The New York Times confirmed that they’ve cut ties with a freelance writer who stands accused of using AI to generate his book review. Alex Preston said he’s “hugely embarrassed” by the whole debacle.
The legacy paper was alerted by a reader who noticed that Alex Preston&#8217;s review of “Watching Over Her” by Jean-Baptiste Andrea was suspiciously similar to the review of the same title that Christobel Kent wrote for The Guardian last August.
When confronted by the Times, Preston admitted to using AI for assistance in writing his review and said he did not realize it had lifted copycat lines from anywhere else.
The New York Times sent a note to The Guardian, saying, “[Preston’s] reliance on AI and his use of unattributed work by another writer are a clear violation of the Times’s standards.”
“I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in,” Preston said in his statement to the Guardian, as the outlet <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/31/the-new-york-times-drops-freelance-journalist-who-used-ai-to-write-book-review">noted</a>. “I am hugely embarrassed by what happened and truly sorry. I took responsibility immediately and apologized to the New York Times, and I also want to apologize to Christobel Kent and to the Guardian.”
The phrase “lazy Machiavellian Stefano” from The Guardian version became “lazy, Machiavellian Stefano” in the New York Times version.
The Guardian described the book as “most significantly a song of love to a country of contradictions, battered, war-torn, divided, misguided and miraculous: an Italy where life is costume and the performance of art, and where circuses spring up on wasteland.”
This is very similar to the Times version, which said the characters “populate what is ultimately a love song to a country of contradictions: battered, divided, misguided, and miraculous. This is an Italy where life is performance, where circuses rise on wasteland.”
The outlet noted that Preston has written for The Observer, The Financial Times, The Guardian, and The Economist. He’s also written six books, including the recent release, “A Stranger in Corfu.”
This isn’t the first time a legacy newspaper outlet got caught publishing AI-generated content, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chicago-sun-times-published-a-i-generated-summer-reading-list-with-books-that-dont-exist">reported</a>. The Chicago Sun-Times was called out last year for advertising an AI-generated summer reading list, including a number of titles that didn’t actually exist.
Only five of the fifteen suggested titles were real books. The writer, who was not a full-time staff member, apologized for his “huge mistake” and said he “betrayed that trust.”
The paper also issued a response to subscribers, noting that the person responsible for the error had been terminated and promising the mistake would not happen again. 
“We are in a moment of great transformation in journalism and technology, and at the same time our industry continues to be besieged by business challenges. This should be a learning moment for all journalism organizations: Our work is valued — and valuable — because of the humanity behind it,” the statement said.
“At Chicago Public Media, we are proud of our credible, independent journalism, created for and by people. And part of the journalistic process is a commitment to acknowledging mistakes. It is unacceptable that this content was inaccurate, and it is equally unacceptable that we did not make it clear to readers that the section was produced outside the Sun-Times newsroom.”

