They have a gulag waiting for you. Silent majority is too distracted by peripheral bs to notice. We are soft and cowed by a tyranny of the minority. Enjoy your family. There are some things those loonies can never take away.
You may have been ambushed, but I would say you were sucker punched again. The first time was by Musk. You got involve with a very rich and immoral man that you are now afraid of. You allowed him to skew your data against against Dems and dictate where you published it. Why? And spare us your altruistic crap. Then you showed up totally unprepared for Husan, and he mopped the floor with you. What did you do with the brilliant Matt Taibbi that we all know and love? You really undermined your credibility and his reputation. Do you think you can survive it? I am one of your longest and biggest fans, and IтАЩm not sure I can survive what you did.
You're onto their tactics! I thought similarly, that after the Congressional hearing, the system figured Matt hadn't been beaten (far from it--Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz commented on his skyrocketing Twitter followers, demonstrating that more and more people want what Matt's telling), so this was Plan C (Plan B having been the hearing and Plan A having been what Hasan did at first: "PR work for the world's richest..."
What will Plan D be? Cause A, B, and C have sucked.
JB - Matt has been spot on. And Hassan's attack was a partisan hit job. Agreed.
But make no mistake about it. Matt had reported for years on how right wing media like FOX and NewsMax etc... push Republican propaganda and lies all day long. And Matt will NEVER EVER talk about that on this substack because if he did he would lose subscribers and thus income.
Hassan is the exact same. He had to attack Matt because if he focused on the real issue, MSA and Twitter controlling what was Tweeted, Hassan would lose audience.
Matt is great but don't fool yourself. he is no different than Hassan. Not in the least bit
8G... Matt's subscribers are only loyal to him as long as he does not turn his laser sharp reporting on right wing media. He wrote numerous times, before substack, about how media outlets like FOX and NewMax etc... lie all of the time to push the narrative of the GOP or their advertisers. Or more likely they ignore topics to keep these parties happy.
But Matt will never, ever report on that with this substack because he would lose viewers. Just like Fox had to lie about Jan 6th so they would not lose viewers (not my opinion, that is what they said under oath)/. Hassan and MSBNC are no different. They have to attack Matt because if they don't they will lose viewers.
I pay to be a member of Matt's substack. I like him. But i don't fool yourself. He is no different than FOX or MSNBC.... And his reward is that he is making a ton of money for playing the game the way the rules are laid out.
I don't think so, bro. Two things happened to channel Matt's reporting on the DNC and corporate media: 1) those two groups started aiming at independent journalists, and 2) Twitter Files dropped in his lap. You go where the story takes you. His Twitter followers went up following the start of the Twitter Files, not because he stopped attacking Fox and Newsmax. Like classic muckrakers, he goes after the powerful.
But here's some truth in advertising: all you right wing people out there who think Matt is now one of you, think again.
JB - Matt is not one of them, when it comes to the right wingers that pray to him.
But his commitment to IGNORING right wing journalisms lies started long before the Twitter Files dropped in his lap. And his rapid growth in subs aligned directly with his attacks on the left and his IGNORING of equal hypocrisy on the right. I've been following him since before substack. I have watched it from start to end.
I get what he is doing and support him. But he is no different than Hassan or Tucker Carlson... NONE of them will do anything that turns their audience away from them in the name of 'truth and balance".
The majority of posters on this board pray to the God of right wing journalism like FOX and NewsMax and The Daily Wire etc... Evidence: They regurgitate that media's half truths and spin like its gospel on these boards.
And they ignore and are uninformed on the issues that the rest of the world really cares about like wages and health care and poverty and corp greed etc... because those media ignore such topics exactly as Chomsky articulated in Manufacturing Consent and in the intro to Matts book Hate Inc...
8G - Agreed, what Hassan did was not professional. Agreed liberal media has serious problems.
Sadly, right wing media has been doing this for generations now and has produced generations of misinformed voters. Misinformed on everything from the 2020 election results to tax cuts to the rich to universal health care the list goes on and on... The left is a mess. The right has produced generations of misinformed and angry voters.
TWC - Not what i was saying or think. Not even close.
