FACT CHECK: Taylor Lorenz Is an 'Attractive Young(er) Woman'

Lorenz's claim of being an "attractive young(er) woman" is difficult to assess given the mysterious controversy surrounding a crucial detail: her actual age. An extensive Washington Free Beacon investigation determined that Lorenz was most likely born Oct. 21, 1984, which would make her 40 years old. Lorenz, who claims to abhor disinformation, has also claimed to be 3-10 years older.

The post FACT CHECK: Taylor Lorenz Is an 'Attractive Young(er) Woman' appeared first on .

Washington Post to remove senior politics editor in wake of Trump victory



The Washington Post will soon remove its senior politics editor as the fallout from President-elect Donald Trump's decisive electoral victory continues to wreak havoc at liberal media outlets across the country.

According to a Thursday report from Lachlan Cartwright of the Hollywood Reporter, Dan Eggen, a longtime WaPo employee and current senior politics editor, delivered the news to his colleagues in a cryptic email.

"I struggled with how to write this message since there is an element of begging to it that is not particularly attractive. But what the hey: I was informed Monday that I will be removed as senior politics editor at the end of the year. I will leave it to others to explain why."

The news certainly comes as a shock, considering Eggen's lengthy career at the outlet. Eggen first joined the paper more than 25 years ago and was promoted to senior politics editor in 2022. Eggen professed to be "crushed" by the decision to remove him, Cartwright added.

Whether Eggen will remain at the outlet following his apparent demotion remains unclear.

In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson told the New York Post that the Washington Post does not comment on personnel decisions.

'Most people believe the media is biased.'

The move comes just weeks after the WaPo refused to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, the second major left-leaning outlet to do so in the 2024 election. The Los Angeles Times likewise opted not to endorse a candidate, prompting a flurry of resignations and a significant drop in subscriptions.

Both the Washington Post, owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, and the Los Angeles Times seem to want to change the way they cover the political landscape in the U.S. In an op-ed published on October 28, Bezos admitted that his and other outlets have lost the trust of readers because of political bias.

"We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased," he wrote, as Blaze News previously reported.

L.A. Times owner Dr. Pat Soon-Shiong has also said that the entire editorial board at his outlet will be replaced and that the new board will include conservative "voices."

"I will work towards making our paper and media fair and balanced so that all voices are heard and we can respectfully exchange every American's view," Soon-Shiong posted to X on November 10.

Print media are not the only outlets to abandon their leftist perches, at least publicly. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC recently paid Trump a visit at Mar-a-Lago to "restart communications."

"In this meeting, President Trump was tearful. He was upbeat. He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues," Brzezinski said on Monday. "And for those asking why we would go speak to the president-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't we?"

In the days since the announced meeting with Trump, "Morning Joe" ratings have tanked 15%, as liberal viewers reportedly see it as a betrayal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Washington Post Was on Track To Lose $77 Million—Before Mass Boycott Over Presidential Non-Endorsement

The Washington Post was on track to lose $77 million this year even before a mass boycott erupted over its decision not to endorse a presidential candidate, New York magazine reported. "The level of anger is through the roof, and fear is also through the roof," one Post staffer said. The projected losses, which the […]

The post Washington Post Was on Track To Lose $77 Million—Before Mass Boycott Over Presidential Non-Endorsement appeared first on .

Democrat ‘Election Deniers’ In Pennsylvania And Iowa Refuse To Concede Races

Democrat campaigns and their allies have no compunction about breaking election law to grab and keep power.

Still Fuming from Harris Endorsement Drama, Washington Post Gives Readers Advice on How to Flee the Country

Journalists at the Washington Post might be hopelessly out of touch with normal Americans, but they certainly understand what their readers—mentally ill liberals with college degrees—want to know. On Thursday, the Post published an explanatory guide for Americans thinking about leaving the United States after Donald Trump's overwhelming victory in the 2024 election, offering tips on obtaining a visa to live in Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. For some reason, the article did not include tips on how to immigrate to the many African countries where English is the primary language.

The post Still Fuming from Harris Endorsement Drama, Washington Post Gives Readers Advice on How to Flee the Country appeared first on .

‘Deleting All My Social Media’: Crybaby Celebrities Melt Down After Trump Win

The gnashing of elitist teeth since the Blue Wall’s fall has been GLORIOUS! Especially for an old conservative boy from flyover country.

Can Jeff Bezos give conservatism a digital reboot at the Washington Post?



Amazon mogul Jeff Bezos rocked the established media world when he used the prerogatives of ownership to deny the Washington Post’s desire to publish an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president. However, his longer-term plans to make the paper’s opinion section less liberal are even more significant.

Given today’s identity crises on the political right, the only question is what Bezos’ plans will signify.

The irony of a top neoconservative fleeing a paper that wants more conservative voices might be delicious, but it’s not very nutritious. If neocons aren’t conservative any more — and judging by the Cheneys' endorsement of Harris, that’s a betrayal they’re proud to wear — then who is?

