Edward,
Edward,
The point that you have missed is that when the government, whether through regulatory threats, FBI pressure or FTC intervention, pressures media organizations to suppress speech or information that the government deems inimical to some governmental interest, then the First Amendment is implicated. What Taibbi uncovered through his research into the Twitter files was increasing successful governmental pressure on the media platform to suppress speech and dissemination of information by demonetization, shadow banning, de-amplification or outright cancellation. I would be surprised if you were to take a contrary position.
All that said, the information previously hidden from the public concerning governmental intervention and pressure on the media platforms during the run-up to an election is certainly newsworthy and journalistic I am not sure that you can redefine the definition of journalism as excluding information that might be favorable to Donald Trump, Elon Musk or any other personal bête noir beef that you might have.
If you want, lets carry on the rest of the discussion online, if you wish to pursue, so as not to unduly bore the good people of our Salon.
All the best,
Bob
From: Edward Hughes <edwhughes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:42 PM
To: rrandolph2@csradr.com
Cc: Chas Freeman <salon@listserve.com>
Subject: Re: [Salon] Journalism is Dead (cont.)
Thank you Bob for a well argued, if somewhat lacking in thoughtful, analysis of the issues raised by Seth Abramson in his critique of Matt Taibbi's "Twitter Files". I will let Abramson's standing to take on Taibbi speak for itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Abramson). As for Taibbi, I was a big fan of his Hunter Thompson-style gonzo journalism when he wrote for the Rolling Stone. He has come a long way off that gig. Two points regarding the "Twitter Files":
1) The "Twitter Files" are not journalism. Twitter's owner, one of the wealthiest individuals on earth, granted Taibbi access to the internal communications between Twitter executives in which they debated whether certain twitter entries complied with Twitter's publication standards. As part of those internal deliberations they considered inputs from various groups including government agencies during the Trump and, later, the Biden administrations. Obviously Twitter's owner has an agenda for granting Taibbi access to the files but we need not concern ourselves with that. It is his right to do so. But Taibbi cannot claim that in transcribing those files he is engaging in journalism, just like publishing Twitter's press releases or its owner's Tweets is not journalism.
2) The "Twitter Files" do not involve free speech issues. Twitter, a private entity, can decide to publish or not to publish without violating free speech protections of the 1st Amendment. As Bruce Fein noted in one of his enlightened comments:
"Republican conservative wimps who whine like little children over censorship of their views by social media need to grow up and learn the First Amendment. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking. They admire Donald Trump, a man notorious for refusing to associate with any detractor of his views, which he has a First Amendment right to do." https://brucefein.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-free-speech
Futhermore, as regards the "Hunter Biden Laptop" story, the underlying subject of Taibbi's transcription of the "Twitter Files", the New York Post, the 4th largest paper in circulation, Fox News, the most watched cable news network, and the Wall Street Journal gave the "Hunter Biden Laptop" story extensive and exhausting coverage so presumably to the extent there was a public interest issue it was given a full airing in the media.
Finally, I agree that there is a war on free speech and that it actually violates the first amendment. It is being waged by the many state governments enacting laws banning books, policing thought and prohibiting language. I too stand with you protecting the First Amendment and Free Speech.
Edward
edwhughes@gmail.com
+1 (617) 306 2577
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 1:41 PM <rrandolph2@csradr.com> wrote:
Edward,
It would have been helpful if you could have shared a couple of your own opinions, based on Matt Taibbi’s alleged misdemeanors, instead of turning to Seth Abramson to run down and run over a journalist who has been the author of at least three journalistic coups in the last three months: (1) The massive interference by governmental three letter agencies in the last election to suppress information that could cast the Biden campaign in an unfavorable light as revealed in the Twitter Files which showed the FBI taking the lead in organizing a campaign, led by the interestingly named, Elvis Chan, head of the FBI’s SF Office, to suppress the NY Post’s forthcoming NY Post scoop as Russian disinformation; the outing of Hamilton68’s fraudulent characterization of posts by American conservatives and Trump supporters as Russian originated disinformation which was even recognized by the Twitter Censors as the product of Americans; and the most recent revelations concerning the emergence of a government funded censorship industrial complex.
Seth Abramson, as you know, is probably one of the last Putin-Trump collusion conspiracy theorists still extant in America. https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Collusion-Trump-Betrayed-America/dp/1982116080. His screed is a procession of ill-disguised ad hominems parading as fact. Abramson also lambastes Taibbi for trying to earn a living on “Substack”, when Abramson is a Substack contributor himself. But, there may be professional jealousy in play, as Taibbi has 6X the paid subscription base on Substack as Abramson.