It is the people on this board that are crystal clear that because Matt accurately calls out the liberal media for pushing corporate and government propaganda that "therefore" right wing propaganda (Fox, NewsMax, Daily Wire et al...) are CORRECT in their rhetoric and reporting.
How do i know such a large # of the people posting on this board think that? Because the regurgitate the half truths (Climate change is a hoax, government is the problem, Trump isn't misinformed etc..) along with the flat out lies (we don't really know who won the 2020 election, Trumps tax cuts helped the economy, deregulation is good for the economy, we can't afford Universal Health care etc...) and of course they never even mention the things the right wing pols don't want discussed like Child Poverty in the US, Out of Control Military Spending, Corporate Control of law makers etc....)
So yes, most people on this message board think that because Matt wont touch on right wing media propaganda on his substack the way he did in his book they are free to consume and trust it.
8G... I hear what you are saying and do not disagree that "liberal media has taken it to the next level"
I also agree that the media is controlled by the Oligarchs to serve their own interests. That has been common through out the history of democracy going back to the Greeks.
Two issues:
(1) Right wing media has equaled and surpassed "liberal media" in the area of pushing propaganda. First it ignores the issues Americans truly care about like wages declines, health care, the environment, eduction and corporate greed. Second it has created astonishingly misinformed viewers on everything from climate change, to tax cuts to the rich helping the economy to "stop the steal".
(2) While oligarchs have controlled the press going back to the Greeks that is not how it always has been been. There have been exceptions. And when we have those exceptions then Democracy thrives and when we don't have those exceptions democracy wilts.
It is clear from the posters on Matts board that the vast majority buy into Right Wing Corporate/ oligarch funded media lies and half truths. And any time Matt challenges that form of Media, as he did in his book Hate Inc. he is going to lose followers / subscribers.
So, like Fox news on "stop the steal", (per court documents) on this substack Matt is going to tell his subscribers what they want to hear and ignore all else. He sold very few copies of "Hate Inc" where he told both sides. He has made a small fortune doing what Fox does, telling his subscribers ONLY what they want to hear. Do you disagree?
Medhi H. was often WRONG in his line of questioning, but this was hardly an ad hominem attack interview. I have subscribed to Taibbi for FOUR YEARS, but that doesn't make me any more likely to parrot pro-Taibbi tribal bullshit than I am to parrot the US elite's tribal bullshit.
Hasan's first question: "Why do you believe these Twitter files are so important, and what should our viewers know about what's in them?"
Second point, cites agreement that FBI spends too much time and effort on social media efforts.
Third point: "Does your reporting show evidence of government censorship? I don't think so." Shows Biden *campaign* requests, points out they are not government. Says that the tweets in question also were to take down Hunter Biden near nudes or whatever, violation of twitter terms of service. Asks if Taibbi "didn't know [that] in which case that's kind of incompetent, or if he was hiding that fact". Matt goes on tirade about how MSNBC is incompetent and always has been.
That's true, but it was non-responsive to the point. Especially since a minute later Matt says he DID know that was the content "of course". So the IF from Hasan's construction is not held and he's not even calling Taibbi incompetent in the first place, he's simply accusing him of hiding something, which is fair.
To sum up: this was an interview with challenging questions, and Hasan embarassed himself later with false premises in some of those challenging questions. A better prepared Taibbi would have eviscerated him on the spot, and Hasan was later eviscerated on Twitter and shown to have no clothes. However, Taibbi's stance that this was an ad hominem attack interview is off base.
Yes, journalism is in trouble and Matt is one of the last practicing good journalism.
I would say Matt wasn't ready for the exact questions but you can never be that far in the weeds on everything they might ask walking in. But Matt needs to get lessons from Jordan Peterson on how to handle such contentious situations overall, I think.
Honestly Matt walked in combative with a chip on his shoulder. His seemingly triggered response to everything asked didn't serve him well. He could have answered everything simply straight up and calmly, and he would have come off a lot better.
In contrast to this, Matt did great in the Congressional hearing and came off spectacularly. Maybe the attacks are wearing on him. They certainly did on Peterson, given his eventual illness and need for a break.