New York Times

Major Legacy Media Outlet Caught Red-Handed In AI Plagiarism Scandal

Artificial Intelligence

Books

Plagiarism

Technology

The Guardian

The New York Times

We live in an age of narrative. Narrative matters more than the facts, and many of the people who know that work in the media, and many of them are opponents of Donald Trump&#8217;s agenda.
That means that any time President Trump tries to forward his agenda, he may face down actual false stories that are promulgated by the media that are antithetical to his actual agenda items.
The latest example is this insane example that has been totally under-covered, but is indicative of the way that so many in the media actually cover these stories. They don&#8217;t actually have personal knowledge of the story. They just report a story.
And it turns out the story is not true.
The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/ice-secretly-deported-grandfather">reported</a>:
<blockquote>An 82-year-old man in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/pennsylvania">Pennsylvania</a> was secretly deported to Guatemala after visiting an immigration office last month to replace his lost green card, according to his family, who said they have not heard from him since and were initially told he was dead.
According to <a href="https://www.mcall.com/2025/07/18/luis-leon-allentown-grandfather-ice-guatemala/">Morning Call</a>, which first reported the story, longtime Allentown resident Luis Leon – who was granted political asylum in the US in 1987 after being tortured under the regime of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet – lost his wallet containing the physical card that confirmed his legal residency. So he and his wife booked an appointment to get it replaced.
When he arrived at the office on 20 June, however, he was handcuffed by two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers, who led him away from his wife without explanation, she said. She said she herself was kept in the building for 10 hours until relatives picked her up.
The family said they made efforts to find any information on his whereabouts but learned nothing.
Then, sometime after Leon was detained, a woman purporting to be an immigration lawyer called the family, they said, claiming she could help – but did not disclose how she knew about the case, or where Leon was. On 9 July, according to Leon’s granddaughter, the same woman called them again, claiming Leon had died.
A week later, however, they discovered from a relative in Chile that Leon was alive after all – but now in a hospital in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/guatemala">Guatemala</a>, a country to which he has no connection.</blockquote>
So his family had said they couldn&#8217;t locate him and were told he died, and then he turned up in Guatemala. The DHS stated, “The family of the individual allegedly told reporters he was handcuffed and taken by federal officers at a green card appointment in Philadelphia. This claim is completely false. There&#8217;s no record of the man appearing at any green card appointment in or around the area of Philadelphia.” Furthermore, said the DHS, ICE has not deported Luis Leon.
Even the idea that he entered as a refugee from Pinochet is not true. This is an effort to demonize ICE agents, who are already facing an 830% increase in assaults against them.
The story is important because it demonstrates how information flows in the modern world, especially in the online world, where this went totally viral on X. 
Why does it work this way? Because X is a machine built for instantaneous response. Mark Twain famously suggested, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” That was somewhat true when Mark Twain was saying that back in the late 19th century, but it is much more true now when the online world means that lies are promulgated at an extraordinary rate, a truly extraordinary rate.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2244-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
And it&#8217;s true over and over and over again.
Take, for example, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who was freed by a court after the Trump administration tried to deport him. He was a person who had garnered a student visa under false pretenses. He got a student visa claiming that he was coming to the United States to study, when in fact he was coming to the United States in order to act as a professional agitator.
He came to work with Students for Justice in Palestine and various other groups on the Columbia University campus, where he was going to promote wild anti-Semitism and pro-Hamas sentiment.
And so Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that this is not what we are looking for in our immigrants. You&#8217;re gone.
So Khalil argued he was exercising his free speech rights. And Rubio fired back that we get to decide who comes into this country. We have the plenary power at State to decide whether someone is violating the edict, and we make the decision as to whether someone is of benefit to the United States.
The entire media came to Khalil&#8217;s defense, suggesting that Khalil was just a normal student who had no support for terrorist groups, that all the talk about him supporting terrorist groups was just false; he never would do something like that. He&#8217;s just a normal Left-wing guy who just really, really doesn&#8217;t like what Israel is doing in Gaza.
All of that blew up yesterday in an interview on CNN. He said the Trump administration is “weaponizing anti-Semitism.” He&#8217;s not really antisemitic. He&#8217;s not really a threat in any way. It&#8217;s just that the Trump administration is using antisemitism as a way of throwing out people they don&#8217;t like.
In the interview, he was asked multiple times whether he condemned Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, for what they did on October 7 and beyond. Over and over again, he refused to denounce Hamas.
Do you need people in the United States who don&#8217;t condemn State Department-labeled terrorist groups? That was Marco Rubio&#8217;s entire case. That was the case of the Trump administration when they tried to deport him.
It seems relatively inarguable. It&#8217;s one thing if you&#8217;re already a United States citizen; We don&#8217;t get to kick you out for having terrible views in the United States if you are a citizen.
But if you lie about why you came to the country and you came here as a political agitator on behalf of terrorist organizations, we should probably kick you out.
But the entire media went along with the idea that he was a wounded innocent who was merely parroting the rhetoric of mainstream Democratic officials. That was never true.
And by that time, it was too late for the debunking to happen.
This is happening all over the world. It&#8217;s not just true of the Trump administration immigration agenda. It&#8217;s true all over the world. The claims that are currently being made by mainstream media parroting the Gaza Ministry of Defense —which is controlled by Hamas — saying Israel is shooting people who are trying to get food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, are lies.
What is happening, however, is Hamas is infiltrating those lines, and they&#8217;re literally shooting at the IDF soldiers trying to draw fire. In response, Israel is attempting to separate Hamas terrorists from civilians. Hamas is literally killing people who are taking the aid from Israel because they wish to hijack the aid.
Another lie: Extremist local Jewish West Bank residents had set fire to the 1,500-year-old church of Saint George in the Palestinian village of Taiba. This is part and parcel of a broader attempt right now by some to claim that Israel is targeting Christians, which is not true. They&#8217;re doing this based on this false report, and also the lie that Israel purposefully targeted a church in the Gaza Strip. They did not purposefully target a church in the Gaza Strip. That would be a moral, intellectual, and strategic absurdity.
What would generate that? Why would Israel purposefully target a church? Clearly it was an accident. But it&#8217;s been run with by many of the people who are now trying to generate outsized pressure on Israel by claiming somehow that Israel is filled with people who hate Christians, which is very strange, considering that Israel is literally the only place in the entire region where Christians can live safely and securely while practicing their religion.
The story turned out to be false. The report was spread so widely, even American officials repeated it before investigating.
What actually happened? Local Jewish residents were fighting the fire. There are no burn marks anywhere on the church. It doesn&#8217;t have a roof because it hasn&#8217;t had a roof for a long time; it’s essentially an ancient site. There is contemporaneous footage showing young men from nearby farms running up the hill with fire extinguishing equipment, according to The Jerusalem Post.
This is, again, one of these narratives that runs out of control very, very quickly and is spread on services like X that do a terrible job of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of what is true and what is false.
It is that which leads to wild distrust on every issue.
It is very difficult to lock down the facts. One of the things I try to do on my show is to take enough time when a controversial claim is made to determine whether or not it is true. And so I might wait a few hours to determine what actually happened in a given situation, or even a couple of days in murky circumstances.
But that is not what the internet favors these days. What the internet actually favors is an immediate response, right now, without information. And if you wait, you are condemned for waiting. The idea is that if you wait, you must have some secret sympathies in some way or another. Whereas, if you just react and jump to your preferred conclusion, that somehow means you are more honest in some way.
It’s not true. Waiting is frequently the best thing to do in unclear circumstances so as to allow time for the truth to arise. That is the thing that actually should matter.
You can speculate; you can theorize, but people aren&#8217;t in the business anymore of speculating or theorizing. They simply jump to whatever conclusion is the most advantageous for their narrative and for their position, and then they insist that position is true regardless of the next set of facts that comes out.

