Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47

Score 29

-3

Just a few paragraphs down, the Times contradicted itself, saying Twitter didn’t block the story because it was “dubious,” but because it was supposedly “hacked materials.”

The laptop contents were not even “hacked materials,” as Twitter quickly determined. But also (3/6):

6/13/2024, 7:39:47 PM

In reply to:

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

606d

First of all the Times in 2020 tried to use the unprecedented censorship of the story by Facebook and Twitter to call Miranda’s story “dubious,” without saying what was dubious. (The censorship angle they of course ignore entirely.) It got worse (2/6):

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

606d

Not only is the @nytimes is totally wrong implying @mirandadevine’s reporting hasn’t held up, the paper ignored its own multi-level failure on that same story in 2020, which included ignoring their own reporting. It’s almost actionable — they owe a huge apology (1/6):

Miranda Devine

@mirandadevine

607d

Hey @nytimes Name me a single story we have published about the laptop that has “not stood up to scrutiny”. You liars.

The statement and accompanying images engage in a critique of media coverage and social media censorship regarding a politically sensitive story. The tone is accusatory and aims to highlight perceived inconsistencies and biases in the reporting and actions of major media and social media platforms.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not directly cause harm but could contribute to polarization by framing the issue in a highly critical manner. This could be seen as a minor violation. [-1]
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 to some extent but indirectly involves individuals by discussing their actions and decisions. This is neutral.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it focuses on criticism and pointing out contradictions. This is a minor violation. [-1]
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 does not do so constructively. It leans towards personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against the media outlets. This is a significant violation. [-2]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The statement uses its platform to highlight perceived issues in media and social media practices, which can be seen as an attempt to better society by calling out inconsistencies. This is a minor alignment. [+1]