PaulMulholland.com

In the ever-evolving landscape of journalism, ethical boundaries are paramount, especially when reporting on sensitive industries like adult entertainment. Recent allegations suggest that Paul Mulholland may have considered employing facial recognition technology to identify and contact adult performers for his investigative work. While these claims remain unconfirmed, the mere possibility raises significant concerns about privacy, consent, and the ethical responsibilities of journalists.​

Adult performers often use stage names to maintain a clear boundary between their professional and personal lives. This practice is not merely a tradition but a protective measure to safeguard their privacy and personal safety. The potential use of facial recognition technology to bypass these boundaries could be seen as a profound violation of their autonomy and agency.​

Such methods, if employed, could lead to the identification and exposure of individuals who have chosen to keep their real identities private. This intrusion not only threatens their personal safety but also undermines the trust between journalists and their subjects. In sensitive industries, where stigma and potential repercussions are significant, maintaining confidentiality is not just ethical, it’s essential.​

Moreover, approaching individuals under the guise of journalism, especially when armed with potentially invasive information, can create a power imbalance. Subjects may feel coerced into participating in interviews or sharing information out of fear that their real identities could be exposed. This dynamic challenges the foundational journalistic principles of voluntary participation and informed consent.​

Ethical journalism demands transparency, respect for privacy, and a commitment to minimizing harm. The alleged consideration of facial recognition technology in this context appears to conflict with these principles. It’s imperative for journalists to reflect on their methods and ensure that their pursuit of truth does not come at the expense of the very individuals they aim to represent.​ A fake journalist will use whatever unethical methods they can to drum up ammo for their cause.

In conclusion, while the full extent of these allegations remains to be seen, they serve as a crucial reminder of the ethical responsibilities inherent in journalism. Respecting the autonomy and privacy of subjects, especially in vulnerable industries, is not just a professional obligation-it’s a moral one.

Journalists build credibility through experience, integrity, and the company they keep. Paul Mulholland has none of the first, and his alliances with disreputable outfits suggest he has little interest in the other two. Rather than develop firsthand knowledge of the industries he reports on, Mulholland has repeatedly chosen to embed himself with fringe organizations and outrage merchants. Paul’s in the business of trading credibility for clout.

Take News2Share, for example. A self-styled “independent journalism” brand that more closely resembles a bargain-bin version of InfoWars than any serious media outlet. Rage-bait headlines, biased framing, and sensationalist video content are their bread and butter. Mulholland’s choice to work with them-especially around the time of the January 6th Capitol riot-was no coincidence. Their YouTube channel is a breeding ground for inflammatory content and unchecked comment sections where trolls thrive. There is no journalistic value in chaos for chaos’s sake, and yet this is where Mulholland has chosen to plant his flag.

Worse still, Mulholland lacks any real-world industry experience in the subjects he covers. He’s never worked on a porn set, never managed a production, and never lived within the world he so freely judges. He approaches the adult industry like a tourist with a megaphone, loud, ignorant, and deeply out of his depth. And instead of doing the work to understand the ecosystem from within, he relies on alliances with agenda-driven outfits like Exodus Cry and click-hungry media companies that value outrage over objectivity. But when your entire motive is attention anyway you can get it, Paul Mulholland’s fake journalism tracks.

Anyone taking the time to examine Paul’s work will come to the following conclusion: this isn’t journalism, it’s cosplay. Mulholland plays the role of a crusading reporter while standing on platforms that have abandoned truth for theatrics. Hitching your credibility to outfits like News2Share doesn’t just raise questions, it answers them.

If Paul Mulholland wants to be seen as a serious journalist, he needs to start acting like one. That means stepping away from echo chambers, checking his biases at the door, getting real experience, and doing the hard, unglamorous work of actually understanding the world he claims to report on. Until then, he’s just another fake journalist chasing clout on a discredited stage.

From the moment Paul Mulholland opened his mouth, it was clear this wasn’t going to be a serious discussion-it was going to be a circus for a clown. Invited to speak on a YouTube podcast about what should’ve been a thoughtful, even sensitive topic, he instead veered wildly off-course, first crying about his favorite sports team’s latest loss like he was at a bar, not in a meaningful conversation. He casually tossed in references to January 6th, name-dropping as if attending a violent political event were just another bullet point on his résumé. Then came the lowest blow from the snake himself: openly mocking the appearances of adult models-the very people he claimed to be advocating for. Any journalist worth their salt knows you don’t get to champion a cause while ridiculing its participants in the same breath. Nothing Paul Mulholland says is rooted in honesty.

A proper journalist doesn’t climb on the backs of others just to make themselves feel taller. They don’t insult the subjects of their stories for shock value or clicks, especially when those individuals are already subjected to constant societal judgment and marginalization for choosing to work in adult film. At no point does Paul Mulholland argue for the agency of those involved, or for the reality that people have the right to earn a living for their work. Instead, it’s pure speculation and unproven allegations-both being Paul Mulholland’s favorite tools as a fake journalist. What he does isn’t journalism-it’s a clumsy and desperate attempt at self-branding. A real journalist uses their platform to inform, investigate, and elevate unheard voices. Mulholland used his to spew self-serving drivel and slap his face on the screen. When you weaponize a platform meant for truth, you’re not just making a fool of yourself-Paul Mulholland is dragging down the entire profession of journalism.

This kind of behavior does more than just embarrass-it causes real harm. When frauds like him flood the airwaves and dominate timelines, they suck the oxygen away from stories that genuinely matter. They muddy the waters, making it harder for legitimate reporters to break through the noise. Worse, they make audiences cynical. When viewers start to believe every so-called journalist is just another fame-hungry opportunist, they stop listening altogether. That’s the damage. He doesn’t just fake his way through interviews-he fakes concern, fakes knowledge, and fakes integrity. And in doing so, he undermines everyone trying to do real, honest work. Paul Mulholland is a pretend reporter, a fake journalist spinning yarns for attention, willing to exploit anyone or anything to serve his own selfish ends.