I appreciate you giving air to this idea even if it won’t be popular with a lot of the man’s readership. Fidelity to one’s principles is extremely important for an intellectual and equally difficult to maintain in the face of a capricious public seemingly determined to misunderstand the complexities of the world. Thus abiding by one’s principles tends to make people very angry, and writers have got to eat.
I do take issues how imprecisely the terms left and right are used in this discussion, however, and especially how much diversity of thought and how many different kinds of people are papered over with such simple binaries. This is one of the core issues with the left and right dichotomy in general. Once you stop using these terms in specific and context-forward ways, they become memes instead of terms. Each person plugs their own meaning and experience into them. This is one reason socialists and anarchists tend to speak materially annd about power relations instead of making reference to the false (frankly utterly meaning less in common parlance) right-left dichotomy. If you just mean democrats and republicans, say that.
I like your stuff a lot. Very much appreciate your perspectives. I'm not seeing this one. I read Taibbi's Substack Note explanation, and, for whatever subjective reasons that inform my viewpoint and frame, it rings true. I suppose this is the fascinating thing about human beings. We're all so different, can have very different impressions of things, and somehow, as different as those perspectives can be, both can be correct. I suspect something of that kind is in operation here.
I'm not seeing the "audience capture" phenomenon here--that Taibbi is writing to capitalize on a lucrative opportunity. Selling out/grift. My impression is more that the guy is genuinely terrified and disturbed by the crazy amount of power that "the Left" (hate these terms) is wielding right now. Cultural power up the wazoo, and incredible imposition of norms through every sector you can think of, but especially the professions.
For what it's worth, I've always been a "center Left" guy. NYTimes reader. The Atlantic. WaPo. Voted Dem my whole life. Educated technocrat type. All of that has been destabilized. It's this group of "former normies" that I suspect Taibbi appeals to.
Continuing thanks for your work and your perspective!
"The aforementioned FIRE, which expanded in 2022 from a university-speech focused group to a broader free speech organization after the ACLU went AWOL on civil liberties, is perhaps the model example of how to advocate for free expression. Their support for the First Amendment is as robust and impeccable as it is possible to be, and they do so without pandering to right-wing audiences. FIRE covers incidents of left-wing censoriousness as well as those on the right."
Appreciate this shoutout and also want to draw attention to their work demonstrating that the left has *generally* been responsible for a greater share of free speech censorship in the past couple years. I'm sure that October 7th and the response will change these metrics on future reports, but that doesn't make Taibbi wrong in where he currently focuses his critiques.
I co-sign what John J’onnz says (which was lengthy, but not *that* long. Try to listen to Wesley Yang sometime). For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of soul-searching on the, I guess I’ll call it the Sane Left, about whether they’ve been captured by the right-leaning or just flat out MAGA people in their audience. As an aside, I think it’s clear from his writing that Richard Hanina is a straight-up fascist, and he doesn’t seem to get nearly as much flak as, say, Matt Taibbi, but that might be just my own perspective.
Nothing is wrong with reporters having their “beat”, even if it covers on side of the aisle more than another. You worry that Taibbi going after Democrats right-codes free speech? Point to FIRE. As long as Matt is scrupulous in his reporting, he’s doing the nation the same service that used to be commonplace: Factual reporting. You want to leave this beat to the Chris Rufos of the world? *That* would cause problems. (Aaron Sibarum seems OK, but he doesn’t have the resources or experience of Taibbi, and yeah, The Examiner is more right-wing than Taibbi, which shows that Taibbi has *not* done a “heel turn”)
Taibbi also offers perspectives that are salient that you don’t get elsewhere. His minor piece this week about Katherine Maher made a point that no one else did in their rush to defend her: Yes, she wasn’t a reporter when she made those ridiculous tweets, but she’s *never* been a reporter, and never been involved in reporting in any way, shape or form.
I see where you’re coming from. Free speech issues are free speech issues…no matter the “side” of the argument. I gotta say though…I get Matt’s reasoning as well. I hear or read about all the “right wing” censorship efforts from all the other platforms - TV news, social, even just word of mouth…even just Howard Stern! I knew about all the examples you gave - the Anne Frank graphic novel, the Pride parades in Florida, etc. simply by existing in this world. It’s right there in my google feed…unbeckoned. Since I’ve lived, censorship has been the tool of only the right…and mostly the “religious right”.
