Unprecedented efforts to squelch information about a New York Post story may prove to be more dangerous corruption than whatever Hunter Biden did with a crooked Ukrainian energy company
Wow, I am blown away by the criticisms of Matt Taibbi. I am a Trump partisan who craves an objective understanding of reality. I obviously cannot rely on my bubble, Fox News and Breitbart to name two, to test reality. I need the views of people outside my bubble that overlap with my understanding of reality to ensure that my analysis is correct. Thus, I have assiduously sought out the views of left of center pundits to see where the Venn diagram circles overlap. In a recent communication with my son, I listed the people I trust who view the world very differently from myself. The list includes Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert cartoons, Tim Pool, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Jimmy Dorr, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Chris Hedges, Bjorn Lomborg, Gad Saad, and many others. Interestingly, studies have found that conservatives know more about liberal media than liberals know about conservative media. Matt Taibbi is my most trusted source of objective insight. Please don’t dissuade him from critiques of modern media.
Same boat. Dead on. Honest critics of the media looking at it from the left, and an army of OG and newer Black Conservative voices are the people making the most sense right now.
Sorry I am so dense. I am trying to understand your comment. It seems to be sarcasm but I honestly don't get the joke. Do you view Matt as a Trump partisan? Is it possible that you are honestly surprised that a Trump partisan is actually interested in reality, objectivity, and honesty? I am being serious. Please help me better understand your point.
Forget it, Ken. If you're to the right of Mao and off the Marxist SJW reservation you're a Trump partisan and a counterrevolutionary. See how that works?
"They" are feigning that everyone here is somehow a Trump partisan. That's why it doesn't make any sense (to any of us). One has to remember how strongly many people feel that anything to the right of them is all part of one big pro-Trump bucket. The world is far worse than black and white to them, if you're not pro everything they are, you are beyond the pale. No room for nuance!
Matt Taibbi is also my most trusted source of objective insight. I find it confirmed that he is such because those on the left and right criticize him.
I would ask you the provide links to the studies you mentioned that have found that conservatives know more than liberals about opposing media views. It comes as a surprise to me.
From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):
When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations – Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity – I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.
In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:
Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they causeany more harm)3
One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.
Thanks for your reply. I love Jonathan Haidt, and have always considered it a betrayal that he refuses to condemn Conservatives😉. I fully subscribe to the notion that both sides have moral architecture; they just use different building blocks. I don't think that I would be very good at predicting how Conservatives would react to a given situation, though I do think I'd predict that Conservatives would rush to defend a defenseless animal (I'd be less ready to say that if animal were replaced by homeless person in that statement - while admitting that I think that most liberals care more about animals than people as well). I think liberals are inclined to predict that Conservatives would disagree with the statement about Justice, because the moral foundations of Conservatives do seem to align with Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity, and Justice doesn't seem to play well with that triumvirate.
I often do try to understand the Conservative position, allowing that they are human, have feelings and families, and hope to get to heaven, but often can't. Can you explain to me for example how they can tolerate the policy that divided children from their parents (if you accept the premise of that question). I will allow that our immigration reality is a shameful morass, but I just think that taking a kid away form his/her parent is inhuman.
Anyway, I have boarded the "more that unites us than divides us" boat, because anything else leads to ends that I am loathe to contemplate, so we need to keep trying to understand.
The "taking kids away" issue depends totally on whether they are "taking kids away" from "PARENTS." My understanding is that people come across the border illegally and cannot prove they are the parents of the kids they bring with them. It is a demonstrable fact that some evil people take advantage of the "catch and release for parents and children" situation by bringing children to the border who are NOT their children. If it can be proven that the Trump Administration is separating children from known and provable parents then I will condemn them. So far, the evidence and logic seem to support the Administration's position, and it is the same position that the Obama Administration had as well.
Simple question. Would the same level of media prudence be accorded to Eric, Don Jr, or Ivanka right now - two weeks before the election - if Trump was ahead in the polls?
Zero chance. The media is in the tank for Biden, is entirely biased and I have nothing but disdain for anyone in the MSM. I have voted with my wallet by opting out of any portion of the economy that doesn't support our Constitution, law and order, and a complete commitment to the American people regardless of age, gender, orientation, race, national origin and religion.
As a subscriber here, I have chosen to support a writer who appears to be unbiased and reading all of your comments is refreshing (albeit some of you have nothing to offer other than insults which is childish).
The “media” is not in the tank for Biden. Ever heard of Hannity? Limbaugh? Savage? Sinclair media corp? Infinity broadcasting? OANN? All of these and more relentlessly peddle Donny Johns’ BS as gospel. Spare me the tired tome of poor Donny getting mistreated by the “media”.
I won't argue the positives of the MSM, because I can't. But I'm interested to hear where you are finding "support our Constitution, law and order, and a complete commitment to the American people regardless of age, gender, orientation, race, national "origin and religion."
Looked at the Daily Beast article and googled it, because while I frequently hear this, I am curious how much is real and how much TDS. It stands to reason that this would be a real possibility. However, I don't find anything objectionable about someone who is developing a brand to seek trademarks internationally. Seems like standard business procedure to me. Hatch act violations for tweeting support for her father. Hmm? First is she a covered by the Hatch act? It would seem that, if she is a "federal employee", given that she has no salary, it would seem obvious that she would fall under the "less restricted employees", and as such would be perfectly legal for her to run for office herself, or work on someone else's campaign. I do not doubt that she has promoted the interests of her own family. As to how much of that is corruption is a question that I would be interested in seeing substantiated.
Note how you leave no legalistic stone unturned to justify Ivanka et al, while giving no such courtesy is afforded to Hunter Biden. I guarantee you, if Trump loses, the entire gang will go down on state charges, at the very least, unless they flee the country.
If Trump wins, we'd have 4 more years of democratic rabid insanity; new impeachment, new lies, celebrity degenerates losing their minds etc., but if Kamala wins we'd have a mentally deranged puppet 'presiding' over Maoist-Stalinist kleptocracy, powered by what was f.k.a. Deep State (now "commentators" in media) plus the media plus the Party on power.
Actually, we'll have four more years of death by COVID and national decline at the hands of the "most dangerous organization in human history -- the GOP." -- Noam Chomsky.
Worse than Mao? Stalin? Hitler? See, this is why nobody pays any mind to you TDS-afflicted drama queens. You are, like your candidate, completely out of touch with reality. Funny. Fascism is always descending in America under Republicans, but always seems to land under Democrats. Who's silencing you?
Drama king, actually. And yes, Chomsky argues that the GOP complete refusal to do anything about climate disruption threatens global distinction of the human race. This is new, and was not in the power of any of the leaders you mentioned.
What about the DNC's complete refusal to do anything about it ? The only thing new is who's taking the bribes. Just wait and it will change hands again from the bad cop to the good cop.
So funny how people still believe there are two parties. I guess the indoctrination process is far better than even the Nazi party could ever dream of.
That not true. The Dems have done much more than the GOP on climate change, which, granted, was pretty easy since the GOP has done nothing. Trump rolled back everything Obama did just out of spite.
whoa you paid $5 to subscribe here and access the comments section to write that?!
that comment, within the context, tone, and substance of this thread, is about as helpful as interrupting an Al-Anon meeting so you can talk about what your farts smell like.
but hey look at all those likes the comment got. i guess you are getting your money's worth!
The importance of the Burisma story so far is that it tells us so much about how gingerly the press handles any story that may reflect badly on Democratic Party interests, as contrasted with the rapid and vapid repition it indulges in the cases of unsubstantiated stories about Republican operatives cooperating with foreign, especially "dictatorial" countries. We call this censorship.
Please list one source who'll admit that the press is in the pockets of the Dems.
Are you a paying customer of Matt's? If so, why are you letting him get away with not upholding the standards you pay him for?
I voted for Reagan twice. I voted for W. If Biden is guilty, ring him up. But Matt's piece isn't evidence. It's an opinion piece that readers here are upvoting to journalism.
Matt is the story here. Why can't people see this?
It's unlikely that a source would make such an admission. Matt is a working journalist who reports, rather eloquently I think, on the observations he makes. He has observed, for instance, that two of our finest journalists, Seymour Hersh and Chris Hedges, both formerly at the NYT, have had to find other outlets for their stories. Chris Hedges has spoken about the subtle and sometimes not so subtle pressures on journalists to conform. So has Hersh in his book "Reporter." Just because it's a Republican talking point does not make it untrue.