The Guardian Newpaper To Stop Using Elon Musk’s Social Media Platform

Media LIE: The Illegal Immigrant Horror Story That Wasn’t

Anti-Semitism

Ben Shapiro

Gaza

Hamas

Immigration

Israel

Legacy Media

Mahmoud Khalil

Opinion

President Trump

Normally, I don&#8217;t consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged cosmopolitan liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it&#8217;s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on &#8220;Dancing with the Stars.&#8221; In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren&#8217;t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entitled</a>, &#8220;Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.&#8221; According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this article</a>, the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; is: 
<blockquote>&#8220;An organized effort to create &#8230; an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.
This new &#8216;womanosphere&#8217; includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.&#8221;</blockquote>
Before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here&#8217;s what I wrote</a> at the time: 
<blockquote>We hear a lot about the &#8216;manosphere.&#8217;I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</blockquote>
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the &#8220;womanosphere,&#8221; I was demanding a public conversation about the &#8220;womansphere.&#8221; All they did was add an &#8220;o&#8221; in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere is a collection of the most normal, and pleasant women you’ll ever meet. And of course the other problem is that no one at The Guardian knows what the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means. But other than that, you can&#8217;t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I&#8217;d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I&#8217;ll let it slide. As the old saying goes, great minds think alike. And the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.
But I don&#8217;t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it&#8217;s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We&#8217;re supposed to see the Right-wing &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be &#8220;thin and fertile,&#8221; as The Guardian puts it. These two words — &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; are just ways of describing someone as &#8220;healthy.&#8221; And you might wonder what&#8217;s so bad about the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. 
But all you&#8217;ll get from The Guardian is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this paragraph</a>: 
<blockquote>The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. &#8230; Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</blockquote>
Just to be clear here, the &#8220;narrow mold&#8221; that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath, because one of the commentators they attack in this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we&#8217;re left with is the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That&#8217;s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don&#8217;t want to be &#8220;relentlessly mocked and disparaged&#8221; by the online &#8220;womanosphere.&#8221;
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women. So that probably skews their perspective a bit, given that trans-identifying males aren&#8217;t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it&#8217;s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. 
Not too long ago, there was a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: 
<blockquote>Findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology (as compared to liberal ideology) tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.</blockquote>
These findings shouldn&#8217;t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn&#8217;t care about personal responsibility isn&#8217;t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that&#8217;s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It&#8217;s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they&#8217;re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that&#8217;s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they&#8217;re mind-controlling women. They&#8217;re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.
As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make &#8220;being healthy&#8221; sound like an act of terrorism. 
At one point, they quote a piece from &#8220;Evie,&#8221; and then they have a coronary over it. So <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s the line</a> from Evie, followed by The Guardian&#8217;s meltdown:&#8220;&#8216;Our reproductive organs are made for just that – creating new life – not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible,” read a recent Evie piece. 
Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way. Maggie Bullock, a women’s magazine veteran who co-writes the Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a &#8216;gateway drug&#8217; into more extreme conservative ideologies. &#8216;Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,&#8217; she said. &#8216;It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.'&#8221;
So here we have Evie magazine stating that women&#8217;s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it&#8217;s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a &#8220;women&#8217;s magazine veteran&#8221; — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a &#8220;gateway drug&#8221; to extremism, because they don&#8217;t think women should sterilize themselves.
What&#8217;s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I&#8217;ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you&#8217;ll ever meet.
The article uses words like “scary&#8221; to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has watched any of their shows. Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing, and also dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.
The other thing is that all of them of course have jobs. And yet The Guardian concludes that all of these women, in reality, want women to be nothing but &#8220;submissive homemakers&#8221; who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women">never leave the home</a> for any reason: 
<blockquote>While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers.</blockquote>
First of all, any time you hear a phrase like &#8220;gender-essentialist&#8221; being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it. The term is nonsense because everyone, in a sane world, is a &#8220;gender essentialist.&#8221; Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it&#8217;s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; the appropriate response is &#8220;yes, I am.&#8221; And by the way, the Left is also &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; albeit in a completely demented way. They don&#8217;t understand the concept of gender, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed. They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview. Just in a very confused way.
The other irony here is that it&#8217;s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can&#8217;t grasp the idea that, as I&#8217;ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I&#8217;ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn&#8217;t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.
We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it&#8217;s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn&#8217;t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn&#8217;t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane espoused by Brett, Candace, and company is the lane of Left-wing secular feminism where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether, or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It’s the lane where a woman doesn&#8217;t submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer — who as it happens is often also a man. It’s the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.
We&#8217;ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The institution of the family is in shambles. And, by all available metrics (including the prevalence of antidepressants), women (and men) are miserable. Here&#8217;s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they&#8217;re happy with how they&#8217;re being treated by &#8220;society,&#8221; whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recorded</a> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; over the last twenty years, women believe they&#8217;re more oppressed than ever.
But you don&#8217;t need Gallup to tell you that. You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there&#8217;s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. It has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.
The traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff. The Guardian is using the lame new &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it&#8217;s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. The Guardian might not know what women are, or what they want. But these women do. And the more the Left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party&#8217;s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.

The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Brett Cooper

Candace Owens

Feminism

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Riley Gaines

Traditional Marriage

Women

On Tuesday, conservative author Douglas Murray <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/news/ny-post-columnist-scores-libel-win-against-the-guardian-over-violent-racist-attacks-smear/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">won a libel claim</a> against the Guardian Media Group, whose subsidiary The Observer ran an article last August that accused him of “supporting violent racist attacks” against migrants during anti-immigration protests in 2024. The Observer is the Sunday edition of The Guardian.
Those protests followed three young girls at a Taylor Swift&#8211;themed dance lesson in Southport, a town in northwest England, being stabbed by Axel Rudakubana. The original article quoted Murray about another issue in 2023 but made it seem as though he was talking about the 2024 riots.
“In late 2023 the Claimant was interviewed by John Anderson, the former Deputy Australian Prime Minister about Israel, immigration and Islam,” Murray’s <a href="https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:0eae8318-f7a8-4614-b04d-39aa5b130987?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> to the court noted. “A video of the interview was published on Mr. Anderson’s website and YouTube on 8 November 2023. In the interview Mr.Murray expressed his outrage that a demonstration had been organised by Muslim groups, Palestinian groups and pro-Hamas groups to take place on Remembrance Sunday in London. He stated that: ‘the British soul is awakening and stirring with rage at what these people are doing.’”
The statement continued:
<blockquote>
On 6 August 2024, in the immediate aftermath of the riots, an edited version of the interview was, for a short period, uploaded on Mr. Anderson’s website and YouTube, which gave the misleading impression that Mr. Murray was encouraging the riots.  On 11 August 2024, The Observer published an article by the journalist Kenan Malik called The roots of this unrest lie in the warping of genuine working-class grievances. The article repeated the words spoken by Mr. Murray to John Anderson, that “the British soul is awakening and stirring with rage at what these people are doing,” however, the article wrongly reported that Mr. Murray had made this statement in connection with the riots, which in fact took place over 6 months after Mr. Murray&#8217;s interview took place. 
Furthermore, the article stated that Mr. Murray&#8217;s reference to “these people” during his interview with Mr Anderson had been to the migrants who had been attacked during the riots. The article stated that Mr. Murray was angry towards the migrants who were inside mosques and hotels during the riots who were “fearing for their lives, worshippers seeking refuge, those trying to ward off racist attackers on the streets.” The article therefore accused Mr. Murray of supporting the violent racist attacks made against migrants which took place during the riots of the summer of 2024. 
</blockquote>
The Guardian later corrected the August 11, 2024, article by The Observer’s Kenan Malik. The <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/douglas-murray-wins-defamation-case-against-observer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">corrected version</a> stated:
<blockquote>
“The British soul is awakening and stirring with rage at what these people are doing,” the Spectator’s Douglas Murray told former Australian deputy prime minister John Anderson. The comment might sound like a response to the recent riots, but was actually recorded last year (the edited clip of the old interview was uploaded on Anderson’s website last week, but has since been taken down).
</blockquote>
After Murray won the case in court, he <a href="https://x.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1899426518612443544">wrote</a> on X:
<blockquote>
Legal update: Today I won a major libel claim against Guardian Media/Observer (@guardian ) for its lazy journalism. Last year the paper made very serious and false accusations against me, based on unchecked claims on social media. On 11th August 2024 The Observer published an article by Kenan Malik ( @kenanmalik ) in connection with the riots in the UK. Mr. Malik falsely accused me of supporting violent attacks against migrants. This was not true and did not make it to the online edition. 
Nevertheless such baseless accusations have to be stopped before other careless ‘journalists’ take fake news from the internet and repeat such damaging allegations. Today in Court in London a statement was read out by Guardian media recording the absolute falsity of the allegations and recording payment to me of substantial damages and my legal costs.
</blockquote>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-889975" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-2.42.31%E2%80%AFPM-1024x371.png" alt="" width="1024" height="371" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-2.42.31%E2%80%AFPM-1024x371.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-2.42.31%E2%80%AFPM-300x109.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-2.42.31%E2%80%AFPM-768x278.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-2.42.31%E2%80%AFPM.png 1170w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>

