Who is Steven Monacelli and is the Dallas Express propaganda
Executive summary
Steven Monacelli is an independent, award‑winning investigative journalist in Dallas who has focused on extremism, disinformation, social movements and dark‑money influence; he has bylines and roles with outlets including the Texas Observer, Dallas Weekly/Dallas Weekly contributors and other local platforms [1] [2] [3]. The Dallas Express—purchased and funded by hotelier Monty Bennett—has been widely characterized in reporting as a conservative or “right‑wing” outlet and was the subject of litigation over whether describing it as “right‑wing propaganda” was libelous; appellate courts have treated that characterization as protected opinion and dismissed aspects of Bennett’s claims [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Who Steven Monacelli is: the résumé and the beats
Monacelli describes himself as an investigative journalist based in Dallas who has worked as a Special Investigative Correspondent for the Texas Observer, contributed reporting to the Dallas Weekly and other local outlets, and publishes a nonprofit literary magazine; his reporting topics include extremist groups, disinformation campaigns, social movements and dark‑money politics [1] [2] [3] [8].
2. His investigative claims and controversies
Monacelli’s reporting has alleged coordinated astroturf activity in Dallas—claiming that a group called Dallas Justice Now was linked to a Republican political firm and that actor‑for‑hire services were used to fabricate activist pages and quotes—and he says those discoveries triggered retaliatory articles in the Dallas Express that accused him of racist harassment and domestic abuse (he denies the allegations) [2] [3] [9].
3. Encounters with police, litigation, and press freedom notes
Monacelli has also been involved in on‑the‑ground journalism that resulted in confrontation with authorities: he reported being struck with projectiles, zip‑tied and arrested while covering a 2020 protest on assignment, and later sued the Dallas Police Department; that civil suit was dismissed and an appeal affirmed the dismissal, according to press‑freedom tracking and court records [10].
4. The Bennett lawsuit and appellate rulings: what the courts said
Monty Bennett sued Monacelli and Dallas Weekly over articles calling the revived Dallas Express a propaganda vehicle; procedural rulings and appeals ultimately favored the defendants on key First Amendment grounds, with courts finding statements about the Express addressed matters of public concern and that terms like “right‑wing propaganda” could be constitutionally protected opinion rather than provable fact [5] [6] [7].
5. Is the Dallas Express “propaganda”? — reporting, definitions, and competing narratives
Multiple local outlets and legal filings describe the modern Dallas Express as having been repurposed from its historical Black‑owned progressive roots into a site that publishes decidedly conservative messaging and has ties to wealthy conservative donors; journalists and commentators have labeled it a “pink slime” or “right‑wing” site and linked its content and stated “core values” to conservative talking points, which supporters of Bennett dispute as unfair characterizations [8] [4] [11] [12]. The appellate court’s treatment of “right‑wing propaganda” as protected opinion underscores that whether the Dallas Express is “propaganda” is both a normative judgment and a legally protected rhetorical characterization, not an uncontested empirical fact [6].
6. Balanced assessment: credibility, context and open questions
The record shows Monacelli is an established local investigative reporter whose work prompted scrutiny of media actors and funders, and it shows the Dallas Express has been the focal point of criticism for operating with a partisan editorial posture and donor backing—claims that survived key legal tests as protected opinion [1] [2] [4] [5] [6]. At the same time, the Dallas Express and Bennett have contested those labels in court and public comment, and some factual disputes—such as the precise operational links between funders, staffing and editorial directives—remain matters of reporting and legal challenge rather than settled public record in the sources reviewed [11] [7].