@ Sasha Stone - RioRosie - Rebecca Lee - Kelly Green - et alтБЙ
First of all this sub-thread, originated by Sasha Stone, should not be subjected to uninformed opinions by anyone not willing to familiarize themselves with the factual, readily available, substance of the discussion
A discussion that ostensibly only occurred on MSNBC because Mr. Hasan wanted to disparage both Mr. Taiibi's association with Elon Musk, and Mr. Musk's alleged hypocrisy over a matter in India on Twitter.ЁЯРНЁЯзк
Mr. Taiibi seemed to be surprised by Mr. Hasan's aggressive interruptions and obsessive interrogation into matters that had nothing to do with his "Twitter Files" investigative reporting; behaviors very similar to the biased political posturing he had experienced when attempting to provide informed testimony at the recent Congressional hearing.тШгЁЯХ╕
If uninformed opinions are not needed, you can simply hold your tongue. I literally wrote out Hasan's first three comments, so clearly I don't need your link to the video. All three comments are relevant to the Twitter files, falsifying your "nothing to do with" construction.
Couldn't agree more that Hasan's goal was to disparage, but asking tough questions about the matters at hand is in bounds, unless we're going to both be annoyed that journalism is dead and then not call that journalism?
The opening comment in my reply to Sasha et al earlier, regarding uninformed opinions, addressed Rebecca Lee's candid honesty relating that she had not viewed the debate; I had no intention of impugning or contesting your familiarity with the topicЁЯХ╕тБЙ
As far as your snarky misconstrued understandingтЭФ, and resultant "tongue" lashing is concerned, thank you for making me aware of your comprehensive reading skills.ЁЯСйтАНЁЯПл
Matt is a great journalist. But he is no different than FOX or MSNBC... The evidence is irrefutable, FOX admits they pushed Trumps Jan 6th lie, not because they thought it was true, but because if they did not push it they would lose audience share.
Matt is a great journalist and Hassan unfairly attacked him, but he does the same thing on this substack. He attacks liberal media like CNN and NYT, accurately, for pushing false narratives while IGNORING right wing media pushing false narratives ("Stop the steal" "Tax cuts to the rich trickle down to the poor" "Russia Gate" "Vaccines" etc....) every day.
Matt wont point to right wing media lying like CNN and the NYT for the same reason Hassan would not be fair to Tiabbi. In both cases they only tell half of the truth because if they told the whole truth they would lose audience share.
I love Matt but i dont see how he is any different than Hassan. he's not!
Matt is different from Hasan in that he gets it right 90% of the time and cares to get it right 95% of the time. Hasan only wants to make his points and got much very very wrong.
Getting it right 95% of the time does not mean one is not pushing propaganda. Read Manufacturing Concent. It's not about getting it right nearly as much as it is about putting the right context around it.
Hassan was wrong because he IGNORED the meat of the Twitter files, which was NSA involvement with Twitter content publishing. Not the 3 petty errors Matt made.
Matt is spot on with his attacks on the left and their journalists. But he now IGNORES the media on the right's endless lies and ignoring of context and parroting what the RNC wants them to say.
He called it out before this substack. Now he ignores it because it would reduce his number of subscribers. Just like FOX reporting on Jan 6th and th stop the steal LIE Trump was pushing. Carlson calling out one of Powells lies and then still talking 95% of the time about how the LIE is justified is "text book" propaganda.. Read Manufacturing Concent. Matt has and used to quote it all of the time.
Matt and Chomsky are hated by the left.. I get it. Neither supports the right t and their lies either. they both think Right wing media lies so much they need not even talk about. But they both think the people that fall for that media are well..... You know that, right?
No. Taibbi isnt IGNORING ANYTHING. He's reporting on SOMETHING, just not on everything. This.is absurd logic. See: Red Herring, strawman, context collapse, et al
Matt's reasons for writing less on that stuff could be a simple as being busier with what's on his plate. If you are perceived as favorable to certain stories, you may get access to more of those stories. I don't think less of Glenn Greenwald because after Snowden came to him he paid less attention to other things he used to report on before that. You have ZERO basis for claiming that Taibbi's focus is shifting for financial gain.
