Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/13/2024, 7:39:50 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
606d
The Times in that same October 2020 piece said a Senate panel found “no evidence” of “wrongdoing.” This contradicted the paper’s own prior reports (4/6):
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 accompanying images engage in a substantive discussion about media coverage, political issues, and the scrutiny of public figures, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is critical and accusatory, focusing on perceived inconsistencies and biases in media reporting regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings and the involvement of Joe Biden.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly promote harm but could contribute to polarization by framing the issue in a highly critical manner. This could indirectly lead to harm by fostering division. [-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 the privacy of individuals involved by focusing on public figures and their actions rather than personal attacks. However, it does engage in a form of public shaming by calling out specific media outlets and individuals.
  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. Instead, it focuses on highlighting perceived failures and inconsistencies, which may not foster constructive dialogue. [-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 does so in a manner that could be seen as personal attacks, particularly towards the media outlets and individuals mentioned. It does not encourage constructive dialogue or provide a balanced perspective. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes. It is focused on pointing out perceived errors and biases in others' reporting. [-1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to highlight issues of media bias and political scrutiny, which can be seen as an attempt to better society by holding media accountable. However, the accusatory tone may undermine this goal. [+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 by engaging in public discourse and criticizing media practices. However, the responsibility and integrity of the platform could be questioned due to the accusatory and potentially divisive tone.