Taylor Lorenz was caught lying and the Washington Post was caught covering it up, and I'll give you one guess as to who the real victim is here.
ยท Jun 5, 2022 ยท NottheBee.com

[NOTE: Taylor Lorenz has protected her account from people who disagree with her, so you will not be able to read the original tweets. Unfortunately I neglected to do screen captures which is usually my practice. My standby option, the Wayback machine gets me this curious message (one I've been coming across more and more):

Fortunately, I did do text captures, so you can still see what she said. These are accurate, just copy-and-paste. I'll leave the original tweet links in place as a testament to Lorenz's cowardice. ]

If "democracy dies in darkness," then I guess journalism dies in broad daylight.

It all started with perma-victim Taylor Lorenz contributing yet another article in the "the real winner of the Depp-Heard trial was..." category, this one even more vapid than most.


This was a sloppy piece. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but this was much more. It was a preconceived narrative for which Lorenz manufactured and twisted facts and didn't care who was smeared in the process.

I read the piece in question and its central theme is that the Internet exists and people write about stuff on it and occasionally make money doing so.

The trial offered a potential glimpse into the future of media, where content creators serve as the personalities breaking news to an increasing number of viewers โ€” and, in turn, define the online narrative around major events. Those creators can also bring in major personal profit in the process. In this new landscape, every big news event becomes an opportunity to amass followers, money and clout. And the Depp-Heard trial showed how the creator-driven news ecosystem can influence public opinion based on platform incentives.

Wow. I don't know what to say. Welcome to the Internet? Glad you could join us? Need any pointers on what a hyperlink is?

And you have to love when well-paid major-media writers call out other people for making a living covering the news. Maybe she's jealous. Writing about things that actually happened has to be way easier than having to make it all up from scratch.

Let's break down her journalistic misdeeds.

First, she claims to have tried to reach out to two of the influencers, Alyte Mazeika and ThatUmbrellaGuy, for comment. She did not. At some point, someone at the Washington Post disappeared the line without noting the correction.

Who did it?

When asked by Fox News, the Post replied, "That's not something we'd discuss on the record."

Apparently, no one told Taylor Lorenz this.

I did not write the line and was not aware it was inserted. I asked for it to be removed right after the story went live.

She can't even keep her own deceptions straight.

She claims the line had been inserted by an editor due to a miscommunication. If that is true, how does this make sense?

After the story went live, I reached out to both YouTubers mentioned in that sentence just to be extra sure there wasn't some sort of commentary they wanted to add. Neither provided comment for the story and both continued to post about me.

You reached out to be "extra sure?" Doesn't that suggest you still believe somewhere inside that fabulist head of yours, the original lie that you reached out to them in the first place?

Second, she exaggerated ThatUmbrellaGuy's income potentially by an order of magnitude.

He later continued, "The Washington Post also FLAGRANTLY misrepresented my earnings report and needs to correct it. Social Blade says I made between $4.9k and $79.1k. They ADDED TO the highest estimate, overreporting for dramatic effect."

They have not corrected it.

This is literally what is still up.

ThatUmbrellaGuy, an anonymous YouTuber whose entire channel is dedicated to pro-Depp content, earned up to $80,000 last month, according to an estimate by social analytics firm Social Blade. ThatUmbrellaGuy could not be reached for comment.

Sounds like he's commenting to me.

Or does no one at the Washington Post read the New York Post?

Well, of course not. Taylor Lorenz's article was a hit piece on the Washington Post's competitors. The corporate media establishment understands the threat they pose, and are closing ranks.

The notable exception is CNN's social media reporter, Oliver Darcy.

Well, we can't have that, can we? In the end, Taylor Lorenz is the real victim here because when is she not?

No, actually. This type of coverage is so irresponsible & dangerous. It's misrepresenting my words to amplify a manufactured outrage campaign by right wing media & radicalized influencers, which is driving a vicious harassment/smear campaign against me.

A harassment/smear campaign!

The harassment and smear being pointing out things you wrote.

Read my actual thread here. And stop falling for far right disinfo and harassment campaigns

Stop "falling for far right disinfo and harassment campaigns," says the person defending a piece full of disinfo intended to harass social media competitors.

Regardless, she asked us to read her thread so let's take a look!

I did not write the line and was not aware it was inserted. I asked for it to be removed right after the story went live.

We touched on both of these before but it bears repeating. She "did not write the line" in question, and "asked for it to be removed," which is something the Washington Post refuses to confirm.

The inclusion of the YouTubers was only in passing, citing another outlet's reporting.

She's trying to distance herself from her own story.

Column inches are a precious resource. If you included these two in your story, it was not "in passing." you chose them over dozens if not hundreds of others to support your contention. You chose it. You own it.

Speaking of which, she's trying to pawn off any inaccuracies on someone else's reporting.

We mentioned this earlier, but it's helpful to see the sequence laid out.

  • "I did not write the line."
  • "I decided to follow up on the line I did not write."

The mention of these two individuals was not remotely the focus of my story.

This is not only distancing herself from her own story, it's minimizing the errors, as if to say, "so, I got it wrong, who cares?"

All she did was smear two people as being money-grubbing opportunists who refused to comment when asked.

This should have been a small correction for a miscommunication, but it turned into a multi-day media cycle, intentionally aimed at discrediting the Washington Post and me.

The total absence of self-awareness necessary to produce this target-rich sentence amazes me.

"Should have been a small correction."

She lied, or at a minimum was sloppy, it got stealth edited by someone trying to cover it up (Why be so sneaky and unethical if it was an innocent mistake?), plus she slandered these people by exaggerating income from a sketchy source that has been denied but that denial has still not been included in the story.

And yet it's all just an attack "aimed at discrediting the Washington Post and me."

There was more deflection and whining, and then this.

I know that the stuff I write about and go through is hugely unfamiliar to the vast majority of people in media!

Such self importance.

You write about stuff people post on social media. You are not meeting Deep Throat in the Oakhill parking garage across the Potomac from the Watergate, okay? You are sitting in your bedroom reading things other people write online.

Kind of like several hundred million other people.

I have great hope that all of us can learn from this experience.

I do not share her hope, given she has clearly learned nothing.

How does she get away with this narcissistic nonsense, this constant hypocrisy, this frankly childish behavior?

The Blue Check Brigade takes care of their own.

P.S. Now check out our latest video ๐Ÿ‘‡

Keep up with our latest videos โ€” Subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Ready to join the conversation? Subscribe today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.