And nobody said that getting it right 95% of the time meant that. I said it was a difference, so of course they could share that feature. Hasan (one s) pushes BS with zero fidelity to the facts, a major difference. Having a fact-based opinion that you spotlight is very different. Matt bends stuff, particularly when he's covering the business world where he's honestly not very savvy, but he works hard on fidelity to the truth and that's worth a lot.
Tiabbi wrote an entire book on media hypocrisy and found the time to report on the right and left equally. Read it, its called Hate Inc. And when he did that his audience was far smaller than it was when he shifted to reporting to only media on the left.
When he pivoted to revealing only the left his audience exploded. That is how he bacame so big on Substack. And that is why Musk chose him to drop the twitter files, which again blew up his audience.
Yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he is making FAR more money from his one sided substack reporting only on the left media than he ever made with books like HATE INC which focus on the hypocricy of the both the left and right media.
It would be impossible for me to agree with you, as I was a paying subscriber while the substack columns that became "Hate Inc" were being written, and I watched his audience grow due to not bashing the left only, but the balanced insights that you praise in Hate, Inc. Claiming that he gained audience by some sort of shift after Hate, Inc. that now he's afraid of losing is a clown argument. He gained audience by moving onto Substack, it grew during Hate inc, written entirely during his time on Substack, and simply has kept growing.
Ambush is the right word. I had the same reaction when I watched the podcast.
They have a gulag waiting for you. Silent majority is too distracted by peripheral bs to notice. We are soft and cowed by a tyranny of the minority. Enjoy your family. There are some things those loonies can never take away.
Could you please provide a link to the interview podcast?
{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg} ЁЯСА
As Usual,
EAЁЯШО
Thanks for the link. Wow, that was brutal....
Here it is. Mehdi is the guy on the bottom. https://efukt.com/20895_OMFG:_The_Dangers_Of_CBT.html
You may have been ambushed, but I would say you were sucker punched again. The first time was by Musk. You got involve with a very rich and immoral man that you are now afraid of. You allowed him to skew your data against against Dems and dictate where you published it. Why? And spare us your altruistic crap. Then you showed up totally unprepared for Husan, and he mopped the floor with you. What did you do with the brilliant Matt Taibbi that we all know and love? You really undermined your credibility and his reputation. Do you think you can survive it? I am one of your longest and biggest fans, and IтАЩm not sure I can survive what you did.
You're onto their tactics! I thought similarly, that after the Congressional hearing, the system figured Matt hadn't been beaten (far from it--Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz commented on his skyrocketing Twitter followers, demonstrating that more and more people want what Matt's telling), so this was Plan C (Plan B having been the hearing and Plan A having been what Hasan did at first: "PR work for the world's richest..."
What will Plan D be? Cause A, B, and C have sucked.
JB - Matt has been spot on. And Hassan's attack was a partisan hit job. Agreed.
But make no mistake about it. Matt had reported for years on how right wing media like FOX and NewsMax etc... push Republican propaganda and lies all day long. And Matt will NEVER EVER talk about that on this substack because if he did he would lose subscribers and thus income.
Hassan is the exact same. He had to attack Matt because if he focused on the real issue, MSA and Twitter controlling what was Tweeted, Hassan would lose audience.
Matt is great but don't fool yourself. he is no different than Hassan. Not in the least bit
8G... Matt's subscribers are only loyal to him as long as he does not turn his laser sharp reporting on right wing media. He wrote numerous times, before substack, about how media outlets like FOX and NewMax etc... lie all of the time to push the narrative of the GOP or their advertisers. Or more likely they ignore topics to keep these parties happy.
But Matt will never, ever report on that with this substack because he would lose viewers. Just like Fox had to lie about Jan 6th so they would not lose viewers (not my opinion, that is what they said under oath)/. Hassan and MSBNC are no different. They have to attack Matt because if they don't they will lose viewers.
I pay to be a member of Matt's substack. I like him. But i don't fool yourself. He is no different than FOX or MSNBC.... And his reward is that he is making a ton of money for playing the game the way the rules are laid out.
