Well, I haven't looked through your comments page, so I can't say for sure...
But I've had decades of public experience (radio, live performance/monlogues) and so I've gotten a ton of criticism--not of my facts, because I never presented myself as a journalist, but I used to get bashed all the time for my "style"; it wasn't serious enough, it was too serious, it was schmaltzy/corny and obvious, it was too subtle and intellectual, it was whiny, it was too reserved, etc. etc. I don't have your problem--I didn't/don't have your problem, I don't have to do research and verify the facts I write about--BUT, really, don't worry about your "style": Maybe you could refine it a little but that wouldn't be the real you-- My experience is that most of the criticism I got about my presentation was from people who wished, unconsciously or not, that they could speak (write) the way I did... It was from people who had a deficient sense of humor...
I've only been a subscriber for a couple of weeks--but this is the first time I've seen someone from your group, (and I assume he/she is speaking with the approval of the group)--
This is the first time I've seen you(s) respond so defensively-- to present such an aggressive justification for your writing style and your anonymity. I have no idea who Woudenberg is, but, obviously, he's influential enough in some circles to provoke you into a response.
If you're sure of your sources and your facts, and you're confident about your general writing style--AND you apparently have such a huge following, I have to wonder why you're going so far out of your way to justify yourselve(s). Unless he's got some truly important--justifiable--reason to go after you, you should just let him fulminate. Being so defensive just shows doubt on your part--and make a subscriber wonder why/how his poking disturbs you so much
How would you react if somebody accused you of such a thing? If you haven't seen us play defense before, we welcome you to read through the comments people leave on our Facebook page.
This isn’t about ‘settings’ or ‘gaslighting.’ We’ve presented facts — transcripts, sources, and evidence — while you’ve presented accusations and insults. If that’s your strongest argument, you’re proving our point better than we ever could.
You’re confusing storytelling with deception. Narrative journalism uses descriptive language and storytelling techniques to engage readers — but that doesn’t mean the facts are compromised. We included full transcripts, cited sources, and presented verifiable evidence. That's transparency, not manipulation.
A true PSYOP twists facts by omitting key details, misframing events, or deliberately misleading the audience. If you believe we’ve done that, point to a specific example. Otherwise, you’re just throwing accusations to avoid dealing with the content itself
Michael, you’ve claimed that we've taken your argument, flipped it, and somehow twisted your original point. But let’s break this down clearly — you said PSYOPs manipulate facts by twisting details, selectively framing events, or misleading the audience. If that’s what you believe we’ve done, then point to the specific example. What fact did we manipulate? What detail did we twist? What event did we frame unfairly?
You’re trying to shift the conversation away from the content itself by accusing us of emotional manipulation. That’s not evidence — that’s evasion. We didn’t distort your argument; we applied your own logic back to you. If you believe we’ve manipulated facts, the burden is on you to show where and how — not just throw accusations around.
We’ve provided the transcript, included the video, and delivered commentary grounded in what was actually said. Our writing isn’t a PSYOP just because it’s sharp and effective. Strong language doesn’t mean dishonesty. If you believe there’s something we twisted, cite it — otherwise, you’re proving our point that your argument lacks substance.
We’re not asking for vague accusations. We’re asking for specifics. Where exactly did we mislead readers or manipulate facts? If you can’t answer that, then this whole back-and-forth isn’t about truth — it’s about you being upset that our style hits harder than yours.
This isn’t about “gaslighting” or PSYOPs — it’s about accountability. You’ve ignored the actual content of our reporting, and now you’re relying on insults and vague accusations instead of addressing the facts. Calling us “Russian IRA” operatives is reckless nonsense, and you know it. If you’ve got evidence, present it. If not, maybe reflect on why you're so determined to dismiss verifiable information.
Deflection and bravado don’t make your argument stronger — they just make you look desperate.
Michael, let’s be clear: A PSYOP is a coordinated effort designed to manipulate public perception through deception, selective framing, or outright lies. Its goal is to confuse, destabilize, or provoke. Narrative journalism — which we practice — is transparent about its sources, includes full transcripts, and encourages readers to engage with primary material. That’s the opposite of a PSYOP. If you still think our writing qualifies as psychological manipulation, then so does every major investigative outlet that’s ever framed a story with compelling language.
If you believe storytelling equals deception, then you’d better take issue with most respected journalism. Hunter S. Thompson’s coverage of Nixon mixed sharp language with facts — was that a PSYOP or just effective writing? Joan Didion used vivid language to unpack social decay — powerful storytelling doesn’t make her reporting less true. Even The New Yorker regularly combines detailed facts with engaging language to reach readers.
Narrative journalism isn’t manipulation — it’s communication. If you still can’t tell the difference, maybe you’re the one falling for a PSYOP.
