Knife Media disables comments after Frank Report comments on youtube

A couple of hours after the Frank Report made two comments on the You Tube video posted by The Knife Media, editor Jens Erik Gould disabled the entire comments section of the site.

The video was of Mr. Gould’s appearance on Fox and Friends to tout The Knife Media and its fearless analysis of media bias.

The video was published on July 23, 2017. It is described asEditor-in-Chief Jens Gould is interviewed by Pete Hegseth on Fox & Friends to explain how The Knife Media rates bias and distortion in the news, citing the example of media coverage of Trump.”


Frank Report made two comments:

Comment #1:
The interview is quite nicely done and much of what Mr. Gould says resonates with many. However, people viewing this should be aware that The Knife Media recently changed its name. It was formerly The Knife of Aristotle. The conceptual founder of The Knife is Keith Raniere.
Comment #2
While I applaud the concepts promoted by Mr. Gould, a great deal of transparency and for that matter – a careful vetting of how analysts evaluate what is spin, slant and bias – is required. For more information on The Knife and about Mr. Raniere, I invite people to visit the Frank Report. Here are a couple of links which may be informative. Facebook page emerges under The Knife (sans Aristotle) News from NXIVM Village: Knife of Aristotle to change name; newbies promoted to EMPs “Knife of Aristotle isn’t just Fake News site, it’s a cult”


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • The people in “The Knife” can’t even cut through the bullshit and fake image of the man that is Keith Raniere and they want me to believe they can cut through all of the alleged bias, slant, distortion, etc., of the real media? GTFO.

    James Odato is one of the most respective investigative journalists in the Capitol region. Where is their “analysis” of 2012 Times Union article on their charlatan of a leader.

    All of thee reaming followers are responsible for all he does. No one man can do all this alone. They are complicit enablers in his scheme and should all be held responsible and suffer the consequences of his actions.

    • Most of the Knife women are reported to be in DOS. Many of the Knife men are married to women in DOS. Everyone on the Knife is a Raniere-verse insider.

  • They don’t give any bias ratings to Fox News, just “conventional” media, which is rated as highly biased/slanted.

    The Knife coverage bends over backwards to give Trump every possible benefit of the doubt. Yes it is true that there has not yet been “due process of law.” That is what Mueller’s investigation will do (if Trump doesn’t fire him).

    “Untangling the slant

    Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical.”

    Then why the F doesn’t the Knife actually do some reporting about the law and norms? This isn’t reporting, or spin analysis. It’s more consistent with “How do we get an interview on Fox News to promote our product” ?

    LOG IN
    The Knife


    Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meetingPhoto by Shutterstock
    Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting
    July 11, 2017

    183Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)183
    Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
    6Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)6
    Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

    The Raw Data
    Unspun and unbiased. These are the facts.

    Trump Jr. confirms meeting with Russian lawyer in 2016
    Donald Trump Jr., elder son of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement released Sunday that he met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016, when his father was running for the presidency, at Trump Tower in New York City.

    Trump Jr. said he had met with an individual after an acquaintance said she “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and was not told the person’s name prior to the meeting. Trump Jr. said his father’s then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, were at the meeting. He said the meeting lasted between 20 and 30 minutes, and that he had not informed his father of the discussion.

    Trump Jr. said the lawyer, whom The New York Times identified as Natalia Veselnitskaya, did not provide details to support her claim of having information about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and that she also talked about “the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act.” Veselnitskaya has reportedly campaigned against the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. government passed in 2012 to withhold visas or freeze assets of Russian individuals who have been suspected of human rights violations. CNN reported she also founded a group supporting the removal of a Russian law preventing U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children, which was put in place following the Magnitsky Act.

    The Times first reported on the meeting on Saturday. Veselnitskaya said on Saturday that she, Trump Jr., and the others discussed “nothing at all about the presidential campaign.” Veselnitskaya added she had “never acted on behalf of the Russian government” and “never discussed any of these matters with any representative of the Russian government.”

