This is such an IMPORTANT story. But it's not just happening in newsrooms, it's happening everywhere: college campuses, corporations and the workplace, social media platforms, politics, you name it. These ideologues are the Red Guard of a new Cultural Revolution. Their goal is power and their method is leveraging progressive guilt. I think they are far, far more dangerous than Donald Trump or anything going on with the right. Thank you Matt for writing about this!
It's our modern Terror, and everyone on Twitter is our Robespierre. Right down to often having the mob turn on the accusers eventually as well. The main difference is that it's your career and reputation that get the guillotine these days.
The hijacking of the media by progressives and those to the left of them has a real potential to kill America. We need voices like Matt’s to make ordinary Americans hear how real this danger is. The Constitution cannot take much more abuse.
I agree with you about the of danger of this new left mafia Not only do they feed off progressive guilt, they are backed by corporate power. The 'snowflake' college kids and young workers are being led like lambs to the slaughter and willing allow this travesty.
They peddle hatred and divide as a distraction. We become so caught up in minutiae that we are missing the big picture. The complete loss of freedom, independence and the ability to find joy in anything.
It is psychological warfare. The Stanford Experiment on a global stepfordized population in the throes of Stockholm Syndrome.We’ve been in the grooming process for decades. While we were sleeping, distracted by internecine battles, American against American, neighbor against neighbor, family member against family member, we have been sold into slavery.
I’ve not witnessed anything so bizarre as the Fauci worship. A partisan love affair with a tiny tyrant responsible for the inconceivable suffering of so many, including their own. It is a stunning display of devolution
Yes, it's like Jim Jones. People are sacrificing themselves. Now they're advertising the Fentynal Epidemic, and kids are actually dying. One thing after the other.
Not only corporate power, but government direction. This is systemic wokeness for lack of a better word that is colluding to squash free speech and the US Constitution.
I agree with you about the of danger of this new left mafia Not only do they feed off progressive guilt, they are backed by corporate power. The 'snowflake' college kids and young workers are being led like lambs to the slaughter and willing allow this travesty.
IDK... human history reminds us that both extremes have been fighting it out since, well since the dawn of man.
In the political climate leading up to WWII, there were plenty of communist factions running alongside national socialist fascism. Both were authoritarian and both totalitarian.
One side won out over the other eventually, and the US/GB/FR alliance's own brand of nationalism/globalism won out when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The parallels are striking, though "things are different now". PEOPLE aren't different now.
They STILL don't seem able to remember the Armenian genocide during WWI, and the cycles go on.
We'll either end up with nationalism or we'll end up with another Stalinesque era.
What about North Korea? It never recovered. I read a book about someone who escaped the camp there. He was born in it. That place is sick, and it reminds me of Washington DC.
Amazing, isn’t it? White -Free, Jew-Free zones,Asians restricted from college admissions because” they don’t have the right personalities”( I.e. they’re disciplined high achievers), Professor Bret Weinstein is mobbed and threatened for daring set foot on Evergreen’s Campus on “ No White Day”, a revered Organic Chemistry professor is fired because students complained his class was too hard, Kanye West is banned and cancelled as a racist and antisemite ( that’s rich coming from the left) for sporting a White Lives Matter t-shirt, Russell Brand is a “ Far-Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist”, Glenn Greenwald,Tulsi Gabbard,Rand Paul, Lara Logan, Sharyl Atkisson, Tucker Carlson, Mark Steyn, Neil Oliver are Putin Puppets, Drs. Malone,Ladapo,McCullough, Montagnier,Battacharaya, Risch, Gold, Hatfill,Mullis, Yeadon, Kory,Ionnides,Kuldorff,Levitt,Zelenko,Mercola,Stella,Andersen, Atlas,Shiva,Alexander are “ fringe”( nevermind several are Nobel laureates) Joe Rogan, Kim Iversen,Jimmy Dore, Steve Kirsch,Naomi Wolf, Steve Bannon, Nigel Farage,Larry Elder, Leo Terrell,Laura Ingraham, Aaron Rodgers, Raheem Kassam, Glenn Beck, Aaron Mate, Dave Reaboi, Mesmet, Asra Nomani, Caitlyn Jenner, Ron DeSantis, Ric Grenell,Tyrus, Lou DobbsVivek Ramaswamy, Jonathan Turley, RFK Jr., VDH, Mayra Flores, Bill Maher, Kash Patel, Martina Navratilova, Brandon Straka, Eric Clapton, Johnnie Lydon, … Nazis all
If we had a media outlet that wasn’t left or right, but actually reported straight news without bias and focused on allowing the American people to engage in healthy discussions, the entire corrupt system would collapse on itself. And we’d be the nation our founders( with errors along the way) intended.
And simultaneously the vaccine industry it hard at fear mongering to get us to be vaccinated with invisible skin tracers that contain our complete history and whether we have been vaccinated or not along with everything else about us. Auschwitz revisited says I.
Bravo for writing this Matt. You could, of course, have written it without first establishing your bona fides as a trump detractor. The problem you address has nothing to do with trump and would exist regardless of who was in the white house. This doesn't mean there are no problems with trump, or that he hasn't made a bad situation worse. But that is where we are today. Before anyone can criticize the obviously insane ideological absurdities within the liberal/left wing press they must first take a swing at trump in case anyone thinks criticism of the press is the same thing as supporting trump. How sad.
Yes, taking a swipe at Trump seems like a too-easy (cowardly??) way to claim a bona fide with the left. Especially so in this case as Matt is wrong about Trump saying that Floyd would be happy with the unemployment numbers - read the transcript of what Trump said (see below) and you will see that Trump was talking about the nation's response to Floyd's death and equality (not the employment numbers). It's no different than misquoting what Trump said about Charlottesville. Facts matter. Probably better not to use a reference to WaPo as a fact-check on Trump in the future.
Trump does enough that can be legitimately criticized - there is no need to make stuff up.
Transcript - "Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender or creed. They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it. We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down right now and saying, “This is a great thing that’s happening for our country.” It’s a great day for him, it’s a great day for everyone. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality. It’s really what our Constitution requires and it’s what our country is all about."
I think that Matt takes swipes at Donald Trump so that no one who's new to his writing will be misled about his actual opinions on the guy, or about the mendacity of the Republican leaders backing up his indolent, erratic misrule and his cheesy demagoguery.
I realize that there are readers who would prefer that Matt doesn't point out that Trump is a half-competent narcissistic dunce. So much so that they're even offering rationalizations as to why he's doing it, as an exercise in managing their cognitive dissonance.
Again, my point is that by making untrue statements about Trump and citing WaPo as a fact check source is not helpful. If Trump is, as you say, "a half-competent narcissistic dunce" cite true examples to back up the opinion - don't make shit up. Reporting the truth is what this article is supposed be all about.
Assessments like the one you've quoted hold the status of opinion rather than established fact, of necessity. The statement that "Donald Trump is a half-competent narcissistic dunce" is a summary interpretation of evidence, not the evidence itself. Therefore, no amount of factual evidence can demonstrate the veracity of the conclusion to someone determined to deny it.
So all I can do is claim it as my opinion. It just happens to be an opinion that Matt Taibbi shares. As he's explicitly stated, with words to that effect.
George Will shares that opinion as well, and he "cites true examples to back up the opinion" much more pointedly and acerbically than I could hope to do by composing my own response here.
I suspect that you'd wave off anything he has to say, also. But, just in case
Again - I'm on your side here. I agree that Trump does a lot that can be criticized. Let's cite those things and not make up stuff that can be easily refuted. Otherwise the media look like fools when they support the Russia collusion, Charlottesville mis-quotes, Kavanaugh rape allegations etc etc that all turn out to be not true.
I'm always willing to listen and read from all sides - just not willing to support WaPo or NYT anymore for their bad journalism.
George Will doesn't mention anything about Russia, Charlottesville, or Brett Kavanaugh in that column, which was written on May 3, 2017, less than four months into Donald Trump's term in office. He does, however, bring up Trump vignettes like this one:
"[Trump] has instructed us that Andrew Jackson was angry about the Civil War that began 16 years after Jackson’s death. Having, let us fancifully imagine, considered and found unconvincing William Seward’s 1858 judgment that the approaching Civil War was 'an irrepressible conflict,' Trump says:
“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Library shelves groan beneath the weight of books asking questions about that war’s origins, so who, one wonders, are these “people” who don’t ask the questions that Trump evidently thinks have occurred to him uniquely? Presumably they are not the astute “lot of,” or at least “some,” people Trump referred to when speaking about his February address to a joint session of Congress: “A lot of people have said that, some people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber.” Which demotes Winston Churchill, among many others..."
