UK media ignore CNN report exposing online “Rape Academy”
Trigger warning: themes of sexual violence and abuse.
The UK state-corporate press and broadcasters are continuing to ignore an explosive CNN report. The report shows that over 64 million men signed up for an online ‘rape academy.’ In this academy, they learned how to drug and rape wives, girlfriends and other women.
MSM turns the other way
Although the report was published in March 2026, searches confirm that none of the UK ‘mainstream’ media have covered it:
The case of Gisele Pelicot
Singer and activist Annie Lennox pointed out the similarity to the case of Gisèle Pelicot, the French woman whose husband drugged her while a string of men raped her:
View this post on Instagram
The Pelicot case and the sentencing of her rapists received media attention in isolation. However, it appears UK media are uninterested in reporting the widespread phenomenon of millions of men studying how to do what her husband did.
Whyever would the establishment media in country riddled with powerful paedophiles and rapists not be interested in covering the existence of a mass rape ring?
Featured image via CNN
Comments 15
Leave a Reply
The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX
Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.
For guest posting, contact [email protected]
For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]
© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings
“the widespread phenomenon of millions of men studying”
You cannot drop an obnoxiously large number and then fail to elaborate on the key aspects relating to it and expect us to believe it.
Where did you get the number of “millions” from? A guess? A peer reviewed study? A presumption on a male stereotype (you assume because this academy exists every male now is reading it)? Who run the study? Scientific organisation, an NGO, a partisan and potentially bias source? Did the number come from media outlets parroting a number but without verifying the origin or source? How many millions? 2 million? 999 million? All in one country? Several countries? Which countries? Does it include non-English speaking countries? If you can count how many, do you have a list of names? If you don’t have a list of names, how do you know there are that many studying it?
If it’s a viewcount, hate to burst your bubble, but views are not unique visitors (a single visitor can re-view the same resource many times, it’s why YouTube videos for music songs often have more views than subscribers), nor would views have a particular gender, so a more accurate statement would be to say ‘it has been viewed millions of times’, not that millions of men are ‘studying’ it. Statement of facts vs presumption of bias.
The invitation for vagueness leads to hyperbolic media reporting which is the last thing the current media landscape needs right now, and such a serious accusation demands precision in reporting, otherwise this just reads like a ‘I hate all men and they’re all evil’ type article, which is a gender stereotype and spreads hate. Emotional rhetoric is not a valid replacement for factual reporting.
You had an opportunity to do a deeper investigation and further expound on the claims to clarify them, but instead opted to just repeat a vague and unhelpful number with no source attribution. And frankly, CNN being a corporate news outlet has had their fair share of mistakes. Snopes actually criticised CNN’s “62 million men” finding, see: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cnn-reported-on-online-rape-academy-but-62m-men-figure-misrepresents-findings/ar-AA214Dpv
Do better. More due diligence in reporting required.
Just to clarify, as I recognise MSN links often go dead in under a year:
Snopes stated that:
– The 62 million figure represents the viewcount, not how many people supposedly signed up to the website, and
– There were only 1,000 users reported by the study (not 62 million men)
Do better Canary.
The other possibility is that the number is accurate and your criticism of the number is redundant at least. Even without an online course in assaulting, raping women, millions of women and children also men are raped every year and here in the UK the rapes reported to police result in convictions rarely ie the crime is not a priority bit seems for police.
64 million men would be a hell os business.
Do you actually believe this garbage figure has an ounce of credibility?
The words rape academy and course dont even appear in the cnn article. Its a group chat of people swapping tips which as the victim of this type of crime is abhorent. But so is the misreporting of it. The 62 million number comes from a legal porn site with legal porn videos. There is a catagory on that site that involves sleep sex which has about 50k life time views. The telegram group chat has 1000 users. Many of which will be scammers and bots taking advantage of the illegal activity or people who have had to change their account. Its so damaging and dangerous for them to have misreported it and the people saying “it doesnt matter the number” yes it does. 1% of the world signing up for a course to learn how to rape people is vastly different from the perspective of both law enforcment and former victims as 0.00001% of the population at most being in a group chat where 1 or 2 accounts post abhorent videos and the others jerk off to it and they occassionally reference a porn site.