I don't think so, bro. Two things happened to channel Matt's reporting on the DNC and corporate media: 1) those two groups started aiming at independent journalists, and 2) Twitter Files dropped in his lap. You go where the story takes you. His Twitter followers went up following the start of the Twitter Files, not because he stopped attacking Fox and Newsmax. Like classic muckrakers, he goes after the powerful.
But here's some truth in advertising: all you right wing people out there who think Matt is now one of you, think again.
Or: You go where Elon Musk says to go.
JB - Matt is not one of them, when it comes to the right wingers that pray to him.
But his commitment to IGNORING right wing journalisms lies started long before the Twitter Files dropped in his lap. And his rapid growth in subs aligned directly with his attacks on the left and his IGNORING of equal hypocrisy on the right. I've been following him since before substack. I have watched it from start to end.
I get what he is doing and support him. But he is no different than Hassan or Tucker Carlson... NONE of them will do anything that turns their audience away from them in the name of 'truth and balance".
Obvious and self-evidentтАФif youтАЩre honest about the thing.
Who here "prays" to him?
The majority of posters on this board pray to the God of right wing journalism like FOX and NewsMax and The Daily Wire etc... Evidence: They regurgitate that media's half truths and spin like its gospel on these boards.
And they ignore and are uninformed on the issues that the rest of the world really cares about like wages and health care and poverty and corp greed etc... because those media ignore such topics exactly as Chomsky articulated in Manufacturing Consent and in the intro to Matts book Hate Inc...
8G - Agreed, what Hassan did was not professional. Agreed liberal media has serious problems.
Sadly, right wing media has been doing this for generations now and has produced generations of misinformed voters. Misinformed on everything from the 2020 election results to tax cuts to the rich to universal health care the list goes on and on... The left is a mess. The right has produced generations of misinformed and angry voters.
Do I have this correct?
The 'Right' has done it (propaganda), so now shedding light on how the 'Left' is doing it (arguably worse) is less legitimate. Becuz?
Seems some serious mental gymnastics there, bud.
If I report on a bank robbery on Main St in Anytown, USA, is it less of a story because I didnt report on ALL bank robberies in Everytown USA?
TWC - Not what i was saying or think. Not even close.
It is the people on this board that are crystal clear that because Matt accurately calls out the liberal media for pushing corporate and government propaganda that "therefore" right wing propaganda (Fox, NewsMax, Daily Wire et al...) are CORRECT in their rhetoric and reporting.
How do i know such a large # of the people posting on this board think that? Because the regurgitate the half truths (Climate change is a hoax, government is the problem, Trump isn't misinformed etc..) along with the flat out lies (we don't really know who won the 2020 election, Trumps tax cuts helped the economy, deregulation is good for the economy, we can't afford Universal Health care etc...) and of course they never even mention the things the right wing pols don't want discussed like Child Poverty in the US, Out of Control Military Spending, Corporate Control of law makers etc....)
So yes, most people on this message board think that because Matt wont touch on right wing media propaganda on his substack the way he did in his book they are free to consume and trust it.
How about you?
8G... I hear what you are saying and do not disagree that "liberal media has taken it to the next level"
I also agree that the media is controlled by the Oligarchs to serve their own interests. That has been common through out the history of democracy going back to the Greeks.
Two issues:
(1) Right wing media has equaled and surpassed "liberal media" in the area of pushing propaganda. First it ignores the issues Americans truly care about like wages declines, health care, the environment, eduction and corporate greed. Second it has created astonishingly misinformed viewers on everything from climate change, to tax cuts to the rich helping the economy to "stop the steal".
(2) While oligarchs have controlled the press going back to the Greeks that is not how it always has been been. There have been exceptions. And when we have those exceptions then Democracy thrives and when we don't have those exceptions democracy wilts.
It is clear from the posters on Matts board that the vast majority buy into Right Wing Corporate/ oligarch funded media lies and half truths. And any time Matt challenges that form of Media, as he did in his book Hate Inc. he is going to lose followers / subscribers.
So, like Fox news on "stop the steal", (per court documents) on this substack Matt is going to tell his subscribers what they want to hear and ignore all else. He sold very few copies of "Hate Inc" where he told both sides. He has made a small fortune doing what Fox does, telling his subscribers ONLY what they want to hear. Do you disagree?