I have my issues with the Washington Post, as well as the New York Times, and have long been skeptical about aspects of their focus and coverage. But while I find the diversity of viewpoints presented in their editorial pages to be more narrow than I would prefer, neither paper dictates the words or opinions of the op-ed columnists on their staff. Notwithstanding the insinuations of partisans who seek to impeach the credibility of everything printed in their pages.
George Will has been syndicated with the Post since 1974; if you've been boycotting him simply because of that fact, then you've missed his frequently scathing criticisms of the Clinton and Obama administrations, which I occasionally found to be trenchant and on-point.
Didnt you just reply to me “...when it becomes a thing for people to start demanding references for every fact claim...?”
The reason we NEED facts is that so many people don't have or want them. Many are simply parrots for talking points. All noise no substance. When presented w facts, they attack. You actually HAD facts so whats your excuse? It’s your “avocation?” Then im glad you have the free time to do it and you’re welcome. I typically ignore bullshit behavior on boards and chats. some people dont know how to communicate without being condescending. Their main objective is not intelligent discourse or commentary - it’s trying to prove to themselves how smart they are. frankly no one else cares how smart OR how socially retarded you are.
Usually I avoid the intellectually lazy, narcissistic gutter with such people. But today its making ME feel better. There was no need for your reply condescending or otherwise. I didnt specifically ask you or anyone else to do my “legwork.” You didnt do it to INFORM - you did it to live out some fantasy of your superior intellect. You had time to look up numbers. Yaaay you!
I agree, and you made the point well. Thx for the transcript too. It seemed out of place at first blush, Matt's opening dump on Trump - awkward even if it were true. But a bell dinged in my head that Trump did not say that. He was accused of this, then the actual quote disproved the accusation.
What's the saying - a lie gets around the world before truth can put on its pants? Just shows how bad it's gotten that my (so-called "better",) 'progressive' team (former, blame TDS-Resistance Fever) will run with something so easily disproven. They've stopped even caring, even trying to be slick. Actually, this debunking account of what Trump actually said would've meshed better with the entire piece's theme. I have not finished it, incidentally. That said, I skimmed it and I like it. I really do appreciate Matt's helpfully rebellious contributions to our ever dwindling collective sanity.
I think you may have interpreted what Matt said incorrectly. The 'and' preceding the unemployment numbers clause could easily be separate from the Floyd looking down from heaven clause, part of the list of 'calls to dominate marches' and 'floyd' and 'unemployment'. Non?
The trump smack talk basically gets the default sleep walking liberal in agreement with him from the get-go, making them more open to accept the rest of his argument. I haven't been a progressive since 2014 and I haven't been a Democrat since 2016 but there are so so many who have, perhaps until recently been completely unaware of the transformation and subversion of the left by complete and total radicals.
Totally with you on that. I organized for both Obama Campaigns. When I saw the outcome of too much immigration on the minorities & whites already here I felt stabbed in the back. 5 states went right to work, wages stagnated for 8 years and there was a lot of racial violence and deaths by shooting (In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015. 2019 - t least 15,292 people were fatally shot in The United States in 2019).
It's exactly the same kind of constraint that anyone who might dare oppose defunding the police now how to include paragraphs about how saintly George Floyd was and on and on. The poor man died a horrific death, and the cop who did it should face justice. But that doesn't mean that George Floyd himself is ready for sainthood.
Of course Floyd was no saint. It’s part of the point. Do you think if he was some no account white guy trying to pass a fake 20, that cop would have stepped on his throat for 9 minutes? Although many of those killed by cops were totally innocent of wrongdoing, most were breaking the law in one way or another. None, however were doing anything that should have cost them their lives. I’m Atlanta, they could have let that guy get away and arrest him the next day. They had his car, all his information, was he a danger to anyone? No. Yes he was stupid for resisting, but fatally stupid? Really?
Wasn't the Atlanta guy trying to get in a car and drive away while intoxicated, after stealing the police's taser? If he had then run over an innocent person, or otherwise hurt someone, what should the police tell that person's family? Respectfully, what you are saying is that the police should let people successfully resist arrest. Can you see any problems that might flow from that approach? Here's one: if it's known that you can get away with resisting arrest, a lot more people will try it, and more police and more suspects will be hurt and killed. Violence incident to arrests will escalate. People need to understand, you cannot resist arrest.
"Wasn't the Atlanta guy trying to get in a car and drive away while intoxicated?"
No, he was not. He was running away from his vehicle on foot.
As for resisting arrest, it's a crime. It's still a crime if someone manages to successfully break free of the arresting officers; in fact, someone who does so is liable to have even more charges added to their offenses. It makes no difference if they aren't apprehended until the next day, or the next year. So there's no way that Ray Brooks was going to "get away with resisting arrest."
It's also a crime for police to shoot a fleeing suspect (unless, perhaps, they're brandishing a firearm; Brooks had grabbed a taser from one of the officers and fired it before turning to run, but had already been frisked and was found to have no weapons.) If the officer who shot and killed him has any plausible defense, it will depend on convincing a jury that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect had not been fleeing, but was instead still engaged in attacking the officers.
Paul Howard the Fulton Cty DA said on video in a case just 2 weeks before charging the officers “a taser is a deadly weapon.” Police officers deadly weapon was ripped from his holster by Brooks. This requires the use of deadly force. But dont worry - that will NEVER happen again. Cops will prob let the next one go and then everyone can scream and have a tantrum because they werent responsive. Its happening in Minneapolis and CHOP as we speak. Also, i wish we would all stop referring to the enemy occupied strip of land by a name. I know its “sexy” for soundbites and click bait (which is essentially ALL online media) but it somehow provides an air of legitimacy. Lets call it what it is - an attack and invasion of an American city and a coup by local elected officials.
I didn't issue any judgement about whether or not the officer who shot Brooks was guilty of a crime. That's for a jury to decide.
I do think a criminal investigation of the shooting was warranted.
In general, I remain more worried about the reality of overuse of deadly force by American police than the possibility that they might stop using it completely, as you have speculated.
As for the off-topic matter of the events in Minneapolis and Seattle: there are no "coups" of a jurisdiction by its own elected officials. And the question of whether or not their policies and decisions were wise is to be settled at the polls by their voters, at either the next scheduled election or through a recall.
Floyd died of fentanyl overdose before Chauvin could really get at him. First sign of fentanyl OD is that you can't breathe. Floyd swallowed the fentanyl he was dealing to cover up the evidence (he had a habit of doing that) while still in his Mercedes resisting arrest.
Well, in this case, taking a swipe at Trump opens the door for him to be persuasive to a leftist audience he is already afraid will dismiss him out of hand. I taught Argument classes as an adjunct professor at Northern MI University. It's a good Rogerian argument technique when you know you have a tough audience and are trying to find middle ground. A good choice on his part.
I agree with your point that establishing a common ground with your audience is a good technique (see...I just did it with you) and perhaps I could have made my point above with more emphasis on the point that Matt should not use the WaPo to fact check Trump. Perpetuating the lies of the MSM to establish a bond with your audience is not a good long-term strategy. I expect more of Matt as he is one of few intelligent voices or reason in a crowd of journalistic idiots.
Yes, I see you did. :) Well, since he's a Democrat I'm surprised he's willing to take these people on to the extent he is. Your point on the WaPo notwithstanding.
I don't think that Matt Taibbi is a Democrat- at least, I've never read anything by him or about him where a political party affiliation is announced.
I suspect that- like myself- Matt merely ends up voting that way most of the time, despite his misgivings. Because the other party in this rigged game- that would be the Republicans- is so odious that they aren't even worthy of tough-love attempts at constructive criticism.
(It's all a farce until we get ranked-choice voting, really. Just let us rank preferences for two candidates, that's all I ask.)
To be clear, Matt has a strong track record of anti-Trump writing. You are correct that his election to put those words into the article is to establish some credibility with that audience... but his bone fides are only questioned by those who are too blinded by Trump hate to see the dangers from his enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not the best path when in that way Comey becomes your buddy (despite the totality of his actions including destroying HRC's election chances). I try to hate the bad actors on both sides equally and lament the weakness of the center.
I'm sure he does have a history of it, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't remind folks. Or shouldn't. It's a good strategy of persuasion. I'm not sure I'm following the rest of your point. WHOSE enemies? Trump's or Matt's?
People have thought Matt is their enemy if they hate Trump and their hate of Trump blinds them to the crimes of Russiagate and especially the media's handling of it, which Matt calls out. You can both dislike Trump and dislike what Comey, Brennan, and co. did, which is roughly Matt's position. The enemy (Comey) of your enemy (Trump) is not always your friend.
