Paragraph 4
They said
AI bosses “picked up” Singer’s theories.
Actually: One of them wrote an essay about charitable giving in 2010. No endorsement of Singer’s views on infants or animals is cited, and we found none.
Hit Piece
You’re being played.
Somebody wanted you angry at Peter Singer this week. Somebody wanted you to think Sam Altman is fine with killing babies. They cut the conditions off a quote, found two “experts” from the same think tank, and ran it the morning after a political memo painted the same target.
This is most of the internet now: stories built to make you believe something false because it’s useful to someone. Not just wrong. Aimed.
Hit Piece takes them apart. Who’s behind it. What they said that’s false. What they left out. With the receipts, paragraph by paragraph.
Read the takedown → How it works
The motive.
Who wrote it, who fed them the quotes, who benefits. Named.
The lies.
What the story says that its own sources don’t.
The omissions.
The half of the sentence they cut off. The line one click away that they skipped.
Latest takedown · New York Post · September 25, 2026 · 6:30 a.m. ET
The Post wanted you to think Sam Altman is fine with killing babies. Here’s how they built it.
A philosopher’s thought experiment was rewritten as a death sentence and reported as his own “claim.” Two “experts” from one conservative advocacy shop supplied every critical quote. And it ran the morning after a political memo painted the same target. Peter Singer’s real views are hard enough to defend. The New York Post couldn’t be bothered to report them.
Hit Piece’s verdict
Propaganda
Built to make you believe a falsehood that serves someone.
- Fair
- Slanted
- Misleading
- Propaganda
- Fabricated
Why
Built to make you believe something false that serves someone: that the people warning about AI risk share a philosopher’s most shocking views, so their warnings can be dismissed. The false quote, the reversed argument, the one-shop chorus and the timing are all on this page.
- ¶ 15A “claim” Singer never made, reported as his in the Post’s own voice, then Walter’s paraphrase in quotation marks as if it were the book.
- ¶ 25An argument reported as the opposite of what it says.
- ¶ 33A “never” that one link disproves.
Tricks used
- Quote chop
- The missing “if”
- Guilt by association
- One-source chorus
- The reversal
- Mind-reading
- Name-calling
- Never / always
- Timeline shuffle
- Convenient timing
Each count opens to the passages counted. What the verdict is and isn’t.
They said / Actually
Three lines from one article.
Paragraph 7
They said
“There is no right and wrong” in Singer’s philosophy.
Actually: Singer’s whole method is a test for right and wrong: who suffers, who benefits, how much. He rejects rules-for-their-own-sake, not morality.
Paragraph 9
They said
Killing a disabled infant is “very often not wrong at all.”
Actually: Singer’s FAQ says killing a baby is almost always terrible, and allows narrow exceptions decided by parents and doctors.
How a takedown works
Their words on the left. The truth on the right. Sources under everything.
1
Read exactly what ran.
Every paragraph of the original, unchanged, with the false claims crossed out and the missing context highlighted.
2
See the trick, by name.
Quote chop. Guilt by association. The missing “if.” Ten recurring moves, each with a badge and a one-line explainer, so you spot them next time without us.
3
Check us.
Every finding links to its source. Flip to “Our rewrite” to see how the paragraph reads with the facts back in and the sneer taken out.
Why we’re doing this
Outrage is cheap. Being right costs a click. They’re betting you won’t spend it.
A story can leave you angrier without leaving you better informed. If what it shows you is a distorted version of what somebody said, that distortion is what you end up judging, arguing about, and forwarding.
We put the missing words back. We name who cut them, and who paid the people who supplied the quotes. Then you decide. Disagree with Peter Singer as hard as you like. Just make sure it’s Peter Singer you’re disagreeing with.
The same rules apply to us. Every claim we make links to its source, we look for evidence against our own reading, and when we can’t verify something we say so, in the open. Read our standards.
Follow the record
Reporters and sources, by their track record.
Every review lands on the people in it. A reporter with three propaganda verdicts is a reporter you know something about.
Browse people →Bring the missing piece
Found the fact that changes a story?
You don’t need to write the article. Bring the passage, what’s wrong with it, and the source that proves it. It gets held to the same standard as our own work.
Prepare a contribution →