"the press is in the pockets of the Dems" implies that they are in financial cahoots with the dems. Matt never said that. Again I keep saying this but has the ability to read and understand written words somehow disappeared out there? Matt is pointing out the clear hypocrisy of the press. And who do want to be the source...CNN, MSNBC? You think they are going to admit the obvious? What source would suffice for you? A booming voice from the heavens?
Why can't half the readers who comment here focus on the actual story Matt is writing rather than interject their clear bias into their comments.
Obviously this piece is opinion. What planet do you live on? Maybe you should stop spinning backwards and go forward.
I agree. The members of the press are not in financial cahoots. I believe they took up their lower-paid craft sincerely and organized their lives so as never to encounter people, including religious or thoughtful or self-supporting ones, whose views do not harmonize with their own.
(I'm an ex-journo who liked the work but avoided political reportage and fled for more stable employment.)
For those who remained, the best -- and perhaps only -- paths to a living wage required taking a side. My laid-off former colleagues now are flak-catchers for state legislators and agencies or, more desirably, talking heads on local or national television.
I understand their decisions, but I'm happy to be gone..
This absolutely makes sense. I am glad at least you are gone from the business and don't have to put up with the crap anymore. It is too bad that reporting became journalism.
Your points are completely orthogonal to the article. You tried to change the subject and make the purpose of the article about Matt. Focus on the points of the article and not who wrote the article. You are obviously a cancel culture person. This is how a cancel culture person responds to an article. Not about the content of the article but the person who wrote it. I don't care if a monkey wrote this article. I care about the contents.
Why do you want to make this personal and try to figure me out?
Perhaps you read the post where I said "fuck you, Matt", and I'm cancelling?
I then came to my senses and wrote to Matt that I'm not cancelling - it's right here somewhere, find it.
I don't even know what cancel culture is. It's not a thing.
If a person chooses to not spend their money as they wish, that's capitalism (allocation of capital) and freedom of speech (where I do/don't spend money is a form of speech). If a person chooses to boycott some company or some thing, that's freedom of speech. If I cancel my subscription, that's the market voting for what they do/don't support.
If someone wants to write a letter or organize a petition asking people to stop using a Widget, that's free speech and freedom of choice.
If you must know I believe in capitalism, free markets, free speech, freedom, and a bunch of other ideals that boil down to "Hey, you, get off of my cloud"
I might at some point cancel my subscription to Matt. Because it's my right and all the other stuff I wrote.
You can "cancel" all you want but you won't get a dime back. Substack & Manic matt won't dignify a request for refund with a response as they can't abide cancel culture. What a friggin grift.
"The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies."
Bravo Matt for continuing to write without fear that which is blindingly obvious to any impartial observer.
Classic sentence:
" On the other hand, if you want to assert without any evidence at all that the New York Post story is Russian interference, you can essentially go straight into print."
If Trump wins, a day of reckoning is coming for Big Tech and rightfully so. They have abused their privileges in egregious fashion. If Biden wins, forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. Every corrupt Democrat act vanishes into the ether, along with all viewpoints that digress from those of our left-wing social media betters. Don't have to be Einstein to figure that out.
I'm saying this as a 2016 Trump voter and I will vote for him again in a few days.
I had thought that Biden was the average corrupt politician. A $5mm type of guy.
As it turns out, he is not only a $50+mm type of guy but also what he sells is not local zoning policies but USA foreign policies.
The laptop doesn't change my vote but I'm utterly disgusted. Maybe I'm naive but I don't want any politicians in America to sell US interest for money.
Facebook and twitter have created a Streisand effect this time so I guess I will just thank them for once.
«but I don't want any politicians in America to sell US interest for money.»
That's a bit naive: there are no "whole" US interests, but the interests of specific US lobbies and only those of the most powerful ones influence foreign policy, and most foreign relations are based on bribery, and it is usually the US government that buys the politicians of other countries (most US ambassadors and foreign base commanders IIRC have access to large slush funds for this), as well US corporates.
I understand your position but you are very naive if you think somehow Biden is exceptionally corrupt. You're even more naive if you think Trump or anyone else can stop the corruption since it's about 250 yrs old now. Funny how Americans can actually believe an election or two will change anything after all the evidence proving that it doesn't.
It is amazing to me how many so-called liberals are here advocating for censorship and suppression of information by supposedly impartial social media platforms and a supposedly free press. I have no doubt these same so-called liberals would be screaming to the skies if the damning laptop in question belonged to Donald Trump Jr and the same media outlets and social media platforms reacted with blackouts, censorship and disinformation to discredit the evidence.
What really shocks me is this. On September 1, 1983 I was serving as a Communications Technician (ET2) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) out of Yokosuka, Japan when two Russian MIG pilots shot down Korean Airlines flight KAL007. We didn't have satellite or cable or even broadcast TV in the middle of the Western Pacific. What I had available was HF radio, on which I listened to Voice of America. That often meant I was listening to English-language Radio Moscow, since the Soviets spent $400M annually on jamming equipment which was more than America spent on its entire overseas broadcasting services at the time.
When the first news of the KAl007 incident was broadcast over VOA, Radio Moscow stepped up its jamming of VOA and maintained radio silence on the shootdown. About three days after that, when the news of the outside world could no longer be ignored, the Russians launched a massive disinformation campaign absolving themselves of responsibility and blaming the victims and the American government for the shootdown, even when everyone outside the Iron Curtain knew exactly what happened.
I suspect the propaganda campaign may have been in part because the Yuri Andropov-led Soviet Union wanted to keep the Russian people in the dark, but also to influence nations other than the US of America's responsibility for the crime despite the overwhelming evidence of Russian guilt. I told myself back then that I was proud to live in a nation whose treasured free press pursued and reported the truth via rigorous investigative journalism with no fear of censorship.
What do I tell myself now? Lastly, I am a rabid Trump supporter and not a big fan of Matt Taibbi's politics, which are a bit too left-leaning for me. Same for Glenn Greenwald. But I subscribed to Matt's blog here months ago because he is one of the few investigative journalists in America actually doing his job no matter where the evidence leads him. The $5 a month I pay Mr. Taibbi for his reporting is a tremendous bargain. I don't have to subscribe to The Intercept, but read Mr. Greenwald's reporting every chance I get.
I know what investigative reporting looks like. I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer when I was 12 years old. I've read all of Woodward and Bernstein's books on the Watergate crisis (as well as The Brethren, best book ever written on SCOTUS imho), all of teh writings by Peter Maas (Valachi Papers), Robin Moore (French Connection), Cornelius Ryan and Nick Pileggi to name a few. Messrs. Greenwald and Taibbi are investigative reporters in that tradition.
The bulk of the rest of the media more resemble the frantic and angry propaganda broadcasters of Radio Moscow during the KAL007 shootdown, and that is the real tragedy here regardless of whatever is on Hunter Biden's laptop. Truths are lies and lies are truth. We are told to believe 2+2 equals whatever our corrupt mainstream media and censoring social media platforms tell us it is, when they're not impeding the free flow of information to the point we don't even see the equation. How did America get to this dark place? And how do we get back into the light of freedoms of a truly free press, the free flow of information and a First Amendment that has any meaning at all?
While it should come as no surprise I continue to be dismayed at the naked partisanship of major media and big tech. The level of hypocrisy and double standards is breathtaking. Spin and selective editing is now replaced with outright suppression. Where does it end? If the left achieves the goal of one party rule capturing White House and both Houses of Congress I suppose no act of corruption or malfeasance will be news worthy. They will just dutifully regurgitate the “Party” talking points. As a current example one might conclude calling the Hunter laptop “Russian disinformation” with zero evidence is in fact disinformation propagated by the party that hopes to become The Party that does not tolerate thought, speech or action it doesn’t seem acceptable. This accelerated trend is likely to end liberal democracy and replace it with something closer to China’s state sanctioned media. By the time so called journalists wise up it might. be too late.
