Will the Liberal Media Drop Partisan ProPublica?

Despite a mountain of evidence, the “mainstream” press pretends ProPublica is neutral

Hundreds of left-leaning newspapers and media outlets across America are refusing to say whether they’ll continue using ProPublica after our investigation exposing it as heavily biased against conservatives.

The outlets are listed as “publishing partners” on ProPublica’s website, meaning they routinely republish ProPublica’s investigations—often with neutral labels on the origin of the material.

But Restoration News, in an exhaustive review of ProPublica’s content, its journalists’ voting histories, and its funding sources, revealed the publication is 23 times more likely to target conservatives than liberals. Our investigation also found ProPublica’s staff support Democrats and it’s heavily funded by leftist foundations.

(DON’T MISS: “ProPublica: The Attack Arm of the Democratic Party”)

In addition, ProPublica’s work often directly mirrors Democratic Party political imperatives, such as the current attack on conservative justices in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the wake of our groundbreaking report, Restoration News emailed the publishing partners summarizing our findings and asking the following questions:

1. According to ProPublica, your publication is one of its “publishing partners,” presumably meaning you publish its material. According to our research, ProPublica’s content is decisively anti-conservative and tracks closely with Democratic Party narratives. Were you aware of this ideological slant prior to our series?
2. In light of our series, will you continue to be a ProPublica publishing partner?
3. If you plan to continue as a publishing partner, will you alert your readers to ProPublica’s decided ideological slant when you publish its content?
4. If you continue to publish investigative reportage from a decidedly anti-conservative organization, would you also consider publishing investigative reportage from an organization with an anti-leftist slant?

Revealingly, many of these publications opened and read our email; none responded.

A Long Train of Abuses

ProPublica has long boasted that it’s the premier investigative journalism outlet in America, labeling itself a crucial cog in exposing “abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust.” The truth couldn’t be further from that claim.

ProPublica also tends to favor left-wing talking points while criticizing conservative positions. One of its ugliest campaigns is against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. To no one’s surprise, numerous other groups and Democrat leaders, many connected to ProPublica, were simultaneously criticizing Thomas.

The same attacks on Thomas and many other conservatives stem from a web of organization that all benefit from the funding of likeminded donors. ProPublica’s lead donor, the Sandler Foundation, has given roughly $50 million to ProPublica since 2010.

The Sandler Foundation is a powerhouse of left-wing funding—giving nearly $1 billion to support progressive ideals since 2006. ProPublica also receives funding from numerous other lefty groups that prioritize abortion, LGBTQ advocacy, increasing the minimum wage, climate alarmism, gun control and illegal immigration.

We know which side of the aisle ProPublica stands on.

Unfazed by the Evidence?

What’s clear is that ProPublica is anything but “non-partisan” and “unbiased.” Yet it gets the fluff treatment from dozens of newspapers across the country apparently unwilling to investigate ProPublica’s credentials.

The Capital Gazette published a version of ProPublica’s attack on Clarence Thomas on its digital site, labeling ProPublica as a “non-profit investigative journalism organization.” If the goal is to fool uninformed readers into believing Thomas is a crook, job well done. 

The Denver Post built on ProPublica’s smear campaign by reposting an Associated Press report about a Senate committee approving stronger ethics standards on Supreme Court justices—a move prompted by the activists running the anti-Thomas campaign. Again, the attack dog in question is euphemized into a “nonprofit investigative journalism organization.”

Many outlets also choose to not cite ProPublica with any form of affiliation and simply say “according to ProPublica”: the Kansas City Beacon, Los Angeles Times, Mississippi Free Press, the Seattle Times, and others. Would they give similar treatment to right-leaning outlets like the Daily Caller or Washington Examiner?

With hundreds of publishing partners across the nation, ProPublica’s false narratives are given a significant boost. Many publishing partners are ideology aligned with ProPublica and will not change, but the partners who were previously unaware need to act on the new information.

Either they properly label ProPublica for the partisan organization it is—or leave it in the rear-view mirror.