Where Have All the Journalists Gone? 80,000 Words Explaining Eliza Bleu Is Peak Fake News

(AP Photo/Russell Contreras)

The trending “investigative” reporting on Twitter today that everyone is talking about is part one of an 80,000-word article by an alleged journalist employed by Tim Pool on the saga of Eliza Bleu. It was supposed to answer all the questions about this sudden starlet with influence and power in the high ranks of Twitter.


For the TLDR version, if you’ve missed this drama, Bleu claimed she was a victim of human trafficking and lobbied Elon Musk to remove some hashtags depicting child porn. Everyone applauded. Someone asked Bleu to explain her video vixen past in a tweet, and that person was banned, along with anyone who reposted the publicly available Worldstar rap video starring Bleu’s ample bottom. She then threatened to sue everyone who brought it up. Cue internet sleuth explosion. Bleu also managed to get Worldstar to remove the video from YouTube.

In the days that followed, it was discovered that Bleu used several different names and had conflicting timelines, an unverifiable age, and a very long social media history that showed her enjoying her life as a scantily clad sex symbol in the music industry. People had questions. Did Eliza Bleu lie about being trafficked to become famous and powerful with Twitter censors? Is Elon Musk aware that this person he gave credence to used her connections to have big YouTubers banned from the platform?

The answers were supposed to be in an 80,000-word in-depth investigative report by Shane Cashman, who works for Tim Pool. I waited anxiously for the report that promised to shed light on all that went down. Cashman was “embedded” with Bleu, even going so far as to let Bleu post a photo of the two of them standing outside a truck like they were in an action film about to embark on a dangerous journey that may or may not involve Terminator robots. Maybe the truck was supposed to signify “trafficking!” Or maybe it was just more social media marketing that Bleu has perfected over many years.


The article finally came out, and instead of an in-depth piece, we got just part one of what is supposed to be a multi-part series. But after reading part one, I can’t imagine anyone is going to tune in for parts two through whatever. If Cashman did any investigating on his escapade with a “low-tier” Instagram model, as Tim Pool called her, we can’t tell. There is no investigative content in this first installment. Cashman simply repeats Bleu’s allegations of her “trafficking” story, which at this point sounds more like a headstrong teen with a drug problem who made some bad choices.

We were supposed to get answers. Instead, we still have no idea what happened to Bleu or who she even is and why we should care. Many of us watched our friends get suspended on Twitter for sharing a public YouTube video by Worldstar, which they have verified Bleu was paid for. She has since had that removed somehow, claiming she was a victim of trafficking. All you have to do to hear the opposite is to go on YouTube, and you’ll find videos of Bleu herself begging Worldstar to put her in the video and gushing about how great it was to be in it. There is even a recorded call with her mother talking about her career in rap videos and how her family approves!


Let me be clear: NO ONE CARES THAT SHE WAS IN RAP VIDEOS SHAKING HER DERRIERE FOR THE CAMERA. It’s 2023. We’re over it. The only reason anyone cares is that she somehow managed to get Twitter to suspend anyone who talked about it. Censorship by connected blue-haired activists was supposed to be over under Musk. That’s the only reason the internet went nuts on Bleu. None of us want to be talking about this stupid story. But the underlying principle is essential to liberty. When will censorship by connected operators end on social media?

Back to Cashman’s article. It’s embarrassing to call it “investigative.” Small YouTube channels have done more investigative work in the last month on this than he did while he did traveling around with her. If he’s saving his investigation material for several parts in to own the doubters, it’s a shady move that smacks of grifting. I made a Twitter thread with my observations of this “investigation” that you should read at your leisure.


But if you don’t feel like going to Twitter, here’s a recap. Bleu once again offers nothing but allegations with no evidence. She admits it’s a “he said/she said” scenario and refuses to name her alleged trafficker. She admits to returning to her alleged trafficker after being sent home by the so-called trafficker who only trafficked her once. The alleged trafficking was in pursuit of drugs that she admits she willingly and joyfully took part in until she overdosed and claims she was hospitalized. She claims she was one year shy of 18 when this happened.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but I think a good standard for deciding “what is trafficking” should be to ask one simple question: Would Liam Neeson’s character in Taken use his specific set of skills to rescue the victim of the alleged crime? If the answer is no, it’s not trafficking. It could be a drug problem, could be bad judgment, but if Liam isn’t knitting his eyebrows together in rage and heading to Radio Shack to MacGyver up some homemade spy devices, then you probably weren’t trafficked.

All of Bleu’s claims need verification. So far, Cashman has acted as a psychotherapist, nodding sorrowfully as he listened to the story and commenting on how sick it made him feel to hear it. Cashman laments his job of possibly outing a liar or a real victim who will now be traumatized by the retelling. But what he never does is get any evidence. He doesn’t ask for hospital records to verify the date and time of the alleged overdose. He talks to her parents but saves that for another article. He doesn’t talk to any boyfriends, associates, friends, or employers.


And if he does do all of that and is saving it for the end, we call that burying the lede. In journalism school, he’d get an F. It’s poor writing. If he had anything truly revealing, his editor would make him put it in the first 10,000 words and not the last 10,000 words because no one is reading 80,000 words to get to it. (Most people stopped after the first 500).

Journalism isn’t repeating and opining. That’s called being an opinion columnist. This article you are reading is a good example of opinion writing. Investigative journalism is a different animal. It requires labor-intensive, exhaustive research that takes months and sometimes years to complete. It’s combing social media archives and contacting friends and colleagues for clues. It requires reaching out to every source who might have been a witness to the “grooming,” including other band groupies who knew her and the alleged musician trafficker to see if the accounts and timelines match up.

Journalism is following the breadcrumbs wherever they lead and asking the hard questions and refusing to allow your subject to say, “I can’t give you names” because of “legal reasons.” The correct answer to that statement is, “Have a nice day then. I’m moving on.” I tell people this all the time. If you can’t cough up evidence, then stop wasting my time.


I guess we will see what Cashman comes up with, but so far, I’m not impressed with his journalisming. Tim Pool (who pays him) doesn’t seem to be that impressed either, saying today he told him not to write it. That’s interesting.

The main takeaway from this is twofold:

  1. Don’t ever threaten people with censorship and lawsuits over things you did that are demonstrably true. See “The Streisand Effect.”
  2. Demanding evidence is not crass, nor is it rude to victims of crimes. It is essential to the survival of due process and the legitimacy of our justice system.

To help you and yours navigate this brave new world where allegations alone can destroy your life, I’ve written an excellent and timely book. Get it. Read it. Share it with your sons and daughters. It could save their lives.


Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member