The last few years have seen a host of stories where the explosive allegation gets huge play, and then the later retraction is ignored. It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to take some steps to slow the initial 'bomb' so that there's some time to fact check things. I can't find anything in the Post stories or anywhere else to say how they authenticated the emails and other computer files. I can find numerous statements in other media saying that they can't authenticate them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/22/the-hunter-biden-scoops-heres-why-the-media-largely-hasnt-picked-up-the-ny-post-stories-hint-its-not-bias/#28acd5eb9c41 And honestly, without some verification it's a bit hard to say why the Biden's should be faulted for not confirming that the hacked or stolen private documents are authentic.
The providence of the documents and the October Surprise timing give rise to reasonable suspicion. If the Post authors want to be taken seriously they can either give the materials to law enforcement to be authenticated or they can make the source materials and meta data available so that people can make an informed opinion. Otherwise tales of agents hacking, altering, and planting documents seem plausible.
But the obvious point he is making on this, it seems to me as a leftist, is that this 'wait and verify' approach is only from one side. 20 years ago I laughed at those who called the media biased towards the Democrats, but I think I wasn't aware of the extent to which the Democrats were centrists corporatists (and the media has changed). Are you suggesting that the mainstream media right now is upholding the same standards of journalism for pieces on Biden v Trump?
Whether it's sexual harassment/assault allegations, family corruption, mental stability and acuity, etc, I see different coverage. (And, I abhor Trump.)
I once sat every night in front of the Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Madow shows and felt that they at least had my interests in mind. Something changed though around the time Obama first was elected. I was so excited for the future when he won, and felt we as a people had really turned a corner. Well, I was right, we did turn a corner, but it was really not what I had hoped for.
I still think Fox News is pure trash, but I also now know pretty much every other news organization is just as much so, and maybe even burning trash. Perhaps I hold them all to higher standards, because I wanted to believe my side was the intelligent side, but it turns out nobody is intelligent. Sure, there are very smart people out there, but blind ignorance is such the new normal it begs to question just how smart people really are.
I've walked away from the Democrats. I am certainly not running to the other side that is for sure, and I really keep hoping for more people like me to start a new. The one real change that has occurred in my mind is that I once thought the R's were the more dangerous voting base. That view has changed. The new left feels far more dangerous and violent than even the whacky militia's of the right.
I was Democratic PCO of the year in 2008, spent 8 years fighting the gd neoliberal policies of Obama, corporate-rigged "free trade" agreements, austerity for the people, and putting Goldman Sachs in charge of everything. In 2014, I, along with my Occupy cohorts, went to both Congressmans' offices to protest the Biden/McCain/Nuland coup in Ukraine that installed a neo-Nazi government. We were dissed, of course, by those neolibs who are funded by the military-industrial and regime change complex. That war in Ukraine, BTW, according to Doctors Without Borders, continues today, with the US-backed regime in Kiev sending rockets over the eastern Donbass region, up against Russia's borders. No wonder the Russians don't want Biden, (though interestingly, both Biden -to his credit - and Putin want to continue the Start nuclear arms treaty that Trump opposes.) Both parties are in collusion against the people, and I voted for Gloria La Riva for President; her Socialist/Liberation Party reflects exactly my Occupy platform. I should mention I'm in a safely blue state, and wouldn't advise anyone in Iowa to vote third party. If we put off talking about the issues until after the election, when will they be discussed? (like, never.).
I agree with everything you say(haven't voted for any dem for any office since Oshama in 2008), but I'm wondering who the "new left" is in your post? It certainly cannot be the corporate dems and their msm allies, who are really just an amalgam of centrist dems and moderate repubs who switched the letters that follow their names, so is it Antifa etc.? As the FBI studies show, the far right is more violent than the left, but their violence isn't as publicized as it doesn't get connected to riots/arson/looting after the latest and endless list of unjustified police shootings, but is more run of the mill stuff, like murdering black people in a church, except for instances like the plot in Michigan, and doesn't attack personal property as frequently.
The differing levels of media coverage fairness of Trump and Biden, is not in any way left, but is the aptly named radical center, which is corporate, American exceptionalist and elitist to its core, and would be as vicious to the left in the US if the left had any voice, much less power. In reality, the establishment's real problem with Trump is much less his policies than the belief he's unstable and not a certified believer in our way of doing things, especially on foreign policy, even though he's been more bellicose towards Russia and its allies and has bent the knee towards the MIC as deeply as his girth allows, all this for the ridiculous reason they actually take anything he says to heart, when he's clearly just blowing smoke most of the time, and also that his personal behavior, which they misconstrue as policy, embarrasses them, as they so personally identify with the American power structure, far preferring the vacuous fake sophistication of Obama or even the equally fake down home country boy charms of the Connecticut Cowboy, George W. Bush, now an apparently redeemed sinner, even without the effort of renouncing his previous sins.
To me, all this is mostly a tempest in a teapot, but also further evidence of the crumbling of the Empire, as its elites look to clowns like Trump as the reason for our repeated failures, both domestic and foreign, and not their unquestioned belief in an American exceptionalist world, as though it was Trump who blundered into one pointless war after another, created a surveillance state limited only by its technology, has rewarded WS fraud with one gift after another, outsourced our productive capacity in search of short term profit, and hurried along the destruction of the middle class, and not them, as it sees merit in ever concentrated wealth and ever widening economic misery, as neoliberal doctrine insists is righteous.
This is very nice. To me the new left is the "Squad" coming up, and what I think (right or wrong) is the direction the 30 and under crowd would like to take the party. Yes, they are very much not the Clinton/Bush/Obama crowd, and yes, even though the R's and D's are different letters, at the core they are generally the same.
I am well aware of my scattered nature when writing out my thoughts, and also know I am terrible at composition, so I thank you for this post. It's pretty much how I feel. I often refer to the "intellectual elite" as Left, but you correctly state the true nature that they are corporate center.
I think ultimately that might be our biggest problem with politics is that we call many things right and left, and for most of the population including hillbilly deplorables, and whacko coastal hippies their views cross with each other far more than either group would like to admit. It's the financial class that is taking advantage of drilling into the fake rage to continue their assault on us all.
If I were to condense what I think is wrong with this country, it would be that concentrated wealth has joined forces with concentrated political power, and they together reinforce each others' power, each helping the other, a reality exposed by the efforts of the radical center, as it is rightly called, to exclude anyone or anything not in their circle, and their attack on Trump, whom I do not support, and consider to be largely a fraud, but who scares them as they are not sure of just what he might say or do at any given time, far preferring a 40 year corrupt politician like Biden, who will happily continue the corporate friendly policies of his predecessors going back these last 40 years that have eviscerated the middle class, and which show no signs of ending.
Michael, I've considered #Demexit as well, and did resign as PCO. But the new younger freshmen progressives like AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khana, et al, give me hope that we can outnumber the Adam Schiffs and Nancy Pelosis. BTW, it's no coincidence that Occupy Wall Street began during the Obama era.
I actually met and talked with Ro Khanna a few years back in Glendale Ca. after he had been a guest on the Jimmy Dore Live show at Flapper's Comedy Club, while he was waiting for a car to come pick him up. He actually wanted to now what I thought about many issues, and did far less talking than listening, something I couldn't picture any establishment Dem doing.
I haven't voted for any Dem for any office since Obama in 2008, and that purely to keep McCain and Palin out of the WH, with the sole hope Obama would begin the transition away from the failed policies of neoliberalism but instead got them solidly entrenched. Even at that time, I was barely a Dem any longer, the clincher being Bill Clinton, whom I recognized as a complete phony; I take it as matter of pride I've never voted for any Clinton.
There's no harm in trying to change the Dems from within as others seek change within a third party, but I think the real change will happen when the US dollar loses its position as the world's reserve trading currency or has to share it with the PRC, which would force us to end our failed attempt to militarily dominate the globe, a policy both parties fully endorse, and which is only made possible by our ability to borrow nearly endless dollars to pay for it. God knows, we'd never accept the alternative, which is to raise our taxes to pay for that folly, which is doomed to fail.
Having reasonable suspicion because of timing, sources, etc, is healthy. But the instant cloud of obfuscation by media sources, campaign officials, etc, is also suspicious.
There have been no sources to dispute the documents, only claims of suspicious. The immediate claim of "Russian disinformation," with zero collaboration, is suspicious.
There have been a number of sources that do point to collaboration, including the FBI, which acknowledged possession of the computer and the paper trail of receipts. The interrelation of those sources forming a common timeline is substantial. The authenticity is becoming the least suspicious aspect.
