riot. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and media regulator Ofcom now face growing calls to launch a full investigation into the BBC’s bias and editorial collapse.
As the memo concludes, “The BBC is prone to claiming it gets equal complaints from both sides. But looking at the evidence, it’s hard to argue the BBC is biased toward Israel. Quite the opposite.”
At a time when Britain’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster is supposed to counter global disinformation, it is helping Hamas craft its narrative and eroding trust in one of the nation’s most sacred institutions.

BBC Announce Plans For A Major Shake-Up Of The Corporation

Damning Report Accuses BBC Of Whitewashing Hamas And Fueling Anti-Israel Bias

anti-Israel

Bias

Hamas

Pro-Hamas

MediaFest says it’s the largest media convention in the country, aimed at both student and professional “journalists.” This year, one of our top writers, White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan, was set to participate in a session for young reporters on how her faith fits into her work.
Until they found out she was a conservative.
That’s the story from the <a href="https://www.cjr.org/feature/student-journalism-mediafest-fraught-religion-faith-reporting.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Columbia Journalism Review</a>, which revealed yesterday that Olohan and another journalist, The Daily Signal’s Virginia Allen, were pulled from the event after complaints from a he/him “student media adviser” at Oregon State University named <a href="https://see.oregonstate.edu/directory/steven-sandberg">Steven Sandberg</a>.
Sandberg had been “browsing” the event schedule when he saw, according to CJR, a “portion of the conference called the ‘Faith Track’” that included authors with “pretty far-right, anti-LGBTQ language.”
Sandberg alerted the “non-partisan” organizers of the conference and told them that “LGBTQ students are feeling targeted by our administration, by the government, and by society.” Sandberg told them he was “disappointed to see them bring in people who espoused anti-LGBT views,” and they buckled.
Olohan was alerted that she’d been removed from the event by the ethics committee chairman at the Society of Professional Journalists, a man named Michael Koretzky, who told other organizers that they “found reporting problems” with Olohan’s work.
The only problematic article cited from Olohan, who has without question broken more stories of consequence in her young career than Koretzky will in his lifetime, was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-bill-would-block-abortionists-from-flushing-baby-remains-into-public-water-systems?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=EXCLUSIVE%3A+Bill+Would+Block+Abortionists+From+Flushing+Baby+Remains+Into+Public+Water+Systems" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an exclusive</a> on a bill from Congressman Brandon Gill that would make it illegal to dump aborted baby remains into publicly-owned water systems.
The suggestion from Koretzky was that the article wasn’t balanced enough. Now, if he has an abortionist who would like to defend flushing babies down the toilet, we’d love to dig into that belief. But we never believed the issue was with our journalism, and now, that’s confirmed.
Koretzky was looking for an excuse to cancel Olohan because Sandberg and the pronoun mafia demanded he do so, and the angry left is the real ombudsman of the liberal media elite. And Sandberg was so proud of his work that he ran to the Columbia Journalism Review to tell the story of how he preserved a safe space for his LGBTQ students.
Any suggestion that MediaFest will be a conference with balance is delusional. One of the featured speakers will be New York Times grifter Nikole Hannah-Jones, who has made <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/1619-project-creator-raked-in-1m-last-year-for-college-speeches-on-inequality?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=1619+Project+Creator+Raked+In+%241M%2B+Last+Year+For+College+Speeches+On+Inequality" target="_blank" rel="noopener">millions of dollars</a> spreading lies through the 1619 Project, which argues that systemic racism is in America’s DNA.
We challenge the Society of Professional Journalists to find a single piece of balanced work she’s ever produced, but guarantee that it will find them all as radical as her most recent piece, which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/magazine/charlie-kirk-rhetoric.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attacked Charlie Kirk as a bigot</a> just a few days after he was laid to rest.
Her session at MediaFest is titled, “How journalists can (and should) cover attempts to erase Black history.” It will be moderated by Koretzky’s colleague at Society of Professional Journalists, Celia Wexler, who serves as the group’s Washington, D.C., president.
We don’t expect Koretzky to get it, nor do we understand how he’s been put in charge of ethics of anything. His body of work includes a 2019 piece inspired by a convention he attended with high school journalists — about all the sex he’s had in his life.
We wish we were joking. Its <a href="https://journoterrorist.com/2019/04/11/news-to-me/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opening line</a> (we don’t recommend clicking, but it’s hard to believe without the proof) is: “Almost all the sex I’ve had is because of journalism.” It goes on to tell the tale about a time a “sexual encounter” at a journalism conference ended in “bloodshed” because he was bitten on the penis.
Again, he was inspired to write this because he was “presenting a couple of sessions tomorrow to high school journalists.”
A year later, <a href="https://journoterrorist.com/2020/02/12/banned/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he wrote</a> about how he himself was now banned from attending certain journalism events because, he transparently explains, the aforementioned article on his sexcapades.
“We also were contacted by students and spoke with members who were extremely concerned about your blog post related to seemingly non-consensual sex and journalism conventions,” he says he was told. There was also an accusation that he told a student he could “make or break her career.” He denies it.
We’re partly glad Olohan is, as the kids say, “marked safe” from the MediaFest confab, but also disheartened.
Every few years, the liberal media elite proclaim that they care about being balanced and hearing both sides. And we’re sure that every few years there are people who believe them. Don’t be one of those people.
Young journalists don’t need MediaFest or the Society of Professional Journalists anymore. They will teach you to do everything wrong, and you’ll end up like Koretzky or Sandberg.
There are now great alternatives, like the National Journalism Center, The Fund For American Studies, and even conservative undergraduate journalism programs like the one at Hillsdale College.
The young journalists gathering at MediaFest are being trained to believe that there is only one set of acceptable facts, even if it doesn’t fall on the same side as objective truth. The prospect of hearing the other side has media advisers like he/him Sandberg throwing up arms.
The media elite don’t actually believe there are two sides. That’s why when Elon Musk opened up X to free speech, they ran away to BlueSky — which, not coincidentally, is where you can find most of the journalists featured on MediaFest’s panels.
But they’re also not the real elite anymore. Their monopoly on information has shattered, in a large part because Americans are increasingly turning to reporters like Olohan and The Daily Wire for news.

