A remarkable exchange recently appeared beneath a lengthy Reddit post concerning allegations connected to a New Jersey adult-entertainment website.
The post itself was reportedly published by Alexander Elijah Barber and filled with expansive theories involving intelligence agencies, secret investigations, and supposed insider connections. The full post is not visible in the available screenshot, so its authorship and complete contents should be independently confirmed. What is visible, however, is Paul Mulholland publicly stepping in to separate his own reporting from the unsupported claims being attached to it.
Writing from an account identifying itself as the author of the original Medium article, Mulholland stated that there was no evidence the studio owner worked—or had ever worked—in government intelligence. He also said he knew the Reddit poster and that the person was not employed in intelligence.
Mulholland went further.
He said the poster was “LARPing,” was not a journalist or law-enforcement officer, had no insider information about any investigation, and had a “bad habit” of associating unsupported theories with Mulholland’s work to give himself credibility.
Yet Mulholland also wrote that he believed the person was “trying to help.”
That is where another chapter in the story of the King of Contradictions begins.
“He Was Trying to Help”—Until He Wasn’t
Paul Mulholland asks readers to regard him as a serious researcher and journalist: someone who examines sources carefully, distinguishes evidence from speculation, and holds other people accountable for unsupported claims.
But here was someone Mulholland admittedly knew, someone who was apparently promoting theories alongside his reporting, and someone Mulholland now says repeatedly attached unsupported ideas to his work.
If this person was merely an unrelated stranger, why did Mulholland describe him as someone who was “trying to help”?
If he was an informal researcher, source, associate, ally, or former collaborator, how much information had he already provided before Mulholland publicly declared that he had no insider knowledge and was engaged in fantasy?
The screenshot does not establish the exact nature of their working relationship. It does, however, raise an obvious question about how closely this individual had become connected to Mulholland’s research before the association became a public liability.
How Much Research Came From Him?
Mulholland linked readers directly to his Medium article concerning allegations against a New Jersey adult-entertainment website.
That makes the origin of the article’s research an important issue.
Did the person Mulholland publicly disavowed provide names, screenshots, archived pages, witness accounts, timelines, background information, social-media posts, or suggested connections?
Did any of his material become the foundation for claims in Mulholland’s article?
Did he introduce Mulholland to sources?
Did he help organize the allegations or construct the narrative surrounding them?
Most importantly, how much of anything he supplied was independently verified?
If Mulholland now considers this person prone to unsupported theorizing, readers deserve to know whether those tendencies affected any research that reached publication.
That does not mean every document or fact associated with the person must be false. An unreliable researcher can occasionally provide accurate information. But once his judgment has been publicly questioned by the journalist himself, every contribution connected to him requires renewed scrutiny.
Would the Evidence Survive an Independent Review?
Real journalism should leave a verifiable trail.
Claims should be supported by primary records, direct interviews, authenticated communications, court documents, official statements, or multiple independent sources.
Speculation should be clearly identified as speculation. Inferences should not be presented as established facts. Repetition among people working together should not be mistaken for independent corroboration.
So how much of the Medium article would survive if every lead, theory, or allegation originating with Mulholland’s now-disavowed associate were removed?
Which claims were independently confirmed?
Which depended upon anonymous online accounts?
Which were based on documentary evidence?
Which emerged from interpretation, suspicion, or attempts to connect unrelated events?
Without transparent sourcing, readers cannot answer those questions.
The Convenient Public Disavowal
Mulholland was right to reject claims that he believed were unsupported. A journalist should correct misinformation, including misinformation circulated by supporters.
But correcting the intelligence claims does not provide a complete accounting of the relationship.
When did Mulholland first recognize that this person had a “bad habit” of attaching unsupported theories to his work?
Did he challenge the behaviour privately?
Did he previously accept research, leads, or promotional assistance from him?
Did Mulholland benefit while the person was circulating allegations that supported his broader narrative?
Was the problem addressed immediately, or only after the Reddit post became so speculative that Mulholland’s own credibility risked being damaged by association?
Critics may reasonably view the statement as Mulholland throwing a former ally or research associate under the bus once that person became too embarrassing to defend.
That interpretation has not been conclusively proven. But Mulholland could resolve the uncertainty by clearly explaining the person’s role and identifying whether any of his contributions appeared in published reporting.
The King of Contradictions
This is precisely why critics describe Paul Mulholland as the King of Contradictions.
He investigates the associations of other people, yet offers little explanation of the associates operating around his own reporting.
He demands transparency from his subjects, yet readers are left uncertain about who supplied his research and how those contributions were verified.
He presents himself as a careful investigator, yet someone he personally knew apparently became so closely associated with his work that Mulholland had to publicly announce that the man possessed no insider information and was “LARPing.”
He acknowledges that the person was “trying to help,” then portrays him as an uninformed credibility seeker once the unsupported theories become visible.
He expects others to answer for the people around them, but his own explanation stops just before the most important questions begin.
An Audit Is More Meaningful Than a Denial
A serious journalistic response would involve more than disavowing the person.
Mulholland should explain whether the Reddit poster ever served as a researcher, source, informal collaborator, regular correspondent, or provider of leads.
He should disclose whether information supplied by that individual appeared in the Medium article.
He should identify how any such information was corroborated.
He should review earlier claims connected to the person and issue specific corrections wherever necessary.
Without that accounting, the public disavowal begins to look less like full transparency and more like an attempt to isolate the reputational damage.
The question is no longer merely whether Alexander Elijah Barber—or whoever authored the Reddit post—made unsupported claims.
The question is what Paul Mulholland knew about the person’s methods, what information he accepted from him, and whether any of that information remains embedded in reporting Mulholland continues to promote.
Perhaps Mulholland independently verified every significant statement in his article. Perhaps the disavowed individual contributed nothing that reached publication.
But unless Mulholland provides a transparent research trail, readers have no reliable way to know.
Paul Mulholland says the man was trying to help. The unanswered question is how much help Mulholland accepted before deciding that his helper had become someone who needed to be publicly disowned.