As to whether Joe was interfering into foreign domestic policy is fact, well documented and captured on video, "...whadda ya know? They fired him!" The question becomes was he doing so at the bequest of the international community as claimed, or for personal reasons, or did the first cover the latter? Matt correctly shows we don’t know...and few have made much effort to help us know, yet many have worked to keep us from knowing. Innocently or intentionally.
As to your Forbes link, read it again and see that it is mostly ad hominem arguments as to why it’s okay to ignore the NYP. Also, the Post doesn’t have the originals, the FBI does. The October timing is suspicious, of course, but so is the desperation many feel that corruption could soon be covered up.
If we want to live in a country where corruption Is not accepted, is not the norm, is not Ukraine or Venezuela (or plenty of other examples), we must have a fair media, a fair legal system, a fair sharing of information, or we become Ukraine or Venezuela.
It’s not suspicious that we are moving rapidly in the wrong direction. We are. It is suspicious as to why.
"the hacked or stolen private documents are authentic." One key point Matt and you misstate is that Hunter's Macbook was stolen or hacked. That is not the case and it is well documented that Hunter damaged the computer and then gave it to a repair shop for repair. After repair was completed he did not respond to requests to pay and pick it up and after 90 days it became the repair shops property.
I think it's a technicality that the laptop "became the property of the repair shop" and hence any contents are fair game for publication. I think at best the files on a laptop given to a repair shop should be considered "stolen" if published. Any links to the documented chain of evidence would be appreciated, I haven't had good luck finding that info.
Gee that theory works well for hiding government secrets or supporting an agenda.
One could argue that a whistleblower, ignored by any agency unwilling to expose deceit or corruption, becomes a criminal by publishing content potentially harmful to the state in an effort to expose corruption. How convenient. Don't give them any ideas!
The laptop may have become his property, but the intellectual property contained in any files thereon did NOT become his property. They were stolen. The source is a crook.
The new owner having viewed the photography and emails relating to sex with underage women was legally obligated under Delaware law to turn it over to a law enforcement agency. The FBI picked up the machine on Dec. 9. After Giuliani got a clone of the hard drive, was also advised by the NY Police that what was on the laptop needed to be turned over immediately to Law enforcement in Delaware. The proper procedure in these cases is to interview, and assure the safety of the victim as quickly as possible. He drove to the county where this occurred and did so. The county sent it to the Delaware AG who put it into the mail to the FBI who had had the original since ah Dec. 9.
That’s not actually how intellectual property works. The abandoned property was the hard disk, which means that he is able to do more or less what he wants with the contents of the hard disk. Intellectual property rights will protect Hunter’s rights as it applies to the copyright of any content on the hard disk. Copyright claims need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis but I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a sustained case of infringement against a non commercial copying of news worthy documents from a public figure. Hunter is certainly able to sue both the NYPost and the repairman but he’d have to admit the documents are authentic.
Why do you say it's stolen? Couldn't and wouldn't a small computer business legally protect itself from intellectual property theft claims by the fine print in the signed agreement?
I'm not saying that's the case but why is that not plausible?
You can question the motive yes. I try to view things through different lenses. Curious weather other shop owners occasionally browse devices abandoned at their shop. I'm sure some would find it unethical, but all? What to do if just snooping and stumbled across this stuff? Or is this a more sinister plot of planted information and bad actors like Isaac, Bobulinski and Guliani? This could be adapted into a screenplay with many different endings. I hope the truth is exposed soon.
Compare the Hunter Biden story, which is harmful to Biden and Twitter censored, with the Rudy Giuliani/ Borat story, which Twitter actively promoted as trending. Or any number of unverified/ hacked materials stories that were harmful to Trump and Twitter not only did not censor, but trended and promoted: Trump tax returns, suckers and losers, leaked Melania audio, leaked Trump audio.
Social media enforces hyper-vigilance for anything pro-Trump or anti-democrats, while reserving no cynicism for anything anti-Trump or pro-democrats.
My point about hacked/stolen docs are more about the expectation that Biden should refute them. Matt has said numerous times 'the Biden camp won't even deny them', and I don't think the Biden camp should be on the hook to confirm or deny anything in this case, until the provenance of the documents is better validated. I don't think censoring one story 2 weeks before an election is a trend. Maybe it will become one, but for now, I think Matt is overreacting.
Fair enough, but I will cry BS to your logic the minute FB and twitter allow unverified anti-trump stuff to be slathered all over their sites. What do you want to bet that will happen and soon? I wouldn't take that bet if I were you.
It seems like the FB/twitter policies are new and we'll have to see how they're applied. It does seem likely that they won't be applied fairly, but I also think because of the closeness to the election it's kind of a special case. Many people are convinced that the well-timed Comey letter had a crucial effect on the 2016 results, and the similarities here are striking.
There is another aspect to this -- the FBI. Is it true, as reported (but not, of course, by the WaPo or the NYT) that the FBI subpoenaed and took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop in December 2019? That would be an interesting question for news professionals to ask.
Did FBI operatives notify their director, Chris Wray, of what they found on the hard drive? Did he tell the attorney general? Would it have been fair to tell the president, who is in charge of the executive branch, and whose impeachment trial was in January 2020? Would Democratic leaders have been interested in a briefing as they were selecting their presidential candidate?
Biden's dismissively calling the whole matter "Russian disinformation," given how long it took for the last Russian hooey to be discredited, is not even close to a good enough answer. Wouldn't it be nice if a serious debate moderator, or indeed any news reporter, asked real questions? "What in Mr. Bobulinski's written statement is false? Let's take his claims, one by one."
If the contents of the hard drive were just a bunch more sleazy Hunter photos, wouldn't the FBI have brought them forth already? We know just about everybody in the J. Edgar Hoover Building hates Trump, really hates the guy. Wouldn't they have been happy to leak this Hunter-is-a creep-but-not-a-traitor news to the reporters whose numbers they have on speed dial?
What I see is a bunch of "news" people and techies who think they know more than they do trying to smother a story that, true or false, is of legitimate interest.
As a result, too many obvious questions go unasked. People form up ranks with their teams and accept whatever palaver their preferred politicians dish out. It embarrasses us.
It is probably important to note that what the MSM and Facebook/Google are doing is not something new. Only in scale.
Please read what George Orwell wrote in 1942...
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.
Keep the information flowing Matt. This is too important. Be prepared for the onslaught.
Where are the journalists? If this story is untrue I would like a journalist or two to dig deep and expose how it came to be. I can't just nod my head in agreement the paltry disinformation from MSM without a logical roadmap on the supposed path of deception . If the accusations about the Biden clan or any other corrupt politician prove to be true, how anyone could sleep at night while willing to ignore these acts in the name of their party is disgusting. Either way the citizens on the USA deserve to know the truth and a fair unbiased media is essential.
The editor tried to have it reversed but they wouldn't have it. Their algorithms are so dumb that they cannot even differentiate satire from the real thing. Anyone that thinks these Tech Companies are so smart and that their algorithms are brilliant are kidding themselves. They can't even spot a joke. They are the joke. People need to point this out. Their algorithms should be thoroughly reviewed by the public. If they were, people would see what pure spaghetti code they are writing.
Wow, I am blown away by the criticisms of Matt Taibbi. I am a Trump partisan who craves an objective understanding of reality. I obviously cannot rely on my bubble, Fox News and Breitbart to name two, to test reality. I need the views of people outside my bubble that overlap with my understanding of reality to ensure that my analysis is correct. Thus, I have assiduously sought out the views of left of center pundits to see where the Venn diagram circles overlap. In a recent communication with my son, I listed the people I trust who view the world very differently from myself. The list includes Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert cartoons, Tim Pool, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Jimmy Dorr, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Chris Hedges, Bjorn Lomborg, Gad Saad, and many others. Interestingly, studies have found that conservatives know more about liberal media than liberals know about conservative media. Matt Taibbi is my most trusted source of objective insight. Please don’t dissuade him from critiques of modern media.
Same boat. Dead on. Honest critics of the media looking at it from the left, and an army of OG and newer Black Conservative voices are the people making the most sense right now.
Ditto. I enjoy Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's weekly podcast. Not familiar with Bjorn. Will look for him!
Thank you, I neglected to add the Weinstein's to my list.
Wow, amazing! A Trump partisan on Matt's page! Who would think it???