Whoever came up with the 62 million rape academy clearly used an AI to skim read the article or is an idiot or is activly trying to make people feel unsafe in the world.
62 million “attended”, “visited”….semantics.
It’s highly unlikely that a lot of those 62 million ‘curious’ attendees,visitors were women.
I’d be more concerned about the existence of an online rape academy to warp the minds of young men who are being led to believe the Andrew Tate worldview should be the norm.
As an aside do you think the mainstream media would care about semantics if this academy had been set up by a Muslim or in an Islamic country.
The initial information I saw was on Facebook which referenced a source of the data, CNN if I remember right, that the online “Rape Academy” has had 62 million visits rather than 62 million distinct enrolments. These are different metrics. Each visitor can make multiple visits and I assume only some of those visitors will enrol so enrolments are usually lower than visits
The existence of a “Rape Academy” is truly abhorent and has no reason for existence in a civilised world but please make sure the numbers match the correct metric because:
– that’s what journalists do
– it allows silly manosphere people who might support these sort of things the ability to criticise the reporting critical of the “Rape Academy”
I’m not actually sure what the numbers for each metric is anymore and it might be that you are correct. I’m just saying that I hope you are double-checking
Sigh as usual the women hating boys rushed to discredit this report and direct attention away from the primary facts which are innumerable adult males are accessing this site in order to learn how to render their female partners comatose so they can inflict sadistic male sexual violence upon her with male impunity!
That is the real issue not how many thousands of adult boys are supposedly viewing this site! So your women hating responses boys proves you are so anxious to protect men from male accountability because as usual women and girls don’t matter – we are just ‘fodder for the boys to rape!’
When you say things like innumerable you make the problem bigger. First, the website had 62 million hits not that particular forum. My understanding is the website hosts all kinds of forums so 99% of those 62 million reported were not looking for nor did they see any rape advice. That forum itself had 1000 people viewing it. Thats 1000 actionable and most likely tracable people (not just men) that should be found and held accountable. That isn’t innumerable, the number is right there.
Hey number obsessed, picky disbelieving men. « The « sleep » content on the motherless website hosts 20,000 uploaded videos of unconscious women being raped, some of of the videos have been viewed 50,000 times ». This is what AI had as a response to my clear question « how many sleep content videos are there on the Morherless website » Are those numbers high enough for you to be outraged and disgusted or do you still feel like you want to defend something? Maybe it would be a good idea if you watched the cnn documentary before commenting.
Now we are having a completely separate conversation. One is about a group of people asking for tips on how to rape people. The other is about cnc porn (which is consumed in higher numbers by women then men). Both are disgusting but one is an actionable crime of intent and the other is a depraved “kink”.
I think the article is about the lack of reporting about an unfortunately widespread and important issue. How the thread then became about a numbers issue is disappointing considering the extent of the crime. Who cares if it’s 60,000,000 or 60. It’s horrific and far more widespread than most people can imagine so when people start getting het up about the numbers it’s extremely worrying that they aren’t getting as het up about the actual crime.
Numbers are facts. Should journalists ensure they are publishing facts or not?
The question is should journalists publish facts or not? Granted, journalists do make mistakes at which point the journalist in question should publish an error correction.
Hey there all number obsessed, picky and disbelieving men. « The « sleep » content on the motherless website hosts 20,000 uploaded videos of unconscious women being raped, some of of the videos have been viewed 50,000 times ». This is what AI had as a response to my clear question « how many sleep content videos are there on the Morherless website » Are those numbers high enough for you to be outraged and disgusted or do you still feel like you want to defend something? Maybe it would be a good idea if you watched the cnn documentary before commenting.