Megan Fox Smears Child’s Illness to Boost Bigoted YouTube Star Jeremy Hales
By Dick LaFontaine and Frankie Pressman with Michael Volpe
Megan Fox, once known for covering CPS abuses and family court corruption, has drifted far from the principles of ethical journalism.
Now, she is a media mouthpiece for anti-Semitic and bigoted YouTube content creator Jeremy Hales.
Her article “What the Hales: Florida Judge Attacks Free Speech of YouTubers and Journalists,” published on PJ Media, and other pieces, including reporting involving Lynette Preston, Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy, and USF Health medical records, masquerade as advocacy journalism.
In fact, they are sensationalist content marketing disguised as reportage.
Drawing on a survey of Megan Fox’s recent work and Michael Volpe’s detailed critique in The Frank Report, this piece demonstrates how Fox has forsaken truth and independence for platform growth, clout, and monetization, abandoning core journalistic standards.
Slick Click Tricks: Ethical Principles Violated
1. Truth and Accuracy
Fox’s piece lacks critical fact-checking and balance. She repeats Jeremy Hales’s narrative without verifying claims independently or presenting rebuttals.
She describes a protective order as a “prior restraint on speech” but omits the court’s basis for granting it, including alleged harassment.
This omission is not incidental—it is structural, designed to provoke outrage and allegiance without scrutiny.
Volpe notes this disturbing trend in his article, writing: “Despite having no evidence, Fox said that Michelle Preston fabricated her child’s rare diagnosis.”
He calls this “irresponsible, cruel, and a lie.”
Rather than verify medical records or speak to doctors, Fox ignored contrary evidence to maintain a profitable narrative arc.
2. Independence
Journalists must avoid conflicts of interest and remain independent from those they cover.
Yet Fox effectively becomes a member of Hales’s media team. She appears in his videos, parrots his claims, and crafts a story that supports his YouTube brand.
As Volpe says, “Fox is storyline fluffer in Hales’ YouTube show. She spins lies with a smile, stomping on children for clicks.”
This alignment makes her less a journalist and more a participant, violating independence in both appearance and fact.
3. Minimizing Harm
Ethical journalism requires minimizing harm, especially to vulnerable people.
In this case, the most vulnerable is a sick child with a rare disease, Glutaric Acidemia Type 1.
Fox implied the child’s illness was fake, referring to it as Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy without any credible source.
Her statements served to weaponize suspicion and undermine the mother’s credibility. But the claims were unverified and false.
“When offered the doctor’s letter confirming the child was truly ill, she declined to comment,” Volpe wrote. “It was never about truth.”
This reckless approach causes irreparable harm to a family and a sick child, purely for spectacle.
4. Accountability and Transparency
Fox makes no acknowledgment of counterevidence, refuses to correct the record when offered documentation, and shows no transparency about her sourcing.
Ethical journalism involves corrections, disclaimers, and transparency when evidence changes or is incomplete.
Instead, Fox doubles down.
Her work lacks sourcing, verification, and any indication that she attempted to contact the accused party.
Slick Click Tricks: Content as Commodity
Fox’s transformation is well summarized by Volpe: “You don’t need to imagine a dystopia where truth dies in laughter—it’s already here. It streams nightly. It mocks sick children. It calls itself journalism.”
This transition from journalism to infotainment isn’t just unethical—it’s dangerous. It undermines public trust, weaponizes disinformation, and amplifies digital lynch mobs under the guise of “free speech” defense.
Rather than adhere to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, Fox appears guided by YouTube algorithms and Substack subscriber counts.
The Frank Report’s Credibility
Frank Parlato, publisher of The Frank Report, is no stranger to high-stakes investigative reporting. He was instrumental in exposing the NXIVM cult and was recognized in multiple documentaries (The Vow, Seduced) as a primary reason women were rescued from human branding rings.
His reporting has been cited in Congress and reshaped public awareness about abuse and coercion.
When The Frank Report publishes a guest column by Michael Volpe—an investigative journalist with a consistent record of exposing court corruption—it carries credibility.
Volpe’s piece reflects real concern: not just about Fox’s ethics, but about how once-trusted journalists can become enablers of abuse under the banner of advocacy.
Questions for Megan Fox
We reached out to Megan Fox for her side of the story. As of press time, she has not responded to our inquiry. We will update the readership with a follow-up if she does. Here is what we asked:
From: Dick LaFontaine, Investigative Journalist <[email protected]>
Date: On Friday, May 2nd, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Media Inquiry Regarding “What the Hales” Articles and Recent Reporting Conduct
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Fox,
We are journalists preparing a piece on your recent article, “What the Hales: Florida Judge Attacks Free Speech of YouTubers and Journalists,” published on PJ Media, and your broader and recent coverage involving Jeremy Hales, Michelle Preston, and related legal matters.
To ensure accuracy and fairness, I am providing you with the opportunity to comment on several specific issues raised by your reporting:
Medical Verification
You publicly questioned the legitimacy of a child’s diagnosis of Glutaric Acidemia Type 1. Did you review any medical records or speak with a treating physician before making this claim?Refusal to Comment on Doctor’s Letter
It has been reported that you declined to respond after being shown a letter from the child’s doctor verifying the diagnosis. Do you dispute that the letter exists, or do you stand by your implication that the illness is fabricated?Relationship with Jeremy Hales
Do you consider yourself an independent journalist covering the Hales litigation, or are you collaborating with Mr. Hales and/or appearing in paid or monetized media content under his brand?Omission of Harassment Allegations
Your PJ Media article frames Judge DeThomasis’s order as a “prior restraint on speech.” Why did you not include that the order was granted in response to alleged harassment of neighbors and repeated contact attempts?Failure to Contact Opposing Parties
Did you attempt to contact Michelle Preston or any opposing party for comment before publishing your articles?Conflict of Interest and Transparency
Have you received any compensation, direct or indirect, from Jeremy Hales or his affiliates for your coverage? If so, have you disclosed this to your editors at PJ Media?Response to Michael Volpe’s Critique
Michael Volpe’s column in The Frank Report accuses you of abandoning journalistic ethics in favor of click-driven narratives. Do you wish to respond to his specific allegations?Use of Depositions and Legal Material
Have you vetted the authenticity and context of deposition clips and court filings used in your videos and articles? If so, please detail your editorial process.We would appreciate your response as soon as possible so we can incorporate your comments to give our readers a fair and balanced perspective. If you cannot respond by press time, we will incorporate your responses as part of a follow-up.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Regards,
Dick LaFontaine
Investigative Journalist
Slick Click Tricks: Conclusion
Megan Fox has abandoned the mantle of journalism for the trappings of influencer culture.
Her article “What the Hales” is not journalism—it is targeted narrative manipulation designed to curry favor with an online mob and increase clicks.
Volpe’s critique is devastating and well-grounded: “Megan Fox traded a spine for a subscription button.” Her conduct fails the most basic tenets of journalistic ethics—truth, verification, independence, and harm minimization.
The result is not advocacy. It’s exploitation.
About The Author