At least that’s what I thought…
I would be completely ignorant of the left’s participation in censorship of dissent and actual truth if it weren’t for Matt.
I think Matt’s view (forgive the assumption) is that all of those who are in power seek to stifle freedom of speech and other rights if it goes against the “party’s” agenda. I think he’s just in the “Yeah, they’re all tyrants.” camp.
First time reader here - thank you for writing this. Taibbi has been totally audience captured. He completely fails to acknowledge where the right-wing/conservative hold institutional power (Supreme Court, trifecta states, etc.) It’s also pathetic how quickly he gets angry when someone constructively criticizes his work.
I think it's you who are no advocate for free speech, truth, or anything else for that matter.
I'm still a leftie (who yes, also considers civil liberties of utmost importance), and I read almost everything Taibbi publishes, and I don't see a rightward swing at all. He does focus in on the new neoconservative-friendly Democratic Party quite a bit, but it's well deserved, as they've been terrible on civil liberties, truth, justice and basic fairness. Most of his reporting is partisan-neutral, and is focused on principles rather than party. And to be nonplussed about partisanship in this day and age is to be tarred as an arch-partisan.
I will grant that Taibbi has done a fair amount of media hits at Fox and their ilk, but at this point I don't blame him. He's done some incredibly important reporting that has been ignored by DNC-activist-friendly media, and the few hits he's had have been unfair "gotcha"-styled attacks. He should be able to get to talk about these stories somewhere. And his appearances in the House with incredibly dishonest and distasteful Dem ghouls should leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. (These people are no longer left-wing, liberal or even democratic. They're dangerous idiots playing an evil team sport.) There's certainly more right-leaning people in Matt's comment section, but I'd still say it's more lefties sick of partisanship like myself, anti-establishment types, and yes, plenty of over-opinionated types attracted to the un-moderated comment section, which is fine. (He's done plenty of media hits with younger dissident lefties like Sabrina Salvati and Due Dissidence and older, anti-estalishment lefties like Greenwald, Jimmy Dore and Chris Hedges too. I'm sure he'd do CNN or MSNBC if they'd ask him, and be honest with him.)
I find the attacks by Bernie surrogates, many of whom were Taibbi's friends at one point, on Taibbi to be often dishonest and again, based on team sports. From Briahna Joy Gray's wild, insipid lying to Taibbi's face, or Sirota's people repeating easily debunkable smears about the Twitter Files in an interview with Taibbi, or Russ Sorkin complaining (albeit nicely) that Taibbi is not covering the same stories the rest of Brooklyn is, to be gross too. They're all ultimately Democratic Party operatives, angry that Taibbi's Twitter reporting makes the Dems look incredibly bad. His Wall Street reporting did that too, but honesty is no longer allowed.
I was actually a big Zaid Jilani fan, and really appreciated his work over the last few years with The Backchannel, Inquire, etc. He was another leftie sick of what's happened to the Democratic Party and the media. He was at Shellenberger's Public briefly, doing — surprise, surprise — reporting exclusively on stories like how the Dems constant "save democracy" language was a bigger threat to democracy, and suddenly seemed unemployed/unattached. His attacks on Taibbi were not only unfair, and seem based almost entirely on professional jealousy, maybe looking to drive engagement, and they were (willfully) ignorant about the work that Taibbi has actually been writing. Like Michelle Goldberg in that embarrassing Munk debate, he was attacking the delusional version of Taibbi that people with an interest in creating a "Matt Taibbi Right Wing Monster" have created for partisan reasons, not the real thing. (When Zaid was a regular on Hill Rising, he seemed more than a little dark and unhealthy. I honestly hope he's doing okay.)
My biggest complaint with this whole thing is attacking "America This Week" as unlistenable. It's actually the only podcast I never miss. It's warm and human and funny with a study on how journalism and politics have failed from two guys who've worked almost everywhere and have earned the right to this, and they discuss literature week. You should try actually listening. (If you're still in a "Democrats good/Republicans bad" bubble, you may cower from it, but maybe it's time to pop that bubble.)
