But that's the problem: that's not how he's covering it at all. That is a creation of people out to belittle this reporting by turning into a partisan issue that it's not, and you've seemingly bought into it. He's just done well over a year of reporting covering one of the largest and most insidious government-sponsored censorship campai…
But that's the problem: that's not how he's covering it at all. That is a creation of people out to belittle this reporting by turning into a partisan issue that it's not, and you've seemingly bought into it. He's just done well over a year of reporting covering one of the largest and most insidious government-sponsored censorship campaigns in US history, that attacked both left and right wing sources, and has uncovered crazy amounts of major civil liberties violations. And yes, the Democratic Party looks real bad in this (they should), but it's really a collaboration of the Bush/Cheney/Frum/Kristol neocons and the Clinton/Obama/Biden neoliberals, which isn't the "left" at all.
I found this piece mostly dishonest on its face in that it falsely tars major reporting on civil liberties which is why I said you're no "advocate for free speech." If you cared about it, you'd be honest about it. If your argument is that he should add his voice to the chorus of voices fear-mongering (and mischaracterizing!) Ron DeSantis's "Don't Say Gay" bill (which is dumb and troubling, but which also wasn't covered honestly), rather than expose a major, concerted censorship campaign by the major "five eyes" world governments than you're not serious about civil liberties. Like Taibbi often says: at least these "new right" weirdos are trying to make laws — many of which are unconstitutional on their face — but at least they're making laws and writing bills — that can be repealed or overturned — and not doing this shit in secret back rooms without votes, legislation, or any oversight. It's major and it effects everyone.
He's also done Sabby Sabs and Due Dissidence (via Jimmy Dore's show) in the last week, just published an interview with Chris Hedges, did a review/interview with leftie Les Leopold, several articles about leftie CJ Hopkins' ongoing censorship case in Germany over the last several months, did a story about AI censorship of liberal-leaning Naked Capitalism, and a retelling of how anti-democratic forces used incredibly questionable means to sabotage Ralph Nader's presidential campaign. This is just in the last few months. The idea that he's captured by a right-wing audience, or not covering left-leaning stories, is crazy. Yes, he does cover a lot of the authoritarian idiocy that the "new-look Dems" are making us suffer through, but he should.
Bernie surrogate "journalists" are mad that he's not on that beat, and you can set your watches to them (I'm sure they're getting their messaging in order in a Slack channel every day), many people on the old and new left are frustrated that Matt hasn't dropped everything to cover Israel/Gaza (which has become one of the most bizarre and often distasteful — and lie-filled — armchair quarterbacking of a war I've ever seen, from all sides), and the Democratic Party and their media drones — and especially the neoconservatives who have considerable power with the Democratic Party — really hate him for reporting something that they'd call "worse than Watergate" if the shoe was on the other foot.
But that's the problem: that's not how he's covering it at all. That is a creation of people out to belittle this reporting by turning into a partisan issue that it's not, and you've seemingly bought into it. He's just done well over a year of reporting covering one of the largest and most insidious government-sponsored censorship campaigns in US history, that attacked both left and right wing sources, and has uncovered crazy amounts of major civil liberties violations. And yes, the Democratic Party looks real bad in this (they should), but it's really a collaboration of the Bush/Cheney/Frum/Kristol neocons and the Clinton/Obama/Biden neoliberals, which isn't the "left" at all.
I found this piece mostly dishonest on its face in that it falsely tars major reporting on civil liberties which is why I said you're no "advocate for free speech." If you cared about it, you'd be honest about it. If your argument is that he should add his voice to the chorus of voices fear-mongering (and mischaracterizing!) Ron DeSantis's "Don't Say Gay" bill (which is dumb and troubling, but which also wasn't covered honestly), rather than expose a major, concerted censorship campaign by the major "five eyes" world governments than you're not serious about civil liberties. Like Taibbi often says: at least these "new right" weirdos are trying to make laws — many of which are unconstitutional on their face — but at least they're making laws and writing bills — that can be repealed or overturned — and not doing this shit in secret back rooms without votes, legislation, or any oversight. It's major and it effects everyone.
He's also done Sabby Sabs and Due Dissidence (via Jimmy Dore's show) in the last week, just published an interview with Chris Hedges, did a review/interview with leftie Les Leopold, several articles about leftie CJ Hopkins' ongoing censorship case in Germany over the last several months, did a story about AI censorship of liberal-leaning Naked Capitalism, and a retelling of how anti-democratic forces used incredibly questionable means to sabotage Ralph Nader's presidential campaign. This is just in the last few months. The idea that he's captured by a right-wing audience, or not covering left-leaning stories, is crazy. Yes, he does cover a lot of the authoritarian idiocy that the "new-look Dems" are making us suffer through, but he should.
Bernie surrogate "journalists" are mad that he's not on that beat, and you can set your watches to them (I'm sure they're getting their messaging in order in a Slack channel every day), many people on the old and new left are frustrated that Matt hasn't dropped everything to cover Israel/Gaza (which has become one of the most bizarre and often distasteful — and lie-filled — armchair quarterbacking of a war I've ever seen, from all sides), and the Democratic Party and their media drones — and especially the neoconservatives who have considerable power with the Democratic Party — really hate him for reporting something that they'd call "worse than Watergate" if the shoe was on the other foot.