Edinburgh International Book Festival 2017

Douglas Murray Wins Libel Claim Against The Guardian

Courts

Douglas Murray

Libel

World

The U.K.-based news outlet <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/the-guardian">The Guardian</a> will no longer post on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/twitter">X</a> from its official accounts, the company has announced.
The outlet <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-no-longer-post-on-x-twitter-elon-musk">cited</a> “disturbing content” that it claims circulates on the social media platform as a reason for exiting. The Guardian currently has more than 80 accounts on X, with approximately 27 million followers.
“This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism,” the statement said.
The Guardian noted that X users will still be able to share its articles on the platform. The news outlet also said that it would continue to use X posts in its reporting and that reporters would be using X as a source.  
“Social media can be an important tool for news organizations and help us to reach new audiences but, at this point, X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there,” the statement concluded.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
X owner Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1856674541033926719">reacted</a> to the news, writing: “They are a laboriously vile propaganda machine.”
Last April, the non-profit media company NPR stopped using X after the platform added a “state-affiliated media” tag to NPR’s profile, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-ditches-twitter-over-actions-that-undermine-our-credibility">reported</a>.
“NPR’s organizational accounts will no longer be active on Twitter because the platform is taking actions that undermine our credibility by falsely implying that we are not editorially independent,” a spokesperson said in a statement at the time.
“We are not putting our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public’s understanding of our editorial independence,” it said.
The Berlin Film Festival also announced this month that it would no longer post on X after this year but did not release a statement or give a reason for the change.

The Guardian Announces It Will No Longer Post On X

Elon Musk

Journalism

Media

Politics

Social Media

Twitter

United Kingdom

Sometime between the years of 2018 and 2023, Left-leaning news outlet <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/the-guardian" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a> went from writing their own exposes about child sex trafficking to denigrating a movie that does the same by calling it “QAnon-adjacent.”
Reviewer Charles Bramesco makes no effort to hide his abhorrence for the massively popular Angel Studios film “Sound of Freedom,” which recounts the true story of Tim Ballard, a federal agent who quit his job to save a young girl from sex slavery in South America. The newly released movie shocked Hollywood industry insiders with its impressive box office numbers despite a lack of major promotion.
“Sound of Freedom” was in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sound-of-freedom-takes-top-spot-at-box-office-on-fourth-of-july" target="_blank" rel="noopener">number one spot</a> at the U.S. box office on July 4, beating out Disney’s highly-anticipated “Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny” and other huge releases during the 4th of July holiday.
Bramesco won’t even admit that success was valid. The reviewer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that “Sound of Freedom” only outperformed “Indiana Jones” for a “fleeting moment this past Fourth of July, while the intended audience of Indy’s latest outing was presumably spending time with their families and friends at barbecues or in other social situations.”
He further called the undeniably impressive box office ticket sales reports “selective” and as having “almost willfully misleading framing” to create a “David-and-Goliath narrative.”
Box office earnings aside, it’s hard to see how a formerly bipartisan issue such as working to end the horror of human trafficking could possibly be seen as primarily Right-wing, or as controversial in the slightest.
Conservative commentator Jack Posobiec pointed out how The Guardian itself did an in-depth expose on child trafficking in 2018. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/dec/23/child-sex-trafficking-rife-colombia-cartagena" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piece</a>, titled “Child sex trafficking rife in Colombia&#8217;s picturesque Cartagena,” featured interviews with victims of the practice, including teenage girls who were kidnapped, raped, and otherwise abused.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Guardian ran a huge exposé on child sex trafficking in Columbia in 2018
Now they are saying it&#39;s a conspiracy theory to watch a movie about child sex trafficking set in Columbia <a href="https://t.co/sQHVUpaKlM">pic.twitter.com/sQHVUpaKlM</a>
&mdash; Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) <a href="https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1677297575227973632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Writer Mathew Charles described trafficking as the country’s “shameful problem” that had become “out of control” in the city. The expose also highlighted the thriving sex tourism industry where younger victims fetched the highest prices. One interviewee said underage workers “earn a lot more.”
“Clients pay more for them, but sometimes they can be scared. Often, they’re given drugs first or lots of alcohol to get them drunk. I think it makes it easier,” the 24-year-old sex worker explained.
This coverage stands in stark contrast to the “Sound of Freedom” review, which paints the panic over child sex trafficking as some kind of Right-wing conspiracy theory. Bramesco focuses much of his vitriol at the film’s lead actor Jim Caviezel.
“Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: ‘God’s children are not for sale,’” the Guardian reviewer writes of Caviezel’s performance, referencing his former role as Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”
Bromesco admits that the movie is solely about trafficking and doesn’t delve into any fringe conspiracy theories. But the reviewer insists that “Sound of Freedom” is a Trojan horse in that respect, implying that viewers are being tricked into believing more elaborate conspiracies just by accepting the film at face value.
“The trafficking follows no motivation more elaborate than the servicing of rich predators, eliding all talk of body-part black markets and the precious organic biochemical of adrenochrome harvested as a Satanic key to eternal life,” he writes. “The first rule of QAnon: you don’t talk about QAnon where the normals can hear you.”
The Guardian reviewer next accuses “Sound of Freedom” of “prend[ing] to be a real movie” just as he accuses crisis pregnancy centers, which offer mothers-to-be resources and prenatal care, of “masquerading” as “bona fide health clinic(s).”
Bromesco concludes by mocking Angel Studios for providing a QR code that would allow viewers to purchase tickets for other prospective attendees. He sees the whole thing as a shameless money grab rather than as a way for creators to find a creative way to spread the message.
The Guardian review of “Sound of Freedom” is not common. Moviegoers are mostly stunned and moved by the effort by Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Monteverde.
Reviewer Aaron Gleason at The Federalist <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/07/sex-trafficking-drama-sound-of-freedom-is-a-heartbreaking-and-hopeful-call-to-action/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called the film</a> “a heartbreaking and hopeful call to action.” Unlike Bromesco, he believed the central aim of “Sound of Freedom” creators was to inspire viewers to take action against these atrocities. Gleason notes how Caviezel gives a stunning performance, but ultimately it’s the young actors who drive the message home.
“It’s about the children — lost, invisible children who suffer in the depths of hell every single day. While the rich and powerful try to indoctrinate us with critical race theory and other ideological moralisms, true victims suffer in literal cages and chains,” he writes.
Even more mainstream reviewers found the movie effective. A Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/sound-of-freedom-review-jim-caviezel-1235660035/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reviewer</a> said Caviezel “anchors” this “solidly made and disquieting thriller.” They also wrote that while it’s “been sold as a ‘conservative’ thriller,” you “don&#8217;t need that mindset to find it compelling.”
“You needn’t hold extreme beliefs to experience ‘Sound of Freedom’ as a compelling movie that shines an authentic light on one of the crucial criminal horrors of our time, one that Hollywood has mostly shied away from,” Variety writer Owen Gleiberman concluded after stating he does not believe in Pizzagate.
The movie currently has a 79% rating on movie review site Rotten Tomatoes and a 100% audience score.
Interestingly, The Guardian released their own short film about child trafficking in June. “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2023/jun/13/sex-trafficking-the-fight-to-recover-indias-stolen-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The hunt for India’s stolen children</a>” tells the shocking story of teens and younger children who go missing in the Sundarbans, a mangrove forest located in India’s Bay of Bengal.
The 15-minute video has many of the same elements as “Sound of Freedom.” There are survivors who recount some of the horrors they experienced after being drugged, kidnapped, and gang raped. At one point, a non-profit coordinator admits that at least one victim was kidnapped specifically for traffickers to sell their blood.
The Guardian’s video also features police staging a rescue of two sisters who were trafficked to another region and sold as sex slaves. Viewers could argue that their story was a shorter version of Agent Ballard’s quest to reunite trafficked siblings.
The major difference between “Sound of Freedom” and “India’s stolen children” is the framing. The Guardian’s expose blames trafficking on poverty in the region that’s exacerbated by climate change, which has caused the already impoverished region to become poorer and less stable.
“The Sundarbans is the world’s largest mangrove forest and one of the most climate vulnerable locations on the planet,” the video description says. “Climate change has taken an enormous toll on the rainforest in recent years, repeatedly uprooting families and decimating the incomes of residents who have traditionally relied heavily on agriculture and fishing for their livelihoods.”
“Now, repeated natural disasters and environmental changes to the region have created a highly vulnerable population increasingly at risk of participating in or becoming victims of child trafficking,” it reads.
Ending child trafficking is still a topic leftists will champion. But only when it fits the rest of their narrative.
The title of this article was changed for clarity. Previous title was &#8220;‘Sound Of Freedom’ Mocked As ‘QAnon Adjacent’ Despite Sex Trafficking Being Non-Partisan.&#8221;