We have had the general conversation on the topic before and it always comes up that people want to know where to go to read balanced coverage now that we're in this situation. I still recommend realclearpolitics. The views go from the center to the extreme on both sides, and you can decide what you want. Fair warning, their overall selection bias is slightly right of center but they have tons of content from the left, some very good right center sources, and then some stuff that's too far right imho. But I can figure all of that out and what I want to read is not what I agree with but ALL OF IT, because I for one trust myself to figure out what I agree with rather than be spoonfed stuff I can parrot to my friends.
I find it surreal that in trying to cancel my New York Times membership I am forced to wait for an available agent. They literally structured their system to not allow cancelation without speaking to them. There site doesn't even allow for the removal of billing info unless it's replaced with other billing info. How the f*** is this legal?? This is like the extortion you read about with shady scam sites! NYT has apparently become a pornographic institution extorting your money by a trial of time: I've been waiting 20 minutes to speak with someone and my only recourse is reporting them to PayPal. There are "9 Step Guides" on Google for how to cancel one's NYT subscription. It feels like the death star. I'm genuinely outraged that a major news outlet treats its subscribers this way.
No different than canceling my cable subscription. They wanted the opportunity to change my mind and to offer me a discount to stay subscribed. Same annoying treatment when I canceled my NYT subscription, for different reasons.
We are constantly being told we need to engage in a “dialogue” about race. But you can’t have a dialogue in a minefield where the slightest misstep sets off a Twitter explosion. This, of course, ends up ticking off the white working class, falling right into the hands of the ruling elites—both liberal and conservative— whose greatest fear is that poor whites, blacks and Native Americans will one day discover there Is more that unites than divides them.
A “respected” journalist posted on Twitter a statement that started with “...some Fucknuts in Nebraska...” (Read: WHITE). THIS sums up perfectly the condescending, casual racism that is part and parcel of the liberal elitist manifesto. Its much of what got Trump elected the first time and (voter fraud and intimidation at the polls not withstanding) may help to get him a 2nd term. What thinking person can vote for Joe “im a REAL boy” Biden? Should we not vote at all?
Thank you. I just stopped my$5 a month subscription to NY Times. I didn’t even read Cottons piece until after the uproar. I found it unremarkable, Trumpian rhetoric and certainly not anything shocking. Intolerance of diverse opinions in our current climate has become truly unsettling...
Thank you for defending Lee and providing greater clarity about what happened. I shared a few classes with Lee in college since we had the same major and distinctly remember him as one of the few people in lecture that actually gave a shit and asked probing questions (many of the other smart students were just gunning for the foreign service and basically took whatever was taught at face value). I'm still a big fan of The Intercept's reporting, but I was disappointed how his colleagues failed to publicly defend him from such a serious and spurious charge.
Matt, I am an Independent right-leaning voter who often disagrees with your political take on things. Like Glenn Greenwald or Bill Maher, you have been to me like a broken clock that's right twice a day. But I just subscribed to you because this post hits every nail on the head with fearless disregard for the cultural firebombers. And they will come.
But I say to you today the problem is far more widespread than just our Fourth Estate. Actor Hartley Sawyer, aka The Flash (ex-Flash now) has been incinerated on social media and unpersoned over uncharitable texts in his youth about Rev. Al Sharpton and homeless women's breasts. The latter was no doubt a puerile attempt to one-up his similarly immature social media peers. No trial. No appeal. Just burned to the ground like Minneapolis on social media, along with his hit show. Think about that. The CW canceled a hit show out of fear of the SJW mob.
The Terror is back in Hollywood, and no one is safe this time. You don't even get a show trial before the American people. Even worse, our enlightened Culture Police are now in Hollywood editing rooms (HBO in this case) adding mandatory SJW commentary to Gone With The Wind. GWTW has shot up to #1 on Amazon and Blazing Saddles is climbing the ladder. That tells me ordinary Americans don't trust Hollywood to protect our treasured film heritage. How sad and pathetic a statement is that?
Politics are fine in the larger discussion of finding ways to solve social problems. It's how we hash ideas out and improve society. But the trends I am seeing now, and of which you report on here, are more reminiscent of the Soviet-era Pravda. The truth is whatever the State says it is, and even the slightest dissent will be met with ruthless personal destruction and ostracism. I grew up reading William L. Shirer, John Hersey, Peter Maas, Robin Moore, Woodward and Bernstein and many more like them.
They are what real investigative journalists aspire to: following the truth and the story no matter to whom and where it leads, and regardless of politics. Now the political cart leads the journalism horse, and woe betide anyone who says the horse should be in front. I may not always agree with you, Matt, but you've always aspired to teh truth of the matter in all your reporting, and that is enough for me. Keep up the great work!
Crazy times indeed. It is reminiscent of the Hollywood Terror. A tipping point will come when enough people are sickened of their arbitrary and capricious cultural fascism.
I'll be waiting breathlessly for the unpacking of Dragnet, Adam-12, CHiPs, Barnaby Jones, and Miami Vice. The Wire would be too much of a heavy lift, but Prime Suspect might be good for at least master's thesis. And maybe one day critical theory will manage to construct the One True Template for the way police characters are to be portrayed in fake gunplay entertainment.
I think real media criticism would inquire into why there are so many fake gun battles, where no innocent bystander ever gets caught in a crossfire or gets hit by ricochets, and the the heroes only get winged while the villains die on the spot (rather bloodlessly, and with little sign of pain.) Not to mention the implausibility of the sound of the gunshots, which rarely rise above the volume of normal speech in TV portrayals, but are terrifyingly loud at close distances in real life.
I just subscribed as well. This censorship and lack of media integrity is the greatest threat to a free society. And bravo to anyone who recognizes it. Bravo, Matt.
1984 -- The writer of Truth rewrites history to fit whatever they want. Read the book. That's the news media today. A warning leftists: Stalin and Hitler controlled the media. It's not TRUMP controlling the media. Or ignoring the truth. And it should scare the hell out of every American.
I am buying up classic dvds and books. Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, anything Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Ellison, Faulkner. Also just got myself a nee copy of Atlas Shrugged. Soon anything ever written or directed by a white male will go the way of anything Columbus. Will Ohio be forced to change that too? Sound extreme? Webster’s has been guilted into re-writing the definition of “racism” and this year ALONE there are 19 newly published versions of the Twain classics. I suspect Matt’s books will be gone as well someday. A white guy writing a book about Eric Garner? Im sure that is somehow evidence of white privilege or something
"Today no one with a salary will stand up for colleagues like Lee Fang." And that's why I just subscribed to your substack, thanks for your indispensable work Matt!
Damn man. This was what I (and I imagine many others) need to read right now. I thank you for finally not tiptoeing around the thing I've had to come to grips with myself - that the left has completely lost all credibility and sanity. I only hope others can see through the corporate pandering and corruption that is the DNC in 2020.
An excellent piece! Thank you for speaking out against the insanity currently infesting left-wing American newsrooms. Sometimes it feels like the world would be a much better place without Twitter.
Mr. Taibbi fires a warning shot to alert us that the “instinct (in the American media) to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has been in evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon.” I would say not “since” -- that vile instinct has merely been more in evidence. The media’s fear and hatred for diversity of opinion, for the freedom of speech, has doubtless worsened since President Tweet was heaved onto the throne. But the hatred and fear of free speech have been lovingly cultivated for years; they are now blossoming.
All those college students we laughed out, the perpetually-petulant ones who reacted with fury and tears against views diverse from their own, remember them? The ones who crawled into college-provided Safe Spaces, laughably, or stormed classrooms and auditoriums all Nazi-like to scream down, silence and intimidate, ominously. And there was a reason that rather than expel those obviously unfit for a higher education, America’s universities, from the Ivies to the community colleges, rushed to comfort them, cancelled events, fired professors and prostrated themselves before them.
It was because the students’ fear and loathing of freedom of speech had been taught to them by that university. Not all of the universities or all those who worked in them agreed with and preached the hatred and fear, but obviously more than enough did. And from them, out tumbled our press corps.
Former president and one-time Constitutional professor Barack Obama’s take on censorship: “the constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet.” There it is – the legality of exercising one’s freedom of speech may not necessarily be protected, depending upon how it is transmitted. A fascinating legal argument and one that sadly he did not stress on the campaign trail – but he did write it in his Audacity of Hope in 2006. (The press, and this was over a dozen years ago now, couldn’t get enough of him.)
And he and many like him preached this view on freedom of speech on campuses from sea to shining sea. In 2009, the year Obama ascended to the throne, Ivy League constitutional law Professor Cass Sunstein published his call for government censorship of the Internet in his On Rumors. Professor Sunstein stressed that “free expression…usually works, but in some contexts is an incomplete correction.” At least he’s honest, I thought.
