Matt Tiabbi article re American Press Destroying itself

[MingeofDeath]

Very good article from Matt Tiabbi about US press than can easily be applied to the UK . Have put on here because the points he raises are very pertinent to trans issues
taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself

Mods remove to somewhere else if not appropriate for here

Great article. It requires courage for any journalist to write an analytical, critical piece like this. Matt T is correct. He will be vilified for this, I imagine.

The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily

Thank you for posting that.

Great piece. This stuck out to me in particular:

His replacement, Kathleen Kingsbury, issued a staff directive essentially telling employees they now had a veto over anything that made them uncomfortable: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”

Feelings matter more than facts. It's fucking insane.

I'd not heard of him so thought I'd check:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi

That is an interesting background. Lots of good and bad including him being the person who very memorably described Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money".

I saw that article too. It'll be very interesting to see what, if any, push back Taibbi gets.

Up till now he has been very much the kind of leftie matcho reporter woke bros orgasm over, so we'll see if he is up for cancellation and denounciation or its quietly ignored, in the hope he never pipes up again.
Though something tells me Matt might be finding it hard to keep his gob shut inthe face of authoritarianism.

The NYT has made itself look absurd. I wonder if there will come a point where its journalists will reflect on their response to this as a nadir? Sacking the editor? And misrepresenting Cotton's actual words?

Cotton did not call for “military force against protesters in American cities.” He spoke of a “show of force,” to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling out of control. It’s an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American history

Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.

Surely good journalism should always make you pause, and sometimes make you feel profoundly uncomfortable. Unless you are just publishing Kitten calendars...

Thanks for this. This article encapsulates so much of what I feel about the current state of the media and public discourse more widely. I've already sent it on to a few people as a good jumping off point for discussions.

I'd be very careful of anyone who is supporting Tom Cotton's op-ed piece in the Times which did indeed advocate for military fore against protestors, specifically citing instances where the military had been brought in and citing the the INsurrection Act.

"Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”"

The NYT has left Cotton's op ed up but added an introduction to explain why there were such concerns with it. Several of his statements of fact (see above) were simply untrue and breached the Time's editorial policy of fact checking.

This was following untruths including that police officers bore the brunt of the looting and that antifa were spearheading the protests/looting.

I have no idea why this is in Feminism because I doubt very much if this writer - or Tom Cotton - has any idea of supporting any feminist principles. Quite the contrary - he is vehemently anti-choice and believes life begins at conception and has introducted legislation to limit women's access to abortion.

Nonetheless I defend absolutely his right to free speech. Just not the right to promulgate falsehoods as fact in a major newspaper.

The reason why Women's Rights (FWR) is interested in free speech is that in recent times saying that a man claiming a feminine identity is still a man has been classified as "hate speech". This has been used to harm women.

I'm all for free speech.

I'm not for Tom Cotton being allowed to say false things in an op-ed than any other op-ed writed would have been fact-checked for any other contributor. The Opinion journalist were outraged not because they heard a conservative voice - but because that conservative voice said unproven/untrue things that they would have been dinged for and told to go back and re-writer.

Tom Cotton is neither a friend of women nor feminism nor free speech. The journalist who wrote this piece has done a great job of conflating two entirely seperate concepts into a "aren't the liberals and feminists stupid - well they better wake up and get with us conservatives that want all sorts of things you shouldn't trouble your head about " message that I find abhorent.

More than any other op-ed writer

The NYT opinion journalists -- and re-write.

loads of typos - sorry!

Newspapers adhere to a code about facts etc. You can give your opinion in an op-ed but you cannot misrepresent facts. that is why they fact-check. There have been tons of conservative op-eds in NYT over the years. People complained about this one because it contained untrue statements - lies.

I think this article is extremely interesting in its critique of a ‘woke’ totalitarian populism.

I am sure the writer will have many views that I will never agree with, and I don’t know enough about the individual incidents and editorials he is discussing. But we are seeing critical thinking being castigated for going against the mantras du jour, and that is very dangerous.

Like Nauticant, I am looking at this issue through the lense of women’s liberation, and recognise the treatment of J.K. Rowling and many lesser known women in this article. And I am so very tired of purity spirals, I din’t think they lead anywhere good.

I'm all for free speech

No. You cleary are not. Free speech does not mean people who precisely reflect your opinions. Free speech applies to those who do not. An op ed piece is by definition the opinion of its author. The view that looting should have been prevented is one shared by millions of Americans. The NYT not only pulled the piece but the editor, James Bennet was forced to resign. Do you think this makes the NYT look like an admirable newspaper?Critics have included some of its own columnists, see below. By the way? It's laughable to suggest Taibbi is a Conservative.

In a Friday op-ed titled, "What the Times Got Wrong," Stephens argued that a free press should be allowed to air views expressed by half the country." Last week's decision by this newspaper to disavow an Op-Ed by Senator Tom Cotton is a gift to the enemies of a free press — free in the sense of one that doesn't quiver and cave in the face of an outrage mob," Stephens wrote. "What kind of paper will The Times be if half the nation doesn't get to be even an occasional part of that conversation?"

Bari Weiss, a NYT columnist, has described the internal conflict at the NYT as between the 'old guard,' who believe in 'libertarianism' and the new guard, who believe in 'safetyism.' The NYT slogan 'All the news fit to print' is interpreted differently. The old guard emphasize all while their replacements focus on fit. It is true Cotton's op ed remains, but the editor who printed it is gone. And the journalistic culture of the old guard? Tick. Tock.

You don't understand that free speech does not mean that you can tell lies in a newspaper without being checked.

The Tom Cotton op-ed piece violated the NYT's own guidelines and rules on fact checking. Yes even opinion pieces are fact checked.

The Tom Cotton op-ed piece violated the NYT's own guidelines and rules on fact checking. Yes even opinion pieces are fact checked.

Come off it. When was the last time the NYT fired an editor simply for factual inaccuracies in a single op-ed piece?

The fall out from the article happened because the NYT staffers objected to the opinion expressed therein, not because of some high-minded devotion to factual accuracy. If a factually inaccurate op-ed in support of the protests had appeared none of them would have said a word.

Just reading Orwell's 'As I please' essays and he makes the same point that Matt Tiabbi makes about the Left not truthfully reporting or facing up to problems on their side (in other words presenting a distorted view and resorting to propaganda), intended to further their cause (Hillary Clinton) but ultimately damaging it, and their own credibility.

"Everyone who has ever had anything to do with publicity or propaganda can think of occasions when he was urged to tell lies about some vitally important matter, because to tell the truth would give ammunition to the enemy. During the Spanish Civil War, for instance, the dissensions on the Government side were never properly thrashed out in the left-wing press, although they involved fundamental points of principle. To discuss the struggle between the Communists and the Anarchists, you were told, would simply give theDaily Mailthe chance to say that the Reds were all murdering one another. The only result was that the left-wing cause as a whole was weakened. TheDaily Mailmay have missed a few horror stories because people held their tongues, but some all-important lessons were not learned, and we are suffering from the fact to this day." - 9 June, 1944.