Taibbi's cult of personality is so bizarre to me. And all because he wrote a colorful two-word phrase about a bank years ago.
>"Taibbi’s writing produces the same barbed prose, and his reporting has the same attention to detail and accuracy..."
Detailed and accurate, seriously??? Are you kidding me? Have you not seen the Mehdi Hasan interview where he utterly demolishes Taibbi's sloppy journalism and misrepresentation of basic facts? In case you missed it, here it is: https://youtu.be/a597e6Wv_xg?si=Y8Wk6o9s1WEZlIgX
Taibbi isn't a reporter--he's a grifter with an agenda, which should have been abundantly clear to everyone after the so-called "Twitter Files" fiasco. He's an incompetent journalist, a corrupt hack and a fraud.
"If only Taibbi and his many right-pandering fellow travelers were more Menckenian in their approach."
Why do people think Mencken was some sort of Leftist? In reality, Mencken's politics were elitist and Right-leaning; he loathed Roosevelt and fought against the New Deal. I think Taibbi knows exactly what he's doing when he talks about taking a page from Mencken, even while pretending to be some sort of "populist." It's high-level trolling, consistent with naming his rag "The Racket" and his (former) podcast "Useful Idiots." He's laughing all the way to the bank at our expense (I'd save my money if I were you--you don't need to help fund his kids' private school education in Manhattan).
Personally, I've come to view the whole "free-speech" issue as nothing more than a grift at this point. An increasingly militant, powerful and growing fascist movement in America is experiencing pushback for their views (from people who also have "free speech") and crying foul at every turn. No one has the right to force anyone else to listen to or accept their views. That has nothing to do with "free speech," and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise. Freeze Peach hysteria is just a way to push far-Right taking points while appearing "high-minded" and "centrist" (not accusing you of this; but I think maybe you've been conned like a lot of other people). Don't worry, we're in no danger of turning into Russia--which is ironic, given how many of these so-called "free speech" advocates are big fans of that country.
I appreciate you giving air to this idea even if it won’t be popular with a lot of the man’s readership. Fidelity to one’s principles is extremely important for an intellectual and equally difficult to maintain in the face of a capricious public seemingly determined to misunderstand the complexities of the world. Thus abiding by one’s principles tends to make people very angry, and writers have got to eat.
I do take issues how imprecisely the terms left and right are used in this discussion, however, and especially how much diversity of thought and how many different kinds of people are papered over with such simple binaries. This is one of the core issues with the left and right dichotomy in general. Once you stop using these terms in specific and context-forward ways, they become memes instead of terms. Each person plugs their own meaning and experience into them. This is one reason socialists and anarchists tend to speak materially annd about power relations instead of making reference to the false (frankly utterly meaning less in common parlance) right-left dichotomy. If you just mean democrats and republicans, say that.
I like your stuff a lot. Very much appreciate your perspectives. I'm not seeing this one. I read Taibbi's Substack Note explanation, and, for whatever subjective reasons that inform my viewpoint and frame, it rings true. I suppose this is the fascinating thing about human beings. We're all so different, can have very different impressions of things, and somehow, as different as those perspectives can be, both can be correct. I suspect something of that kind is in operation here.
I'm not seeing the "audience capture" phenomenon here--that Taibbi is writing to capitalize on a lucrative opportunity. Selling out/grift. My impression is more that the guy is genuinely terrified and disturbed by the crazy amount of power that "the Left" (hate these terms) is wielding right now. Cultural power up the wazoo, and incredible imposition of norms through every sector you can think of, but especially the professions.
For what it's worth, I've always been a "center Left" guy. NYTimes reader. The Atlantic. WaPo. Voted Dem my whole life. Educated technocrat type. All of that has been destabilized. It's this group of "former normies" that I suspect Taibbi appeals to.
Continuing thanks for your work and your perspective!
"The aforementioned FIRE, which expanded in 2022 from a university-speech focused group to a broader free speech organization after the ACLU went AWOL on civil liberties, is perhaps the model example of how to advocate for free expression. Their support for the First Amendment is as robust and impeccable as it is possible to be, and they do so without pandering to right-wing audiences. FIRE covers incidents of left-wing censoriousness as well as those on the right."