But then on the very next page he suddenly begs the reader to understand that his book “should not be taken as a plea for any kind of censorship,” and heavens, please don’t get that idea. I was a bit miffed. You would expect a Harvard law professor to have the courage of his convictions. But he recovered himself on the very next page his “a chilling effect can be an excellent safeguard” from those malicious, false Internet rumors, the power to chill exercised by a wise and benevolent government. So censorship it is.
Obama, now president, rose to the defense of free speech by appointing Professor Sunstein to be his Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. (The fact that his title included the word “information” shows that Obama may have a wicked sense of humor.) Today, Mr. Sunstein expresses his views prominently in major media. And now………
Our press is chock full to the brim with their college graduates. Those from our elite universities are a privileged caste, well paid and well equipped with a credentials. Our best universities – these are their children. Obama, Sunstein and Pals shaped their view on free speech. And all this that Mr. Taibbi rightly describes with alarm, I saw coming years ago.
For decades now the New York City university students who hang about Union Square have been wearing t-shirts not with any Founding Father emblazoned on their chest, but Che and Mao, neither of whom were noted for their tolerance of contrary opinions. This was bound to have consequences for freedom. Show me your heroes and I’ll show you yourself.
Yep. Defund public universities -- any that don't allow open debate, the free exchange of ideas. Conservative speakers. I am a libertarian (ish) person and was an adjunct professor at Northern Michigan University and I can attest to the degree of intolerance. Just take our kids out of of these schools, stop paying for Hollywood movie stars to brainwash our kids. Stop paying, America. Pay and shut up, they say. Maybe it's time Atlas Shrugged.
So funny u mentioned Ayn Rand before recent events (right after lockdown) i re-read Atlas Shrugged for the first time since college. At first i thought it was middle-aged cynicism that made me Consider its validity. Now? Shrug away.
If only all questions of politics and the economy came down to the most creative, intelligent, productive, virtuous and just plain all around superior folks being oppressed by the other 99.9%, until the 0.1% revolted because they just couldn't take the intolerable conditions of their existence any more.
Ha. I take care of my dad full time right now -- he's in a bad way. But I'm seriously thinking of starting the "Don't pay, America" movement or "Shrug, America" where we defund universities or better yet just keep all our kids out of them until they restore free speech and the free flow of ideas, allow conservative speakers (I was an adjunct professor in an English Dept. in upper MI--I won't regale you with how I was treated). Just stop paying while they tell us to shut up. Hate speech if they hear an idea they don't like. Heaven forbid they should have to defend any logic or have a debate. Stop buying Hollywood movies or watching football until everybody gets to protest, not just one group. And if we are giving guaranteed incomes and all, maybe let's just get in line and stop paying the freight. See how long they get along. Shrug. It's now or never.
"...Former president and one-time Constitutional professor Barack Obama’s take on censorship: “the constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet.”
There it is – the legality of exercising one’s freedom of speech may not necessarily be protected, depending upon how it is transmitted..."
Obama wrote the first part. The second part is your interpretive framing.
“The constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet” is merely a statement of indisputable fact. The Internet has impacts on aspects of free expression that were undreamt of at the time that the Bill of Rights was written.
Consider the fact that it's possible to manipulate the ideal of free expression on the Internet in order to silence dissent and effectively censor dialogue simply by hogging bandwidth in forums like these, where the absence or lack of effective moderation (i.e., "censorship") is intended to provide an open and level playing field for the free play of ideas. The reality of the situation is that an organized swarm of axe-grinders could easily divert the topic of discussion here to their preferred subject, and then push their point of view with a Pavlovian level of repetition that leaves no room for their views to be challenged or refuted. By "no room", I mean physical room- a deluge of monomanical comments can fill up the screen to the point where no one else can get a word in edgewise. For that matter, it would be entirely possible for one nihilistic antisocial personality to simply cut and paste entire books into the story comments here, and there's really no way to stop them other than censorship.
That's just one low-tech example. When we begin to consider stuff like deepfake imagery and phishing scams using duplicated webpages, the implications for abuse of "free expression" within the "context of the Internet" get even more thorny.
One thing you are highlighting is that there is always an imaginable limit-pushing that could justify a censorship-like response. We already have limits on “free speech”: fighting words; child pornography; yelling “fire” in a crowded theater; just to name a few. We have civil punishments for libel and slander, including by news organizations, albeit with stricter limitations.
So, if this society (or the movers and shakers of it at least) for some reason start to fear that instability of the enterprise is at stake by having the citizens at each other’s throats on the internet, other exceptions will be added to free speech.
Second, the internet at its base is an infrastructure that just passes digital packets around. There are at least two issues regarding censorship: can you have access to push your platform or user packets ; and can you as a user actually engage a private platform or that is hosted on the infrastructure?
Most of the worry seems to be the second of these two issues. Are you entitled to post your opinions on Twitter or Facebook? Are they obligated to let you? Are they permitted to filter or block your access or ban you based on their own criteria?
Despite what many, mostly self-described conservative complainants have said, the law, specifically Section 230 of the CDA, not only allows but encourages platforms to filter out posts that may be considered “offensive” and it doesn’t specify what that means. It is up to the owners to make their own rules. No “neutrality” of any kind is mandated by that law, only “good faith”, another vague term. Sorry, but most of what people think is required in terms of political neutrality is a wish, not a reality. It is really not hard to find and read the law and verify this. I expect to be accused of being a snowflake censor, but so be it.
The 1st Amendment only prohibits government from making laws that abridge your speech. It doesn’t mandate that you be provided with bullhorn at someone else’s expense. We are a society that believes in something called “fairness”, but that leads many to believe that the Bill of Rights requires a lot more than it really does.
The internet complicates it and there are all kinds of algorithm excuses and what not. But the big tech companies are overtly putting their finger on the scale. WHO is going to be the arbiter of truth? Most of the censoring is done to conservatives so I can't see Obama complaining. That's something they threw in there because they lost. Another reason. But I just de-activated Facebook. People need to communicate in other ways. Social media is a nightmare and probably the worst thing that happened to human discourse anyway.
I'm thankful that there's more to the Internet news media than Facebook, and more to Internet discourse than Twitter. I participate in neither one. And frankly, their management decisions don't worry me overly much.
It was always clear to me that the Facebook news feed works as a reducing valve that's engineered to tell people only what they want to hear, as if they were monarchs pampered by a retinue of sycophantic courtiers. I could never quite get to do that.
And even with the character count doubled from 140 to 280 characters, Twitter is like something for fifth-graders. Yet the users continue to express bewilderment when their pithy three-sentence observations are misinterpreted or misunderstood, sometimes spiraling into acrimonious exchanges for pages on end...
Whether one believes him or not, Jack Dorsey justifies his attempts to place limits on posts and user access as being necessary to ensure that there is wide participation by posters without fear of intimidation through online threats. If done judiciously, the level of legitimate freedom of speech can be increased over an anything-goes approach.
Another tremendous piece. Lee Fang has done excellent work and it sickens me that he is forced to submit to the Orwellian mob that is destroying our country. Keep up the great work Matt and do not let them silence you. I am afraid they’ll come for you soon...
From out here in the cheap seats, the problem you are discussing looks like a cancer that has gone to Stage IV. Ordinary Working Joe people feel like they could lose their jobs for freely voicing their opinions like Americans. Thank you for your candor and firmness of mind. Your integrity compelled me to subscribe today.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic this article singlehandedly saved me from totally giving up on the media. Taibbi, Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, etc. are the last stand for the proud classical liberal tradition.
This is such an IMPORTANT story. But it's not just happening in newsrooms, it's happening everywhere: college campuses, corporations and the workplace, social media platforms, politics, you name it. These ideologues are the Red Guard of a new Cultural Revolution. Their goal is power and their method is leveraging progressive guilt. I think they are far, far more dangerous than Donald Trump or anything going on with the right. Thank you Matt for writing about this!
It's our modern Terror, and everyone on Twitter is our Robespierre. Right down to often having the mob turn on the accusers eventually as well. The main difference is that it's your career and reputation that get the guillotine these days.
The hijacking of the media by progressives and those to the left of them has a real potential to kill America. We need voices like Matt’s to make ordinary Americans hear how real this danger is. The Constitution cannot take much more abuse.
It’s like Fox News doesn’t even exist:
Fox News is controlled opposition that's turning more State Centric every day.
I agree with you about the of danger of this new left mafia Not only do they feed off progressive guilt, they are backed by corporate power. The 'snowflake' college kids and young workers are being led like lambs to the slaughter and willing allow this travesty.
They peddle hatred and divide as a distraction. We become so caught up in minutiae that we are missing the big picture. The complete loss of freedom, independence and the ability to find joy in anything.
