Salon, once a tool for radicalizing the left, now demonstrates its unhinged and radical nature. One wonders if Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup, who acquired it for a mere five million dollars, have terminated the writer responsible for an article attempting to shame the New York Times into dishonesty and childish behavior regarding our nation’s well-being. Like many outlets, Salon promotes Kamala Harris as a renowned singer, yet she attends concerts masquerading as rallies. They exploit Hollywood and impressionable individuals who follow the guidance of celebrities like Taylor Swift—a woman in her thirties who performs childishly, creates music for young audiences, and allegedly orchestrates relationships for album material. If you seek advice on economy, safety, and health from such figures, you might indeed be a Salon reader. Notably, their company’s value barely exceeds twice my own, despite my relative obscurity.
We all recognize that The New York Times—arguably one of the two or three most influential voices in American legacy media, and particularly dominant in shaping narratives beyond just its reporting—had the power to dramatically alter the coverage of Trump, not only within its ranks but across the entire political media landscape. Many legacy media outlets, some now irrelevant, have long claimed they should abandon soft language, false equivalence, and accusations of “lying.” Hillary Clinton had warned the public that Donald Trump would plunge America into a nightmare of racism and authoritarian control, but those warnings went unheeded.
RELATED: If Trump wins, blame the New York Times
“Lying”? Not quite. It’s more that The New York Times seems to understand the gravity of what is unfolding yet chooses silence. Salon recently published an article pointing out that, instead of confronting Trump’s presidency’s blatant and dangerous absurdities head-on, The Times has resorted to tortured euphemisms, passive language, and questionable news judgment. But wait—since when does Salon critique news judgment? LOL
This is coming from a has-been media company. In fact, one of Salon’s founding editors who left them in 2016 said:
“Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore….The name is still being used, but the real Salon is gone.”
Laura Miller (a Founding Editor of Salon)
Salon is outraged that it doesn’t see the far-left press—or the people it assumed were on that side—doing what it believes is “necessary.” Froomkin is upset about what it describes as “troubling coverage” (read: ARTICLE).
They were particularly furious when The New York Times dared to acknowledge the real threat President Trump faced at a recent rally. Instead of ridiculing him for staying calm under pressure, the Times described his nearly 40-minute leave delay as an “improvisational departure”—a description too restrained for Salon’s liking. They would have preferred the Times mock Trump for keeping his composure while the audience was allegedly at risk. How dare he not melt down in the face of potential harm, right?
And in classic Salon fashion, they even worked themselves into a rage over an entirely unrelated issue—claiming the Times “buried” what they consider front-page material: General Mark Milley calling Trump “fascist to the core.” Because, of course, in Salon’s world, if you’re not shouting their preferred talking points from the rooftops, you’re part of the problem.
Salon, always eager to play the self-appointed watchdog of moral righteousness, has now resorted to bullying The New York Times into becoming a full-on propaganda machine. Why? Because Times journalists won’t label Trump’s “false claims” as vicious lies, Salon insists they are. The Times has committed the unforgivable sin of not enthusiastically diving headfirst into the partisan echo chamber.
It’s as if Salon is shocked—shocked!—The Times might be more concerned with journalistic integrity (or avoiding lawsuits) than with fanning the flames of political hysteria. Who knew there was a difference between careful reporting and reckless narrative-pushing? But no, according to Salon, this is a grand betrayal. The Times, in their eyes, is “sanewashing” Trump, as if refusing to indulge in hyperbole and outright hysteria is some moral failing.
And, of course, Salon has its usual gripes about the dreaded “both sides” approach, as if acknowledging the existence of more than one viewpoint on complex issues is a crime against humanity. Balanced coverage is now equivalent to aiding and abetting Trump in his “terrifying criminal” enterprise.
One has to wonder if Times leadership—Sulzberger and Kahn—are playing a more strategic game, refusing to pander to the loudest voices in the room or latch onto Salon’s moral panic just to placate the outrage brigade. Reporting facts without caving to Salon’s far-left agenda might actually be the real journalistic high ground, even if it leaves Salon frothing at the mouth over their fading relevance. Maybe they should consider applying to be cartel mouthpieces—they could use the work, especially now that they’re struggling and desperate for some “good press.”
Salon Media Group was acquired for a whopping $5 million—yes, that’s right, just five million dollars—by a couple of tech entrepreneurs who, coincidentally, are tangled up in a legal mess over their stakes in the fact-checking site Snopes.com. FIVE MILLION. To put that in perspective, my own company—which I wouldn’t exactly call a “media leader”—was valued at $2.8 million just last year when someone tried to buy me out. What does that tell you? Salon, once a loud voice in media, has devolved into a bargain-bin relic, a hollow echo chamber of liberal bias with all the subtlety of Orwell’s 1984 “Ministry of Truth.”
But here’s where it gets really rich: Salon likes to preach about journalistic integrity and moral superiority while they’re busy playing puppet master with narratives, positioning stories to fit their agenda. Propaganda 101, folks. Want to energize your base? Want to sway public opinion? Just use your words to twist reality in the direction you need. Whether cherry-picking facts or spinning stories to the far-left fringe, Salon has the playbook down pat.
The Dangers of Paid Placement and Biased Reporting
The real threat here isn’t just that a publication like Salon is spewing partisan nonsense. Paid placements, biased reporting, and an outright erosion of truth increasingly drive the media landscape. When facts become secondary to agenda when news outlets are no longer the watchdogs of power but rather the puppets of whoever’s paying, we inch closer to the collapse of our republic. An informed electorate is the backbone of a free society. When that information is filtered through bias and propaganda, democracy crumbles, we should be very cautious about the media we consume—and even more so about the forces pulling the strings behind the scenes.
When Dan Froomkin isn’t playing with affinity groups that gather in Maryland and NY with the likes of Lisa Fithian and Maria Stephan, he’s busy pushing for extreme censorship and narratives to be held even when they have no grounding in facts because that is how you ELIMINATE MAGA that is a virus.
Froomkin is so far out there that even the Huffington Post, The Intercept, and The Washington Post couldn’t keep him around—they all fired him for being too radical. You’d expect to find these kinds of people on a watchlist: unhinged mercenaries for hire. He writes and rants for whoever’s paying the most, but even after being tapped for the Daniel Jones piece, WaPo and others didn’t take long to figure out he was too much of a liability. Someone should let Froomkin know that the era of “zombies and useless eaters” is over—critical thinking is making a comeback.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! Follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals, or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded.
