Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/13/2024, 7:39:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
606d
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):
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 the accompanying images engage in a substantive discussion about media reporting, censorship, and political accountability, which are significant public issues. The tone is critical and accusatory, suggesting that The New York Times contradicted itself and failed to maintain journalistic integrity. The statement implies a need for accountability and transparency in media reporting, especially concerning politically sensitive topics.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to highlight perceived inconsistencies and potential misinformation, which can be seen as striving to do no harm by seeking truth. However, the accusatory tone may contribute to polarization.
  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 the privacy and dignity of individuals by focusing on media actions rather than personal attacks. However, it indirectly involves public figures in a contentious issue.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by pointing out contradictions and calling for accountability, but the accusatory tone may hinder empathy and compassion. [-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 constructive criticism of media practices but borders on personal attacks by calling the media 'liars' and suggesting they owe an apology. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to call for better media practices, which can be seen as using influence for societal betterment. However, the tone may detract from the constructive nature of the critique. [+1]