It is psychological warfare. The Stanford Experiment on a global stepfordized population in the throes of Stockholm Syndrome.We’ve been in the grooming process for decades. While we were sleeping, distracted by internecine battles, American against American, neighbor against neighbor, family member against family member, we have been sold into slavery.
I’ve not witnessed anything so bizarre as the Fauci worship. A partisan love affair with a tiny tyrant responsible for the inconceivable suffering of so many, including their own. It is a stunning display of devolution
Yes, it's like Jim Jones. People are sacrificing themselves. Now they're advertising the Fentynal Epidemic, and kids are actually dying. One thing after the other.
Not only corporate power, but government direction. This is systemic wokeness for lack of a better word that is colluding to squash free speech and the US Constitution.
I agree with you about the of danger of this new left mafia Not only do they feed off progressive guilt, they are backed by corporate power. The 'snowflake' college kids and young workers are being led like lambs to the slaughter and willing allow this travesty.
And government
IDK... human history reminds us that both extremes have been fighting it out since, well since the dawn of man.
In the political climate leading up to WWII, there were plenty of communist factions running alongside national socialist fascism. Both were authoritarian and both totalitarian.
One side won out over the other eventually, and the US/GB/FR alliance's own brand of nationalism/globalism won out when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The parallels are striking, though "things are different now". PEOPLE aren't different now.
They STILL don't seem able to remember the Armenian genocide during WWI, and the cycles go on.
We'll either end up with nationalism or we'll end up with another Stalinesque era.
What about North Korea? It never recovered. I read a book about someone who escaped the camp there. He was born in it. That place is sick, and it reminds me of Washington DC.
Amazing, isn’t it? White -Free, Jew-Free zones,Asians restricted from college admissions because” they don’t have the right personalities”( I.e. they’re disciplined high achievers), Professor Bret Weinstein is mobbed and threatened for daring set foot on Evergreen’s Campus on “ No White Day”, a revered Organic Chemistry professor is fired because students complained his class was too hard, Kanye West is banned and cancelled as a racist and antisemite ( that’s rich coming from the left) for sporting a White Lives Matter t-shirt, Russell Brand is a “ Far-Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist”, Glenn Greenwald,Tulsi Gabbard,Rand Paul, Lara Logan, Sharyl Atkisson, Tucker Carlson, Mark Steyn, Neil Oliver are Putin Puppets, Drs. Malone,Ladapo,McCullough, Montagnier,Battacharaya, Risch, Gold, Hatfill,Mullis, Yeadon, Kory,Ionnides,Kuldorff,Levitt,Zelenko,Mercola,Stella,Andersen, Atlas,Shiva,Alexander are “ fringe”( nevermind several are Nobel laureates) Joe Rogan, Kim Iversen,Jimmy Dore, Steve Kirsch,Naomi Wolf, Steve Bannon, Nigel Farage,Larry Elder, Leo Terrell,Laura Ingraham, Aaron Rodgers, Raheem Kassam, Glenn Beck, Aaron Mate, Dave Reaboi, Mesmet, Asra Nomani, Caitlyn Jenner, Ron DeSantis, Ric Grenell,Tyrus, Lou DobbsVivek Ramaswamy, Jonathan Turley, RFK Jr., VDH, Mayra Flores, Bill Maher, Kash Patel, Martina Navratilova, Brandon Straka, Eric Clapton, Johnnie Lydon, … Nazis all
If we had a media outlet that wasn’t left or right, but actually reported straight news without bias and focused on allowing the American people to engage in healthy discussions, the entire corrupt system would collapse on itself. And we’d be the nation our founders( with errors along the way) intended.
And simultaneously the vaccine industry it hard at fear mongering to get us to be vaccinated with invisible skin tracers that contain our complete history and whether we have been vaccinated or not along with everything else about us. Auschwitz revisited says I.
Communism.
Bravo for writing this Matt. You could, of course, have written it without first establishing your bona fides as a trump detractor. The problem you address has nothing to do with trump and would exist regardless of who was in the white house. This doesn't mean there are no problems with trump, or that he hasn't made a bad situation worse. But that is where we are today. Before anyone can criticize the obviously insane ideological absurdities within the liberal/left wing press they must first take a swing at trump in case anyone thinks criticism of the press is the same thing as supporting trump. How sad.
Yes, taking a swipe at Trump seems like a too-easy (cowardly??) way to claim a bona fide with the left. Especially so in this case as Matt is wrong about Trump saying that Floyd would be happy with the unemployment numbers - read the transcript of what Trump said (see below) and you will see that Trump was talking about the nation's response to Floyd's death and equality (not the employment numbers). It's no different than misquoting what Trump said about Charlottesville. Facts matter. Probably better not to use a reference to WaPo as a fact-check on Trump in the future.
Trump does enough that can be legitimately criticized - there is no need to make stuff up.
Transcript - "Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender or creed. They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it. We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down right now and saying, “This is a great thing that’s happening for our country.” It’s a great day for him, it’s a great day for everyone. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality. It’s really what our Constitution requires and it’s what our country is all about."
I think that Matt takes swipes at Donald Trump so that no one who's new to his writing will be misled about his actual opinions on the guy, or about the mendacity of the Republican leaders backing up his indolent, erratic misrule and his cheesy demagoguery.
I realize that there are readers who would prefer that Matt doesn't point out that Trump is a half-competent narcissistic dunce. So much so that they're even offering rationalizations as to why he's doing it, as an exercise in managing their cognitive dissonance.
Again, my point is that by making untrue statements about Trump and citing WaPo as a fact check source is not helpful. If Trump is, as you say, "a half-competent narcissistic dunce" cite true examples to back up the opinion - don't make shit up. Reporting the truth is what this article is supposed be all about.
Assessments like the one you've quoted hold the status of opinion rather than established fact, of necessity. The statement that "Donald Trump is a half-competent narcissistic dunce" is a summary interpretation of evidence, not the evidence itself. Therefore, no amount of factual evidence can demonstrate the veracity of the conclusion to someone determined to deny it.
So all I can do is claim it as my opinion. It just happens to be an opinion that Matt Taibbi shares. As he's explicitly stated, with words to that effect.
George Will shares that opinion as well, and he "cites true examples to back up the opinion" much more pointedly and acerbically than I could hope to do by composing my own response here.
I suspect that you'd wave off anything he has to say, also. But, just in case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-a-dangerous-disability/2017/05/03/56ca6118-2f6b-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html
Again - I'm on your side here. I agree that Trump does a lot that can be criticized. Let's cite those things and not make up stuff that can be easily refuted. Otherwise the media look like fools when they support the Russia collusion, Charlottesville mis-quotes, Kavanaugh rape allegations etc etc that all turn out to be not true.
I'm always willing to listen and read from all sides - just not willing to support WaPo or NYT anymore for their bad journalism.
George Will doesn't mention anything about Russia, Charlottesville, or Brett Kavanaugh in that column, which was written on May 3, 2017, less than four months into Donald Trump's term in office. He does, however, bring up Trump vignettes like this one:
"[Trump] has instructed us that Andrew Jackson was angry about the Civil War that began 16 years after Jackson’s death. Having, let us fancifully imagine, considered and found unconvincing William Seward’s 1858 judgment that the approaching Civil War was 'an irrepressible conflict,' Trump says:
“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Library shelves groan beneath the weight of books asking questions about that war’s origins, so who, one wonders, are these “people” who don’t ask the questions that Trump evidently thinks have occurred to him uniquely? Presumably they are not the astute “lot of,” or at least “some,” people Trump referred to when speaking about his February address to a joint session of Congress: “A lot of people have said that, some people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber.” Which demotes Winston Churchill, among many others..."
I have my issues with the Washington Post, as well as the New York Times, and have long been skeptical about aspects of their focus and coverage. But while I find the diversity of viewpoints presented in their editorial pages to be more narrow than I would prefer, neither paper dictates the words or opinions of the op-ed columnists on their staff. Notwithstanding the insinuations of partisans who seek to impeach the credibility of everything printed in their pages.
George Will has been syndicated with the Post since 1974; if you've been boycotting him simply because of that fact, then you've missed his frequently scathing criticisms of the Clinton and Obama administrations, which I occasionally found to be trenchant and on-point.
Washington Post is so biased, they are one of the news outlets that "destroyed" ITSELF!
Didnt you just reply to me “...when it becomes a thing for people to start demanding references for every fact claim...?”
The reason we NEED facts is that so many people don't have or want them. Many are simply parrots for talking points. All noise no substance. When presented w facts, they attack. You actually HAD facts so whats your excuse? It’s your “avocation?” Then im glad you have the free time to do it and you’re welcome. I typically ignore bullshit behavior on boards and chats. some people dont know how to communicate without being condescending. Their main objective is not intelligent discourse or commentary - it’s trying to prove to themselves how smart they are. frankly no one else cares how smart OR how socially retarded you are.
