Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 18
12/25/2025, 6:11:45 PM
X
In reply to:
Kristen Kate
@KristenKate14
·
5d
@mtaibbi Ok
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
5d
@KristenKate14 By a Rand Corporation insider who’d seen the Vietnam War literally from the beginning (as in there for the first dispatches from the Gulf of Tonkin). Ellsberg by himself would have been an almost unimpeachable source but he brought documents at huge personal cost.
Kristen Kate
@KristenKate14
·
5d
@mtaibbi How do you think the info in the Pentagon papers was identified, obtained and put together Matt!
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
5d
The Pentagon Papers were evidence. If Daniel Ellsberg just said a bunch of shit on TV he wouldn’t be the patron saint of whistleblowers.
Ivan Ellul
@ivan_ellul
·
6d
@mtaibbi “They implicate the organization… still defaming the organization.”

By that logic, the Pentagon Papers were defamatory.
By that logic, the Church Committee defamed the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

History calls that accountability.
You’re calling it defamation.

The statement is part of a broader discussion about whistleblowing and the handling of sensitive information, referencing historical events like the Pentagon Papers. It critiques an individual's actions by comparing them to Daniel Ellsberg's, suggesting a failure to meet the standards of responsible whistleblowing. The tone is critical and evaluative, aiming to engage in a debate about the ethics of information disclosure.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but critiques another's actions, which can be seen as a form of harm if not done constructively. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and compassion, focusing on criticism without promoting understanding. [-1]
  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 criticism but does not appear to engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, maintaining a focus on actions rather than personal attributes. [+1]