Matt Taibbi

Rank 37 of 47
|
Score -50
3/31/2024, 12:20:33 AM
X
In reply to:
Avram Bertrand 🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
@AnarchoRevolt
·
228d
@mtaibbi You are acting like the story would never have happened if it weren’t for you, which is nonsensical—he would have despatched Bari Weiss or someone else. You could have embarrassed him and put pressure on him to reverse the decision but instead you were thirsty for more info
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
228d
@AnarchoRevolt Do you know anything about how journalism works? Have you ever dealt with a source, particularly a powerful one? Also you don’t understand the ethics. If the story I was covering was about Elon, and I shaded coverage in his favor, that would be unethical. But that wasn’t the…
Avram Bertrand 🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
@AnarchoRevolt
·
228d
@mtaibbi This is a false choice, why can’t we have both??? The fact that you felt like you had to give up your moral integrity and stay silent on increased censorship on Twitter in pursuit of a story that would have come out with or without you is incredible
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
228d
@AnarchoRevolt Would you rather have a tweet from me about Musk and India, or 50,00 emails about a secret state censorship program? I mean are you serious?
Avram Bertrand 🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
@AnarchoRevolt
·
228d
@mtaibbi So why did you refuse to criticize Musk for censoring Turkish and Indian opposition media figures? Your hypocrisy is pretty impressive
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
228d
What was the last financially costly ethical decision you made?

The statement is part of a conversation on Twitter that involves a discussion about journalistic ethics, the responsibility of journalists in handling sources and stories, and the implications of decisions made by those in the media industry. The tone is defensive and confrontational, with both parties challenging each other's views on the ethical considerations of journalism. The intent seems to be to defend personal decisions and critique the actions of others in the realm of journalism and media coverage. The content touches upon the balance between exposing wrongdoing and maintaining access to information, as well as the role of journalists in holding powerful figures accountable.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm but is part of a heated debate which could potentially lead to harm if not handled respectfully.
  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 and dignity, focusing on the actions of public figures and their decisions. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a tone of understanding and compassion, instead opting for a more confrontational approach. [-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.
    The statement engages in criticism but borders on personal attacks rather than purely constructive dialogue. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    There is no acknowledgment or correction of mistakes within the statement.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement indirectly uses influence to discuss the betterment of society by highlighting the importance of ethical journalism. [+1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech but may not be using the platform with complete integrity due to the confrontational nature of the exchange.