Usually I avoid the intellectually lazy, narcissistic gutter with such people. But today its making ME feel better. There was no need for your reply condescending or otherwise. I didnt specifically ask you or anyone else to do my “legwork.” You didnt do it to INFORM - you did it to live out some fantasy of your superior intellect. You had time to look up numbers. Yaaay you!
agreed
I agree, and you made the point well. Thx for the transcript too. It seemed out of place at first blush, Matt's opening dump on Trump - awkward even if it were true. But a bell dinged in my head that Trump did not say that. He was accused of this, then the actual quote disproved the accusation.
What's the saying - a lie gets around the world before truth can put on its pants? Just shows how bad it's gotten that my (so-called "better",) 'progressive' team (former, blame TDS-Resistance Fever) will run with something so easily disproven. They've stopped even caring, even trying to be slick. Actually, this debunking account of what Trump actually said would've meshed better with the entire piece's theme. I have not finished it, incidentally. That said, I skimmed it and I like it. I really do appreciate Matt's helpfully rebellious contributions to our ever dwindling collective sanity.
I think you may have interpreted what Matt said incorrectly. The 'and' preceding the unemployment numbers clause could easily be separate from the Floyd looking down from heaven clause, part of the list of 'calls to dominate marches' and 'floyd' and 'unemployment'. Non?
The trump smack talk basically gets the default sleep walking liberal in agreement with him from the get-go, making them more open to accept the rest of his argument. I haven't been a progressive since 2014 and I haven't been a Democrat since 2016 but there are so so many who have, perhaps until recently been completely unaware of the transformation and subversion of the left by complete and total radicals.
Totally with you on that. I organized for both Obama Campaigns. When I saw the outcome of too much immigration on the minorities & whites already here I felt stabbed in the back. 5 states went right to work, wages stagnated for 8 years and there was a lot of racial violence and deaths by shooting (In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015. 2019 - t least 15,292 people were fatally shot in The United States in 2019).
Something went really wrong!
Obama got filibustered over 250 times.
Heh, it's a way to get partially through the brainwashing.
It's exactly the same kind of constraint that anyone who might dare oppose defunding the police now how to include paragraphs about how saintly George Floyd was and on and on. The poor man died a horrific death, and the cop who did it should face justice. But that doesn't mean that George Floyd himself is ready for sainthood.
Of course Floyd was no saint. It’s part of the point. Do you think if he was some no account white guy trying to pass a fake 20, that cop would have stepped on his throat for 9 minutes? Although many of those killed by cops were totally innocent of wrongdoing, most were breaking the law in one way or another. None, however were doing anything that should have cost them their lives. I’m Atlanta, they could have let that guy get away and arrest him the next day. They had his car, all his information, was he a danger to anyone? No. Yes he was stupid for resisting, but fatally stupid? Really?
Wasn't the Atlanta guy trying to get in a car and drive away while intoxicated, after stealing the police's taser? If he had then run over an innocent person, or otherwise hurt someone, what should the police tell that person's family? Respectfully, what you are saying is that the police should let people successfully resist arrest. Can you see any problems that might flow from that approach? Here's one: if it's known that you can get away with resisting arrest, a lot more people will try it, and more police and more suspects will be hurt and killed. Violence incident to arrests will escalate. People need to understand, you cannot resist arrest.
"Wasn't the Atlanta guy trying to get in a car and drive away while intoxicated?"
No, he was not. He was running away from his vehicle on foot.
As for resisting arrest, it's a crime. It's still a crime if someone manages to successfully break free of the arresting officers; in fact, someone who does so is liable to have even more charges added to their offenses. It makes no difference if they aren't apprehended until the next day, or the next year. So there's no way that Ray Brooks was going to "get away with resisting arrest."
It's also a crime for police to shoot a fleeing suspect (unless, perhaps, they're brandishing a firearm; Brooks had grabbed a taser from one of the officers and fired it before turning to run, but had already been frisked and was found to have no weapons.) If the officer who shot and killed him has any plausible defense, it will depend on convincing a jury that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect had not been fleeing, but was instead still engaged in attacking the officers.
Paul Howard the Fulton Cty DA said on video in a case just 2 weeks before charging the officers “a taser is a deadly weapon.” Police officers deadly weapon was ripped from his holster by Brooks. This requires the use of deadly force. But dont worry - that will NEVER happen again. Cops will prob let the next one go and then everyone can scream and have a tantrum because they werent responsive. Its happening in Minneapolis and CHOP as we speak. Also, i wish we would all stop referring to the enemy occupied strip of land by a name. I know its “sexy” for soundbites and click bait (which is essentially ALL online media) but it somehow provides an air of legitimacy. Lets call it what it is - an attack and invasion of an American city and a coup by local elected officials.
I didn't issue any judgement about whether or not the officer who shot Brooks was guilty of a crime. That's for a jury to decide.
I do think a criminal investigation of the shooting was warranted.
In general, I remain more worried about the reality of overuse of deadly force by American police than the possibility that they might stop using it completely, as you have speculated.
As for the off-topic matter of the events in Minneapolis and Seattle: there are no "coups" of a jurisdiction by its own elected officials. And the question of whether or not their policies and decisions were wise is to be settled at the polls by their voters, at either the next scheduled election or through a recall.
Atlanda PD deadly force rules: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/atlanta-police-use-of-deadly-force-procedures/85-1e326736-eac0-4969-989d-5671c0f23549
Floyd died of fentanyl overdose before Chauvin could really get at him. First sign of fentanyl OD is that you can't breathe. Floyd swallowed the fentanyl he was dealing to cover up the evidence (he had a habit of doing that) while still in his Mercedes resisting arrest.
Well, in this case, taking a swipe at Trump opens the door for him to be persuasive to a leftist audience he is already afraid will dismiss him out of hand. I taught Argument classes as an adjunct professor at Northern MI University. It's a good Rogerian argument technique when you know you have a tough audience and are trying to find middle ground. A good choice on his part.
I agree with your point that establishing a common ground with your audience is a good technique (see...I just did it with you) and perhaps I could have made my point above with more emphasis on the point that Matt should not use the WaPo to fact check Trump. Perpetuating the lies of the MSM to establish a bond with your audience is not a good long-term strategy. I expect more of Matt as he is one of few intelligent voices or reason in a crowd of journalistic idiots.
Yes, I see you did. :) Well, since he's a Democrat I'm surprised he's willing to take these people on to the extent he is. Your point on the WaPo notwithstanding.
That's why I support him with my annual subscription. Matt asks the obvious and the hard questions.
Yep, and that's why I just did it!! Way too few honest journalists left in this country.
I don't think that Matt Taibbi is a Democrat- at least, I've never read anything by him or about him where a political party affiliation is announced.
I suspect that- like myself- Matt merely ends up voting that way most of the time, despite his misgivings. Because the other party in this rigged game- that would be the Republicans- is so odious that they aren't even worthy of tough-love attempts at constructive criticism.
(It's all a farce until we get ranked-choice voting, really. Just let us rank preferences for two candidates, that's all I ask.)
To be clear, Matt has a strong track record of anti-Trump writing. You are correct that his election to put those words into the article is to establish some credibility with that audience... but his bone fides are only questioned by those who are too blinded by Trump hate to see the dangers from his enemies. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not the best path when in that way Comey becomes your buddy (despite the totality of his actions including destroying HRC's election chances). I try to hate the bad actors on both sides equally and lament the weakness of the center.
Ha and of course demonizing Taibbi because "The enemy of the enemy of my enemy is my enemy" is a common mistake.
I'm sure he does have a history of it, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't remind folks. Or shouldn't. It's a good strategy of persuasion. I'm not sure I'm following the rest of your point. WHOSE enemies? Trump's or Matt's?
People have thought Matt is their enemy if they hate Trump and their hate of Trump blinds them to the crimes of Russiagate and especially the media's handling of it, which Matt calls out. You can both dislike Trump and dislike what Comey, Brennan, and co. did, which is roughly Matt's position. The enemy (Comey) of your enemy (Trump) is not always your friend.
Totally.. and I'll add that peoples' attention spans are worse than a fruit fly's currently.
If it's not all over the news they forget.
I see. That makes sense--clearer. Yep.
We have had the general conversation on the topic before and it always comes up that people want to know where to go to read balanced coverage now that we're in this situation. I still recommend realclearpolitics. The views go from the center to the extreme on both sides, and you can decide what you want. Fair warning, their overall selection bias is slightly right of center but they have tons of content from the left, some very good right center sources, and then some stuff that's too far right imho. But I can figure all of that out and what I want to read is not what I agree with but ALL OF IT, because I for one trust myself to figure out what I agree with rather than be spoonfed stuff I can parrot to my friends.