GettyImages-652329212-e1680206549796

Leftists Mock Anti-Sex Trafficking Film As ‘QAnon Adjacent’

Child Sex Abuse

Hollywood

Jim Caviezel

Movies

Readers Pass

Sex Trafficking

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/el-salvador">El Salvador</a>&#8216;s crackdown on violent gangs, which has reduced the country&#8217;s murder rate by over half is problematic actually, according to The Guardian.
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/02/the-guardian-view-on-el-salvadors-crackdown-a-short-term-high-cost-fix">The Guardian</a> published an editorial on Sunday criticizing El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele for his unsparing crackdown on violent organized crime, saying his methods do not address the root cause of the crime, among other issues, Townhall <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/07/06/the-guardian-takes-issue-with-el-salvador-reducing-murders-by-90-percent-n2625373" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
The Guardian acknowledged that the crackdown has made the country safer, made Bukele more popular, and even made other Latin countries want to copy El Salvador and rid their streets of crime the same way.
&#8220;Even long-term critics acknowledge that extortion appears to have fallen sharply and that many in communities which lived in terror are enjoying the freedom to live their lives unmenaced. Yet others, many of them innocent of any crime, have paid a high price for a campaign that has trampled over basic rights: at least 153 people have died,&#8221; the editorial said.
The Guardian questioned Bukele&#8217;s power as well as the crackdown.
&#8220;Some may consider that a price worth paying. But even focusing purely on results, the story is more complicated than it appears,&#8221; The Guardian said, saying the murder rate has been falling since 2015.
El Salvador&#8217;s murder rate <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-01-03/el-salvador-murders-plummet-by-over-half-in-2022-amid-gang-crackdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plummeted</a> 56.8% in 2022, with authorities counting 496 homicides last year, down from 1,147 in 2021.
The editorial also said the crackdown does not address the underlying causes of organized crime.
&#8220;[Critics] also say the fall in crime is unsustainable – with good reason,&#8221; the editorial continued. &#8220;Previous hardline drives in the region have ended badly, followed by surges in offending. They do nothing to tackle underlying causes such as poverty and discrimination. They breed resentment and enable the recruitment and hardening of those not entrenched in gangs. Many of the criminal organisations that now terrorise parts of Latin America were born in prisons.&#8221;
The Guardian said one critic said the &#8220;real success story is not of the defeat of gangs, but the perpetuation of Mr Bukele’s power.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a man who dubbed himself &#8216;the coolest dictator in the world&#8217; in response to criticism,&#8221; The Guardian said.
&#8220;It is assumed that the popularity of his crackdown will sweep him back into power next year, even though multiple experts say that would violate the country’s constitution. What worries opponents, scholars, lawyers and civil society most is what he may do after that, with renewed authority,&#8221; the editorial said.
&#8220;&#8216;Bukelismo&#8217; should not be admired, or emulated,&#8221; The Guardian concluded.
Last month, Bukele encouraged journalists to speak to El Salvadorans on the street about the crackdown.
&#8220;Given that we have over 300 international media outlets in the country today, I want to ask you to go speak with people on the street, ask anyone you meet at random,&#8221; Bukele said in a video message to journalists posted to Twitter.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mensaje a los periodistas / Message to journalists <a href="https://t.co/CigeHXXTKW">pic.twitter.com/CigeHXXTKW</a>
&mdash; Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) <a href="https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1673115754093506560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Here, in El Salvador, you are free to go anywhere you want. It&#8217;s totally safe,&#8221; Bukele said. &#8220;Nothing will happen to you. Nobody will stop you.&#8221;
El Salvador’s crackdown on violent criminals began last year when the government declared a state of emergency as the country battled a spike in murders.
The crackdown <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/el-salvadors-crime-crackdown-could-push-gangs-north-toward-u-s-expert-warns" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has seen</a> thousands of suspected gang members locked up in the country’s new maximum security prison in central El Salvador, which can hold up to 40,000 inmates. Striking video footage showed lines of shirtless, heavily-tattooed prisoners with shaved heads running bent over and handcuffed as they were moved to the new prison facility.
“They are never going to return to the communities, the neighborhoods, the barrios, the cities of our beloved El Salvador,” <a href="https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-gang-crackdown-prison-state-of-emergency-d95e1fcd5b806c38077ffb060c8c2f48" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> El Salvador’s justice minister Gustavo Villatoro at the time.

