ProPublica’s missing West Point story

ProPublica styles itself a public interest media organization. It allegedly pursues investigative journalism and news in the public interest. A disinterested observer might modify “in the public interest” to “in the interest of the Democratic Party.” So what is the difference between ProPublica and the rest of the corporate media? It is organized as a nonprofit and funded by left-wing foundations with money to burn.

This week ProPublica joined the campaign against Pete Hegseth. Was it tipped that Hegseth had been rejected from West Point when he applied to colleges 25 years ago? Hegseth attended Princeton through ROTC and distinguished himself in a variety of activities as an undergraduate. He served as a company commander in the ROTC. His active duty included stints at Guantanamo and service as a combat infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he was awarded the Bronze Star.

According to ProPublica editor Jesse Eisinger, the outlet was informed twice by West Point that it had no record of Hegseth’s application. I’m not sure why that was a story. Has Pete falsely bragged about his admission, like Joe Biden? (ProPublica somehow missed the Biden story, by the way.)

At this point Pete undertook preemptive action. He cut ProPublica off at the pass. He dug up and released a copy of his letter of admission to West Point on X. West Point subsequently acknowledged that it had provided ProPublica an “incorrect statement” regarding Hegseth.

Meditate on this. If Pete or someone in his family hadn’t saved the 25-year-old letter, a false ProPublica story would have created the scandal of the week. ProPublica shows no second thoughts or remorse. Eisinger simply holds himself out as an exemplar of excellence.

ProPublica isn’t even interested in what happened. West Point claims an administrative error. One has the sense that this may not be the whole story and that there is a reason for ProPublica’s lack of interest.

What we have here is a case of “misinformation” contributing to what seems to be a military and media campaign against Hegseth. That’s a story worthy of “investigation,” to borrow from ProPublica’s alleged mission.

But that’s not how ProPublica sees it. Pete’s copy of the admission letter and West Point’s confession of error led the outlet to drop the story. Eisinger patted himself on the back: “That’s journalism.”

Well, close! That’s “journalism.” It’s a story bigger than Hegseth’s alleged rejection from West Point 25 years ago, just not the one ProPublica was looking for.

Eisinger had much more to say in an 11-part thread on X, beginning here. The moral of the story: “This is how journalism is supposed to work.”

Again, close! This is how “journalism” works. That’s the moral I draw from the story.

Like me, the New York Post thinks there is more to the story — where did ProPublica get that tip? — and draws a moral different from Eisinger’s. In the editorial “ProPublica’s botched Pete Hegseth smear proves the need to purge the military of partisanship,” the Post concludes: “The longer the Hegseth nomination fight goes on, the more obvious the need for someone like Pete to start cleaning house at the Pentagon.”

John Podhoretz brings the derision Eisinger and ProPublica have earned. He could fill an 11-part thread with it, although he quit after four tweets directed at them yesterday. Here is one of them.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses