I was stopped in my tracks this morning when opening an email from Reader Supported News with the subject line stating Greenwald, Poitras, Scahill and Cook (in my opinion some of the very cream of the crop writers in the world today for the stories that truly matter) had written an explanation of Matt Taibbi’s departure from the company they work for, First Look Media. Taibbi’s departure? He hasn’t even gotten anything out there yet. It seemed just a little while ago he was just doing some speaking dates for another amazing book, “The Divide.” Like so many others, I was anxiously awaiting his High Art, par excellence takedowns of the slimy scumbags of Wall St.. which now seemed poised to be an even more exciting prospect since he would allegedly be given even more free reign to wield his sword. (Greenwald explained more in the discussion board at the Intercept, included below).
For one thing, I thought the act by colleagues of Taibbi’s to actually compose a thoughtful explanation showed a rare, admirable and moving show of solidarity, somewhat unprecedented. This is a group of prestigious reporters (and for all the right reasons) who occupy a lonesome strata of truth-seekers. It is a heartening and hopeful thing that these protagonists have such mutual respect for one another, and took pains to publicly explain their version. Can you imagine a similar scene at a corporate news agency like NBC or CNN? Again, these advocates of truth and justice showed an uncommon dignity, decency and compassion completely missing in the ranks of corporate media. Having said that and read the piece, it's still not entirely clear what happened in the end. It's simply a pity that it happened.
In a way this story should concern everyone here greatly. Because in a larger sense, of all the things contributing to the inertia of our present and ongoing global societal malaise, the venality and cowardice of journalism/media/"the news" is arguably the most important.
The direct impact of media complicity is one significant part of the hydra-headed monster responsible for that strangulating malaise. The other parts for me include: 1) the indoctrination centers of our schools and education system, which emphasize obedience and rote memorization instead of cultivating analytical, free and rational thought, 2) raging consumerism, which is spurred on by relentless stream of advertising penetrating every phase of our lives, and 3) political system, run and owned by wealthy elites who by virtue of a system that requires each elected official to raise mind-boggling amounts of money, rendering their jobs to be that of wholly in the service of their campaign donors.
In my view there is so little real penetrating and intrepid journalism anymore. We’re fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. We’re driving while blind. And it’s even worse when you consider that just 6 corporations own 90% of our media. More like being permanently maced by monopoly.
It’s pretty damn frightful that the whole media machine has become so adept at distracting the public from the issues that really effect our lives. It’s almost like the editorial managers get strict orders from the CEO’s, who at the behest of their owners and board members, make sure they run consistent interference and smokescreens, which are cleverly dressed up as “breaking news” with pitch perfect marketing gimmicks. From the fucking eye-rolling stoking of the Presidential horse race three years out on cable tv, to the predictable top of the hour talk-radio headlines leading with ebola or ISIS the past few weeks to the usual celebrity-splashed sensational newspaper covers, it’s a joke for anyone with half a brain and the ability to discern/think rationally (I wish someone, as an illustrative exercise, would splice together all the dumb, think tank-driven, public relations-advised slogans and media terms that dominate the weekly narrative headlines, such as "anchor babies, “ “death panels,” “debt ceiling,” etc?). The manufactured controversy/sensationalism hype machine ensures that, with a facsimile of news speckled into the thick batter of non-stop infotainment, people remain neutralized with fear or misplaced indignation by events unconnected to their lives but which are posed as life or death situations to their personal welfare.
It’s the main reason no mass movement of the 99% has risen up yet. Because in large part the reality of our lives, i.e. working more hours for less money, having our pensions looted, mortgage fraud resulting in millions thrown out of their homes illegally, the farce of our political system bought out by oligarchs, corporations and Wall St et al, is not being reflected back to us by the media. If we don’t see these stories, that are literally happening all around us, we begin to be prone to not believe it is happening at all. That leads to indifference, self-doubt and helplessness settle in, then inertia. Everybody knows these things are happening on some level, but we’re not seeing it distilled in the media and sent back to us in ways to help us understand the problems. The media’s steady flow of sensationalism , consumerism and fear-mongering is boiling us like frogs.
Therefore, deeply significant, potentially game-changing headlines never see the light of day: "400 of the wealthiest Americans have more money than the bottom 150 million," “Systemic Wall St Fraud Sends Country into Another Depression,” “The United States has military bases in over 100 countries with a budget that dwarfs the GDP of many of those countries,” “CEO’s Make an Average of 350 Times More Than Lowest Paid Worker in American Companies.”
We need unrestrained, fully engaged, fearless journalism desperately. Investigative journalists are the lifeblood, literally, of democracy. More than ever the yoke of editors, owners and CEO’s beholden to their corporate masters needs to be broken. An informed and engaged citizenry is our only salvation.
Whatever is truly behind Taibbi’s departure – the stifling corporate hierarchy and bureaucracy, a heavy-handed owner who reneged on a promise, some nefarious plot to smear a true muckraker just enough (who here remembers the fate of fellow Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings?), or something else – it’s something we should all be very concerned about.
POST SCRIPT
Here's Greenwald's response down thread to a questions posed on the discussion board at the Intercept:
This turn of events does clarify a lot of questions. I’ve wondered, in particular, why Glenn Greenwald would leave the Guardian, effectively killing the momentum of the Snowden revelations, essentially relieving pressure from the NSA, and knee-capping the legitimate drive for reform the Snowden docs and Greenwald articles had been fueling.
I’m always baffled when people make this claim since it’s so contrary to easily observable facts.
I’ve published more NSA stories and documents, at a faster rate, here at the Intercept than I did at the Guardian. I was able to have more people here at the Intercept working directly with the archive. The rate of publication was faster and the process easier here than it was at the Guardian.