    Kushner’s lawyer Jamie Gorelick said on Saturday that Kushner, who is one of Trump’s presidential advisors, had disclosed the meeting with Veselnitskaya as part of his requirements to obtain security clearance earlier this year. Gorelick said Kushner had initially filed documents that did not disclose the meeting, and then submitted additional documents that included information about “over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition.” Manafort’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment from The Times and other media outlets.

    Update: On Tuesday, Trump Jr. released on Twitter an email chain from June 2016. Rob Goldstone, described by The New York Times as an entertainment publicist, wrote to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered official documents to the Trump campaign that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” Goldstone also said, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

    Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone: “Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

    Distortion Highlights
    Much of the coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting supports that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process.
    This is premature reporting, regardless of what investigators eventually find.
    Such reporting can taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself.
    The Numbers
    See how the articles rate in spin, slant and logic when held against objective standards.

    Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign


    The Washington Post
    Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer during presidential campaign after being promised information helpful to father’s effort


    The New York Times
    Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton


    The Wall Street Journal
    Trump Jr. Met Russian Lawyer Who Claimed to Have Information on Hillary Clinton


    The Distortion
    Read between the lines. Learn how news outlets distort the information.

    Top Spin Words








    Given the information described above, one could argue that Trump campaign officials may have colluded with the Russian government to influence last year’s election. The email chain released Tuesday could demonstrate that Trump Jr. at least had the intent to receive info about Hillary Clinton from Russia.

    But it’s important to remember that there are two investigations in process on this matter and they have not concluded. Many news outlets covering the story don’t give weight to this. Instead, they use spin and slant supporting that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process. This is premature, even if investigators eventually do find the Trump campaign guilty. And if they don’t, then such reporting could taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself.

    Here’s how the outlets imply potential collusion by framing the data in a slanted way, speculating without evidence, and omitting certain key information.

    1. Framing the data

    Some outlets emphasize the prospect of collusion, making a guilty verdict seem more likely. For example, CNN presents the following question:

    “Did the Trump campaign collude with Russians in an effort to hurt Clinton and win the White House?”

    This frames the FBI’s investigation in a narrow way, emphasizing the possibility of collusion and potentially minimizing other interpretations of the facts. The above question could be restated in a more open way, allowing for broader exploration. For instance:

    What connections, if any, did Trump’s campaign have with Russia? If there was a relationship, what was the nature and context of that relationship, and what information was exchanged, if any?

    Another example is how The Washington Post says, “The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton — at the same time that U.S. government officials have concluded Russians were collecting such data.”

    This sentence implies that the timing of the two events was not coincidental and that Trump aides were coordinating with the Russians to oppose Clinton. However, this is a selective comparison of two events, when they may or may not be correlated. Two events happening around the same time doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected.

    Is it fact or fiction? Which outlet presents the most spin?

    31% Spun

    The New York Times
    42% Spun

    The Wall Street Journal
    43% Spun

    The Washington Post
    50% Spun
    2. Biased speculation

    Consider the following sentences:

    The meeting “underscore[s] the fundamental issue for federal investigators as they probe Russia’s interference in last year’s election:” whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia “in an effort to hurt Clinton.” (The Washington Post)
    “The meeting…points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.” (The New York Times)
    The above conclusions aren’t illogical per se, but they are not properly substantiated with evidence. In what way does the meeting “underscore” or “point to” the investigation into possible collusion? If foreign nationals met with campaign aides about negative information related to another candidate, would this always “underscore” possible collusion? There is missing information that would need to be addressed for this judgement to be sound.

    Additionally, the outlets provide few alternative perspectives on the meeting. For example, politicians collecting negative information on each other isn’t particularly new or necessarily against the law.

    3. Missing information

    Before jumping to conclusions about Trump Jr.’s meeting, it’s important to address some key questions that aren’t answered in the coverage:

    Are there any specific laws that are potentially being violated? If so, which ones?
    What standards are being used to determine if something is collusion or not?
    How is this particular meeting evidence of possible collusion? Why does it raise questions?
    Based on the information provided, it is unclear whether Trump Jr.’s meeting would be considered a violation of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulations or other laws. A legal investigation would need to prove the allegations in question. Unfortunately, the media does not fill in this missing information, which can mislead readers.