Untitled design (1)

MediaFest, And Why There’s No Hope For Liberal Journalism

Mainstream Media

New York Times

Nikole Hannah-Jones

In a stunning display of media deflection, Axios criticized “MAGA influencers” for drawing attention to violent urban crime, specifically in response to the recent horrific, deadly stabbing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina. Instead of focusing on the deeply troubling facts of this case — a young woman fleeing war only to be killed while using public transportation — Axios decided to turn its spotlight on conservatives and Trump supporters for &#8220;elevating&#8221; the issue.
“The gruesome video of the fatal knife attack on Iryna Zarutska on a light-rail car in Charlotte is drawing attention from MAGA influencers seeking to elevate the issue of violent urban crime — and accuse mainstream media of under-covering shocking cases,” Axios tweeted, referring to its article that elaborated on the subject.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The gruesome video of the fatal knife attack on Iryna Zarutska on a light-rail car in Charlotte is drawing attention from MAGA influencers seeking to elevate the issue of violent urban crime — and accuse mainstream media of under-covering shocking cases. <a href="https://t.co/OIj3FYfDLE">https://t.co/OIj3FYfDLE</a>
— Axios (@axios) <a href="https://twitter.com/axios/status/1965010353353625669?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The attack occurred on August 22 aboard Charlotte’s light rail. DeCarlos Brown Jr., a 34-year-old man with a long criminal history, stabbed Zarutska multiple times, including once in the neck, as horrified passengers watched. Surveillance footage showed Zarutska collapsing while Brown casually stood near the doors, having removed his sweatshirt. Notably, he was reportedly riding the train without a ticket — another example of lax enforcement in urban areas. Zarutska had only recently arrived in the United States, having escaped war-torn Ukraine in the hope of a better life.
Despite the brutal nature of the crime, mainstream outlets barely offered any coverage, prompting widespread outrage among conservative commentators. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Trump advisor Stephen Miller, and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) amplified the story on social media.
Yet Axios — instead of investigating the clear failures of public safety, or questioning why a known repeat offender was allowed to roam free — chose to frame the story as a political tactic by conservatives. The article didn’t ask why the system failed Zarutska; instead, it asked why people on the Right were talking about it at all.
Axios seems more concerned about who is sharing the video than why the footage exists. The legacy media ran wall-to-wall coverage of racially-charged cases like that of Daniel Penny, but in Zarutska’s case, their zeal is absent.
North Carolina GOP Senate candidate Michael Whatley used the incident to criticize Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s soft-on-crime policies, pointing to a 2020 executive order focused on racial profiling and systemic racism.
While Zarutska is barely reported in the mainstream media, Axios wants readers to focus on the supposed political opportunism of conservatives, not the death of an innocent young woman.
Axios got hammered on social media:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This really is a work of art. It&#8217;s like default mode for the media on any issue:
The ________ is drawing attention from MAGA influencers seeking to elevate the issue of _______ — and accuse mainstream media of under-covering ________ <a href="https://t.co/RKIA5jOW8m">https://t.co/RKIA5jOW8m</a>
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1965026792458375679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The murder of Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown Jr. is a story worthy of national attention. A Ukrainian refugee flees Russia’s invasion only to be stabbed to death by a repeat violent offender? National story — except it is bad politics for Dems, so it is Republicans pounce time. <a href="https://t.co/oFZXt05UxF">https://t.co/oFZXt05UxF</a>
— Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) <a href="https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1965024300655919185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Pay attention to how Axios chose to headline this claptrap. No mention of the perp&#8217;s multiple arrests , no mention of the racial element, no mention of the refugee status of the victim. They don&#8217;t want to fuel public outrage over the dereliction of public servants responsible. <a href="https://t.co/YlgwUsyTm9">https://t.co/YlgwUsyTm9</a>
— Disinformation Expert Lizzy (@StarChamberMaid) <a href="https://twitter.com/StarChamberMaid/status/1965010988551623140?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
You can always count on the “conservatives pounce” narrative.
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) <a href="https://twitter.com/bethanyshondark/status/1965010696107905413?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Image 9-8-25 at 11.46 AM

Conservatives Pounce: Axios Targets ‘MAGA Influencers’ For Highlighting Murdered Ukrainian Refugee

Axios

North Carolina

Ukraine

Violent Crime

<div>
Wikipedia editors have frozen in place a passage labeling Zionism as ethnic cleansing, blocking changes for at least a year.
On August 27, 2025, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched an investigation into the Wikimedia Foundation to examine potential foreign manipulation of Wikipedia, especially content related to Israel and antisemitism. The investigation followed reports of coordinated editorial activity by a network of approximately 40 Wikipedia editors, dubbed the “Gang of 40,” accused of systematically inserting anti-Zionist and anti-Israel narratives into thousands of Wikipedia articles.
</div>
<div>
Ashley Rindsberg, in an October 2024 <a href="https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative">report</a>, revealed how pro-Hamas Wikipedia editors push propaganda, scrub damaging details about Hamas, and tilt narratives against Israel. As she notes in <a href="https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/wiki-wars">Tablet</a>, these editors — many foreign nationals, some allegedly tied to Iranian interests — have racked up more than 850,000 edits across 10,000 articles, dramatically reshaping what the public reads about Zionism. A key controversy centers on a sentence added to the lead paragraph of Wikipedia’s “Zionism” article: “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” This equates Zionism with ethnic cleansing, which was framed as fact in Wikipedia’s neutral “wikivoice.”
</div>
<div>
After a flawed internal dispute process, efforts to challenge the sentence were rejected. Although Wikipedia’s policies require neutrality and rigorous content standards, the “Gang of 40” allegedly exploited Wikipedia’s procedures to push through their preferred version, according to Rindsberg. The resulting Request for Comment (RfC) was closed by an administrator who later admitted to lacking expertise and misapplying site governance policies. A 12-month moratorium was then imposed, freezing the disputed content until February 2026.
</div>
<div>
This moratorium locks the ideologically-driven narrative into the article. The move may have been designed to preserve the sentence until the banned editors could appeal their sanctions and return to editing.
</div>
<div>
Rindsberg notes that several key editors have histories of downplaying Iranian human rights abuses or pushing disinformation aligned with Iranian regime interests. Editor “Iskandar323” allegedly removed references to Iranian atrocities and promoted narratives hostile to dissident groups.
</div>
<div>
Wikipedia’s editorial integrity and its role in shaping public discourse are in question. With AI tools and search engines relying heavily on Wikipedia data, the impact of the manipulation could dominate the digital knowledge ecosystem.
“Profound, a company helping brands monitor and influence their presence in AI search engines, has analyzed 30 million citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity from August 2024 to June 2025,” CyberNews <a href="https://cybernews.com/news/chatgpt-wikipedia-google-reddit/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a> in June. “OpenAI’s ChatGPT shows a clear preference for Wikipedia, which accounts for nearly half (47.9%) of its top citations within its top 10 most-cited sources.”
</div>

