Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -16
1/11/2025, 5:49:53 PM
X
In reply to:
Bernie fan
@replyguy123
·
255d
@mtaibbi I think the poster means is that Musk chose you for a reason - that you could be relied on to advance his agenda
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
255d
I wasn’t promoted. I have a Substack and work for my subscribers. None of us were paid by Musk, and we didn’t work for Twitter. He was a source, that’s all. It’s not complicated.
Funky Edwina
@WHYY_CTRL
·
255d
@mtaibbi The point is obvious, you'd need both blinders and a distorted sense of self to not see it. Why were YOU promoted? Define "weren't paid by Musk" and "didn't report to him".

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate about journalistic integrity and potential bias in reporting related to Elon Musk. The conversation involves accusations and defenses regarding the independence of journalists like Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. The statement 'Well, that’s manifestly untrue, in both of our cases.' is a direct response to an accusation, aiming to refute claims of bias or agenda-pushing.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, as it is a refutation rather than an attack.
  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 others by not engaging in personal attacks or hate speech.
  3. 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 dialogue by refuting a claim, but it does not provide evidence or further explanation, which limits its constructiveness. [-1]