Across mainstream media, there were two general reactions to the initial Twitter Files revelations — both of them completely predictable. The first (which we’ll get to later), was to simply ignore the story. The second was to attack Matt Taibbi personally — sometimes hilariously using straight-from-talking-points phrases.
But it’s this attack in particular I find fascinating:
For those of you who don’t know (and why would you), Ben Collins is a reporter for NBC News. He’s paid to be a reliable mouthpiece for whatever government wants him to say. So are many of the other ‘journalists’ who are attacking Taibbi for simply releasing A FEW internal communications regarding censorship on Twitter and the government’s role in that censorship.
Know what my initial reaction was, and what I would think would be the initial reaction of all journalists?
“LET ME SEE THE FILES, TAIBBI!”
The very little of that I saw was from people who were banned from social media or part of a major news story. Crickets from the ‘media’.
But that’s no surprise at all. The story is about government directing its preferred narrative via controlled media outlets. The media isn’t going to cover it because — you should already know this one! — government is directing its preferred narrative via controlled media outlets!
So instead of any journalistic instinct at all, we get a swipe at Taibbi as a “Substack Man”. But when we look at Taibbi’s ‘Stack, this is what we see:
Even under the harshest criteria, Taibbi is pulling down nearly half a million dollars a year as a “Substack Man” — the result of building a following during a long career calling out bullshit when he sees it. (As well as authoring one of my favorite phrases!)
This means that Taibbi gets his salary directly from READERS. There are no “suits” to set the narrative or tell him how to cover a specific story. (The free market in action!) Joe Rogan doesn’t have the largest podcast in the world because he’s particularly talented or intelligent. He’s simply an honest guy who talks to extremely interesting people and asks great questions. No matter if you agree with Rogan (or Taibbi) about a particular topic, you know they’re coming at it from an honest place. This is how you gain trust — actions, not a badge that says “TRUST ME”.
And while I don’t think the money you make is the end-all comparison of a person’s value in their field………..
There’s a reason the Ben Collins of the world resort so often to credentialism — it’s really the only thing they have. “Reporter for NBC News” is important because “NBC News” is important. But the narrative is set far above their pay grade, they’re just tasked with finding the most acceptable way to push it. There’s a reason that Musk gave the story to Taibbi in the first place — major outlets wouldn’t run it to begin with!
And if Ben Collins didn’t push the narrative for NBC News, somebody else would — and he knows it. There’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful.
If you want to know how the NY Times can employ over 1,000 journalists and continue to miss the most important stories of the day (instead covered by one guy in his free time and his feline editor) — it’s because they’re paid to miss the most important stories of the day. The whole industry is simply the modern-day version of the JournoList.
But because there’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful, the value of “reporting” for a narrative-pushing media outlet is basically zero. Take off the NBC News label, and what distinguishes Collins from any of the other of thousands of paid hacks spewing the company line?
Even worse, because he’s simply a narrative-pushing presstitute, whatever audience he may have built up will only continue to listen to him as long as he continues to push the narrative. Just look how fast they turned on Elon Musk and J.K. Rowling. If Collins was forced to be a “Substack Man” and get paid based on voluntary subscriptions from his readers, would he even be able to do it?
Based on the engagement at Taylor Lorenz’s Substack (which she’s still pushing in her Twitter handle!), the answer is a resounding NO. Meanwhile on the platform, established names like Taibbi and Greenwald continue to grow their support — as do anonymous cats and even dead English guys.
Obviously this is a serious threat that needs to be addressed, so government is stepping in to shore up ‘approved’ presstitutes. And much like the way the online poker ban was tossed into a security bill, they’re trying to jam the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act into the National Defense Authorization Act (already a terrible piece of work).
So ultimately, it’s no surprise that big media outlets are still ignoring the Twitter Files — they’ve long passed the point where their compliance has made them complicit in the most gross violation of the civil rights of Americans in my lifetime.
In that vein, it’s no surprise that Fauci is still a weasel trying to escape punishment for the great crime in the history of the world. The full transcript is available here (I encourage you to read it all!), but this passage had me cracking up. Getting this guy to answer anything is like pulling teeth.
The entire day went like this, along with 174 “I don’t recall”s. But he gets away with it because the lies that he pushes are the “correct” lies — the same as the media.
Cdr, did you see they discovered that James Baker, the FBI official who was deeply involved in Russiagate and who was then planted at Twitter as the company's general counsel, combed through the Twitter Files without telling Elon Musk?
Slam dunk. Homerun. 12 points. Four aces with a king on top. What a ruddy good post of yours.
What we're seeing is journalism as it was 150 years ago, when what papers and leaflets there were, were solely in the pocket of power. Then came cheaper and easier printing presses and copy machines, and the small free press reporting all the stuff power didn't want reported was born.
And - at least here - the initial response from power was censorhip, fines, harassment, limiting the right and ability to own and operate printing/copying equipment, imposing quotas for the purchase of inks and paper for private citizens and so on.
Which was cheered in the established press at the time, privately owned or state run, as a guarantee for truth and the free word and so on.
To study history is to study the future.