In this photo illustration a Wikipedia logo seen displayed

The Anti-Zionism Sentence Wikipedia Won’t Let You Touch

Zionism

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating Wikipedia over alleged pro-Kremlin, anti-Western, and anti-Israel bias, raising serious concerns given that AI chatbots heavily rely on the site’s information.
“Profound, a company helping brands monitor and influence their presence in AI search engines, has analyzed 30 million citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity from August 2024 to June 2025,” CyberNews <a href="https://cybernews.com/news/chatgpt-wikipedia-google-reddit/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a> in June. “OpenAI’s ChatGPT shows a clear preference for Wikipedia, which accounts for nearly half (47.9%) of its top citations within its top 10 most-cited sources.”
“Multiple studies and reports have highlighted efforts to manipulate information on the Wikipedia platform for propaganda aimed at Western audiences,” The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in a <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/082725-letter-to-Wikimedia.pdf">letter</a> to Maryana Iskander, the CEO of the Wikipedia Foundation.  “One recent report raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance antisemitic and anti-Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the State of Israel. A second investigation detailed actions by hostile nation-state actors to expose Western audiences to pro-Kremlin and anti-Western messaging by manipulating Wikipedia articles and other news outlets relied on for training AI chatbots.”
A comprehensive October 2024 <a href="https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative">report</a> delineated how pro-Hamas editors at Wikipedia were promoting pro-Palestinian propaganda, erasing vital information about Hamas, and biasing the narrative against Israel. An April 2025 <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/exposing-pravda-how-pro-kremlin-forces-are-poisoning-ai-models-and-rewriting-wikipedia/">report</a> titled, “Exposing Pravda: How pro-Kremlin forces are poisoning AI models and rewriting Wikipedia,” showed how pro-Kremlin, anti-Western propaganda was being pushed on the site.
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, <a href="https://jewishwebsite.com/featured/house-panel-probing-organized-efforts-to-distort-wikipedia-including-entries-on-israel/107583/">expressed his gratitude</a> that the Committee was launching an investigation, saying, “I am glad that Congress is investigating the use of foreign and U.S. government funds to pay for biased editing on Wikipedia. &#8230; There is clearly massive support for this sort of investigation.”
Sanger said Wikipedia “makes broad editorial decisions about what constitutes reliable sources, which must be respected by large numbers of participants. &#8230; The Wikipedia Foundation could address the situation but does not.”  He noted that the Wikipedia Foundation also “refuses to reveal the identity of its most powerful editors or to override decisions by editors.”

