This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You throw a causal couple liner disclaimer out there and then go on and on about how yes it does affect the credibility of Taibbi and his story. It is the equivalent of “just asking questions.”
And yes, my major beef is with the MSNBC guys but you are in effect either falling for it or signal boosting it.
Let me say this unambiguously since you don’t address.
Your post is largely built on a disingenuous MSNBC reporter coupled with darkly hinting at “credibility” problems without really doing the work to show why failure to criticize Musk makes Taibbi’s reporting less credible outside of asserting that he isn’t playing with a free hand because he doesn’t want to criticize Musk over a bullshit Indian story (when in fact one of his compatriots did criticize Musk over a different story. What you left out is that Taibbi under oath (which was backed up by Michael S. also) stated that they received a massive trove of info that would’ve been hard to pre-select, there was zero limitations on what they could write, and whenever they asked for more info they got it. Moreover, Taibbi provided receipts. Do you think he made them up? Do you think Musk made them up? To date, people with knowledge have only challenged the context (unsuccessfully in my opinion).
So hear we have the very unique situation where a reporter was willing to state his methods
under oath, subjects haven’t claimed “he is lying (though one has claimed he misunderstood the facts),” there has been independent validation, it is consistent with what certain state AGs have also found, but your are casting aspersions because a bullshit MSNBC attempt at a gotcha related to an Indian Twitter squabble? Really? Really?
I'm not "darkly" hinting at anything, I said my conclusion outright. You're just asserting that I'm not doing the work without explaining how exactly the approach I laid out is deficient. Here's the relevant part of my conclusion again:
Ignore Taibbi for a second, is there anything you disagree with there as a general principle? Maybe you do agree with the premises but disagree that they apply to Taibbi? It would be helpful if you specified because I can't tell.
I'm assuming you're talking about the congressional hearings? I didn't watch those hearings so I have no idea what they said in it. I laid out my arguments why I believe Taibbi is being so evasive and "but he said under oath" doesn't address what I actually said.
What receipts? What context? Are you talking about the Twitter Files? I don't have any basis to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the Twitter Files.
As best as I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that I have a hidden argument buried within my post. I believe what I wrote is clear enough but if there's any confusion on your end you can just ask me to clarify. It would be more helpful to keep the conversation focused on what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
Why do you think Indian Twitter situation was brought up?
How does Taibbi’s “unwillingness” to attack Musk affect his Taibbi’s credibility? Is it his general credibility or Twitter specific? If Twitter specific, then any story in particular?
The theory is that Taibbi was happy to cover what Old Twitter did because it made Musk look good, but he doesn't want to cover what New Twitter does with India because it makes Musk look bad. In the absence of Taibbi providing a more convincing explanation for his actions (he hasn't) that's the conclusion the evidence I outlined above leads me to.
His unwillingness to attack Musk is not really the issue, it's the lack of curiosity about Twitter's actions that I find suspicious as I said above. He seems to be deliberately keeping his head in the dark about a story central to his beat, most likely to avoid having to (negatively) opine on New Twitter's actions and upsetting Musk. It's Not Good when journalists choose to avoid covering certain topics because they're worried about upsetting the wrong people because it might lead to some stories being suppressed. That's Bad.
Both, but primarily Twitter-related. Given how much aversion he has demonstrated to upsetting Musk, I'd be worried that if he came across a Twitter scoop that happens to make Musk look bad he'd be inclined to bury the story. There are a few journalists who I would be inclined to take at their word when they report something via anonymous sourcing or something similarly unverifiable but I wouldn't trust Taibbi's reporting on a given topic without some serious corroboration.
As I said before: "For whatever cannot be corroborated by outside sources, we have to trust that a journalist is engaging in enough due diligence in vetting sources and investigating claims." In terms of past Twitter stories, I don't have any reason to believe there were based on fabrications. I didn't pay attention closely but Taibbi appears to have provided authentic documents and none of the employees involved disputed their authenticity as far as I am aware. I am also not aware of any follow-up reporting by others that poked any significant holes in Taibbi's reporting. The only remaining concern would be matters of omission but I'm not aware of any issues at the moment.
With respect to your first paragraph, what incentive did Taibbi have to make Musk look good? Musk didn’t pay him. He was associated with Musk before Twitter.
Maybe one could say that after getting a really good story from Musk Taibbi would be reluctant to hit back at Musk. But you seem to have started the story too soon.
Moreover, your logical inference is off (end of first paragraph and start of second). Taibbi is an American journalist who primarily (though of course not exclusively) focuses on the US. To my knowledge, he has never written about India. Contra your belief, this Indian issue isn’t central to Taibbi’s beat. Taibbi’s beat (if there was one) was how the US government was effectively (with the help of media) circumventing the 1A.
Moreover, as has been pointed out the whole “Indian Twitter story” was a red herring designed to try to ignore Taibbi’s reporting. It wasn’t that far from someone writing about say the problem of crime increasing in American cities and someone who wants to end that narrative ask “why haven’t you reported about crime in Poland” with the subtext being “you only care about American crime and not Polish crime because you want to report on black people so we can ignore your reporting.” After getting these numerous drive bys that were complete BS, Taibbi fired back. He should’ve been more clear “Warsaw ain’t my beat but you can’t use that to discredit the honest reporting I’ve done on XYZ.
But even if you think Taibbi doesn’t want to resort negatively on Musk (not that there is a shortage of reporters willing to take on that beat), you are ignoring the context of where this came up. Given the timeline, none of the Twitter files would implicate malfeasance by Musk. He barely owned the company when this whole thing started. So Musk is irrelevant to this whole story in terms of Taibbi’s credibility.
Taibbi has no history of fraud or making spurious claims that don’t check out. But you are using an entirely dishonest, red herring to cast aspersions? I think that is shameful.
Finally, do you trust mainstream media on say covid vaccines?
Yes exactly on the first sentence. I don't understand what the last sentence means, too soon for what?
This is a plausible explanation for Taibbi's omission and if he just said "The reason I don't cover the issue is because XYZ" I might be inclined to believe him depending on the reason. That he chooses to stay silent instead makes me suspicious, combined with the other evidence I outlined.
Sure, Hasan's intent was probably to find an excuse to ignore Taibbi's reporting. I don't share Hasan's intent, as is obvious with what I said about the Twitter Files. But it's not a red herring if the topic is whether Taibbi's is avoiding covering certain topics because he's worried about upsetting the wrong people. That's central to the argument and here's the relevant part of my conclusion again:
I'm still not clear if you disagree with any of it. I put numbers to make it easier.
What is dishonest? What is shameful? I've already said my piece about the Twitter Files but you still seem to think I have this hidden agenda. I've read your post several times and while I understand you strongly dislike my conclusion I can't summarize much beyond that. It would be helpful for you to be specific and avoid conclusory language (e.g. "darkly hinting" "bullshit Indian story" etc).
This is a very broad question: do I trust who on what exactly? Generally speaking I have very low trust in most science journalism, with very few exceptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link