The Dallas Express published false allegations against Steven Monacelli as a form of retaliation

1. The Dallas Express published specific allegations about Monacelli

The Dallas Express ran multiple items accusing Monacelli of “racist harassment” and related misconduct, reporting claims made by an activist group identified as Dallas Justice Now and headlined pieces that framed Monacelli as targeting activists ^{[2] [1]}. The paper itself disclosed that its ownership group had filed a defamation suit against Monacelli on an unrelated matter, a fact that appears in the Express’s own articles covering the dispute ^[1].

2. Monacelli’s reporting and public rebuttal: he says the allegations were false and retaliatory

Steven Monacelli has publicly and repeatedly contested the charges, saying there were no criminal charges or credible accusations from partners and characterizing the Express articles as defamatory; Monacelli’s own site states he was defamed in Express pieces that quoted DJN and calls those allegations baseless and retaliatory after his reporting on the paper and its owner ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Links to astroturf allegations and the provenance of DJN’s claims

Monacelli’s investigations, reported on his site and elsewhere, alleged that Dallas Justice Now was part of a network of astroturf groups tied to paid-protest services and political operatives amplified by the Dallas Express — a narrative he uses to explain why DJN’s allegations appeared in the Express ^{[3] [6]}. These are Monacelli’s findings and are reflected in his public statements; the sources provided do not include an independent court or third‑party adjudication definitively proving a conspiratorial link beyond Monacelli’s reporting ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Legal back-and-forth colors the interpretation but does not settle motive

Monty Bennett, owner or backer of the Dallas Express, sued Monacelli for defamation over earlier reporting but lost on appeal, with courts finding Monacelli’s statements addressed matters of public concern and were defensible as opinion or accurate reporting of third‑party allegations ^{[7] [4] [8]}. That legal victory for Monacelli’s side undercuts claims that all of his reporting was libelous, but the legal rulings address statutory protections and dispute resolution rather than proving that the Express intentionally manufactured false allegations as retaliation ^[4].

5. The Express’s position and alternative narratives

The Express’s own coverage framed DJN’s flyers and statements as newsworthy and presented DJN’s accusations against Monacelli; the Express disclosed its legal conflict with Monacelli, and some competitors and commentators have described the dispute as part of a broader local media and political fight ^{[1] [8]}. Other outlets and commentators have criticized Monacelli’s prior reporting and pointed to retractions and corrections in unrelated pieces as evidence of his errors, which complicates assessments of credibility on both sides ^[9].

6. What the available evidence supports and what it does not

Available reporting establishes that the Dallas Express published allegations sourced to DJN and that Monacelli denies them as false and says they were retaliatory after he exposed connections between DJN, Crowds on Demand-style operatives, and the Express’s backers ^{[2] [3] [6]}. What is not established in the provided sources is a judicial or independent factual finding that the Express deliberately published false allegations specifically as retaliation; motive remains contested and supported principally by Monacelli’s investigative claims and the context of prior litigation ^{[3] [7]}.