Kashmir Hill's NYT Obsession: The Anatomy of a Hit Piece

For the past 25 years, I have dedicated my life to building groundbreaking companies that redefine what is possible. My latest endeavor, ePiphany AI, is a testament to this unwavering commitment. We have created revolutionary AI-driven products that empower businesses to harness the power of data, streamlining their operations and delivering unparalleled insights to millions of users. 

Among our offerings is a state-of-the-art newsroom platform, Newsroom AI, that harnesses the power of artificial intelligence to revolutionize content creation and discovery for the world's leading media organizations. We proudly showcase these capabilities through our flagship properties, formerly BNN Breaking and now TrimFeed, demonstrating the transformative impact of our technology.

However, instead of celebrating innovation, The New York Times has chosen to target us with a baseless hit piece spearheaded by Kashmir Hill. Hill has a history of writing negative hit pieces about me for the last decade. Her latest article is just another example of her relentless pursuit of a story driven by an unknown personal vendetta, not a desire for truth.

In her desperate attempt to discredit our company, Ms. Hill resorts to grasping at straws, making mountains out of molehills, and even questioning a photo on our "About Us" page. Claiming that the image appears to be generated by AI and features children at a keyboard, she reveals the depths of her absurdity. Had she taken a moment to read the tagline accompanying the image, "Empowering millions with tomorrow's answers," she would have understood the message we were conveying. But instead, she chooses to twist and distort, driven by her own biased agenda. If you're reading this, you might be wondering why the NY Times is so concerned about an image on our About Us page. Rest assured, you're not alone.

Not content with attacking our company, Ms. Hill stoops to new lows by relying on the dubious accounts of two former employees who were terminated nine months ago for cause. Kasturi Chakraborty was fired for picking sides on religion when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and her message to me at the time was, "Sir, I am really ashamed. I don't even have words to express how sorry I am right now." Hemin Bakir was terminated by his team for failing to meet performance expectations and other HR related matters.

It's ironic that these two random employees made exaggerated claims about how unfortunate the company was after being "fired," yet couldn't "leave" on their own accord if their issues were genuine. But with the added incentive from Ms. Hill, promising to include their names and pictures in a New York Times hit piece as long as they "badmouth" the company, they suddenly have a story to tell. Her reliance on these former employees to justify her hit piece clearly shows her lack of journalistic integrity. One must wonder, why didn't any of our current 100+ employees have anything negative to say?

During her four-month pursuit of this hit piece, she contacted me about three dozen times. As her desperation grew, her communications took on a tone that bordered on blackmail. She would claim she was on a tight deadline for the "hit piece," saying it was due "next week," and offered me a chance to share my side of the story. However, I wasn’t naive; her "next week" kept rolling over until the four months elapsed, leaving her with nothing but this fabricated piece. She even resorted to making dubious claims in her numerous attempts to reach out to me for comment. One such claim was that we had hired reporters in Syria and the Philippines, which is entirely false. Even the most rudimentary fact-checking would have immediately exposed the truth: we have never hired a single journalist or staff member from these countries. 

The accusation that we generated content for ad revenue is also baseless. For two years, BNN never displayed any ads. Contrary to what the article suggests, Microsoft never paid us any revenue for any distribution deal. So, where exactly were we siphoning ad dollars? I really would like to know so I can ask my accounts receivables department, where all that money went?

If you've made it this far, you're probably wondering if things could get any worse. Let me assure you, they can. In her "research," Ms. Hill claims that "disinformation" experts reviewed more than 1,000 BNN stories and concluded that a quarter of them had been lifted from five sites, including Reuters, The Associated Press, and the BBC. Another researcher alleged that BNN had placed its logo on images it did not own or license. But let's take a closer look at these researchers. The first was Conspirador Norteño (@conspirator0), a self-proclaimed "data scientist" with no profile picture, no LinkedIn profile, and a name reminiscent of an MS-13 gangster.

The second researcher, Erin Gallagher (@3r1nG), describes herself as an "independent researcher," yet lacks a genuine photo or LinkedIn profile to verify her credentials. Gallagher is associated with "Conspirador Norteño" and claims on her Twitter profile to have previously worked for Joan Donovan at The Technology and Social Change Project at Harvard. This is ironic, given that Harvard disbanded Donovan's entire department amid controversy over spreading "misinformation." And, if someone were to simply examine the engagement on either of their Twitter accounts, they would notice it mainly consists of "meme-generated" accounts essentially interacting with other "bots." So, the New York Times is using a bunch of anonymous profiles as "disinformation" experts to say what, exactly? Hold this thought for a moment because it gets worse.