Most alarming for journalism and free speech is Abramson’s smearing of Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, two of the few remaining journalists in America worthy of bearing that name, as Russian Propagandists and his endorsement of the antics of Democrats on the House Committee on Weaponization of Federal Government where Levi Strauss heir, Rep. Daniel Sachs Goldman, injected the Russia-gate hoax into the proceedings by producing copies of Mueller’s indictment of Russian Internet Research Agency officials, asking Taibbi if he disagreed with any of the allegations in the indictment and then wouldn’t let Taibbi explain to his Stanford Law educated inquisitor that there is a difference between unproved allegations in an indictment and the factual findings of fact after trial; nor was Taibbi allowed to explain that when one of the indictees actually appeared to contest the allegations, the government dropped the case.
What I am seeing Edward is the emergence of a new “scoundrel time” waged against a backdrop of a war on free speech and the First Amendment. I stand with those who continue to support free speech and the First Amendment.
Bob
From: Salon <salon-bounces@listserve.com> On Behalf Of Edward Hughes via Salon
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 8:11 PM
To: Chas Freeman <salon@listserve.com>
Subject: [Salon] Journalism is Dead (cont.)
Matt Taibbi, who use to be something of a reporter, or at least a culture commentator of note, has given up the ghost. Seth Abramson has the rundown.
Bookmark
Save as PDF
My Authors
I’m seeing a lot of tweets today that imply what Matt Taibbi has been doing with Elon Musk is “journalism” and therefore discussion of it should track with discussions of journalism (e.g., as to revealing sources). In fact, Musk is a known unreliable source who gave Taibbi...
...partial access to internal Twitter data that would further the narrative Musk wanted in the public view for personal and financial reasons. Taibbi, for the sake of subscriptions to his Substack, then went on to present only information that would please his Substack readers...
...and all of this has been proven. Musk withheld internal data from Taibbi that had previously been reported on by The Guardian and showed a systemic *far-right* bias at Twitter.
And Taibbi was *repeatedly* caught framing his narratives to please Musk and his Substack audience.The project that Taibbi embarked upon was not a journalistic project; it was corporate stenography. House Democrats were absolutely correct in implicitly *rejecting* the notion that source protection was an issue here and in focusing on Taibbi’s *financial motives*. None of us...
...is obligated to treat as journalism that which in its very parameters rejects journalism. To be clear, a journalist can move between journalistic and non-journalistic projects; many is the journalist who’s written fiction or poetry or memoir instead of any genre of journalism.
Maybe one day Matt Taibbi will *return* to journalism. He will do what journalists do: reject unreliable sources like Elon Musk; reject corporate initiatives disguised as journalism; insist on full access to a data-set rather than partial access; stop putting fraudulent frames...
...around data for the sake of pleasing an audience; stop ignoring other journalists and subject matter experts when they issue corrections on his reporting; stop appearing on networks that are political propaganda organs rather than legitimate news organizations. Last night...
...Taibbi plugged his PR work for Elon Musk and Twitter on a farcical propaganda program run by failed politician, washed-out Secret Service agent and scary aggro disinformation barker Dan Bongino. His pearl-clutching over not being treated as a journalist is genuinely pathetic.
Matt Taibbi has been a journalist long enough to know the difference between getting an exclusive and being a corporate tool.
And he’s been a journalist long enough to know that his “reporting” on Russia was repeatedly filled with Kremlin propaganda and false statements of fact.Taibbi had a choice when Trump came to power: continue being a journalist or (a) take a run at more money than he had ever seen in his life while (b) shilling for a country he lived in for many years, engaged in a lot of misconduct in, and clearly feels a connection to (Russia).
He chose the latter, and now he can’t live with his decision, so everyone else must be smeared: critics of Twitter; House Democrats; journalists who lost respect for him; experts on the Trump-Russia scandal who’ve repeatedly called out his lies; onetime admirers who turned away.
As with every invented scandal on the right—which is more or less all that social media has time to deal with on a daily basis—the outrage from the Taibbi camp is just a massively disingenuous waste of time based on false pretenses, frames and presumptions. But it’ll still trend.
My question is why we treat any of this as surprising rather than an ancient tale: billionaires come calling on people of principle waving around untold sums of wealth directly or indirectly and some folks sell out and some don’t. Taibbi and Greenwald sold out, period, full stop.