Why does the extreme Left seem to have a stranglehold on today’s internet “fact-checking” industry?
Despite spending years claiming to be an independent investigative newsroom dedicated to holding the powerful accountable, ProPublica has actually functioned as the exact opposite. A closer look at who writes the checks for this high-profile, non-profit organization, who it targets and chooses to protect, leaves no doubt they’re a perpetual clearinghouse for “fake news.”
In a progressive political ecosystem that weaponizes journalism against ideological opponents, ProPublica is a well-funded, non-neutral “watchdog” hardly above the political fray. Instead, it exists entirely to bolster the so-called “progressive” movement.
By following the money, the evidence is clearly hiding in plain sight.
Look at some of ProPublica's biggest targets over the past decade: Charles and David Koch, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, oil companies, Republican-appointed US Supreme Court justices, conservative donors, business leaders, and more. Sense a pattern?
By attacking only those associated with the Right, ProPublica serves as a virtual companion to the Democratic National Committee’s press shop.
While dedicating significant resources to attacking conservative networks, energy companies, and wealthy entrepreneurs, ProPublica consistently shows far less interest in examining the extensive web of progressive organizations, environmental activists, labor unions, billionaire-funded advocacy groups, and left-wing operations that hold substantial influence over American politics.
This is not an accident.
Beyond mere ideology, it’s also about the money, reflecting the worldview of wealthy foundations that finance it.
While simultaneously operating one of the largest climate-activism portfolios in the country and openly opposing coal and natural gas development, the Left-leaning Hewlett Foundation has showered the group with money, providing a substantial amount for its operations.
ProPublica readers are expected to believe these foundations spend enormous sums promoting climate activism, while their support for a key “investigative” newsroom somehow does not affect editorial priorities.
That demands a level of naivety that ProPublica would never expect readers to assign to anyone else.
When examining ProPublica's reporting on the Supreme Court, for example, the hypocrisy becomes even more obvious. Their questionable campaign against longtime Justice Clarence Thomas was presented as a triumph of accountability journalism. What readers heard far less about was the network surrounding the reporting itself.
Several of ProPublica's largest institutional donors have funded activist organizations and legal advocacy groups that spent years targeting conservative judges and reshaping the federal judiciary.
The Sandler network, ProPublica's founder and largest donor, is also providing millions to organizations such as the Campaign Legal Center and the American Constitution Society, as well as funding tied to Demand Justice, an extremist group that wants to expand and pack the Supreme Court.
Then came the “experts” — many supposed ethics authorities cited throughout their relentless anti-Clarence Thomas crusade were portrayed as neutral observers. Yet subsequent reviews found a substantial majority had significant histories of leftist political donations, many sending six-figure sums to Democrat causes and candidates.
Individually, none of these connections proves outright coordination. Together, however, they reveal how ProPublica operates within a closely linked network of donors, advocacy groups, legal activists, academics, and political organizations that share the same ideological views.
When that network investigates conservatives, it’s called journalism.
When conservatives investigate the network, it’s derided as a conspiracy.
Americans should not be fooled into thinking this is real journalism. Instead, it’s extremist political hackery at its worst.
Beyond merely covering political battles, ProPublica is actively waging them. Its investigations, source selection, funding network, and editorial priorities overwhelmingly point in one direction.
Acting as ideological manipulator rather than neutral observer does not qualify one as a legitimate “fact-checker”.
For an organization focused on revealing hidden influence, ProPublica's biggest blind spot might be looking right back at it in the mirror.
Brian Maloney (@SScalpings) is co-founder of the Media Equality Project. He is a frequent guest on cable news and his op-ed pieces have appeared in dozens of publications