Did the publisher of the Dallas Express hire Crowds on Demand
Executive summary
Reporting from multiple investigations concludes that Monty Bennett, the publisher of the Dallas Express, financially engaged the Beverly Hills publicity firm Crowds on Demand to build and operate a network of astroturf advocacy groups in Dallas — a scheme that the Dallas Express then amplified — though the public record is based on investigative reporting, a former contractor’s testimony, internal documents cited by reporters, and statements from Bennett rather than a single public contract or government filing [1] [2] [3].
1. The core allegation: paid “astroturf” and media amplification
Investigations by the Texas Observer and local reporters describe a recurring pattern: Crowds on Demand created or managed front groups (including Dallas Justice Now and Keep Dallas Safe) that staged actions and messaging, and the Dallas Express repeatedly published articles that quoted or amplified those groups, producing what reporters call a “surround-sound” effect in local media [1] [3] [4].
2. The evidence cited by reporters: contractors, internal documents, and Bennett’s involvement
The claim that Bennett hired Crowds on Demand rests on multiple sources in the Observer’s reporting: a former Crowds on Demand contractor’s account, internal documents reportedly obtained by journalists, and on-the-record acknowledgements linking Bennett or his companies to work done by Crowds on Demand, according to the Observer’s story [1] [2] [3]. Wikipedia’s summary of reporting also notes the Observer’s 2024 finding that Bennett paid Crowds on Demand to create a network of advocacy groups in Dallas [5].
3. What the Dallas Express and Bennett have done in response — legal threats and denials of agenda
Coverage shows Bennett and allied entities have used legal threats and litigation to push back on reporting: Bennett sued a journalist and the Dallas Weekly over characterization of the Dallas Express, a suit later dismissed on appeal, and the Dallas Express itself asserts editorial standards and disclosures on its About and Code of Ethics pages while not publicly admitting payments to protest firms in those statements [4] [6] [7] [8].
4. Limitations, alternative explanations, and gaps in the public record
While the investigative pieces present contractor testimony and internal documents as proof, the public record lacks a single explicit, audited invoice or government disclosure showing a direct line-item payment from Bennett personally to Crowds on Demand; reporting relies on journalistic sourcing rather than, for example, a posted contract or bank transfer in the documents publicly released with the stories [1] [2] [3]. That gap means the narrative rests on established investigative standards — multiple corroborating sources and documents — but not on an unambiguous, standalone public financial record cited in the available coverage [1] [2].
5. How to weigh the finding and what it implies about motive and media practice
Taken together, the consistent investigative reporting by the Texas Observer and follow-ups by local outlets present a credible, repeated pattern that Bennett used a publicity firm known for paid protesters to seed pro‑HERO and pro‑publisher messaging that the Dallas Express amplified; reporters argue the motive was political influence tied to local charter fights and reputation management, and critics characterize the arrangement as classic “astroturf” and “pink-slime” media tactics — while the publisher’s public materials emphasize neutrality and contain disclosures about the publisher’s industry ties but do not directly refute the contractor-and-documents-based reporting [1] [4] [3] [8].