Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47

Score 29

-7

The Times not only cast aspersions on Miranda and the Post, but two of their own reporters, one of whom later confirmed the laptop in their own pages. Outrageous. They need to explain what didn’t hold up in her report. (6/6)

6/13/2024, 7:39:51 PM

In reply to:

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

606d

A year before, in 2019, the NYT
helped break the seal on Biden’s Ukraine issues, reporting “a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats… facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama administration” (5/6):

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 criticizes The New York Times for allegedly casting aspersions on a reporter and a publication, while also pointing out an inconsistency in their reporting. The tone is accusatory and demands accountability from the publication.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not strive to do no harm; it is accusatory and could be seen as harmful to the reputation of the individuals and the publication involved. [-2]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement does not respect the privacy and dignity of others; it engages in public criticism and could be seen as a form of harassment. [-2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; it is confrontational and accusatory. [-2]
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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it is more of a personal attack and does not provide a constructive way forward. [-2]
Principle 5:
I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
The statement does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes; it focuses on criticizing the other party.
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The statement uses influence to call for accountability, which could be seen as an attempt to better society by demanding transparency. [+1]
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 does so in a manner that could be seen as lacking responsibility and integrity.