I find it surreal that in trying to cancel my New York Times membership I am forced to wait for an available agent. They literally structured their system to not allow cancelation without speaking to them. There site doesn't even allow for the removal of billing info unless it's replaced with other billing info. How the f*** is this legal?? This is like the extortion you read about with shady scam sites! NYT has apparently become a pornographic institution extorting your money by a trial of time: I've been waiting 20 minutes to speak with someone and my only recourse is reporting them to PayPal. There are "9 Step Guides" on Google for how to cancel one's NYT subscription. It feels like the death star. I'm genuinely outraged that a major news outlet treats its subscribers this way.
It took me an hour to cancel...
No different than canceling my cable subscription. They wanted the opportunity to change my mind and to offer me a discount to stay subscribed. Same annoying treatment when I canceled my NYT subscription, for different reasons.
Perhaps the support agents are clogged because we're not the only ones scrambling to cease supporting the paper?
We are constantly being told we need to engage in a “dialogue” about race. But you can’t have a dialogue in a minefield where the slightest misstep sets off a Twitter explosion. This, of course, ends up ticking off the white working class, falling right into the hands of the ruling elites—both liberal and conservative— whose greatest fear is that poor whites, blacks and Native Americans will one day discover there Is more that unites than divides them.
A “respected” journalist posted on Twitter a statement that started with “...some Fucknuts in Nebraska...” (Read: WHITE). THIS sums up perfectly the condescending, casual racism that is part and parcel of the liberal elitist manifesto. Its much of what got Trump elected the first time and (voter fraud and intimidation at the polls not withstanding) may help to get him a 2nd term. What thinking person can vote for Joe “im a REAL boy” Biden? Should we not vote at all?
Do you mean they don't fear the civilizational implosion of civil society irrespective of their wealth?
Thank you. I just stopped my$5 a month subscription to NY Times. I didn’t even read Cottons piece until after the uproar. I found it unremarkable, Trumpian rhetoric and certainly not anything shocking. Intolerance of diverse opinions in our current climate has become truly unsettling...
I'm yanking my subscription as well. If the NYT is going to become just another partisan site I can get that at Vox or Slate for free.
Thank you for defending Lee and providing greater clarity about what happened. I shared a few classes with Lee in college since we had the same major and distinctly remember him as one of the few people in lecture that actually gave a shit and asked probing questions (many of the other smart students were just gunning for the foreign service and basically took whatever was taught at face value). I'm still a big fan of The Intercept's reporting, but I was disappointed how his colleagues failed to publicly defend him from such a serious and spurious charge.
Matt, I am an Independent right-leaning voter who often disagrees with your political take on things. Like Glenn Greenwald or Bill Maher, you have been to me like a broken clock that's right twice a day. But I just subscribed to you because this post hits every nail on the head with fearless disregard for the cultural firebombers. And they will come.
But I say to you today the problem is far more widespread than just our Fourth Estate. Actor Hartley Sawyer, aka The Flash (ex-Flash now) has been incinerated on social media and unpersoned over uncharitable texts in his youth about Rev. Al Sharpton and homeless women's breasts. The latter was no doubt a puerile attempt to one-up his similarly immature social media peers. No trial. No appeal. Just burned to the ground like Minneapolis on social media, along with his hit show. Think about that. The CW canceled a hit show out of fear of the SJW mob.
The Terror is back in Hollywood, and no one is safe this time. You don't even get a show trial before the American people. Even worse, our enlightened Culture Police are now in Hollywood editing rooms (HBO in this case) adding mandatory SJW commentary to Gone With The Wind. GWTW has shot up to #1 on Amazon and Blazing Saddles is climbing the ladder. That tells me ordinary Americans don't trust Hollywood to protect our treasured film heritage. How sad and pathetic a statement is that?
Politics are fine in the larger discussion of finding ways to solve social problems. It's how we hash ideas out and improve society. But the trends I am seeing now, and of which you report on here, are more reminiscent of the Soviet-era Pravda. The truth is whatever the State says it is, and even the slightest dissent will be met with ruthless personal destruction and ostracism. I grew up reading William L. Shirer, John Hersey, Peter Maas, Robin Moore, Woodward and Bernstein and many more like them.
They are what real investigative journalists aspire to: following the truth and the story no matter to whom and where it leads, and regardless of politics. Now the political cart leads the journalism horse, and woe betide anyone who says the horse should be in front. I may not always agree with you, Matt, but you've always aspired to teh truth of the matter in all your reporting, and that is enough for me. Keep up the great work!
The twitter lynch mobs have a great deal to answer for, except they never do answer for it.
Crazy times indeed. It is reminiscent of the Hollywood Terror. A tipping point will come when enough people are sickened of their arbitrary and capricious cultural fascism.
in the meantime, the faux-mo madness rages on https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/olivia-benson-svu-mariska-hargitay-canceled-cops-1014181/
I'll be waiting breathlessly for the unpacking of Dragnet, Adam-12, CHiPs, Barnaby Jones, and Miami Vice. The Wire would be too much of a heavy lift, but Prime Suspect might be good for at least master's thesis. And maybe one day critical theory will manage to construct the One True Template for the way police characters are to be portrayed in fake gunplay entertainment.
I think real media criticism would inquire into why there are so many fake gun battles, where no innocent bystander ever gets caught in a crossfire or gets hit by ricochets, and the the heroes only get winged while the villains die on the spot (rather bloodlessly, and with little sign of pain.) Not to mention the implausibility of the sound of the gunshots, which rarely rise above the volume of normal speech in TV portrayals, but are terrifyingly loud at close distances in real life.
Yeah, I read that yesterday. Unbelievable, but par for the course these days...
I just subscribed as well. This censorship and lack of media integrity is the greatest threat to a free society. And bravo to anyone who recognizes it. Bravo, Matt.
1984 -- The writer of Truth rewrites history to fit whatever they want. Read the book. That's the news media today. A warning leftists: Stalin and Hitler controlled the media. It's not TRUMP controlling the media. Or ignoring the truth. And it should scare the hell out of every American.
Another book about to be censored or banned outright.
I am buying up classic dvds and books. Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, anything Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Ellison, Faulkner. Also just got myself a nee copy of Atlas Shrugged. Soon anything ever written or directed by a white male will go the way of anything Columbus. Will Ohio be forced to change that too? Sound extreme? Webster’s has been guilted into re-writing the definition of “racism” and this year ALONE there are 19 newly published versions of the Twain classics. I suspect Matt’s books will be gone as well someday. A white guy writing a book about Eric Garner? Im sure that is somehow evidence of white privilege or something
Point of order, calling Hartley Sawyer "the Flash" is a huge STRETCH (and those who know what I mean get the pun).
"Today no one with a salary will stand up for colleagues like Lee Fang." And that's why I just subscribed to your substack, thanks for your indispensable work Matt!
I just subscribed too....
Me three!
Me four!
Me 5
Same here!
Me 6
Damn man. This was what I (and I imagine many others) need to read right now. I thank you for finally not tiptoeing around the thing I've had to come to grips with myself - that the left has completely lost all credibility and sanity. I only hope others can see through the corporate pandering and corruption that is the DNC in 2020.
An excellent piece! Thank you for speaking out against the insanity currently infesting left-wing American newsrooms. Sometimes it feels like the world would be a much better place without Twitter.
Mr. Taibbi fires a warning shot to alert us that the “instinct (in the American media) to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has been in evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon.” I would say not “since” -- that vile instinct has merely been more in evidence. The media’s fear and hatred for diversity of opinion, for the freedom of speech, has doubtless worsened since President Tweet was heaved onto the throne. But the hatred and fear of free speech have been lovingly cultivated for years; they are now blossoming.
All those college students we laughed out, the perpetually-petulant ones who reacted with fury and tears against views diverse from their own, remember them? The ones who crawled into college-provided Safe Spaces, laughably, or stormed classrooms and auditoriums all Nazi-like to scream down, silence and intimidate, ominously. And there was a reason that rather than expel those obviously unfit for a higher education, America’s universities, from the Ivies to the community colleges, rushed to comfort them, cancelled events, fired professors and prostrated themselves before them.
It was because the students’ fear and loathing of freedom of speech had been taught to them by that university. Not all of the universities or all those who worked in them agreed with and preached the hatred and fear, but obviously more than enough did. And from them, out tumbled our press corps.
Former president and one-time Constitutional professor Barack Obama’s take on censorship: “the constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet.” There it is – the legality of exercising one’s freedom of speech may not necessarily be protected, depending upon how it is transmitted. A fascinating legal argument and one that sadly he did not stress on the campaign trail – but he did write it in his Audacity of Hope in 2006. (The press, and this was over a dozen years ago now, couldn’t get enough of him.)