Sorry I am so dense. I am trying to understand your comment. It seems to be sarcasm but I honestly don't get the joke. Do you view Matt as a Trump partisan? Is it possible that you are honestly surprised that a Trump partisan is actually interested in reality, objectivity, and honesty? I am being serious. Please help me better understand your point.
Forget it, Ken. If you're to the right of Mao and off the Marxist SJW reservation you're a Trump partisan and a counterrevolutionary. See how that works?
"They" are feigning that everyone here is somehow a Trump partisan. That's why it doesn't make any sense (to any of us). One has to remember how strongly many people feel that anything to the right of them is all part of one big pro-Trump bucket. The world is far worse than black and white to them, if you're not pro everything they are, you are beyond the pale. No room for nuance!
Matt Taibbi is also my most trusted source of objective insight. I find it confirmed that he is such because those on the left and right criticize him.
The advantage of reporting just facts is that it is bound to overlap the reality of all but the insane, at least a little bit.
This is satire right?
I'm curious about your comment. Why do you think I am being disingenuous?
I would ask you the provide links to the studies you mentioned that have found that conservatives know more than liberals about opposing media views. It comes as a surprise to me.
From page 334 of The Righteous Mind (emphasis added):
When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations – Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity – I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.
In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:
Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they causeany more harm)3
One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.
Thanks for your reply. I love Jonathan Haidt, and have always considered it a betrayal that he refuses to condemn Conservatives😉. I fully subscribe to the notion that both sides have moral architecture; they just use different building blocks. I don't think that I would be very good at predicting how Conservatives would react to a given situation, though I do think I'd predict that Conservatives would rush to defend a defenseless animal (I'd be less ready to say that if animal were replaced by homeless person in that statement - while admitting that I think that most liberals care more about animals than people as well). I think liberals are inclined to predict that Conservatives would disagree with the statement about Justice, because the moral foundations of Conservatives do seem to align with Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity, and Justice doesn't seem to play well with that triumvirate.
I often do try to understand the Conservative position, allowing that they are human, have feelings and families, and hope to get to heaven, but often can't. Can you explain to me for example how they can tolerate the policy that divided children from their parents (if you accept the premise of that question). I will allow that our immigration reality is a shameful morass, but I just think that taking a kid away form his/her parent is inhuman.
Anyway, I have boarded the "more that unites us than divides us" boat, because anything else leads to ends that I am loathe to contemplate, so we need to keep trying to understand.
The "taking kids away" issue depends totally on whether they are "taking kids away" from "PARENTS." My understanding is that people come across the border illegally and cannot prove they are the parents of the kids they bring with them. It is a demonstrable fact that some evil people take advantage of the "catch and release for parents and children" situation by bringing children to the border who are NOT their children. If it can be proven that the Trump Administration is separating children from known and provable parents then I will condemn them. So far, the evidence and logic seem to support the Administration's position, and it is the same position that the Obama Administration had as well.
Simple question. Would the same level of media prudence be accorded to Eric, Don Jr, or Ivanka right now - two weeks before the election - if Trump was ahead in the polls?
Zero chance. The media is in the tank for Biden, is entirely biased and I have nothing but disdain for anyone in the MSM. I have voted with my wallet by opting out of any portion of the economy that doesn't support our Constitution, law and order, and a complete commitment to the American people regardless of age, gender, orientation, race, national origin and religion.
As a subscriber here, I have chosen to support a writer who appears to be unbiased and reading all of your comments is refreshing (albeit some of you have nothing to offer other than insults which is childish).
Vote with your time, clicks and wallet America.
The “media” is not in the tank for Biden. Ever heard of Hannity? Limbaugh? Savage? Sinclair media corp? Infinity broadcasting? OANN? All of these and more relentlessly peddle Donny Johns’ BS as gospel. Spare me the tired tome of poor Donny getting mistreated by the “media”.
well said. The MSM, what a fucking joke. Can't wait for twenty years from now and nobody watches anymore.
It's always been a joke. Do try to keep up.
I won't argue the positives of the MSM, because I can't. But I'm interested to hear where you are finding "support our Constitution, law and order, and a complete commitment to the American people regardless of age, gender, orientation, race, national "origin and religion."
The corruption of Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka (you forgot Jared), is so ongoing and obvious that it's not even news anymore.
Proof please.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-already-a-corrupt-presidential-kid-her-name-is-ivanka-trump
And hundreds more where that came from. But you don't really want proof. You just want to protect your dog and his corrupt little pups.
Looked at the Daily Beast article and googled it, because while I frequently hear this, I am curious how much is real and how much TDS. It stands to reason that this would be a real possibility. However, I don't find anything objectionable about someone who is developing a brand to seek trademarks internationally. Seems like standard business procedure to me. Hatch act violations for tweeting support for her father. Hmm? First is she a covered by the Hatch act? It would seem that, if she is a "federal employee", given that she has no salary, it would seem obvious that she would fall under the "less restricted employees", and as such would be perfectly legal for her to run for office herself, or work on someone else's campaign. I do not doubt that she has promoted the interests of her own family. As to how much of that is corruption is a question that I would be interested in seeing substantiated.
https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx#tabGroup13|tabGroup32
Note how you leave no legalistic stone unturned to justify Ivanka et al, while giving no such courtesy is afforded to Hunter Biden. I guarantee you, if Trump loses, the entire gang will go down on state charges, at the very least, unless they flee the country.
What difference does it make when no one believes the media ?
If Trump wins, we'd have 4 more years of democratic rabid insanity; new impeachment, new lies, celebrity degenerates losing their minds etc., but if Kamala wins we'd have a mentally deranged puppet 'presiding' over Maoist-Stalinist kleptocracy, powered by what was f.k.a. Deep State (now "commentators" in media) plus the media plus the Party on power.
Actually, we'll have four more years of death by COVID and national decline at the hands of the "most dangerous organization in human history -- the GOP." -- Noam Chomsky.
Worse than Mao? Stalin? Hitler? See, this is why nobody pays any mind to you TDS-afflicted drama queens. You are, like your candidate, completely out of touch with reality. Funny. Fascism is always descending in America under Republicans, but always seems to land under Democrats. Who's silencing you?
Drama king, actually. And yes, Chomsky argues that the GOP complete refusal to do anything about climate disruption threatens global distinction of the human race. This is new, and was not in the power of any of the leaders you mentioned.
What about the DNC's complete refusal to do anything about it ? The only thing new is who's taking the bribes. Just wait and it will change hands again from the bad cop to the good cop.
So funny how people still believe there are two parties. I guess the indoctrination process is far better than even the Nazi party could ever dream of.
That not true. The Dems have done much more than the GOP on climate change, which, granted, was pretty easy since the GOP has done nothing. Trump rolled back everything Obama did just out of spite.
Oops, meant "extinction." Too bad Matt doesn't have an edit option. Oh well...
whoa you paid $5 to subscribe here and access the comments section to write that?!
that comment, within the context, tone, and substance of this thread, is about as helpful as interrupting an Al-Anon meeting so you can talk about what your farts smell like.
but hey look at all those likes the comment got. i guess you are getting your money's worth!
How can you actually believe partisan attacks are new ? How old are you, 4 ?
The importance of the Burisma story so far is that it tells us so much about how gingerly the press handles any story that may reflect badly on Democratic Party interests, as contrasted with the rapid and vapid repition it indulges in the cases of unsubstantiated stories about Republican operatives cooperating with foreign, especially "dictatorial" countries. We call this censorship.
Please list one source who'll admit that the press is in the pockets of the Dems.
Are you a paying customer of Matt's? If so, why are you letting him get away with not upholding the standards you pay him for?
I voted for Reagan twice. I voted for W. If Biden is guilty, ring him up. But Matt's piece isn't evidence. It's an opinion piece that readers here are upvoting to journalism.
Matt is the story here. Why can't people see this?
It's unlikely that a source would make such an admission. Matt is a working journalist who reports, rather eloquently I think, on the observations he makes. He has observed, for instance, that two of our finest journalists, Seymour Hersh and Chris Hedges, both formerly at the NYT, have had to find other outlets for their stories. Chris Hedges has spoken about the subtle and sometimes not so subtle pressures on journalists to conform. So has Hersh in his book "Reporter." Just because it's a Republican talking point does not make it untrue.