Consider the New York Timesreport that broke the news on the upheaval: “Mr. Bezos has told others involved with The Post that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives, according to a person familiar with the matter. He has appointed Mr. [Will] Lewis — a chief executive who previously worked at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal — and has informed Mr. Lewis that he wants more conservative writers on the opinion section, the person said.”

More important than the identity of that unnamed person is the “conservative” identity he or she invokes. Superficially, Bezos might simply have meant by the label “anyone to the right of Taylor Lorenz.” But anyone in politics, especially the head of the nation’s emblematic Beltway newspaper, would have to work harder than that to figure out what counts as conservative these days.

For instance, the next line in the Times report lays bare the problem: “The Post’s decision drew immediate blowback inside the paper. At least one member of the opinions department, Robert Kagan, resigned.” Kagan is one of the country’s top self-described neoconservatives, a sect that arose from reactionary liberals “mugged by reality” in the 1980s to become, in the 2000s, the fiercely dominant faction in the conservative movement and the Bush-era GOP.

The irony of a top neoconservative fleeing a paper that wants more conservative voices might be delicious, but it’s not very nutritious. If neocons aren’t conservative any more — and judging by the Cheneys’ endorsement of Harris, that’s a betrayal they’re proud to wear — then who is?

The very label “conservative” has been struggling to make ends meet for years, losing mindshare to the ever-multiplying subcultures on the right that feel “conservatism” is too vague, too broad, too dated, and just too unsuccessful a brand to capture who they really are and want to be. Consider yourself trad? Based? Red-pilled? MAGA? Frog? Groyper? Race realist? Archeofuturist? The list goes on! Odds are you never felt so comfortable with the conservative moniker, whether or not you once identified as such.

It’s not even so crystal clear at this relatively late date just what it might mean to be a “Trumpist.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Politics are about coalitions, after all, and the failure of identity politics to deliver the coalitional goods underscores how identity is ultimately a question of in whose or what image you see yourself to be.

That’s right — religion. And whatever else can be said about religion in American politics, the legacy form of big-tent, evangelical-heavy Judeo-Christian Protestantism that ruled the Republican roost for several generations has, like “conservatism” itself, begun to denature and decay.

All things in this world pass away, so there’s that excuse, but another decisive factor has had an accelerating effect: digital technology, the special sauce that took Bezos from just another nerd at a desktop to a chrome-domed, well-muscled master of the socioeconomic universe. On close inspection, it’s tough to find a more potent solvent for old-school, pre-digital conservatism than the digital tech itself precisely because of how swiftly all things digital have worked against the principles- and values-heavy rhetoric and goals of the Moral Majority era.

The overwhelming power and authority of digital tech flipped the table on the past 500 years of religious and political life in the West — roiled by the leap from the printing press to the radio to the television yet remarkably consistent in its project of swapping in modern institutions justified by interest or appetite where once medieval institutions justified by faith had thrived.

Yes, the digital superpowers of computational recordation and recall suddenly seem to dwarf human knowledge and imagination, making billions start to go crazy at the thought that maybe their interests and appetites, no matter how strong, aren’t enough to hold their identities together.

That’s a huge threat to liberalism, but it’s a dagger at the heart of mere conservatism too — in a world where all that we thought made us who we are is meaningless relative to our own machines, what the heck is worth conserving again?

As the ideological sky falls, liberals have rushed to wokeness and conservatives have scattered into the subcultures of the right. Jeff Bezos is a bright, connected guy. Surely he’s been tracking these developments (along with every boost of TRT or HGH). If mere conservatism can’t conserve itself, does he really think the ambition and resources of a tech titan like himself can bring it back — against the grain of technology?

Or does he have something else in mind? Maybe he’s one of the many leading AI figures who seem to sincerely believe that tech is on the verge of “solving politics” altogether, wiping away the need for any and all ideologies forever. As plenty of those same figures now turn toward implicitly or explicitly worshipping AI itself, perhaps Bezos has realized that, while different kinds of politics and technology come and go, as Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “religion is the only permanent state of mankind.”

Jeff Bezos might be unable to bring on Tocqueville as the Post’s next big columnist. But suppose he knew what’s good for the paper, a media relic needing a radical renaissance. In that case, he’d look past the shifting partisan labels du jour in search of writers even more experienced with the humility of communion than the audacity of communication.

Hear more on the subject from the "Blaze News Tonight" team in the video below:

Leftists Accuse Gorsuch Of Caring Too Much About Normal People And Not Enough About Bureaucrats

The left's latest attack stems from Gorsuch's new book on the government going after regular Americans.

If The Media Were Serious About Eradicating A ‘Perception Of Bias,’ They’d Fire Most Of Their Staff

The decision to not endorse Kamala Harris is more than just too little, too late. These newspapers are disingenuous and patently unserious.

