During his appearance at the Jim Jordan Show on Thursday, Matt Taibbi repeatedly invoked his credentials as a Serious Journalist to defend his work on the “Twitter Files,” doing Elon Musk’s bidding in producing the desired narrative about Twitter having been biased against Republicans. Taibbi even (ridiculously) repeatedly invoked the journalistic requirement of protecting his sources to refuse to answer questions about his conversations with Musk, one of the richest people in the world, who was less a source and more a patron commissioning a product.
But Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz showed just how far from any journalistic professionalism Taibbi has strayed, using Taibbi’s own past words against him.
RELATED STORY: Gerry Connolly knocks a hole in the Jim Jordan show with one simple question about the Twitter Files
Campaign Action
Wasserman Schultz first got Taibbi to try to create wiggle room in the statement, “Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion.”
“It depends,” Taibbi said, because “Every reported story that I’ve ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives”—but having sources who have motives is different from producing work beholden to a specific billionaire for access without seriously challenging that billionaire’s sourcing.
That’s when Wasserman Schultz went to Taibbi’s own past words. “I ask you this because, before you became Elon Musk’s hand-picked journalist, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan’s podcast about being spoon-fed information, and I quote: ‘I think that’s true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you’ve lost. They have you at that point and you gotta get out of that habit. You just can’t cross that line,’” she said. “Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan. Yes or no?” When Taibbi didn’t answer immediately, she repeated, “Yes or no?”
Stuck, Taibbi could do nothing but answer “Yes,” which Wasserman Schultz crisply followed with “Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter Files.” He tried to answer no, but she reclaimed her time and kept moving.
“Elon Musk spoon-fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint or at the very least generates another right-wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard,” Wasserman Schultz summed up. “And you appear to have benefited from it.” She went on to detail the tripling of Taibbi’s Twitter followers since he took up with Musk, and noted that since he has a subscription-based Substack, he has presumably profited. “Now I’m not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it’s quite obviously that you profited from the Twitter Files. You hit the jackpot on that Vegas slot machine to which you referred. That’s true, isn’t it?”
Taibbi twisted and squirmed and tried to dodge as she continued to press him. “I’ve also reinvested … “ he said. “I think it’s probably a wash honestly,” he said.
She wasn’t having it: “No. You have made money that you did not have before, correct?”
“But I’ve also spent money that I didn’t have before, I just hired a whole group of people … “
Yeah, buddy, “I didn’t make money” and “I just hired people” don’t really fit together. It’s like multimillionaire Sen. Markwayne Mullin claiming he had only paid himself $50,000 a year as the owner of a business he’d taken over from his father and subsequently sold for what appears to have been millions of dollars. Safe to say that if Taibbi has money to hire people he did not previously have money to hire, he made money off the Twitter Files.
And whatever Taibbi did with the money, the way he got it was to take spoon-fed, cherry-picked information that was likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion. He didn’t take that information from some desperate whistleblower, from a vulnerable person relying on him, Matt Taibbi, to speak truth to power. He took it from Elon Musk, one of the richest people in the world and the owner of one of the world’s largest social media platforms. That was the spoon he fed from and the slant he adopted.
So every other time during the hearing when he puffed up and acted sanctimonious about his journalistic credentials and ethics, it was an act. An easy-to-disprove one. The gonzo journalist boy wonder of the Bush era—always a vicious misogynist—is a flaming sellout.
Transcript:
DWS: The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities that can compromise integrity or credibility. Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity. But a deeper concern that I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with that?
MT: I think it depends.
DWS: Really? You wouldn’t agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion?
MT: Congresswoman, I’ve done probably a dozen stories involving whistleblowers. Every reported story that I’ve ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives. Every time you do a story you’re making a balancing test ...
DWS: Reclaiming my time. Thank you very much. I ask you this because, before you became Elon Musk’s hand-picked journalist, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan’s podcast about being spoon-fed information, and I quote: “I think that’s true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you’ve lost. They have you at that point and you gotta get out of that habit. You just can’t cross that line.” Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan. Yes or no? [Pause] Yes or no?
MT: Yes.
DWS: Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter Files.
MT: No. [Tries to continue.]
DWS: It’s my time. Please do not interrupt. Elon Musk spoon-fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint or at the very least generates another right-wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard. And you appear to have benefited from it. Before the release of emails in August of last year, you had 661,000 Twitter followers. After the Twitter files, your followers doubled, and now it’s three times what it was last August. I imagine your Substack readership, which is a subscription, increased significantly because of the work that you did for Elon Musk. Now I’m not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it’s quite obviously that you profited from the Twitter Files. You hit the jackpot on that Vegas slot machine to which you referred. That’s true, isn’t it?
MT: I’ve also reinvested …
DWS: No no no, is it true that you have profited since you were the recipient of the Twitter files? You’ve made money, yes or no?
MT: I think it’s probably a wash honestly.
DWS: No. You have made money that you did not have before, correct?
MT: But I’ve also spent money that I didn’t have before, I just hired a whole group of people …
DWS: A patently obvious answer, reclaiming my time.
Markos and Kerry luxuriate in the battle going on between Donald Trump’s ascending fascism and Mitch McConnell’s disappearing neocon establishment. The fighting has become much sharper recently as the MAGA-media outlet Fox News has traveled further and further away from reality.