    Untangling the slant

    Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical.

    The Washington Post
    “The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton…”

    There was a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and Veselnitskaya.

    Saying that Trump aides, presumably referring to Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort, were “in the market to collect negative information” is the reporter’s interpretation of the meeting and may be unfounded speculation. His statement said that prior to the meeting he was told Veselnitskaya “might have information helpful to the campaign,” not that she had “negative information that could be used against Clinton.”

    The New York Times
    “…President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and the Russians…”

    There have been meetings between Trump associates and Russians that were previously not disclosed.

    The facts are pretty straight forward – undisclosed meetings aren’t necessarily enlightening or astonishing, though calling them “revelations” may suggest otherwise. Also, to say these meetings have “dogged” Trump may imply they point to collusion, or at least make him look more suspicious – why else would the meetings “plague” him? But this is the reporter’s opinion, not fact.

    Fact Comparison

    Facts in only 1 source
    Facts in 2 sources
    Facts in 3 sources
    Facts included in all sources
    The Trump aides met with Ms. Veselnitskaya on June 9, about a month after Mr. Trump effectively clinched the Republican nomination. (The Wall Street Journal)

    On May 26, 2016, Trump won enough delegates to earn the GOP nomination. That was two weeks before the June 9 meeting, not one month.

    An article’s headline can direct how the news is understood. Compare and contrast how different outlets present the story through their headlines.

    ABC News

    Trump Jr. tries to downplay meeting with Russian attorney

    States that Trump Jr. was diminishing the importance of the meeting, which may suggest he is trying hide something.
    How might your impression change if this headline were more fact-based? For example: “Trump Jr. releases statement about meeting with Russian attorney.”
    Business Insider

    Donald Trump Jr. provided 2 wildly different statements to describe his meeting with a Russian lawyer

    Exaggerates the differences between the statements Trump Jr. made about the meeting
    “Wildly different” is a subjective, non-measurable description of the differences between his statements. How different do they need be be before they’re considered “wildly different”? Other than being dramatic, this phrase could imply he’s being deceitful, even though providing different information doesn’t automatically mean he’s lying.
    Similar on The Knife
    The coverage of Trump’s visit to Poland: a hybrid of spin and cherry-picked information

    Two ways the media dramatizes the SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s executive order

    Where implications fail: Trump, Mueller and the media

    Get the full picture! Don’t buy into cherry-picked information.

    The media’s slant:
    Trump Jr.’s decision to meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya raises suspicion of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
    The New York Times and The Washington Post further imply that the meeting itself may be questionable or perhaps unlawful.
    What the media doesn’t explore:
    We don’t have enough information as to whether the meeting violated any laws or regulations. Only two first-hand accounts of the meeting are presented – Trump Jr.’s and Veselnitskaya’s. Both report that the meeting did not involve any substantial discussion about the campaign and no negative information about Hillary Clinton was shared.
    Politicians regularly collect information about opponents, negative or otherwise, for use in campaigns. The outlets don’t specify if collecting this information from a foreign national would be considered illegal, and if so, under what conditions.
    Julia Berry López
    Spin Experts
    Chelsea Brown
    Tine Stausholm
    Slant Experts
    Ginger McIntosh
    Everett Hart
    Logic Experts
    Sylvie Lloyd
    Leah L. Mottishaw
    Data Expert
    Lisa Reider
    Lisa Reider
    Lead Analyst
    Leah L. Mottishaw
    Shane Mottishaw
    Lead Editor
    Jens Erik Gould
    ElectionsPoliticsRussiaTrumpUnited StatesDonald TrumpDonald Trump Jr.Jared KushnerPaul ManafortNew Yorkinvestigation
    Up Next

    The Syrian ceasefire: Seeking balance in the news
    Subscribe to a better type of news and get access to all of our analysis for only $15/mo.

    Trending on The Knife
    Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets
    Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets
    From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea
    From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea
    Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama
    Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama
    © 2015-2017, The Knife, LLC. All rights reserved.

    Join the Newsletter
    Be part of the solution. Become aware of how the media distorts the most important news stories.


About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083