New York Times and Media Matters team up to censor BlazeTV hosts and other conservatives



The New York Times and the leftist outfit Media Matters dropped complementary hit pieces Thursday, accusing BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace, Mark Levin, and Jason Whitlock — along with various other prominent voices in conservative media, including Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Lara Trump — of "election misinformation."

The apparent aim of this coordinated attack, which the Washington Post did its part to reinforce, is to pressure the Google-owned platform YouTube to demonetize or possibly even deplatform Democrats' ideological opponents before Election Day.

"Being lumped in with those fine fellows, and being labeled an enemy number one from the official Pravda of the regime, is truly the greatest honor of my career," Deace told Blaze News.

'It defines "false claims" and "election misinformation" so broadly.'

Times reporter Nico Grant gave the plot away in advance when asking Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project on Monday about their respective memberships in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding "misinformation."

Grant, whom Carlson told to "f*** off," indicated that Media Matters, a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock that is presently being sued by Elon Musk for alleged defamation, identified "286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence."

Blaze News previously reached out to the Times and Media Matters for a working definition of "misinformation" but did not receive a response from either outfit. As a result, it remains unclear whether the Times' false or misleading reports about Russian collusion, former Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, and jihadists' missile misfire at a Gazan hospital would qualify.

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker wrote Friday on the "Racket News" Substack, "The problem with the Times piece is it defines 'false claims' and 'election misinformation' so broadly that legitimate questions or analyses and even jokes get wrapped in with far-out conspiracy tales."

Media Matters did, however, shine some light on what sort of claims it apparently feels should not be uttered on YouTube, namely: suggestions "that the election process is 'rigged' against Trump, that the legal cases against him constitute 'election interference,' that Democrats want and are enabling noncitizens to vote in order to win the election, and that Kamala Harris was 'illegally installed' as the Democratic nominee in a 'coup' against Joe Biden."

If Media Matters gets its way, then YouTube might penalize critics for highlighting the unmistakable efforts by Democrats to throw Trump in prison before the election and to remove him from the ballot; Democratic lawmakers' publicly stated plans to invalidate a lawful Trump victory; the Biden-Harris Department of Justice's lawsuits aimed at restoring the voter registration of thousands of suspected foreign nationals; or for questioning the nature of Biden's ouster as Democratic candidate and Harris' voteless candidacy.

Media Matters specifically complained that BlazeTV host Mark Levin said in May that Democrats "will do anything for votes — imprison Trump, steal elections," and that Democrats would "change the electoral process" to get more votes.

The Democratic attack dog attacked Levin further for apparently suggesting in July that Democrats "stole the election from their own primary voters and they're going to install somebody who hasn't gotten a single delegate on her own."

Media Matters also set its sights on Deace, complaining:

Right-wing radio host Steve Deace said Democrats would be "dropping ballots" and "bussing people in … to keep the spigot going until they get what they want" on Election Day. Deace continued, "All they’re trying to do is make her credible enough so they can fortify this thing at the end here."

Media Matters was apparently distressed to learn that Deace could exercise his First Amendment rights and suggest on YouTube that Democrats might want to get the polls "within their narrative margin to justify cheating."

The hit piece also noted that BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock accused California of "manipulat[ing] voting."

A YouTube spokeswoman told the Times that the company reviewed eight videos identified by the liberal paper and found that none of them violated its community guidelines. However, that's not what the Times originally reported.

'But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.'

"A YouTube spokeswoman said none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines," wrote Grant.

The Times has since issued a correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of videos that YouTube reviewed when asked for comment on whether they contained misinformation. YouTubesaid it reviewed eight videos, which were identified by The New York Times and referenced in the article, not all of them, and found that those eight did not violate its community guidelines; it did not comment on whether they contained misinformation.

The YouTube spokeswoman whose response was initially misrepresented by the Times apparently also told Grant, "The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season."

Evidently not all are keen on open debate and free speech.

Kayla Gogarty, an LGBT activist who interned at the Human Rights Campaign before becoming "research director" at Media Matters, said, "YouTube is allowing these right-wing accounts and channels to undermine the 2024 results."

Media Matters was not entirely impotent regarding its censorious crusade. The Times indicated that YouTube censored three videos and placed "information labels" that link to supposedly factual information on 21 other videos.

Deace told Blaze News, "The timing of this hit piece is obviously to induce Google, which also owns YouTube and thus the two largest search engines on this planet, to censor those of us who are among the most effective in deconstructing the Left's attempts to deconstruct America right before the election. But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good."

Taibbi and Thacker summarized the attack campaign thusly:

A DNC-aligned group produces a "report" documenting a sciencey-sounding quantity of "misinformation" incidents, then passes the scary number to a politically willing mainstream news outlet, which trumpets the new "facts" while publicly and privately pressuring platforms to remove offending material. Welcome to the new "accountability journalism."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!