This week, the media landscape has been abuzz with a single story dominating the headlines. The Atlantic published what it considered a groundbreaking exposé on FBI Director Kash Patel. In response, Patel followed through on his promise to file a defamation lawsuit on Monday. The article’s credibility continues to spark debate, a topic I have explored in depth.
READ MORE: The Atlantic’s Kash Patel Hit Piece Is Backfiring – Badly
One of the most telling signs that the report by Sarah Fitzpatrick and Jonathan Lemire may lack factual accuracy is the absence of follow-up coverage by other major news organizations. Reuters conducted its own investigation and reported that it could not verify any of the claims made by The Atlantic. Despite references to over two dozen sources, Reuters was unable to locate any of them.
This is quite unusual in the media world, where typically, outlets will rush to corroborate a major story independently, often utilizing the same sources as the original report. Reuters attempted to do just that but found it impossible, raising significant questions about the article’s credibility.
Despite its apparent shortcomings, some in the media have taken a peculiar stance. They refrain from endorsing the story but continue to uphold The Atlantic’s reputation as a credible source. Notably, Brian Stelter praised the inclusion of hospitality-industry workers as anonymous sources, humorously suggesting that unnamed bartenders have insider knowledge of the FBI’s operations.
The Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank known for its fact-checking site PolitiFact, has also focused significant attention on The Atlantic’s piece. Tom Jones, Poynter’s Senior Media Writer, devoted two extensive columns to the topic. On Sunday, he essentially reiterated Fitzpatrick’s critique, and by Monday, he addressed Patel’s legal action.
On Monday, FBI director Kash Patel followed through with his threat to sue The Atlantic by filing a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking $250 million in damages.
Over the weekend, The Atlantic published a bombshell story that…
— Poynter (@Poynter) April 21, 2026
In his anodyne column, Jones goes through the details of the suit and the long odds Patel faces. But he also had praise for the outlet, suggesting their reputation was sterling, and they are above flippant journalism.
It seems unfathomable that The Atlantic, a respected outlet with responsible leadership, would run such a story without complete confidence that it was true.
Allow me to gently refute this contention – with details.
Let’s begin with the glaring example, which would be the infamous false claim made years back by Jeffrey Goldberg. He claimed President Trump, during a trip to France, ducked a chance to visit historical gravesites and had disparaging words for the fallen American soldiers. This roundly refuted claim became accepted as fact, and “suckers & losers” has fallen into the media vernacular, still in use today.
After, Goldberg was back at it, stating that the president wanted wounded military members excluded from a parade, because he could not tolerate the sight of soldiers who lost limbs in battle. Again, nameless sourcing was referenced, as Goldberg displays a pattern. He also claimed in another hit job that after promising to cover the funeral expenses of a murdered Army private, when told later of the cost, Trump shouted angry racist words, and he commanded that the bill not be paid. The soldier’s family refuted this, and the man who supposedly received that order — then Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — calls this account a complete lie.
I was in the discussions featured in the Atlantic’s latest hit piece against President Trump. Let me say this.
Any suggestion that President Trump disparaged Ms. Guillen or refused to pay for her funeral expenses is absolutely false.
He was nothing but kind, gracious, and…
— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) October 22, 2024
These instances are all legion in media circles, and they are more notable in the fractured journalistic ethics delivered by Goldberg, in that he is the Executive Editor at The Atlantic. When your top journalism leader regularly dispenses this type of content, it stands to reason that it will be the kind of “quality” to permeate the outlet.
READ MORE: Is This a Case of Fantasy Weaving at The Atlantic? A Bizarre Fake Report May Have Fooled Its Editors
In February, there was a truly surreal episode at this outlet that allegedly would never print what is not true. Writer Elizabeth Bruenig delivered a detailed piece about the death of a child who contracted measles at a birthday party. It was a gripping account, and many journalists expressed surprise to learn of her loss.
You thought your unvaccinated daughter had a cold. It could be a week before she’s diagnosed with measles. By then, the virus “has multiplied and descended upon her lungs, kidneys, tonsils, and spleen, down to the marrow of her bones.” Elizabeth Bruenig writes about how a child… pic.twitter.com/fTZMHGLbUq
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) February 13, 2026
It was then learned this was not, in truth, her loss. After being contacted, the editors revealed that “this was based on a mother’s real account,” and a correction was added to the piece. Then it was learned this too was inaccurate. Bruenig had engaged in what she said was the work of “creative nonfiction,” weaving a story based on interviews with doctors to deliver a hypothetical report on what could happen. That the editors appear to have not realized this was the case is simply amazing.
Then there was the moment when correspondents from the site complained, concerning a Pentagon press conference held just after Epic Fury broke out, that few reporters were allowed in. This was comedic, considering that so many journalists turned in their Pentagon credentials out of protest, but also that the press was invited in for the presser and were seen in attendance.
Perhaps the most shining example of how the truth is a fluid concept at The Atlantic was seen last year, from one of the senior writers. Following the release of the Jake Tapper-Alex Thompson book “Original Sin,” Mark Liebovich weighed in on the criticism that was being leveled at the press over the way President Biden’s condition had been overlooked and even defended.
Liebovich literally defended the press delivering the deception. First, he tried deflection, suggesting all of the furor was over Biden’s age, not his diminishing mental condition.
Because apparently, Joe Biden is still really old. Older than he was last summer, when Washington was even more abuzz about the 46th president being really old—and about whether he was fit to lead the country, run for reelection, beat Donald Trump, thwart fascism, etc.You know what else is old? The story about Biden being old.
But more than merely waving away the matter, Liebovich went further, stating that the press being seen avoiding the story and protecting Biden’s image was not a big deal whatsoever. His position is literally that the press attempting to cover up the mental issue was not a serious issue because no one was actually fooled by it.
Here is why I think that the ‘cover-up’ of Biden’s ‘true condition’ is beside the point—and why I’m not really vibing with the umbrage-mongering: It’s pretty much impossible to ‘cover up’ for something that is hiding in plain sight.
And here is why he is making this desperate effort to sweep the press complicity under the bed, and out of sight. He was among those pushing that very narrative that Biden was fine, and his critics were delivering a prevaricating talking point. Watch his previous PBS appearance on the show sponsored by his site, “Washington Week With The Atlantic,” where he declared that noting Biden’s condition was a lie.
Why is @MarkLeibovich so eager to sweep current Biden coverage aside?
Because as he now says it is was patently obvious to everyone, he previously declared those of us calling out the obvious were abject liars.He was fully complicit. Now…”Who really cares?!”
Pure desperation. pic.twitter.com/OVTd4D9d1j
— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) May 22, 2025
These are all cases that have taken place in very recent history. Repeatedly, we see this outlet delivering flawed and outright false reporting, and it cannot be passed off as young writers falling prey to fanciful entries or naivete. It is being delivered by their entrenched names, from senior writers and all the way up to Executive Editor Jeffrey Goldberg.
It shows that not only is it wrong to say delivering prevarication is “unfathomable” at The Atlantic — it is trending closer to being the mission statement of that outlet.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