El Salvador Continues With Controversial Anti-Gang Plan

The Guardian Says El Salvador Reducing Murders By Over Half Is Problematic, Actually

Crime

El Salvador

gangs

Mainstream Media

MS-13 Gang

Murder

Readers of the British newspaper, The Guardian, are accusing the outlet of deactivating <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/15/tell-us-who-is-your-2021-person-of-the-year">an online poll</a> that asked readers to vote on “Person of the Year” after it became apparent that J.K. Rowling would handily win.
“Tell us: who is your 2021 person of the year?” ran the headline, posted on Dec. 15, with the subtitle, “Time Magazine chose billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk – but who would be your choice?” A short time later, when Rowling was far and away in the lead, the voting form disappeared, as did the results. A message in small print stated, “This form has been deactivated and is closed to any further submissions.”
Rowling has been at the center of numerous cancel culture storms this year for her refusal to deny the reality of biological sex. Earlier this month she stirred up controversy by mocking Scotland’s law enforcement policy that allows accused rapists to self-identify as female. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman,” she <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1470092815506063365?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1470092815506063365%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-penised-individual-who-raped-you-is-a-woman-j-k-rowling-slams-scotland-police-for-move-to-record-male-rapists-as-women-based-on-self-identity">tweeted</a> in reference to an article titled, “Absurdity’ of police logging rapists as women.”
As The Daily Wire previously reported, trans activists have retaliated against her refusal to capitulate to their agenda by threatening to send her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jk-rowling-blasts-trans-activists-after-death-threat-this-movement-poses-no-risk-to-women-whatsoever">pipe bombs</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/j-k-rowling-speaks-out-after-doxxing-so-many-death-threats-i-could-paper-the-house">publishing</a> her home address on social media. Showing the flair for dark humor that runs through her novels, the world&#8217;s richest author wryly joked that she&#8217;s received &#8220;so many death threats [she] could paper the house.&#8221;
The Guardian, which is generally known for being left-of-center, has so far provided no explanation for why it took its poll offline with Rowling firmly in the lead. But that didn’t stop the public from taking to social media to share their suspicions.
“JK Rowling was voted Guardian&#8217;s person of the year. Rather than acknowledge this, Guardian killed the competition. What utter cowardice, Guardian,” said one <a href="https://twitter.com/cubedreamer/status/1475872676077993985?s=20">tweet</a> that received nearly 3000 “likes.” Another, which more than 7000 people approved, read, “BREAKING: Guardian deactivated the poll on ‘Person of the Year 2021’ because JK Rowling was in the lead. Pathetic!”
One person even photoshopped a <a href="https://twitter.com/nikkicraft/status/1476068145571975169?s=20">fake Guardian article</a> that satirically reported:
<blockquote>The Guardian has had to announce that cis-woman writer and notorious transphobe J.K. Rowling will be the 2021 Person of the Year. Rowling was awarded the honor after 112 recounts of the votes and will have the award reluctantly sent to her via second class post after a brief, secret ‘ceremony’ at the Guardian’s well-appointed and upmarket offices in King’s Place in London, which in no way betrays the paper’s working class roots.</blockquote>
It seems the Guardian’s politically awkward popularity contest isn’t going to be easily forgotten. When the outlet <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1473716105415909383?s=20">posted</a> the question, “What’s the funniest thing you saw on the internet in 2021,” to Twitter, numerous people responded in the same vein as one user who <a href="https://twitter.com/AthenaNike4/status/1475769207694536706?s=20">replied</a>, “The Guardian closing its Person of the year award because JK Rowling got so many votes — that was totalitarian levels of funny.”
&nbsp;

US-ENTERTAINMENT-FINDING THE WAY

British Newspaper Cancels ‘Person Of The Year’ Poll After J.K. Rowling Runs Away With Top Spot   