"the press is in the pockets of the Dems" implies that they are in financial cahoots with the dems. Matt never said that. Again I keep saying this but has the ability to read and understand written words somehow disappeared out there? Matt is pointing out the clear hypocrisy of the press. And who do want to be the source...CNN, MSNBC? You think they are going to admit the obvious? What source would suffice for you? A booming voice from the heavens?
Why can't half the readers who comment here focus on the actual story Matt is writing rather than interject their clear bias into their comments.
Obviously this piece is opinion. What planet do you live on? Maybe you should stop spinning backwards and go forward.
I agree. The members of the press are not in financial cahoots. I believe they took up their lower-paid craft sincerely and organized their lives so as never to encounter people, including religious or thoughtful or self-supporting ones, whose views do not harmonize with their own.
(I'm an ex-journo who liked the work but avoided political reportage and fled for more stable employment.)
For those who remained, the best -- and perhaps only -- paths to a living wage required taking a side. My laid-off former colleagues now are flak-catchers for state legislators and agencies or, more desirably, talking heads on local or national television.
I understand their decisions, but I'm happy to be gone..
This absolutely makes sense. I am glad at least you are gone from the business and don't have to put up with the crap anymore. It is too bad that reporting became journalism.
If all you're going to do is insult me, why bother?
You haven't addressed one point I've made.
Your points are completely orthogonal to the article. You tried to change the subject and make the purpose of the article about Matt. Focus on the points of the article and not who wrote the article. You are obviously a cancel culture person. This is how a cancel culture person responds to an article. Not about the content of the article but the person who wrote it. I don't care if a monkey wrote this article. I care about the contents.
Why do you want to make this personal and try to figure me out?
Perhaps you read the post where I said "fuck you, Matt", and I'm cancelling?
I then came to my senses and wrote to Matt that I'm not cancelling - it's right here somewhere, find it.
I don't even know what cancel culture is. It's not a thing.
If a person chooses to not spend their money as they wish, that's capitalism (allocation of capital) and freedom of speech (where I do/don't spend money is a form of speech). If a person chooses to boycott some company or some thing, that's freedom of speech. If I cancel my subscription, that's the market voting for what they do/don't support.
If someone wants to write a letter or organize a petition asking people to stop using a Widget, that's free speech and freedom of choice.
If you must know I believe in capitalism, free markets, free speech, freedom, and a bunch of other ideals that boil down to "Hey, you, get off of my cloud"
I might at some point cancel my subscription to Matt. Because it's my right and all the other stuff I wrote.
You can "cancel" all you want but you won't get a dime back. Substack & Manic matt won't dignify a request for refund with a response as they can't abide cancel culture. What a friggin grift.
"The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies."
Well said.
Exactly. But unfortunately it isn't that they are not curious, it is that their preferences outweigh their curiosity.
Bravo Matt for continuing to write without fear that which is blindingly obvious to any impartial observer.
Classic sentence:
" On the other hand, if you want to assert without any evidence at all that the New York Post story is Russian interference, you can essentially go straight into print."
Here are two important questions that simply must be asked and eventually will be answered:
1) If Trump wins will the MSM and Big Tech realize their strategy is broken and stop doing it, or will they simply double down?
2) Perhaps more important, if Biden wins will the MSM and Big Tech think their strategy worked and double down again.
Double down. All MSM and the Democrats, but I repeat myself, had to do is not be bats*%t crazy and they cannot manage that
If Trump wins, a day of reckoning is coming for Big Tech and rightfully so. They have abused their privileges in egregious fashion. If Biden wins, forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. Every corrupt Democrat act vanishes into the ether, along with all viewpoints that digress from those of our left-wing social media betters. Don't have to be Einstein to figure that out.
I'm saying this as a 2016 Trump voter and I will vote for him again in a few days.
I had thought that Biden was the average corrupt politician. A $5mm type of guy.
As it turns out, he is not only a $50+mm type of guy but also what he sells is not local zoning policies but USA foreign policies.
The laptop doesn't change my vote but I'm utterly disgusted. Maybe I'm naive but I don't want any politicians in America to sell US interest for money.
Facebook and twitter have created a Streisand effect this time so I guess I will just thank them for once.
«but I don't want any politicians in America to sell US interest for money.»
That's a bit naive: there are no "whole" US interests, but the interests of specific US lobbies and only those of the most powerful ones influence foreign policy, and most foreign relations are based on bribery, and it is usually the US government that buys the politicians of other countries (most US ambassadors and foreign base commanders IIRC have access to large slush funds for this), as well US corporates.
I understand your position but you are very naive if you think somehow Biden is exceptionally corrupt. You're even more naive if you think Trump or anyone else can stop the corruption since it's about 250 yrs old now. Funny how Americans can actually believe an election or two will change anything after all the evidence proving that it doesn't.
Completely unsubstantiated malarkey.
"malarkey"
Thanks, Joe!
It's actually Biden's use of the "No malarkey" theme that should have been disqualifying. Talk about out of touch with voters...
It is amazing to me how many so-called liberals are here advocating for censorship and suppression of information by supposedly impartial social media platforms and a supposedly free press. I have no doubt these same so-called liberals would be screaming to the skies if the damning laptop in question belonged to Donald Trump Jr and the same media outlets and social media platforms reacted with blackouts, censorship and disinformation to discredit the evidence.
What really shocks me is this. On September 1, 1983 I was serving as a Communications Technician (ET2) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) out of Yokosuka, Japan when two Russian MIG pilots shot down Korean Airlines flight KAL007. We didn't have satellite or cable or even broadcast TV in the middle of the Western Pacific. What I had available was HF radio, on which I listened to Voice of America. That often meant I was listening to English-language Radio Moscow, since the Soviets spent $400M annually on jamming equipment which was more than America spent on its entire overseas broadcasting services at the time.
When the first news of the KAl007 incident was broadcast over VOA, Radio Moscow stepped up its jamming of VOA and maintained radio silence on the shootdown. About three days after that, when the news of the outside world could no longer be ignored, the Russians launched a massive disinformation campaign absolving themselves of responsibility and blaming the victims and the American government for the shootdown, even when everyone outside the Iron Curtain knew exactly what happened.
I suspect the propaganda campaign may have been in part because the Yuri Andropov-led Soviet Union wanted to keep the Russian people in the dark, but also to influence nations other than the US of America's responsibility for the crime despite the overwhelming evidence of Russian guilt. I told myself back then that I was proud to live in a nation whose treasured free press pursued and reported the truth via rigorous investigative journalism with no fear of censorship.
What do I tell myself now? Lastly, I am a rabid Trump supporter and not a big fan of Matt Taibbi's politics, which are a bit too left-leaning for me. Same for Glenn Greenwald. But I subscribed to Matt's blog here months ago because he is one of the few investigative journalists in America actually doing his job no matter where the evidence leads him. The $5 a month I pay Mr. Taibbi for his reporting is a tremendous bargain. I don't have to subscribe to The Intercept, but read Mr. Greenwald's reporting every chance I get.
I know what investigative reporting looks like. I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer when I was 12 years old. I've read all of Woodward and Bernstein's books on the Watergate crisis (as well as The Brethren, best book ever written on SCOTUS imho), all of teh writings by Peter Maas (Valachi Papers), Robin Moore (French Connection), Cornelius Ryan and Nick Pileggi to name a few. Messrs. Greenwald and Taibbi are investigative reporters in that tradition.
The bulk of the rest of the media more resemble the frantic and angry propaganda broadcasters of Radio Moscow during the KAL007 shootdown, and that is the real tragedy here regardless of whatever is on Hunter Biden's laptop. Truths are lies and lies are truth. We are told to believe 2+2 equals whatever our corrupt mainstream media and censoring social media platforms tell us it is, when they're not impeding the free flow of information to the point we don't even see the equation. How did America get to this dark place? And how do we get back into the light of freedoms of a truly free press, the free flow of information and a First Amendment that has any meaning at all?
Your journalism continues to be worth far more than what I pay for it.