Trump Goes To War With Wikipedia Over Political Slant

Anti-American

Investigation

Trump Administration

The Washington Post got slammed after it published a report attacking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for the security personnel protecting his family.
“<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/20/hegseth-security-detail/">Hegseth’s expansive security requirements tax Army protective unit</a>,” the Post headline claimed, followed by a report about Hegseth&#8217;s “unusually large personal security requirements.”
The article referred to Hegseth’s family residences in Minnesota, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., while using the typical leftist media tactic of quoting numerous anonymous sources.
The Post painted a conspiratorial picture to target Hegseth, quoting an unidentified “CID official, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity citing a fear of reprisal.” That nameless official claimed, “I’ve never seen this many security teams for one guy. Nobody has.”
The story went on to say that the Post “withheld several sensitive details gathered in the course of reporting this article, including the size of Hegseth’s protective details and the precise locations where they are assigned.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-5806">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
It quoted another anonymous person claiming, “We have complete inability to achieve our most basic missions,” adding that “people familiar with the matter” alleged that when Hegseth became Defense Secretary, &#8220;a call went out for many more” agents to protect his family.
“One person characterized the figure as ‘400 and going up.’ Another said it’s ‘over 500,’” The Post reported.
Finally, in paragraph 14, the Post acknowledged, “Shortly after Hegseth was nominated to become defense secretary, a bomb threat was made against his home in Tennessee.” But that was immediately followed by this: “Hegseth, 45, a former National Guard officer and Fox News personality, was among Trump’s most polarizing Cabinet selections, and his tenure thus far has been mired in tumult.”
“CID protection has on occasion extended to Pete Hegseth’s and Jennifer Hegseth’s former spouses to protect the children, two of the officials said. Two other officials called this arrangement unusual. Another said it was something they had never seen before in their many years at the agency,” the Post reported.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell harshly criticized the Post, writing on X:
<blockquote>
In the wake of two assassinations attempts against President Trump, ICE agents facing a 1000% increase in assaults, and repeated threats of retaliation from Iran for striking their nuclear capabilities, it&#8217;s astonishing that the Washington Post is criticizing a high-ranking cabinet official for receiving appropriate security protection, especially after doxxing the DHS Secretary last week. Any action pertaining to the security of Secretary Hegseth and his family has been in response to the threat environment and at the full recommendation the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID). When left-wing blogs like the Washington Post continue to dox cabinet secretaries’ security protocols and movements, it puts lives at risk.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In the wake of two assassinations attempts against President Trump, ICE agents facing a 1000% increase in assaults, and repeated threats of retaliation from Iran for striking their nuclear capabilities, it&#8217;s astonishing that the Washington Post is criticizing a high-ranking… <a href="https://t.co/39SfiZOyPo">https://t.co/39SfiZOyPo</a>
— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1958133206726705448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Defense Department Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson echoed, “By publishing details about Secretary Hegseth’s security protocols, the Washington Post is actively putting him and his family in danger for clicks. These ‘reporters’ are disgusting.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
By publishing details about Secretary Hegseth’s security protocols, the Washington Post is actively putting him and his family in danger for clicks.
These “reporters” are disgusting. <a href="https://t.co/1rVpxlRdk8">https://t.co/1rVpxlRdk8</a>
— Kingsley Wilson (@PressSecDOD) <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSecDOD/status/1958140412063092948?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“This is a shameful story,” John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, posted. “I can&#8217;t believe it was published. If there are threats to a cabinet secretary&#8217;s life and family, protection is not only acceptable but necessary to safeguard the workings of our government, no matter what your ludicrous sources claim. Just to follow up a little: Ask anyone with security details if it&#8217;s some kind of exciting reward to have a security detail. It&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s intrusive, agents are omnipresent, and it makes living life harder, not easier.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just to follow up a little: Ask anyone with security details if it&#8217;s some kind of exciting reward to have a security detail. It&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s intrusive, agents are omnipresent, and it makes living life harder, not easier.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/1958120745244229921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch declared, “Leftists running @WashingtonPost and Deep Staters at Pentagon complain and disclose details about security for @SecDef @PeteHegseth  (including his children and family). Another dangerous targeting story from the Left WPOST on Trump Cabinet. (They just ran a targeting piece on  @Sec_Noem.) Does the WPOST want to get Trump Cabinet officials killed, @JeffBezos ?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Leftists running <a href="https://twitter.com/washingtonpost?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WashingtonPost</a> and Deep Staters at Pentagon complain and disclose details about security for <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PeteHegseth</a> (including his children and family). Another dangerous targeting story from the Left WPOST on Trump Cabinet. (They just ran a targeting piece on…
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1958137640445771830?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Confirmation Hearing Held For Secretary Of Defense Nominee Pete Hegseth

‘I Can’t Believe It Was Published’: WaPo Attacks Hegseth For Protecting His Family

Defense

Pete Hegseth

Security Detail

Washington Post

Menu