Appreciate this shoutout and also want to draw attention to their work demonstrating that the left has *generally* been responsible for a greater share of free speech censorship in the past couple years. I'm sure that October 7th and the response will change these metrics on future reports, but that doesn't make Taibbi wrong in where he currently focuses his critiques.
Taibbi said that part of why he focuses on the left is that everyone else is already adequately covering the misdeeds of the right; do you disagree?
I co-sign what John J’onnz says (which was lengthy, but not *that* long. Try to listen to Wesley Yang sometime). For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of soul-searching on the, I guess I’ll call it the Sane Left, about whether they’ve been captured by the right-leaning or just flat out MAGA people in their audience. As an aside, I think it’s clear from his writing that Richard Hanina is a straight-up fascist, and he doesn’t seem to get nearly as much flak as, say, Matt Taibbi, but that might be just my own perspective.
Nothing is wrong with reporters having their “beat”, even if it covers on side of the aisle more than another. You worry that Taibbi going after Democrats right-codes free speech? Point to FIRE. As long as Matt is scrupulous in his reporting, he’s doing the nation the same service that used to be commonplace: Factual reporting. You want to leave this beat to the Chris Rufos of the world? *That* would cause problems. (Aaron Sibarum seems OK, but he doesn’t have the resources or experience of Taibbi, and yeah, The Examiner is more right-wing than Taibbi, which shows that Taibbi has *not* done a “heel turn”)
Taibbi also offers perspectives that are salient that you don’t get elsewhere. His minor piece this week about Katherine Maher made a point that no one else did in their rush to defend her: Yes, she wasn’t a reporter when she made those ridiculous tweets, but she’s *never* been a reporter, and never been involved in reporting in any way, shape or form.
I see where you’re coming from. Free speech issues are free speech issues…no matter the “side” of the argument. I gotta say though…I get Matt’s reasoning as well. I hear or read about all the “right wing” censorship efforts from all the other platforms - TV news, social, even just word of mouth…even just Howard Stern! I knew about all the examples you gave - the Anne Frank graphic novel, the Pride parades in Florida, etc. simply by existing in this world. It’s right there in my google feed…unbeckoned. Since I’ve lived, censorship has been the tool of only the right…and mostly the “religious right”.
At least that’s what I thought…
I would be completely ignorant of the left’s participation in censorship of dissent and actual truth if it weren’t for Matt.
I think Matt’s view (forgive the assumption) is that all of those who are in power seek to stifle freedom of speech and other rights if it goes against the “party’s” agenda. I think he’s just in the “Yeah, they’re all tyrants.” camp.
First time reader here - thank you for writing this. Taibbi has been totally audience captured. He completely fails to acknowledge where the right-wing/conservative hold institutional power (Supreme Court, trifecta states, etc.) It’s also pathetic how quickly he gets angry when someone constructively criticizes his work.
I think it's you who are no advocate for free speech, truth, or anything else for that matter.
I'm still a leftie (who yes, also considers civil liberties of utmost importance), and I read almost everything Taibbi publishes, and I don't see a rightward swing at all. He does focus in on the new neoconservative-friendly Democratic Party quite a bit, but it's well deserved, as they've been terrible on civil liberties, truth, justice and basic fairness. Most of his reporting is partisan-neutral, and is focused on principles rather than party. And to be nonplussed about partisanship in this day and age is to be tarred as an arch-partisan.
I will grant that Taibbi has done a fair amount of media hits at Fox and their ilk, but at this point I don't blame him. He's done some incredibly important reporting that has been ignored by DNC-activist-friendly media, and the few hits he's had have been unfair "gotcha"-styled attacks. He should be able to get to talk about these stories somewhere. And his appearances in the House with incredibly dishonest and distasteful Dem ghouls should leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. (These people are no longer left-wing, liberal or even democratic. They're dangerous idiots playing an evil team sport.) There's certainly more right-leaning people in Matt's comment section, but I'd still say it's more lefties sick of partisanship like myself, anti-establishment types, and yes, plenty of over-opinionated types attracted to the un-moderated comment section, which is fine. (He's done plenty of media hits with younger dissident lefties like Sabrina Salvati and Due Dissidence and older, anti-estalishment lefties like Greenwald, Jimmy Dore and Chris Hedges too. I'm sure he'd do CNN or MSNBC if they'd ask him, and be honest with him.)