Medhi H. was often WRONG in his line of questioning, but this was hardly an ad hominem attack interview. I have subscribed to Taibbi for FOUR YEARS, but that doesn't make me any more likely to parrot pro-Taibbi tribal bullshit than I am to parrot the US elite's tribal bullshit.
Hasan's first question: "Why do you believe these Twitter files are so important, and what should our viewers know about what's in them?"
Second point, cites agreement that FBI spends too much time and effort on social media efforts.
Third point: "Does your reporting show evidence of government censorship? I don't think so." Shows Biden *campaign* requests, points out they are not government. Says that the tweets in question also were to take down Hunter Biden near nudes or whatever, violation of twitter terms of service. Asks if Taibbi "didn't know [that] in which case that's kind of incompetent, or if he was hiding that fact". Matt goes on tirade about how MSNBC is incompetent and always has been.
That's true, but it was non-responsive to the point. Especially since a minute later Matt says he DID know that was the content "of course". So the IF from Hasan's construction is not held and he's not even calling Taibbi incompetent in the first place, he's simply accusing him of hiding something, which is fair.
To sum up: this was an interview with challenging questions, and Hasan embarassed himself later with false premises in some of those challenging questions. A better prepared Taibbi would have eviscerated him on the spot, and Hasan was later eviscerated on Twitter and shown to have no clothes. However, Taibbi's stance that this was an ad hominem attack interview is off base.
Yes, journalism is in trouble and Matt is one of the last practicing good journalism.
I would say Matt wasn't ready for the exact questions but you can never be that far in the weeds on everything they might ask walking in. But Matt needs to get lessons from Jordan Peterson on how to handle such contentious situations overall, I think.
Honestly Matt walked in combative with a chip on his shoulder. His seemingly triggered response to everything asked didn't serve him well. He could have answered everything simply straight up and calmly, and he would have come off a lot better.
In contrast to this, Matt did great in the Congressional hearing and came off spectacularly. Maybe the attacks are wearing on him. They certainly did on Peterson, given his eventual illness and need for a break.
@ Sasha Stone - RioRosie - Rebecca Lee - Kelly Green - et alтБЙ
First of all this sub-thread, originated by Sasha Stone, should not be subjected to uninformed opinions by anyone not willing to familiarize themselves with the factual, readily available, substance of the discussion
and its origins between Medhi Hasan and Matt Taiibi. {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg} ЁЯСА
A discussion that ostensibly only occurred on MSNBC because Mr. Hasan wanted to disparage both Mr. Taiibi's association with Elon Musk, and Mr. Musk's alleged hypocrisy over a matter in India on Twitter.ЁЯРНЁЯзк
Mr. Taiibi seemed to be surprised by Mr. Hasan's aggressive interruptions and obsessive interrogation into matters that had nothing to do with his "Twitter Files" investigative reporting; behaviors very similar to the biased political posturing he had experienced when attempting to provide informed testimony at the recent Congressional hearing.тШгЁЯХ╕
As Usual,
EAтШа
If uninformed opinions are not needed, you can simply hold your tongue. I literally wrote out Hasan's first three comments, so clearly I don't need your link to the video. All three comments are relevant to the Twitter files, falsifying your "nothing to do with" construction.
Couldn't agree more that Hasan's goal was to disparage, but asking tough questions about the matters at hand is in bounds, unless we're going to both be annoyed that journalism is dead and then not call that journalism?
@Kelly Green on 10 AprЁЯРНЁЯзк
The opening comment in my reply to Sasha et al earlier, regarding uninformed opinions, addressed Rebecca Lee's candid honesty relating that she had not viewed the debate; I had no intention of impugning or contesting your familiarity with the topicЁЯХ╕тБЙ
As far as your snarky misconstrued understandingтЭФ, and resultant "tongue" lashing is concerned, thank you for making me aware of your comprehensive reading skills.ЁЯСйтАНЁЯПл
Got it, apologies for the misunderstanding!