While it should come as no surprise I continue to be dismayed at the naked partisanship of major media and big tech. The level of hypocrisy and double standards is breathtaking. Spin and selective editing is now replaced with outright suppression. Where does it end? If the left achieves the goal of one party rule capturing White House and both Houses of Congress I suppose no act of corruption or malfeasance will be news worthy. They will just dutifully regurgitate the “Party” talking points. As a current example one might conclude calling the Hunter laptop “Russian disinformation” with zero evidence is in fact disinformation propagated by the party that hopes to become The Party that does not tolerate thought, speech or action it doesn’t seem acceptable. This accelerated trend is likely to end liberal democracy and replace it with something closer to China’s state sanctioned media. By the time so called journalists wise up it might. be too late.
inightful
insightful
The last few years have seen a host of stories where the explosive allegation gets huge play, and then the later retraction is ignored. It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to take some steps to slow the initial 'bomb' so that there's some time to fact check things. I can't find anything in the Post stories or anywhere else to say how they authenticated the emails and other computer files. I can find numerous statements in other media saying that they can't authenticate them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/22/the-hunter-biden-scoops-heres-why-the-media-largely-hasnt-picked-up-the-ny-post-stories-hint-its-not-bias/#28acd5eb9c41 And honestly, without some verification it's a bit hard to say why the Biden's should be faulted for not confirming that the hacked or stolen private documents are authentic.
The providence of the documents and the October Surprise timing give rise to reasonable suspicion. If the Post authors want to be taken seriously they can either give the materials to law enforcement to be authenticated or they can make the source materials and meta data available so that people can make an informed opinion. Otherwise tales of agents hacking, altering, and planting documents seem plausible.
But the obvious point he is making on this, it seems to me as a leftist, is that this 'wait and verify' approach is only from one side. 20 years ago I laughed at those who called the media biased towards the Democrats, but I think I wasn't aware of the extent to which the Democrats were centrists corporatists (and the media has changed). Are you suggesting that the mainstream media right now is upholding the same standards of journalism for pieces on Biden v Trump?
Whether it's sexual harassment/assault allegations, family corruption, mental stability and acuity, etc, I see different coverage. (And, I abhor Trump.)
I once sat every night in front of the Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Madow shows and felt that they at least had my interests in mind. Something changed though around the time Obama first was elected. I was so excited for the future when he won, and felt we as a people had really turned a corner. Well, I was right, we did turn a corner, but it was really not what I had hoped for.
I still think Fox News is pure trash, but I also now know pretty much every other news organization is just as much so, and maybe even burning trash. Perhaps I hold them all to higher standards, because I wanted to believe my side was the intelligent side, but it turns out nobody is intelligent. Sure, there are very smart people out there, but blind ignorance is such the new normal it begs to question just how smart people really are.
I've walked away from the Democrats. I am certainly not running to the other side that is for sure, and I really keep hoping for more people like me to start a new. The one real change that has occurred in my mind is that I once thought the R's were the more dangerous voting base. That view has changed. The new left feels far more dangerous and violent than even the whacky militia's of the right.
Of course this is just one morons opinion.
I was Democratic PCO of the year in 2008, spent 8 years fighting the gd neoliberal policies of Obama, corporate-rigged "free trade" agreements, austerity for the people, and putting Goldman Sachs in charge of everything. In 2014, I, along with my Occupy cohorts, went to both Congressmans' offices to protest the Biden/McCain/Nuland coup in Ukraine that installed a neo-Nazi government. We were dissed, of course, by those neolibs who are funded by the military-industrial and regime change complex. That war in Ukraine, BTW, according to Doctors Without Borders, continues today, with the US-backed regime in Kiev sending rockets over the eastern Donbass region, up against Russia's borders. No wonder the Russians don't want Biden, (though interestingly, both Biden -to his credit - and Putin want to continue the Start nuclear arms treaty that Trump opposes.) Both parties are in collusion against the people, and I voted for Gloria La Riva for President; her Socialist/Liberation Party reflects exactly my Occupy platform. I should mention I'm in a safely blue state, and wouldn't advise anyone in Iowa to vote third party. If we put off talking about the issues until after the election, when will they be discussed? (like, never.).
I agree with everything you say(haven't voted for any dem for any office since Oshama in 2008), but I'm wondering who the "new left" is in your post? It certainly cannot be the corporate dems and their msm allies, who are really just an amalgam of centrist dems and moderate repubs who switched the letters that follow their names, so is it Antifa etc.? As the FBI studies show, the far right is more violent than the left, but their violence isn't as publicized as it doesn't get connected to riots/arson/looting after the latest and endless list of unjustified police shootings, but is more run of the mill stuff, like murdering black people in a church, except for instances like the plot in Michigan, and doesn't attack personal property as frequently.
The differing levels of media coverage fairness of Trump and Biden, is not in any way left, but is the aptly named radical center, which is corporate, American exceptionalist and elitist to its core, and would be as vicious to the left in the US if the left had any voice, much less power. In reality, the establishment's real problem with Trump is much less his policies than the belief he's unstable and not a certified believer in our way of doing things, especially on foreign policy, even though he's been more bellicose towards Russia and its allies and has bent the knee towards the MIC as deeply as his girth allows, all this for the ridiculous reason they actually take anything he says to heart, when he's clearly just blowing smoke most of the time, and also that his personal behavior, which they misconstrue as policy, embarrasses them, as they so personally identify with the American power structure, far preferring the vacuous fake sophistication of Obama or even the equally fake down home country boy charms of the Connecticut Cowboy, George W. Bush, now an apparently redeemed sinner, even without the effort of renouncing his previous sins.
To me, all this is mostly a tempest in a teapot, but also further evidence of the crumbling of the Empire, as its elites look to clowns like Trump as the reason for our repeated failures, both domestic and foreign, and not their unquestioned belief in an American exceptionalist world, as though it was Trump who blundered into one pointless war after another, created a surveillance state limited only by its technology, has rewarded WS fraud with one gift after another, outsourced our productive capacity in search of short term profit, and hurried along the destruction of the middle class, and not them, as it sees merit in ever concentrated wealth and ever widening economic misery, as neoliberal doctrine insists is righteous.
This is very nice. To me the new left is the "Squad" coming up, and what I think (right or wrong) is the direction the 30 and under crowd would like to take the party. Yes, they are very much not the Clinton/Bush/Obama crowd, and yes, even though the R's and D's are different letters, at the core they are generally the same.
I am well aware of my scattered nature when writing out my thoughts, and also know I am terrible at composition, so I thank you for this post. It's pretty much how I feel. I often refer to the "intellectual elite" as Left, but you correctly state the true nature that they are corporate center.
I think ultimately that might be our biggest problem with politics is that we call many things right and left, and for most of the population including hillbilly deplorables, and whacko coastal hippies their views cross with each other far more than either group would like to admit. It's the financial class that is taking advantage of drilling into the fake rage to continue their assault on us all.
If I were to condense what I think is wrong with this country, it would be that concentrated wealth has joined forces with concentrated political power, and they together reinforce each others' power, each helping the other, a reality exposed by the efforts of the radical center, as it is rightly called, to exclude anyone or anything not in their circle, and their attack on Trump, whom I do not support, and consider to be largely a fraud, but who scares them as they are not sure of just what he might say or do at any given time, far preferring a 40 year corrupt politician like Biden, who will happily continue the corporate friendly policies of his predecessors going back these last 40 years that have eviscerated the middle class, and which show no signs of ending.
Michael, I've considered #Demexit as well, and did resign as PCO. But the new younger freshmen progressives like AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khana, et al, give me hope that we can outnumber the Adam Schiffs and Nancy Pelosis. BTW, it's no coincidence that Occupy Wall Street began during the Obama era.
I actually met and talked with Ro Khanna a few years back in Glendale Ca. after he had been a guest on the Jimmy Dore Live show at Flapper's Comedy Club, while he was waiting for a car to come pick him up. He actually wanted to now what I thought about many issues, and did far less talking than listening, something I couldn't picture any establishment Dem doing.
I haven't voted for any Dem for any office since Obama in 2008, and that purely to keep McCain and Palin out of the WH, with the sole hope Obama would begin the transition away from the failed policies of neoliberalism but instead got them solidly entrenched. Even at that time, I was barely a Dem any longer, the clincher being Bill Clinton, whom I recognized as a complete phony; I take it as matter of pride I've never voted for any Clinton.
There's no harm in trying to change the Dems from within as others seek change within a third party, but I think the real change will happen when the US dollar loses its position as the world's reserve trading currency or has to share it with the PRC, which would force us to end our failed attempt to militarily dominate the globe, a policy both parties fully endorse, and which is only made possible by our ability to borrow nearly endless dollars to pay for it. God knows, we'd never accept the alternative, which is to raise our taxes to pay for that folly, which is doomed to fail.
