Reuters Publishes Slapdash Hit Piece on The Gateway Pundit — Doesn’t Know When Trump Was President and Misspells Name
Yet another coordinated attack piece hit the Gateway Pundit recently. This time it was from Reuters.
This time they did not even know when Donald Trump was running for US President.(screengrab)
And they misspelled “Jim Hoft” – a seven-letter name.(screengrab)
TRENDING: The Gateway Pundit and American Gulag Donate $40,000 to Persecuted Jan. 6 Families This Christmas
As the Gateway Pundit’s founder and Publisher, I feel compelled to defend our integrity and record.
The political left is engaged in bankrupting conservative media.
They are doing so through lawfare, bringing harassment litigation against us across the country, but also through attacking our advertisers.
Now they are attacking us through our commenters. Because someone said something disagreeable or mean, and they cited our writing, we should be held liable for their threats and other naughty words.
We are even being blamed for threats where our writing *isn’t* mentioned. Meaning that we’re held responsible for the reader actions on apparently every topic we’ve covered.
This is a theory where we’re responsible not only for our writing but for the actions of the people who read our articles. By their own numbers, that’s holding us accountable for the population that generates 50 million viewers per month.
This is the campaign of fear being waged by enemies of a free press.
There is an entire left-wing industry funded, staffed, and motivated to silence outlets they hate.
They don’t care about facts and they aren’t motivated to improve public understanding. They are zealots out to persecute their enemies.
If law enforcement won’t prosecute a single one of these messages mentioned within the Reuters hit piece as a real threat, then why are these threats being used to shut down the Gateway Pundit? It’s because these weren’t serious threats, they had no real connection to the Pundit or our writing, and this legal theory is a degenerated perversion of the first amendment.
This attempt to silence dissenting views is stunning in its own right, but even more so that the powerful perpetrators keep calling themselves the victims. Millionaire lawyers and multi-billion dollar law firms will spend endless amounts making sure we can’t discuss the facts on a single website they dislike.
Our annual revenues are low, but our writing and analysis are top tier. Other outlets are scared of what discussing the truth might do to their bottom line.
Outlets in America are afraid of who might sue you if you tell too much truth.
There are plenty of sites out there that will give you obviously fake news. There are plenty of sites that will give you what the media calls ‘disinformation.’ I am proud of the work and the real work the Gateway Pundit does every single day. Our team and our stories give our readers what they need to see through the mainstream media’s lies.
To the media, the Gateway Pundit is all “fake news” and we are a ‘purveyor of misinformation’ and yet it’s hard to remember a single story we ever got completely wrong.
The same media complaining about us are the same ones that gave zero skepticism to the Russiagate hoax or the obviously fake Trump dossier or the fake Ivermectin panic or Jussie Smollet or Nick Sandmann’s accuser or Kyle Rittenhouse’s prosecutors or Bubba Wallace’s ‘noose’ at NASCAR or Althea Bernstein or the Mike Brown shooting or the Trayvon Martin case or the Duke LaCrosse hoax or any number of fake news media panics that left-wing outlets perpetrated and never apologized for.
The media wants to say there was zero voter fraud, to do so they did no investigation. The media declared the conclusion to the story without interviewing any witnesses. Yet the Pundit has been working for nearly a year to interview witnesses, document allegations, review evidence, and present alternative analysis and views to the public.
We do so on a shoestring, with a minuscule fraction of even one of the mainstream media outlets, but still, they complain. They complain about our quality as they attack our ability to raise money. They attack our output as they file harassment lawsuits to waste our time.
These aren’t people who care about the truth, they are just powerful partisans.
We outpace NPR’s online presence, and that of USA Today, with mere pennies for our platform. The truth is cheap. Our layout hasn’t changed much in a decade. People don’t come to the Pundit for anything other than the truth.
Instead of complaining about how many people read the Pundit, maybe the media should wonder why so few people view the low-quality journalism they produce.
For months the media lied and said there was no 3:30am van that delivered illegal ballots to the TCF Center in Detroit on election night. We were told there was no van, that maybe one arrived that delivered food to election workers, but there was no van.
When I published the video footage of the van, video that no one else asked for, that no one else paid for, that no one else reported on: I didn’t get praise from the media, instead I was permanently banned off Twitter.
The incident that caused me to be banned from the most-used social media platform, Twitter, was the truthful story we did showing a white van arriving at 3:30am to the TCF Center clearly delivering ballots way past the 8:00pm election deadline.
I was banned from Twitter for telling the truth about the TCF Center’s security footage.
The media has shifted the party line to say that those were just late-counted ballots. But they ignore the fact that the van’s existence was denied until the Pundit reported it.
We are not propagating pointless punditry. We are empowering the public with suppressed views.
For the crime of telling too much truth, we are being punished again.
Notably, we are not being accused of putting false information in any story. It’s just that the exposed individuals choose to explain their email admissions of lawbreaking as jokes. That may be true, but it’s not unreasonable that people thought otherwise who were not in on the joke.
We accurately noted that, in email, election officials were talking about rigging the election. Their only excuse is that they meant they were joking.
Notice in the Reuters story how many times they try to blame the Gateway Pundit for threats where there’s zero evidence at all that the person was motivated by the Pundit.
That’s how bad Reuters is at journalism. With no evidence, they make a connection that fits the agenda of pending left-wing litigants who happen to be government officials.
When given the choice to support the government or a competing media outlet, they chose to lie for the government.
That’s why people don’t read Reuters – and why more and more people read The Gateway Pundit.
The Gateway Pundit is only popular because we fearlessly tell the truth that is too often suppressed by the mainstream media. Our continued success is due to the suppressed views we empower, unaffected by the lies told about us by Reuters.