JK Rowling

Abortion — which has claimed the lives of 63 million preborn babies since 1973 — provokes some measure of righteous indignation among American evangelicals. One progressive journalist, however, believes that they should have the opposite response.
In reaction to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — a Supreme Court case regarding the state of Mississippi’s ban on abortions past 15 weeks’ gestation — Jessica Glenza of The Guardian wrote an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/05/abortion-opposition-focus-white-evangelical-anger">article</a> blasting “white, evangelical anger” over abortion. In essence, she argued that state legislators’ attempts to restrict “abortion access” have made 2021 “the most hostile year to abortion rights on record” — even though “about four in five Americans believe abortion should be legal, at least in some circumstances.”
“The religious right in the US has been laying the foundations of this decisive challenge to abortion rights for years,” she said of the Dobbs case. “According to historians and researchers, it has taken decades of political machinations for the campaign to reach this zenith. The movement has intersected with nearly every major issue in American politics for the last five decades, from segregation to welfare reform to campaign finance.”
While arguing that the pro-life movement was born from “Republican operatives” channeling evangelicals’ “collective anxieties” away from segregation and toward “defense of the fetus,” Glenza observed that the issue of abortion boosted election turnout among American Christians. She links evangelical disdain of abortion to racism — for example, by asserting that President Ronald Reagan casted “the politics of reproduction through a new racist prism” while using the term “welfare queen.”
In the next breath, however, Glenza mourned that “young, poor people of color will disproportionately suffer, forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term” if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court. Glenza added that such an outcome is “so severe” that “human rights advocates” — namely, Safe Abortion Action Fund board member Tlaleng Mofokeng — “have said state abortion bans would violate United Nations conventions against torture and place the US in the company of a shrinking number of countries with abortion bans.”
In an interview with The Daily Wire, James Silberman — communications director of <a href="https://freethestates.org/">Free The States</a>, a Christian organization seeking the immediate abolition of abortion — pointed out that there is a “demented irony in claiming that young people of color will suffer if abortion is abolished.” 
Indeed, “more black babies are murdered than born in some parts of the country.”
“One side of the abortion debate is rooted in outright white supremacy, and it&#8217;s not those who oppose abortion,” said Silberman. “Planned Parenthood was founded almost exclusively by eugenicists including KKK Exalted Cyclops Lothrop Stoddard.”
Silberman also responded to the fact that four in five Americans support abortion in some circumstances, even though roughly half of Americans call themselves “pro-life” — a phenomenon discussed by the new documentary <a href="https://vimeo.com/ondemand/astormcomesrolling?autoplay=1">A Storm Comes Rolling Down The Plain</a>, which Free The States helped to produce.
“This is a function of the establishment pro-life strategy rooted in compromise,” he argued. “Many of those who pray for and celebrate ‘moderate restrictions’ will come to understand those restrictions as what it means to be pro-life.”
“We must stand on conviction and pass laws consistent with the truth, lest we come to believe lies. We must demand the total and immediate abolition of abortion.”
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Article From The Guardian Bashes ‘White Evangelicals’ For Their ‘Anger’ Over Abortion

Abortion

A left-leaning news outlet has retracted a headline concerning Daily Wire host Candace Owens, following her move to send &#8220;legal pit bulls upon them.&#8221;
&#8220;Pleased to announce that after I set legal pit bulls upon them—the [Guardian] retracted their grossly libelous headline which claimed that I suggested America invade Australia,&#8221; Owens posted to Twitter on Wednesday. 
&#8220;While we all know the Guardian is <a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" role="link" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hashtag_click">#FakeNews</a>, it’s still nice to make them admit it from time to time,&#8221; she added.
Last month, The Guardian ran with a headline claiming Owens called for U.S. Military intervention in Australia. “Rightwing pundit Candace Owens suggests US invade Australia to ‘free an oppressed people,’” the headline said.
To land on such a wildly misleading headline, The Guardian took commentary from Owens&#8217; show “Candace” out of context and made it seem as if the conservative politico called for the United States to “invade” Australia. Though, Owens noted in her monologue that she was being facetious, underscoring her anti-interventionist beliefs, but also decrying the dire conditions Australians are facing relative to other places to which the U.S. has deployed troops, namely Afghanistan.
Owens swiftly demanded a &#8220;full retraction.&#8221;
Now, The Guardian&#8217;s headline reads as follows: &#8220;Rightwing US pundit Candace Owens compares Australian government to the Taliban, calling it a ‘tyrannical police state.’”
<div class="dcr-zjgnrw">
<div class=" dcr-mj1r7n" data-print-layout="hide">
And the sub-headline reads, &#8220;The high-profile conservative commentator quips: ‘When do we deploy troops to Australia?’”
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pleased to announce that after I set legal pit bulls upon them—the <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@guardian</a> retracted their grossly libelous headline which claimed that I suggested America invade Australia. 
While we all know the Guardian is <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FakeNews</a>, it’s still nice to make them admit it from time to time. <a href="https://t.co/e3D2eX8bP3">pic.twitter.com/e3D2eX8bP3</a>
&mdash; Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1455964391313219588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In a video posted last month, Owens railed at The Guardian for their &#8220;full lie,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-want-a-full-retraction-candace-owens-posts-fierce-response-video-to-media-smears-over-her-australia-commentary">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>Owens said in the video that she plans on having her lawyers reach out to The Guardian over their “full lie,” noting … the U.K.’s libel laws.
“The U.K. has very strong libel laws, and you can’t just lie like that. And I want a full retraction,” the BLEXIT founder said. “To pretend that I was not joking, when I quite literally said, ‘I say that in jest’ — it’s demonic, it’s satanic.”
&#8230; “The AUDACITY of Twitter and [The Guardian] to run with a FULL LIE of a headline that I suggested America should invade Australia,” Owens captioned her Instagram response video. “I am in full dragon mode right now.”
“Are you awake yet?! Do you see the evil?” she added. “Do you understand there is value for these evil globalists in your perpetual state of fear?”
Continuing her commentary in the video, Owens said the media smear is part of the “reason that this world is so divided, it’s the reason why everywhere in the world people are being impoverished and imprisoned by their governments, who have launched a war against their own people.”
“It’s an information war,” she emphasized. “They are lying to you about what is happening everywhere. They are lying to you about your own body, right? You don’t even trust your own body anymore. People are afraid when anyone sneezes. Because the government has launched a war, a propaganda war, a psychological war against its own people. Because fear gives them more power. That’s the truth.”</blockquote>
Below is the clip of what Owens actually said during her monologue concerning Australia:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you want an exercise in how journalists ruthlessly lie—please examine the <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@guardian</a> current headline claiming that I suggested we “invade Australia”, absent my following sentence, “I say that of course, in jest”. 
Why the rush to lie? Because I told the TRUTH. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeAustralia?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FreeAustralia</a> <a href="https://t.co/CsAY17ahVv">pic.twitter.com/CsAY17ahVv</a>
&mdash; Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1451560125370667009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-want-a-full-retraction-candace-owens-posts-fierce-response-video-to-media-smears-over-her-australia-commentary">‘I Want A Full Retraction’: Candace Owens Posts Fierce Response Video To Media Smears Over Her Australia Commentary</a>

“Candace” Hosted By Candace Owens

Media Retracts Headline About Candace Owens After Conservative Harnesses ‘Legal Pit Bulls’

