Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 41
2/27/2024, 4:22:12 AM
X
In reply to:
Kristin Jordan
@kjtweet
·
585d
@mtaibbi Reminds me! I cannot wait for this weeks deep dive w @walterkirn, which will of course discuss the young US Air Force officer burning himself alive in defiance of the active genocide in Gaza. Thank fucking goodness you’re legit- and not on a leash. 💰🐩🤑💸 Ruff! Ruff! #Palestine
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
585d
The phenomenon of not directly quoting disfavored figures, or not linking to inconvenient primary sources, is widespread in media now. Among the biggest tells that the press has become an almost completely political enterprise
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
585d
Amazing re NYT: “Correspondent Edward Wong wrote… that he typically chose not to quote [Senator Tom] Cotton in his own stories because his comments ‘often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.’” https://www.theatlantic.com/idea…

The statement in question is confrontational and challenges the independence of the individuals mentioned. It implies that they are not acting of their own volition but are instead being controlled or influenced by external forces, as suggested by the phrase 'on whose leash.' The tone is defensive and somewhat aggressive.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement is confrontational and could be seen as harmful or offensive to the individuals it addresses. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but does not uphold dignity, as it implies a lack of independence and integrity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but rather sows division and confrontation. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    While the statement engages in dialogue, it is not constructive criticism but rather a personal attack that does not foster productive discourse. [-1]