Michael, you've spent the better part of this exchange dodging the facts and shifting goalposts like a quarterback who just realized he's facing a defensive line made of reality. You’ve accused us of manipulation, yet you refuse to identify a single example where we distorted events, misquoted sources, or fabricated information. Instead, you’re clinging to our style because you can’t engage with the substance. That's not skepticism — it's cowardice with a thesaurus.
You misquoted us, claiming we “don’t like sources” when our About page explicitly encourages people to fact-check, cross-reference, and think critically. We’ve presented transcripts, evidence, and direct quotes — all of which are publicly accessible for readers to verify. That’s called transparency, Michael — not a PSYOP.
A real PSYOP involves deception, selective omission, or outright lies to destabilize public perception. We presented the full, unedited transcript and video. If you think our commentary created bias, then point to a specific line where we misled readers. If you can’t do that, then you’re just using “PSYOP” as a magic word to dismiss content that makes you uncomfortable.
Your claim that we emotionally manipulated your friend is laughable. If her entire worldview can be shaken by reading one post on Closer to the Edge, that says more about her fragility than our writing. We're not here to soothe delicate sensibilities — we're here to challenge readers to confront uncomfortable truths.
As for your Hunter S. Thompson comment — you're right. We're not trying to be Thompson. He didn’t just invent Gonzo Journalism — he made it impossible for anyone else to do it the way he did. But if you think Gonzo Journalism is just writing with attitude, you’ve misunderstood it completely. It's about immersing yourself in the chaos, reporting what you see without corporate filters or sanitized narratives — and that’s exactly what we’re doing.
If you want to keep throwing the word “PSYOP” around like a toddler with a new toy, go ahead. But until you can identify a single lie, misrepresentation, or manipulation in our reporting, you're just hoping that if you scream “manipulation” loud enough, people won’t notice that you have nothing to back it up.
We’re done entertaining your tantrums unless you’re prepared to engage with the facts. Show us where we lied — or admit you can’t.
Exactly. Projection? Maybe. The more I learn about this guy, the more I share your opinion. Something seems fishy with this guy. Something smells wrong.
I corroborate your statements!
I find you most trustworthy!
Keep up your strong, independent journalism!
Our democracy depends on it!
So right! Watch out for bots and trolls!
He’s jealous, that’s all. You capture the essence & absurdity of these crazy bent characters with colorful spot on writing & he’s, well, boring.
Your writing is both truthful and brilliant!
Keep it up!
Well, I haven't looked through your comments page, so I can't say for sure...
But I've had decades of public experience (radio, live performance/monlogues) and so I've gotten a ton of criticism--not of my facts, because I never presented myself as a journalist, but I used to get bashed all the time for my "style"; it wasn't serious enough, it was too serious, it was schmaltzy/corny and obvious, it was too subtle and intellectual, it was whiny, it was too reserved, etc. etc. I don't have your problem--I didn't/don't have your problem, I don't have to do research and verify the facts I write about--BUT, really, don't worry about your "style": Maybe you could refine it a little but that wouldn't be the real you-- My experience is that most of the criticism I got about my presentation was from people who wished, unconsciously or not, that they could speak (write) the way I did... It was from people who had a deficient sense of humor...
👏👏👏
Why doesn't the link to Woudenburg's article work?
Dear God, where did you find this cockwomblin' idiot?
I've only been a subscriber for a couple of weeks--but this is the first time I've seen someone from your group, (and I assume he/she is speaking with the approval of the group)--
This is the first time I've seen you(s) respond so defensively-- to present such an aggressive justification for your writing style and your anonymity. I have no idea who Woudenberg is, but, obviously, he's influential enough in some circles to provoke you into a response.
If you're sure of your sources and your facts, and you're confident about your general writing style--AND you apparently have such a huge following, I have to wonder why you're going so far out of your way to justify yourselve(s). Unless he's got some truly important--justifiable--reason to go after you, you should just let him fulminate. Being so defensive just shows doubt on your part--and make a subscriber wonder why/how his poking disturbs you so much
How would you react if somebody accused you of such a thing? If you haven't seen us play defense before, we welcome you to read through the comments people leave on our Facebook page.
Wow.
Keep guessing. It's cute.
Yet here you are - a whining bitch smeared in shit.
And yet, you’re being a little bitch right now.
Your levels of conjecture and hubris are off the charts.
This isn’t about ‘settings’ or ‘gaslighting.’ We’ve presented facts — transcripts, sources, and evidence — while you’ve presented accusations and insults. If that’s your strongest argument, you’re proving our point better than we ever could.
You’re confusing storytelling with deception. Narrative journalism uses descriptive language and storytelling techniques to engage readers — but that doesn’t mean the facts are compromised. We included full transcripts, cited sources, and presented verifiable evidence. That's transparency, not manipulation.