One of President Trump&#8217;s chief critics in the press, CNN&#8217;s Jim Acosta, will be releasing a new book that makes a variety of juicy claims about the president&#8217;s conduct.
According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/25/jim-acosta-cnn-white-house-trump-book-enemy-of-the-people">The Guardian</a>, which published several excerpts of Acosta&#8217;s upcoming book, aptly titled &#8220;The Enemy of the People,&#8221; the CNN White House correspondent makes the claim that President Trump&#8217;s so-called war on the press began as an act that snowballed into a strategy.
After a confrontation in which Trump denounced Acosta as &#8220;fake news&#8221; and &#8220;very fake news,&#8221; White House aide Hope Hicks allegedly approached Acosta afterward to say the president thought he was &#8220;very professional today.&#8221;
&#8220;He said, &#8216;Jim gets it,&#8217;&#8221; Jim Acosta quotes Hope Hicks as saying in his book. &#8220;When he called us &#8216;fake news,&#8217; it was, in his mind, an act.&#8221;
Throughout the book, Acosta quotes anonymous sources that supposedly spoke off-the-cuff in private about their opinions on President Trump
&#8220;They are often blunt in their assessment of their boss,&#8221; reports The Guardian of Acosta&#8217;s book. &#8220;A &#8216;senior White House official&#8217; tells Acosta: &#8216;The president&#8217;s insane.&#8217; A &#8216;former White House national security official&#8217; says staffers were not sure the president had not been &#8216;compromised&#8217; by Russia.&#8221;
Acosta goes on to allege in his book that President Trump decided to attack the mainstream media due to the spate of anonymous sources at CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times attacking his administration. He claims that since Republicans controlled Congress, the president needed an enemy to attack. Three unnamed sources Acosta quotes cited former White House aide Steve Bannon as the architect for the attack.
Of his own tumultuous relationship with President Trump, Jim Acosta admits that he sometimes reduces himself to &#8220;grandstanding&#8221; and &#8220;showboating,&#8221; claiming he &#8220;opts for the bait&#8221; when questioning Trump. In response to those who would accuse him of having a bias against President Trump, Acosta bluntly says, &#8220;Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn&#8217;t really serve us in the age of Trump.&#8221;
The White House correspondent has even been criticized by some of his own colleagues in the press pool for his often rude behavior at press conferences, which often involves filibustering the mic and attacking President Trump with ideological talking points. In November of last year, shortly after Acosta had his press pass taken away for another one of his grandstanding episodes, Republican strategist Arthur Schwartz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38325/isnt-jim-fing-acosta-show-journalists-unload-cnns-ryan-saavedra">said that some CNN reporters</a> were quite infuriated with Acosta&#8217;s behavior.
&#8220;A few CNN reporters told me that they&#8217;re embarrassed by Acosta &amp; CNN,&#8221; Schwartz said at the time. &#8220;A WH correspondent from a major network (not Fox) told me &#8216;This isn&#8217;t the Jim F*ing Acosta Show. We all hate him. He&#8217;s an a**hole and he actually is disrespectful to the president.'&#8221;
Just this week, <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-jim-acosta-book-reporter-paid-pundit">Fox News</a> quoted an anonymous CNN employee as saying Jim Acosta is notorious for constantly making the moment about him.
&#8220;Jim Acosta is, a lot of times, asking the right questions, but it doesn&#8217;t always need to be about him and his grandstanding,&#8221; said the employee. &#8220;Acosta is supposed to be a correspondent reporting the facts but you can&#8217;t tell the difference between him and a paid pundit.&#8221;

Acosta’s New Book: ‘The President Is Insane’

Jim Acosta

Our media peddles more propaganda with each passing year.
In 2013, the AP Stylebook told news outlets to <a href="https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more">stop using</a> the legally appropriate term &#8220;illegal alien&#8221; or &#8220;illegal immigrant&#8221; and to start calling them &#8220;undocumented immigrants&#8221; to avoid hurtful labels.
Now The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment?CMP=share_btn_tw">wants to change the language</a> surrounding climate change, which used to be global warming or global cooling depending on the decade. The news outlet published an article on Friday from its environmental editor, Damian Carrington, saying the outlet would now write &#8220;climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown&#8221; instead of climate change and &#8220;global heating&#8221; instead of &#8220;global warming.&#8221;
The original terms have not been banned, Carrington wrote.
&#8220;We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,&#8221; Editor-in-Chief Katharine Viner said in a statement provided in the article. &#8220;The phrase &#8216;climate change,&#8217; for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.&#8221;
&#8220;Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we&#8217;re in,&#8221; she added.
The Guardian based its decision on the use of these terms by several prominent climate scientists, without noting that studies that find a possibility of catastrophe rate that possibility at a low percent. No change or a beneficial change are also possible due to some aspects of climate change, yet the hysteria sells more papers and gets more clicks.
The Guardian is not stopping at these terms, however, and will also change some other words and phrases.
&#8220;Other terms that have been updated, including the use of &#8216;wildlife&#8217; rather than &#8216;biodiversity,&#8217; &#8216;fish populations&#8217; instead of &#8216;fish stocks&#8217; and &#8216;climate science denier&#8217; rather than &#8216;climate sceptic,&#8217;&#8221; the outlet wrote.
Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with a Ph.D., mocked The Guardian on Twitter for the changes.
&#8220;Of course, from a scientific and literal point of view, this is idiotic. But if you read the Guardian for your climate change news, then you deserve to be misinformed,&#8221; he wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Of course, from a scientific and literal point of view, this is idiotic. But if you read the Guardian for your climate change news, then you deserve to be misinformed.
&#8212; Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1129372769039339521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Michael Bastasch, who writes about climate science for The Daily Caller (pointing out that the hysteria surrounding the issue often ignores what&#8217;s in the actual studies) suggested an alternate headline for The Guardian&#8217;s article about writing changes.
&#8220;ALT headline: The Guardian will now only use activist talking points meant to scare people,&#8221; Bastasch wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ALT headline: The Guardian will now only use activist talking points meant to scare people <a href="https://t.co/IFxil3QpOn">https://t.co/IFxil3QpOn</a>
&#8212; Mike Bastasch (@MikeBastasch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeBastasch/status/1129373152239341568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
One should also point out that not a single person who uses phrases like &#8220;climate crisis&#8221; lives the way a person who truly believes destruction is imminent would live. Hollywood celebrities and politicians still take private jets to climate meetings and put forth a bigger carbon footprint than the average American.

The Guardian Plans To Start Using Climate Alarmist Language Instead Of Accurate Scientific Terms

Climate Change

Media Bias

Menu