Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -43
2/18/2025, 2:39:24 PM
X
In reply to:
CJ Hopkins
@CJHopkins_Z23
·
149d
@mtaibbi Speaking of that approach, how many times does the military-industrial complex embedded advisor to the president have to whip his minions into frenzies about imprisoning news outlets on the massive platform he owns and controls before that becomes a problem for MAGA/Musk folks?
CJ Hopkins
@CJHopkins_Z23
·
149d
@mtaibbi No argument there. It's not a censorship issue at all. It's the general "heads on spikes," "print what we tell you or we'll haul you before a DOGE subcommittee" approach of the new regime that troubles me.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
149d
@CJHopkins_Z23 Elon's dual role at DOGE and running this platform feels more like a state censorship issue. But yanking credentials? If the White House is saying "parrot MAGA newspeak or else," just pick "or else" and get used to being in the wilderness with everyone else.
CJ Hopkins
@CJHopkins_Z23
·
149d
@mtaibbi The issue isn't the press credentials. It's the message, i.e., "parrot MAGA newspeak or you're out," "report the official Musk version of 'reality' or get hauled before a DOGE subcommittee." "Post your work on my platform or 'you're dead to me'." And so on.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
149d
Well then go back in time and wave a banner for every independent journalist who’s been denied credentials 100% of the time across decades, and not for the AP to whom it’s happened once.
We're At Abnormal 2.0
@gettingmorenorm
·
149d
@mtaibbi It's a complete non issue in that the AP shouldn't have been denied credentials arbitrarily, just like you shouldn't have been.

The statement engages in a discussion about political rhetoric and media criticism, touching on themes of censorship and the implications of public figures' statements. It reflects skepticism about taking certain political chants literally, suggesting a critique of hyperbolic political discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but discusses potentially harmful rhetoric, showing awareness of its impact. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity by not engaging in personal attacks, focusing instead on public discourse. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning the literal interpretation of political rhetoric. [+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.
    It engages in constructive criticism by addressing the implications of political statements without personal attacks. [+1]