A true PSYOP twists facts by omitting key details, misframing events, or deliberately misleading the audience. If you believe we’ve done that, point to a specific example. Otherwise, you’re just throwing accusations to avoid dealing with the content itself
Michael, you’ve claimed that we've taken your argument, flipped it, and somehow twisted your original point. But let’s break this down clearly — you said PSYOPs manipulate facts by twisting details, selectively framing events, or misleading the audience. If that’s what you believe we’ve done, then point to the specific example. What fact did we manipulate? What detail did we twist? What event did we frame unfairly?
You’re trying to shift the conversation away from the content itself by accusing us of emotional manipulation. That’s not evidence — that’s evasion. We didn’t distort your argument; we applied your own logic back to you. If you believe we’ve manipulated facts, the burden is on you to show where and how — not just throw accusations around.
We’ve provided the transcript, included the video, and delivered commentary grounded in what was actually said. Our writing isn’t a PSYOP just because it’s sharp and effective. Strong language doesn’t mean dishonesty. If you believe there’s something we twisted, cite it — otherwise, you’re proving our point that your argument lacks substance.
We’re not asking for vague accusations. We’re asking for specifics. Where exactly did we mislead readers or manipulate facts? If you can’t answer that, then this whole back-and-forth isn’t about truth — it’s about you being upset that our style hits harder than yours.
It looks like he's simply here to try and bait people. He's a strange one. The combination of hubris and hypocrisy is stunning.
This isn’t about “gaslighting” or PSYOPs — it’s about accountability. You’ve ignored the actual content of our reporting, and now you’re relying on insults and vague accusations instead of addressing the facts. Calling us “Russian IRA” operatives is reckless nonsense, and you know it. If you’ve got evidence, present it. If not, maybe reflect on why you're so determined to dismiss verifiable information.
Deflection and bravado don’t make your argument stronger — they just make you look desperate.
Michael, let’s be clear: A PSYOP is a coordinated effort designed to manipulate public perception through deception, selective framing, or outright lies. Its goal is to confuse, destabilize, or provoke. Narrative journalism — which we practice — is transparent about its sources, includes full transcripts, and encourages readers to engage with primary material. That’s the opposite of a PSYOP. If you still think our writing qualifies as psychological manipulation, then so does every major investigative outlet that’s ever framed a story with compelling language.
If you believe storytelling equals deception, then you’d better take issue with most respected journalism. Hunter S. Thompson’s coverage of Nixon mixed sharp language with facts — was that a PSYOP or just effective writing? Joan Didion used vivid language to unpack social decay — powerful storytelling doesn’t make her reporting less true. Even The New Yorker regularly combines detailed facts with engaging language to reach readers.
Narrative journalism isn’t manipulation — it’s communication. If you still can’t tell the difference, maybe you’re the one falling for a PSYOP.
Michael, you've spent the better part of this exchange dodging the facts and shifting goalposts like a quarterback who just realized he's facing a defensive line made of reality. You’ve accused us of manipulation, yet you refuse to identify a single example where we distorted events, misquoted sources, or fabricated information. Instead, you’re clinging to our style because you can’t engage with the substance. That's not skepticism — it's cowardice with a thesaurus.
You misquoted us, claiming we “don’t like sources” when our About page explicitly encourages people to fact-check, cross-reference, and think critically. We’ve presented transcripts, evidence, and direct quotes — all of which are publicly accessible for readers to verify. That’s called transparency, Michael — not a PSYOP.
A real PSYOP involves deception, selective omission, or outright lies to destabilize public perception. We presented the full, unedited transcript and video. If you think our commentary created bias, then point to a specific line where we misled readers. If you can’t do that, then you’re just using “PSYOP” as a magic word to dismiss content that makes you uncomfortable.
Your claim that we emotionally manipulated your friend is laughable. If her entire worldview can be shaken by reading one post on Closer to the Edge, that says more about her fragility than our writing. We're not here to soothe delicate sensibilities — we're here to challenge readers to confront uncomfortable truths.
As for your Hunter S. Thompson comment — you're right. We're not trying to be Thompson. He didn’t just invent Gonzo Journalism — he made it impossible for anyone else to do it the way he did. But if you think Gonzo Journalism is just writing with attitude, you’ve misunderstood it completely. It's about immersing yourself in the chaos, reporting what you see without corporate filters or sanitized narratives — and that’s exactly what we’re doing.
If you want to keep throwing the word “PSYOP” around like a toddler with a new toy, go ahead. But until you can identify a single lie, misrepresentation, or manipulation in our reporting, you're just hoping that if you scream “manipulation” loud enough, people won’t notice that you have nothing to back it up.
We’re done entertaining your tantrums unless you’re prepared to engage with the facts. Show us where we lied — or admit you can’t.
Exactly. Projection? Maybe. The more I learn about this guy, the more I share your opinion. Something seems fishy with this guy. Something smells wrong.