I find the attacks by Bernie surrogates, many of whom were Taibbi's friends at one point, on Taibbi to be often dishonest and again, based on team sports. From Briahna Joy Gray's wild, insipid lying to Taibbi's face, or Sirota's people repeating easily debunkable smears about the Twitter Files in an interview with Taibbi, or Russ Sorkin complaining (albeit nicely) that Taibbi is not covering the same stories the rest of Brooklyn is, to be gross too. They're all ultimately Democratic Party operatives, angry that Taibbi's Twitter reporting makes the Dems look incredibly bad. His Wall Street reporting did that too, but honesty is no longer allowed.
I was actually a big Zaid Jilani fan, and really appreciated his work over the last few years with The Backchannel, Inquire, etc. He was another leftie sick of what's happened to the Democratic Party and the media. He was at Shellenberger's Public briefly, doing — surprise, surprise — reporting exclusively on stories like how the Dems constant "save democracy" language was a bigger threat to democracy, and suddenly seemed unemployed/unattached. His attacks on Taibbi were not only unfair, and seem based almost entirely on professional jealousy, maybe looking to drive engagement, and they were (willfully) ignorant about the work that Taibbi has actually been writing. Like Michelle Goldberg in that embarrassing Munk debate, he was attacking the delusional version of Taibbi that people with an interest in creating a "Matt Taibbi Right Wing Monster" have created for partisan reasons, not the real thing. (When Zaid was a regular on Hill Rising, he seemed more than a little dark and unhealthy. I honestly hope he's doing okay.)
My biggest complaint with this whole thing is attacking "America This Week" as unlistenable. It's actually the only podcast I never miss. It's warm and human and funny with a study on how journalism and politics have failed from two guys who've worked almost everywhere and have earned the right to this, and they discuss literature week. You should try actually listening. (If you're still in a "Democrats good/Republicans bad" bubble, you may cower from it, but maybe it's time to pop that bubble.)
Taibbi's cult of personality is so bizarre to me. And all because he wrote a colorful two-word phrase about a bank years ago.
>"Taibbi’s writing produces the same barbed prose, and his reporting has the same attention to detail and accuracy..."
Detailed and accurate, seriously??? Are you kidding me? Have you not seen the Mehdi Hasan interview where he utterly demolishes Taibbi's sloppy journalism and misrepresentation of basic facts? In case you missed it, here it is: https://youtu.be/a597e6Wv_xg?si=Y8Wk6o9s1WEZlIgX
Taibbi isn't a reporter--he's a grifter with an agenda, which should have been abundantly clear to everyone after the so-called "Twitter Files" fiasco. He's an incompetent journalist, a corrupt hack and a fraud.
"If only Taibbi and his many right-pandering fellow travelers were more Menckenian in their approach."
Why do people think Mencken was some sort of Leftist? In reality, Mencken's politics were elitist and Right-leaning; he loathed Roosevelt and fought against the New Deal. I think Taibbi knows exactly what he's doing when he talks about taking a page from Mencken, even while pretending to be some sort of "populist." It's high-level trolling, consistent with naming his rag "The Racket" and his (former) podcast "Useful Idiots." He's laughing all the way to the bank at our expense (I'd save my money if I were you--you don't need to help fund his kids' private school education in Manhattan).
Personally, I've come to view the whole "free-speech" issue as nothing more than a grift at this point. An increasingly militant, powerful and growing fascist movement in America is experiencing pushback for their views (from people who also have "free speech") and crying foul at every turn. No one has the right to force anyone else to listen to or accept their views. That has nothing to do with "free speech," and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise. Freeze Peach hysteria is just a way to push far-Right taking points while appearing "high-minded" and "centrist" (not accusing you of this; but I think maybe you've been conned like a lot of other people). Don't worry, we're in no danger of turning into Russia--which is ironic, given how many of these so-called "free speech" advocates are big fans of that country.