I feel like you’re describing me, Turd. Good post.
Having reasonable suspicion because of timing, sources, etc, is healthy. But the instant cloud of obfuscation by media sources, campaign officials, etc, is also suspicious.
There have been no sources to dispute the documents, only claims of suspicious. The immediate claim of "Russian disinformation," with zero collaboration, is suspicious.
There have been a number of sources that do point to collaboration, including the FBI, which acknowledged possession of the computer and the paper trail of receipts. The interrelation of those sources forming a common timeline is substantial. The authenticity is becoming the least suspicious aspect.
As to whether Joe was interfering into foreign domestic policy is fact, well documented and captured on video, "...whadda ya know? They fired him!" The question becomes was he doing so at the bequest of the international community as claimed, or for personal reasons, or did the first cover the latter? Matt correctly shows we don’t know...and few have made much effort to help us know, yet many have worked to keep us from knowing. Innocently or intentionally.
As to your Forbes link, read it again and see that it is mostly ad hominem arguments as to why it’s okay to ignore the NYP. Also, the Post doesn’t have the originals, the FBI does. The October timing is suspicious, of course, but so is the desperation many feel that corruption could soon be covered up.
If we want to live in a country where corruption Is not accepted, is not the norm, is not Ukraine or Venezuela (or plenty of other examples), we must have a fair media, a fair legal system, a fair sharing of information, or we become Ukraine or Venezuela.
It’s not suspicious that we are moving rapidly in the wrong direction. We are. It is suspicious as to why.
"the hacked or stolen private documents are authentic." One key point Matt and you misstate is that Hunter's Macbook was stolen or hacked. That is not the case and it is well documented that Hunter damaged the computer and then gave it to a repair shop for repair. After repair was completed he did not respond to requests to pay and pick it up and after 90 days it became the repair shops property.
I think it's a technicality that the laptop "became the property of the repair shop" and hence any contents are fair game for publication. I think at best the files on a laptop given to a repair shop should be considered "stolen" if published. Any links to the documented chain of evidence would be appreciated, I haven't had good luck finding that info.
Gee that theory works well for hiding government secrets or supporting an agenda.
One could argue that a whistleblower, ignored by any agency unwilling to expose deceit or corruption, becomes a criminal by publishing content potentially harmful to the state in an effort to expose corruption. How convenient. Don't give them any ideas!
The laptop may have become his property, but the intellectual property contained in any files thereon did NOT become his property. They were stolen. The source is a crook.
The new owner having viewed the photography and emails relating to sex with underage women was legally obligated under Delaware law to turn it over to a law enforcement agency. The FBI picked up the machine on Dec. 9. After Giuliani got a clone of the hard drive, was also advised by the NY Police that what was on the laptop needed to be turned over immediately to Law enforcement in Delaware. The proper procedure in these cases is to interview, and assure the safety of the victim as quickly as possible. He drove to the county where this occurred and did so. The county sent it to the Delaware AG who put it into the mail to the FBI who had had the original since ah Dec. 9.
How convenient.
That’s not actually how intellectual property works. The abandoned property was the hard disk, which means that he is able to do more or less what he wants with the contents of the hard disk. Intellectual property rights will protect Hunter’s rights as it applies to the copyright of any content on the hard disk. Copyright claims need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis but I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a sustained case of infringement against a non commercial copying of news worthy documents from a public figure. Hunter is certainly able to sue both the NYPost and the repairman but he’d have to admit the documents are authentic.
Why do you say it's stolen? Couldn't and wouldn't a small computer business legally protect itself from intellectual property theft claims by the fine print in the signed agreement?
I'm not saying that's the case but why is that not plausible?
I highly doubt it. Besides, what legitimate reason would the owner have to investigate the files on the laptop other than 1) purient 2) dishonest?
You can question the motive yes. I try to view things through different lenses. Curious weather other shop owners occasionally browse devices abandoned at their shop. I'm sure some would find it unethical, but all? What to do if just snooping and stumbled across this stuff? Or is this a more sinister plot of planted information and bad actors like Isaac, Bobulinski and Guliani? This could be adapted into a screenplay with many different endings. I hope the truth is exposed soon.
Compare the Hunter Biden story, which is harmful to Biden and Twitter censored, with the Rudy Giuliani/ Borat story, which Twitter actively promoted as trending. Or any number of unverified/ hacked materials stories that were harmful to Trump and Twitter not only did not censor, but trended and promoted: Trump tax returns, suckers and losers, leaked Melania audio, leaked Trump audio.
Social media enforces hyper-vigilance for anything pro-Trump or anti-democrats, while reserving no cynicism for anything anti-Trump or pro-democrats.
My point about hacked/stolen docs are more about the expectation that Biden should refute them. Matt has said numerous times 'the Biden camp won't even deny them', and I don't think the Biden camp should be on the hook to confirm or deny anything in this case, until the provenance of the documents is better validated. I don't think censoring one story 2 weeks before an election is a trend. Maybe it will become one, but for now, I think Matt is overreacting.
Is there an ex-Facebook group I can join? A few months on Twitter was too much for me. Seriously.
Fair enough, but I will cry BS to your logic the minute FB and twitter allow unverified anti-trump stuff to be slathered all over their sites. What do you want to bet that will happen and soon? I wouldn't take that bet if I were you.
It seems like the FB/twitter policies are new and we'll have to see how they're applied. It does seem likely that they won't be applied fairly, but I also think because of the closeness to the election it's kind of a special case. Many people are convinced that the well-timed Comey letter had a crucial effect on the 2016 results, and the similarities here are striking.
There is another aspect to this -- the FBI. Is it true, as reported (but not, of course, by the WaPo or the NYT) that the FBI subpoenaed and took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop in December 2019? That would be an interesting question for news professionals to ask.
Did FBI operatives notify their director, Chris Wray, of what they found on the hard drive? Did he tell the attorney general? Would it have been fair to tell the president, who is in charge of the executive branch, and whose impeachment trial was in January 2020? Would Democratic leaders have been interested in a briefing as they were selecting their presidential candidate?
Biden's dismissively calling the whole matter "Russian disinformation," given how long it took for the last Russian hooey to be discredited, is not even close to a good enough answer. Wouldn't it be nice if a serious debate moderator, or indeed any news reporter, asked real questions? "What in Mr. Bobulinski's written statement is false? Let's take his claims, one by one."
If the contents of the hard drive were just a bunch more sleazy Hunter photos, wouldn't the FBI have brought them forth already? We know just about everybody in the J. Edgar Hoover Building hates Trump, really hates the guy. Wouldn't they have been happy to leak this Hunter-is-a creep-but-not-a-traitor news to the reporters whose numbers they have on speed dial?
What I see is a bunch of "news" people and techies who think they know more than they do trying to smother a story that, true or false, is of legitimate interest.
As a result, too many obvious questions go unasked. People form up ranks with their teams and accept whatever palaver their preferred politicians dish out. It embarrasses us.
It is probably important to note that what the MSM and Facebook/Google are doing is not something new. Only in scale.
Please read what George Orwell wrote in 1942...
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.
Jessica Lynch.
Keep the information flowing Matt. This is too important. Be prepared for the onslaught.
Where are the journalists? If this story is untrue I would like a journalist or two to dig deep and expose how it came to be. I can't just nod my head in agreement the paltry disinformation from MSM without a logical roadmap on the supposed path of deception . If the accusations about the Biden clan or any other corrupt politician prove to be true, how anyone could sleep at night while willing to ignore these acts in the name of their party is disgusting. Either way the citizens on the USA deserve to know the truth and a fair unbiased media is essential.
By the way, did anyone see that Google or FB demonetized the Babylon Bee article ...
https://babylonbee.com/news/senator-hirono-demands-acb-be-weighed-against-a-duck-to-see-if-she-is-a-witch
The editor tried to have it reversed but they wouldn't have it. Their algorithms are so dumb that they cannot even differentiate satire from the real thing. Anyone that thinks these Tech Companies are so smart and that their algorithms are brilliant are kidding themselves. They can't even spot a joke. They are the joke. People need to point this out. Their algorithms should be thoroughly reviewed by the public. If they were, people would see what pure spaghetti code they are writing.