Beyond that, in the 3 months or so between the time that I left the Guardian and the time the Intercept launched, I published all sorts of stories in partnership with media outlets all over the world: with NBC News, with The Huffington Post, with media outlets in Brazil, Norway, Sweden, India, and other nations. Laura did the same with der Spiegel and the New York Times.
Some of the stories we’ve been able to do at the Intercept from the archive have had among the biggest impact, despite how late in the process they were published.
Moreover, the Guardian (along with the NYT and the WashPost) continue to possess many, many thousands of Snowden document, and have continued to publish some articles since my departure. How do you assess the impact of that reporting?
Obviously, a story is going to generate less interest 17 months after it begins than it did in the beginning. That’s just the natural progression of how news functions. But reform, controversy and debate over these revelations continue all over the world (as well as in the US), and our being able to publish how we want and when we want at the Intercept helped that process, not hindered it.
Was it in part money dangled by Pierre Omidyar – of course. Maybe ego-servicing too – likely. Add a taste of entrepreneurship, as in “we all have to look out for number one” – I fear that too may have played a role. And sadly, his naiveté was gamed, he didn’t believe that when a Silicon Valley billionaire enriched by implementing the Ayn Rand game plan offers you both lots of money and “unlimited control”, that promise belongs in the category of “what sounds too good to be true isn’t true”. And it wasn’t.
Is it really hard to understand why a bunch of journalists who have long expressed scorn for establishment media practices would jump at the chance to create their own news outlet with promises of ample funding and full editorial independence? Despite all the problems we’ve encountered – and they’ve been ample, as we just described – we now have a team of journalists, editors, technologists, research experts and lawyers whom we handpicked and who I think are the best around, devoted to the model of journalism we want to do.
It’s easy to sit around carping about crappy media outlets – I know, because I’ve done that. It’s also easy to highlight the flaws in our funding model. But it’s a lot more difficult to find the way to do independent journalism with a big team and in a well-funded way. I’ve learned over the last 16 months that all of that is needed to do investigative journalism the right way. Our model isn’t perfect, but I’m convinced it has at least given us the opportunity to create something new that will enable us to do the kind of journalism I and others here have long advocated.
The vision Glenn, Matt, and Laura expressed for First Look Media never happened because Pierre Omidyar (personally, and via his corporate henchmen) didn’t want it to happen – and in particular wasn’t prepared to tolerate Matt Taibbi fundamentally attacking and challenging the financial industry which he himself was and is part of.
It’s hard to put into words how wrong this is. Not even the angriest employees of Racket – whether Matt, Alex or anyone else – claim that FLM ever wavered from the vision Matt created for attacking Wall Street and corporate America with vicious satire and reporting. That was what Matt said from the start he wanted to do, and FLM invested almost $2 million already, and was prepared to invest many millions more, to make that happen. Everyone tried hard over the last several weeks to salvage this.
It’s easy to believe conspiracy theories and so I’m sure nothing I say will dissuade you of your belief that the Big Oligarch didn’t want any reporting on his rich plutocratic friends. But just ask yourself: why would they have hired Matt in the first place, and then built up a team, if they didn’t want that? Everyone was and is well aware of Matt’s journalism and who the targets are. None of that came as a surprise.
This was about petty corporate control and culture clashes – not an attempt to stifle Matt on editorial grounds. Just ask anyone at the Intercept or Racket if they were ever interfered with editorially. Feel free to believe that some of us are lying, corporate lackeys, but doesn’t it strain credulity that every one of the dozens of editors and journalists at FLM, including ones now furious, are all abject liars? If editorial interference actually happened, you would know it. It hasn’t.
The vision Glenn, Matt, and Laura had and have, to pioneer a new form, and a new forum for critical journalism using the power of the internet, costs money, actually a lot of money. We certainly have learned that from this experience. But that vision won’t happen with Pierre Omidyar’s money, or with the money from any plutocrat sugar-daddy with a fat checkbook, because that’s not what they’re about.
How will it happen? By going to work for some huge media corporation like Comcast (MSNBC) or News Corp? By finding nicer oligarchs to invest? There are no perfect options for how independent journalism can exist in a well-funded environment.
Crowd sourcing journalism can raise $500K or, at best, $1 million. A million dollars is less than the total legal fees we personally have incurred over the last 16 months in connection with the Snowden reporting (to say nothing of the institutional legal fees one incurs from reporting it). It is nowhere near enough to sustain a large media operation with writers, editors, technologists, lawyers, travel budgets, office space, etc, as well as being protected when you go after those in power.
People love to complain – rightfully so – about the dearth of fearless, hard-hitting investigative journalism aimed at the world’s most powerful political and economic actors, but then disdain all the models for doing that. Being able to take those factions on in a long-term and sustained way requires real resources. How can those be obtained in a sanitized and risk-free manner?
Are you sure ‘everyone’ tried hard to salvage this, Glenn. As always you make very persuasive points and I do understand it takes a lot of money to do ‘investigative’ journalism ‘the right way’ … but $2 million already invested and not a single printed word by Taibbi … sounds like a … raket to me.
That’s because they didn’t launch yet. It takes time to hire a team, figure out how you want to operate, build a website, be ready to launch yourself into the world. Most of the money spent was on payroll for those Matt hired, the building of the website, etc.
We at the Intercept were forced – by the obligation imposed on us from the Snowden archive – to launch earlier than we would have in an ideal world, because we wanted to have one central place to do the NSA reporting. But launching early – before we were ready – caused some confusion (just a wordpress blog? Why not more content?, etc.). I think Matt and Racket wanted (wisely) to avoid those problems by only launching once they felt they were truly ready.
As we describe here, Matt and FLM did clash over launch date: specifically, FLM was pressuring Matt to launch, but he felt the site wasn’t ready yet, and insisted that was his decision to make.