ProPublica faces criticism after email to Hegseth exposes 'unethical journalism' claim.

An email exchange related to ProPublica's recent unpublished story on Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth has led to renewed scrutiny of the left-wing nonprofit.

Earlier this week, a media firestorm erupted when Hegseth disclosed on X that ProPublica, which he labeled as a "Left Wing hack group," was planning to release a "knowingly false report" stating that he was not admitted to West Point in 1999. Along with the post, a photo of Hegseth's acceptance letter, signed by West Point Superintendent Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, U.S. Army, was attached.

Jesse Eisinger, a ProPublica editor, responded to the post stating that West Point public affairs had informed the outlet twice that Hegseth had not applied.

"Eisinger wrote, "We contacted Hegseth's spox and received his acceptance letter. We did not publish a story. That's journalism.""

ProPublica faced criticism from conservatives online after publishing a story about West Point's inaccurate information. Some questioned why ProPublica did not investigate the inaccuracies further and publish a story on that aspect. In response, Eisinger posted a lengthy X thread detailing the steps ProPublica had taken to research the story and give Hegseth a fair chance to respond to the facts.

After Daily Caller published an email from reporter Justin Elliot to Hegseth's lawyer, asking for an hour's response to the allegation that he never went to West Point, questions about ProPublica's journalistic standards intensified.

What qualifications does Mr. Hegseth have to be Secretary of Defense despite making false statements about attending the military's most esteemed academy?

The accusatory tone of the email and the small window to respond to a serious allegation raised many concerns on social media, as some believed the story had already been completed without hearing Hegseth's side.

"Bonchie of Red State wrote that ProPublica did not reach out to Pete Hegseth for the full story, but instead contacted him to accuse him of lying and demanded a response within one hour, without giving him the opportunity to provide his side of the story."

"This isn't ‘journalism.’ It's unethical garbage."

"***Nothing*** in Jesse’s 11-tweet thread suggested that ProPublica actually approached the story in this way— denying West Point's falsehood, repeatedly calling Hegseth a liar, implying he is unfit for SecDef, and giving him only one hour to respond," journalist Jerry Dunleavy posted on X.

"ProPublica's Editor-in-Chief stated that they gave @PeteHegseth a fair chance to respond to the West Point story because they prioritize accuracy, while Trump 2024 Rapid Response Director Greg Price posted on X that they accused him of being a liar and gave him a one-hour deadline to respond, according to an unhinged email obtained by @reaganreese."

A ProPublica spokesperson stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that reporters' duty is to ask tough questions to those in power, which was done in this case. Responsible news organizations only publish what they can verify, and that's why ProPublica did not publish a story after Hegseth provided documentation correcting West Point's statements.

West Point was contacted by Planet Chronicle Digital to inquire about any disciplinary measures taken against staff members who provided false information and why there were no procedures in place to prevent such errors.

West Point directed Planet Chronicle Digital to its previously issued statement.

"In 1999, Peter Hegseth was offered admission to West Point but did not attend. An employee mistakenly stated that Hegseth was admitted to the U.S. Military Academy on Dec. 10, 2024. After reviewing an archived database, employees discovered this statement was incorrect. Hegseth was actually accepted to West Point as a member of the Class of 2003. The academy apologizes for the administrative error."

This week, Republican Congressman Jim Banks wrote to West Point, expressing his outrage over the officials' interference in a political process and the false claims made about a presidential nominee.

"If OPA made false claims twice, despite the unlikely scenario, it was an unforgivable act of incompetence on their part to not verify the accuracy of their information before sharing it with a reporter."

The ProPublica controversy this week stems from criticism of its reporting on conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, which was labeled as "hit pieces" by critics.

Gretchen Reiter, senior vice president of communications at Stand Together, stated in an interview with Planet Chronicle Digital that while journalistic inquiry into the private dealings of public officials is crucial for our democracy, honest inquiry must apply the same standard to all individuals rather than targeting those with whom one disagrees, specifically referring to ProPublica's reporting on Thomas.

Justice Alito responded to ProPublica's accusations in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, stating that the two charges against him were unfounded. He argued that he had no obligation to recuse himself in cases involving Paul Singer and that there was no need to list certain items as gifts on his 2008 Financial Disclosure Report.

ProPublica acknowledged that there are "lessons to be learned" from its reporting on Alito.