And he and many like him preached this view on freedom of speech on campuses from sea to shining sea. In 2009, the year Obama ascended to the throne, Ivy League constitutional law Professor Cass Sunstein published his call for government censorship of the Internet in his On Rumors. Professor Sunstein stressed that “free expression…usually works, but in some contexts is an incomplete correction.” At least he’s honest, I thought.
But then on the very next page he suddenly begs the reader to understand that his book “should not be taken as a plea for any kind of censorship,” and heavens, please don’t get that idea. I was a bit miffed. You would expect a Harvard law professor to have the courage of his convictions. But he recovered himself on the very next page his “a chilling effect can be an excellent safeguard” from those malicious, false Internet rumors, the power to chill exercised by a wise and benevolent government. So censorship it is.
Obama, now president, rose to the defense of free speech by appointing Professor Sunstein to be his Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. (The fact that his title included the word “information” shows that Obama may have a wicked sense of humor.) Today, Mr. Sunstein expresses his views prominently in major media. And now………
Our press is chock full to the brim with their college graduates. Those from our elite universities are a privileged caste, well paid and well equipped with a credentials. Our best universities – these are their children. Obama, Sunstein and Pals shaped their view on free speech. And all this that Mr. Taibbi rightly describes with alarm, I saw coming years ago.
For decades now the New York City university students who hang about Union Square have been wearing t-shirts not with any Founding Father emblazoned on their chest, but Che and Mao, neither of whom were noted for their tolerance of contrary opinions. This was bound to have consequences for freedom. Show me your heroes and I’ll show you yourself.
Yep. Defund public universities -- any that don't allow open debate, the free exchange of ideas. Conservative speakers. I am a libertarian (ish) person and was an adjunct professor at Northern Michigan University and I can attest to the degree of intolerance. Just take our kids out of of these schools, stop paying for Hollywood movie stars to brainwash our kids. Stop paying, America. Pay and shut up, they say. Maybe it's time Atlas Shrugged.
So funny u mentioned Ayn Rand before recent events (right after lockdown) i re-read Atlas Shrugged for the first time since college. At first i thought it was middle-aged cynicism that made me Consider its validity. Now? Shrug away.
If only all questions of politics and the economy came down to the most creative, intelligent, productive, virtuous and just plain all around superior folks being oppressed by the other 99.9%, until the 0.1% revolted because they just couldn't take the intolerable conditions of their existence any more.
Ha. I take care of my dad full time right now -- he's in a bad way. But I'm seriously thinking of starting the "Don't pay, America" movement or "Shrug, America" where we defund universities or better yet just keep all our kids out of them until they restore free speech and the free flow of ideas, allow conservative speakers (I was an adjunct professor in an English Dept. in upper MI--I won't regale you with how I was treated). Just stop paying while they tell us to shut up. Hate speech if they hear an idea they don't like. Heaven forbid they should have to defend any logic or have a debate. Stop buying Hollywood movies or watching football until everybody gets to protest, not just one group. And if we are giving guaranteed incomes and all, maybe let's just get in line and stop paying the freight. See how long they get along. Shrug. It's now or never.
"Wallets closed! Don't shoot!"
"...Former president and one-time Constitutional professor Barack Obama’s take on censorship: “the constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet.”
There it is – the legality of exercising one’s freedom of speech may not necessarily be protected, depending upon how it is transmitted..."
Obama wrote the first part. The second part is your interpretive framing.
“The constitutional text tells us that freedom of speech must be protected, but it doesn’t tell us what such freedom means in the context of the Internet” is merely a statement of indisputable fact. The Internet has impacts on aspects of free expression that were undreamt of at the time that the Bill of Rights was written.
Consider the fact that it's possible to manipulate the ideal of free expression on the Internet in order to silence dissent and effectively censor dialogue simply by hogging bandwidth in forums like these, where the absence or lack of effective moderation (i.e., "censorship") is intended to provide an open and level playing field for the free play of ideas. The reality of the situation is that an organized swarm of axe-grinders could easily divert the topic of discussion here to their preferred subject, and then push their point of view with a Pavlovian level of repetition that leaves no room for their views to be challenged or refuted. By "no room", I mean physical room- a deluge of monomanical comments can fill up the screen to the point where no one else can get a word in edgewise. For that matter, it would be entirely possible for one nihilistic antisocial personality to simply cut and paste entire books into the story comments here, and there's really no way to stop them other than censorship.
That's just one low-tech example. When we begin to consider stuff like deepfake imagery and phishing scams using duplicated webpages, the implications for abuse of "free expression" within the "context of the Internet" get even more thorny.
One thing you are highlighting is that there is always an imaginable limit-pushing that could justify a censorship-like response. We already have limits on “free speech”: fighting words; child pornography; yelling “fire” in a crowded theater; just to name a few. We have civil punishments for libel and slander, including by news organizations, albeit with stricter limitations.
So, if this society (or the movers and shakers of it at least) for some reason start to fear that instability of the enterprise is at stake by having the citizens at each other’s throats on the internet, other exceptions will be added to free speech.
Second, the internet at its base is an infrastructure that just passes digital packets around. There are at least two issues regarding censorship: can you have access to push your platform or user packets ; and can you as a user actually engage a private platform or that is hosted on the infrastructure?
Most of the worry seems to be the second of these two issues. Are you entitled to post your opinions on Twitter or Facebook? Are they obligated to let you? Are they permitted to filter or block your access or ban you based on their own criteria?
Despite what many, mostly self-described conservative complainants have said, the law, specifically Section 230 of the CDA, not only allows but encourages platforms to filter out posts that may be considered “offensive” and it doesn’t specify what that means. It is up to the owners to make their own rules. No “neutrality” of any kind is mandated by that law, only “good faith”, another vague term. Sorry, but most of what people think is required in terms of political neutrality is a wish, not a reality. It is really not hard to find and read the law and verify this. I expect to be accused of being a snowflake censor, but so be it.
The 1st Amendment only prohibits government from making laws that abridge your speech. It doesn’t mandate that you be provided with bullhorn at someone else’s expense. We are a society that believes in something called “fairness”, but that leads many to believe that the Bill of Rights requires a lot more than it really does.
The internet complicates it and there are all kinds of algorithm excuses and what not. But the big tech companies are overtly putting their finger on the scale. WHO is going to be the arbiter of truth? Most of the censoring is done to conservatives so I can't see Obama complaining. That's something they threw in there because they lost. Another reason. But I just de-activated Facebook. People need to communicate in other ways. Social media is a nightmare and probably the worst thing that happened to human discourse anyway.
I'm thankful that there's more to the Internet news media than Facebook, and more to Internet discourse than Twitter. I participate in neither one. And frankly, their management decisions don't worry me overly much.
It was always clear to me that the Facebook news feed works as a reducing valve that's engineered to tell people only what they want to hear, as if they were monarchs pampered by a retinue of sycophantic courtiers. I could never quite get to do that.
And even with the character count doubled from 140 to 280 characters, Twitter is like something for fifth-graders. Yet the users continue to express bewilderment when their pithy three-sentence observations are misinterpreted or misunderstood, sometimes spiraling into acrimonious exchanges for pages on end...
Yes, this is true! I
Whether one believes him or not, Jack Dorsey justifies his attempts to place limits on posts and user access as being necessary to ensure that there is wide participation by posters without fear of intimidation through online threats. If done judiciously, the level of legitimate freedom of speech can be increased over an anything-goes approach.
The biggest indictment of the press is the fact that I'm reading this on SubStack instead of the NYT.
amen
Another tremendous piece. Lee Fang has done excellent work and it sickens me that he is forced to submit to the Orwellian mob that is destroying our country. Keep up the great work Matt and do not let them silence you. I am afraid they’ll come for you soon...
I subscribed the minute I finished reading. Thank you for continuing to practice journalism.
I did, too. Finally, a voice of reason.
From out here in the cheap seats, the problem you are discussing looks like a cancer that has gone to Stage IV. Ordinary Working Joe people feel like they could lose their jobs for freely voicing their opinions like Americans. Thank you for your candor and firmness of mind. Your integrity compelled me to subscribe today.
But...but...didn't you hear their explanation? They're only censoring, drowning out and cancelling the BAD ideas. What could possibly go wrong?
NOTE: No, they are not aware of the irony.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic this article singlehandedly saved me from totally giving up on the media. Taibbi, Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, etc. are the last stand for the proud classical liberal tradition.
Chris Hedges, too....
Aaron Mate, despite being a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, has integrity and a commitment to real journalism.