Matt is a great journalist. But he is no different than FOX or MSNBC... The evidence is irrefutable, FOX admits they pushed Trumps Jan 6th lie, not because they thought it was true, but because if they did not push it they would lose audience share.
Matt is a great journalist and Hassan unfairly attacked him, but he does the same thing on this substack. He attacks liberal media like CNN and NYT, accurately, for pushing false narratives while IGNORING right wing media pushing false narratives ("Stop the steal" "Tax cuts to the rich trickle down to the poor" "Russia Gate" "Vaccines" etc....) every day.
Matt wont point to right wing media lying like CNN and the NYT for the same reason Hassan would not be fair to Tiabbi. In both cases they only tell half of the truth because if they told the whole truth they would lose audience share.
I love Matt but i dont see how he is any different than Hassan. he's not!
The evidence is often very refutable. For example, this was a semi-famous moment for Tucker Carlson, who publicly called out Sidney Powell's BS even though because of more recent false narratives, you believe that he publicly touted them. He did not: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/11/20/tucker-carlson-gives-update-after-backlash-over-sidney-powell-segment/6367629002/
Matt is different from Hasan in that he gets it right 90% of the time and cares to get it right 95% of the time. Hasan only wants to make his points and got much very very wrong.
KG -
Getting it right 95% of the time does not mean one is not pushing propaganda. Read Manufacturing Concent. It's not about getting it right nearly as much as it is about putting the right context around it.
Hassan was wrong because he IGNORED the meat of the Twitter files, which was NSA involvement with Twitter content publishing. Not the 3 petty errors Matt made.
Matt is spot on with his attacks on the left and their journalists. But he now IGNORES the media on the right's endless lies and ignoring of context and parroting what the RNC wants them to say.
He called it out before this substack. Now he ignores it because it would reduce his number of subscribers. Just like FOX reporting on Jan 6th and th stop the steal LIE Trump was pushing. Carlson calling out one of Powells lies and then still talking 95% of the time about how the LIE is justified is "text book" propaganda.. Read Manufacturing Concent. Matt has and used to quote it all of the time.
Matt and Chomsky are hated by the left.. I get it. Neither supports the right t and their lies either. they both think Right wing media lies so much they need not even talk about. But they both think the people that fall for that media are well..... You know that, right?
No. Taibbi isnt IGNORING ANYTHING. He's reporting on SOMETHING, just not on everything. This.is absurd logic. See: Red Herring, strawman, context collapse, et al
Matt's reasons for writing less on that stuff could be a simple as being busier with what's on his plate. If you are perceived as favorable to certain stories, you may get access to more of those stories. I don't think less of Glenn Greenwald because after Snowden came to him he paid less attention to other things he used to report on before that. You have ZERO basis for claiming that Taibbi's focus is shifting for financial gain.
And nobody said that getting it right 95% of the time meant that. I said it was a difference, so of course they could share that feature. Hasan (one s) pushes BS with zero fidelity to the facts, a major difference. Having a fact-based opinion that you spotlight is very different. Matt bends stuff, particularly when he's covering the business world where he's honestly not very savvy, but he works hard on fidelity to the truth and that's worth a lot.
Tiabbi wrote an entire book on media hypocrisy and found the time to report on the right and left equally. Read it, its called Hate Inc. And when he did that his audience was far smaller than it was when he shifted to reporting to only media on the left.
When he pivoted to revealing only the left his audience exploded. That is how he bacame so big on Substack. And that is why Musk chose him to drop the twitter files, which again blew up his audience.
Yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he is making FAR more money from his one sided substack reporting only on the left media than he ever made with books like HATE INC which focus on the hypocricy of the both the left and right media.
It would be impossible for me to agree with you, as I was a paying subscriber while the substack columns that became "Hate Inc" were being written, and I watched his audience grow due to not bashing the left only, but the balanced insights that you praise in Hate, Inc. Claiming that he gained audience by some sort of shift after Hate, Inc. that now he's afraid of losing is a clown argument. He gained audience by moving onto Substack, it grew during Hate inc, written entirely during his time on Substack, and simply has kept growing.
D Wasserman Schultz called...she would like to speak w/you.