Danny de Hek has published a dramatic page about “coordinated smear campaigns” against him. In it, he warns readers about anonymous fake news sites, propaganda blogs, impersonation channels and shadowy scammers supposedly trying to silence his investigative journalism.
That would all be easier to take seriously if the argument were applied consistently.
Instead, the pattern is familiar. When Danny publishes criticism of other people, it is framed as public-interest journalism, scam awareness, consumer protection and brave truth-telling. When other people publish criticism of Danny de Hek, it is suddenly a “smear campaign,” “fake news,” “propaganda,” or evidence that scammers are out to get him.
There is nothing inherently scammy about third-party review sites, criticism blogs, commentary platforms or independent media pages. The internet is full of them. Trustpilot exists because people review businesses. Google News exists because readers compare coverage from different publishers. Independent commentary sites exist because public claims can be examined, challenged and debated. Even Danny’s own website links readers to a “Write a Review” page when reviews are useful to him.
So let’s be clear: third-party review platforms are not suspicious by default. Critical websites are not fake by default. A blog does not become propaganda simply because it refuses to clap.
That is the hypocrisy at the center of this latest performance.
At Debating Danny de Hek, we have repeatedly argued that scam reporting should be evidence-led, fair and accountable. That is why we have assessed De Hek’s work against the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, including in our breakdown of Danny de Hek’s PO Wealth Sharing article and our analysis of his reporting on Megan Lynch. The point is not that Danny should never criticize anyone. The point is that criticism should not be treated as holy when he publishes it and criminal when it is aimed at him.
Of course, fake reviews exist. Anonymous abuse exists. Defamation exists. Coordinated harassment exists. Nobody serious denies that. But the existence of bad actors does not give any commentator a blank cheque to brand every critic a scammer.
A real journalist should be able to separate fraud from disagreement. Danny often appears unwilling to do that. Instead, he collapses everything into one convenient category: if you disagree with him, you are probably corrupt, captured, anonymous, paid, criminal, scam-adjacent or part of some sinister online plot.
We saw the same dynamic in our article on De Hek’s paid content hypocrisy. When Danny uses promotional tools, review channels or reputation-building platforms, it is marketing. When others use the same digital ecosystem, it becomes suspicious. When Danny scrutinizes people, he is protecting the public. When the public scrutinizes Danny, he is apparently being persecuted.
This matters because reputational accusations have consequences. Calling someone a scammer is not a small thing. Labelling criticism as “fake news” is not a neutral description. As we argued in When Search Results Become a Life Sentence, online accusations can follow people for years. A publisher who understands that risk should be more careful, not less.
Debating Danny de Hek exists because public commentary should not be a one-way broadcast. If Danny can review others, others can review Danny. If Danny can publish criticism, others can publish criticism of his criticism. If Danny wants to call himself an investigative journalist, he should welcome factual challenge rather than reflexively branding dissent as a scammer operation.
The standard is simple: evidence first, labels second.
Danny seems to prefer the reverse.
Leave a Reply