If you thought this story was absurd so far, it gets even weirder. Ms. Hill goes on to claim that I used our platform to exercise grudges, publishing slanted stories about a politician from San Francisco I disliked (although I have no idea who he is), Wikipedia after it published a negative entry about BNN Breaking, and Elon Musk after accounts belonging to myself, my wife, and my companies were suspended on X. However, there is a glaring problem with this narrative. If her sources were people who were terminated in 2023, how would they have knowledge of these specific stories that were actually published in 2024 and covered by other outlets? This inconsistency further highlights the lack of credibility in Ms. Hill's reporting and her willingness to fabricate connections to support her predetermined agenda. And...by the way, I told you it gets worse, guess who "mass-reported" our accounts to get them suspended on X? None other than Ms. Hill's "disinformation expert," Conspirador Norteño.

It is also laughable that Ms. Hill believed we shut down TrimFeed because she sent an email to us this week. Does she really think she is this important? If she had bothered to fact-check, she would have clearly seen that the domain simply migrated to TrimFeed.com. This is the level of "fact-checking" and "reporting" that The New York Times apparently deems acceptable.

Ms. Hill even stooped to the level of taking swipes at BNNGPT.com, an AI-powered search bot for the open web that we have yet to formally launch or promote. I've yet to even share it across my own social media. It's simply LIVE and organically growing. However, Ms. Hill dismissively described it as "an A.I. chatbot that, when asked, says it was built using open-source models."

This blatant misrepresentation is a clear indication of the sick vendetta that this reporter harbors, going to great lengths to create a facade to fabricate stories in an attempt to demean any product we create, even before it launches mainstream.

The irony of this situation is not lost on me. Ms. Hill, who seems to harbor a deep hatred for AI, works for The New York Times, which is investing millions of dollars in building out its own AI-powered digital newsroom but suing OpenAI and Microsoft over alleged copyright infringement for "billions of dollars." And, now it appears its interested in defaming a startup with baseless accusations than taking care of its own house.

It's worth noting that The Times itself has faced scrutiny and allegations of bias in recent times. The newspaper's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Gaza war has been accused of distorting facts and downplaying Palestinian suffering. Critics claim that the Times instructed its journalists to avoid using terms like "genocide" in their reporting and amplified unverified Israeli claims of sexual violence during the October 7 operation. These actions have led to accusations of the Times dehumanizing Palestinians and failing to provide balanced coverage of the conflict.

Internal dissent has also emerged at the Times, with employees reportedly protesting at the newspaper's Manhattan headquarters in November over its pro-Israel coverage. A group of New York Times reporters have even drafted an open letter to Executive Editor Joe Kahn, accusing him of discouraging open debate in the newsroom and failing to provide opportunities for diverse perspectives.

As a once respected news organization, The New York Times should be ashamed of its decision to allow Ms. Hill to pursue a baseless hit piece. The Times should focus on reporting the truth and addressing its internal issues, not engaging in tabloid-style journalism designed to tear down innovative companies and individuals.

As we continue to innovate and push boundaries, I remain committed to our mission of empowering businesses and individuals with cutting-edge AI products. We will not be deterred by this shameful display of sensationalism and personal vendettas masquerading as journalism. The public deserves better, and it's time for The New York Times to start living up to its own standards rather than wallowing in the gutter of tabloid journalism.

To Ms. Hill and The New York Times, it's time to return to the principles of ethical journalism, to report the truth without fear or favor, and to celebrate innovation rather than tear it down. 

Perhaps more than ever, it's time for you to actually start building something.

Perhaps, even start with a moral compass.

Update:

After my initial response to the baseless hit piece published by The New York Times, I received an email from Kashmir Hill herself. Here's what she had to say:

First of all, instead of acknowledging her mistakes, she's inquiring about when we registered our domain and how long we've had it. The lack of understanding here is astounding. Backordering domains and securing a .com TLD is not a simple task, and her ignorance of this fact just shows that she might not be cut out for a role as a “tech reporter.”

Secondly, her request for "external evidence" of when we started publishing on TrimFeed.com is beyond absurd, and as a company why do we owe her "anything" for her lies? She literally mentioned in her NY Times article that we "shut down" our site because she sent an email on Tuesday. We never shut down; all our articles are still up, and our social media profiles continued posting and updated their bios to the new domains. Yet, she acts like we owe her some kind of proof.

And this is for such a simple lie? Out of everything else she fabricated.

It's time to admit it, Kashmir Hill. You messed up. You lied. You got caught. You have no real story, so you made one up. Your article is a fabricated hit piece with no basis in reality.

If this isn't targeted defamation...then I don't know what is.