Matt Taibbi's truthiness analyzed

[stevenleser]

Fellow DUers have compiled a nice list. This was a comment under another OP and I thought it needed to be it's own OP.

Smear of Obama with mistakes pointed out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x54049

More half truths and non-truths about various Democrats here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=54049&mesg_id=54106

And more:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=790084

And here is another spot on analysis;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022141335

And Taibbi's fabricated quotes about Wes Clark:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=54049&mesg_id=54107

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Thanks

Just curious, do you think Congress should pass TPA?

(I'll assume that no response means you favor TPA.)

[Rex]

42. After all this time you have to ask?

I would say the OPs intentions on this site are crystal clear.

[grasswire]

44. ayep nt

[Octafish]

63. I find it interesting what ''Liberals'' FOX News allows on-air.

With Fox News Liberals, Who Needs Conservatives?

They play the left on Rupert Murdoch’s TV

By Steve Rendall
FAIR, March 1, 2012

Fox News co-host and contributor Bob Beckel has called for the assassination of WikiLeaks spokesperson Julian Assange (“A dead man can’t leak stuff”—Follow the Money, 12/6/10), for furnishing guns to school children (“If you give your kid a gun, no bullying”—Five, 1/5/12) and for militant opposition to the “War on Christmas,” which is “completely out of hand” (Five, 12/9/11).

These views are anything but out of place on Fox News, where hosts and commentators are known for fantasizing about murdering progressives (FAIR Blog, 11/10/10), deifying gun ownership (Beck, 6/29/11) and courageously confronting those who would wish them happy holidays (O’Reilly Factor, 11/17/11).

But Beckel is presented as a left-leaning voice on Fox, a counterweight to the network’s army of right-leaning talkers. And he’s far from an atypical specimen there.

As one of five co-hosts on Fox’s new program the Five, Beckel is supposed to serve as foil to four conservative co-hosts. That’s the theory. In reality, Beckel more than occasionally joins his conservative counterparts. (Typically, Five panelists include former George W. Bush aide Dana Perino, Fox News Red Eye anchor Greg Gutfield, Fox legal commentator Kimberly Guilfoyle and Fox Business Network host Eric Bolling.)

For instance, when Beckel’s colleague Bolling (Five, 12/14/11) recounted how he’d kicked a representative from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) off his Fox Business show (Follow the Money,12/12/11) for opposing the display of a nativity scene at a Texas courthouse, Beckel bluntly approved: “Good.” When Five co-host Greg Gutfield (12/9/11) compared FFRF to a woman who’d once demanded that he put out his cigarette, Beckel’s only response was, “Did you deck her?”

Discussing charges that GOP Rep. Mark Foley (Fla.) had exchanged inappropriate messages with male congressional pages (Hannity & Colmes, 10/2/06), Beckel suggested that Foley, because he’s gay, should have been kept away from pages to begin with, likening him to a notorious bank robber: “If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed, then you’re probably going to say, ‘Willie, stay away from the robbery.’”

CONTINUED...

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/with-fox-news-liberals-who-needs-conservatives/

[stevenleser]

2. And here is more

http://prospect.org/article/errors-matt-taibbi

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Can we critique any "journalist" we want?

Can we call them liars in these pages?
Are you a journalist? I believe you claim to be.
If you're a journalist, are your words here at DU fair game?

Do let me know.

[stevenleser]

5. Attacking me won't change whether Taibbi is dishonest or not. But your ad-hominem is noted. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. I have no plans to attack you. But with your go-ahead, I'd hold you to the same standard.

You have a built-in protection here. People can't say bad things directly about you, or it's considered a personal attack and is subject to a lock. Taibbi has no such protections here. I was just wondering if you held yourself to the same standard he holds himself to. I have my answer now. Enjoy your weekend.

[stevenleser]

8. And this is new how? Why do you want to change the rules for me? Don't we talk about journalists all

the time here?

The fact that this analysis about Taibbi, with links, mostly done by other DUers enrages you so much ought to be a source of some reflection for you.

Taibbi is obviously some sort of sacred cow to you whose takedown you can't bear for some reason.

Either he has lied repeatedly, or he hasn't. Attempting to shoot the messenger won't help either way.

Refute the assertions about him or don't and admit you can't.

I have no fear about you going through my articles and TV appearances. When you go through my articles, one thing you will notice is that I go overboard with links to sources to provide backup. You will also notice with my appearances that more often than not I refer to sources for facts for my opinions.

I don't think ANY journalist should be taken merely at their word and what we have here with Taibbi shows why.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. I don't want to change rules for you. Pay attention.

I want to hold you to the same standards you hold other journalists to. But I can't.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Sure, he'll never sit in the pantheon of journalistic greats

like Dick Gregory and Steven Leser, but few can scale that mantle.

[MohRokTah]

6. K&R

Like the bloviators on the right, Taibbi kows his audience well, knows what they want, and he feeds it to them precisely how they want it.

[stevenleser]

9. And with utter disregard about whether it is true and accurate. nt

[MohRokTah]

10. When you hand feed an audience what they want...

it will rarely be true and accurate.

[grasswire]

45. tell me how you think Taibbi's truthiness compares to that of, oh, say...

....Fox News?

If Taibbi's disregard for truth is utter, I wonder what FOX's is?

[Puglover]

49. Let's see...

Matt Taibbi, Amy Goodman or the wannabees and anonymous self appointed experts on DU.

Yeah, it's a tough call.

[foo_bar]

11. I get it. Taibbi's a paid propagandist, and you're a journalist.

I'm glad that there's still real journalists to point out the difference.

[stevenleser]

12. Fascinating that when people are confronted with the truth about Taibbi, they attack me.

You know that attacking me won't change the truth about Taibbi, right?

You also realize that most of those links go to OPs and comments first posted by other DUers right? Are you going to try to smear them now or not?

[foo_bar]

24. I thought I was agreeing with you.

[Cha]

14. Yeah, you got it.. Taibbi does get money off of his hate infested propaganda against the

President.. has for years.

Your attack on the messenger is lame.

[foo_bar]

59. wait, I attacked whom?

Tough crowd. I do give Mr.L props for keeping it real on the DU, it's certainly a labor of love...

[Cha]

60. Oh man.. I read you wrong.. Sorry!

Mea Culpa. OMZ.. I musta been reading your post as sarcasm.. or some shite.

I'm so sorry, foo_bar.. "Tough Crowd" indeed. Now I'm cracking up.. you're being nice when falsely verbally attacked!

[Cha]

13. Oh I can see this went over well with those who live to smear the President.. but,

thank you Steven. I kinda glanced at that last night and thought "what a bunch of Matt Taibbi shite".

These f******* have made money off of Obama hate for a long time. The President is a one man economy booster. So many love to suck up the insipid pablum that they offer.

[alarimer]

15. Because he says bad things about your heroes.

THAT is why journalists get thrown under the bus here. It is purely ideological.

People will support ANYTHING Democrats do, because they are "our" team.

You people do not recognize your own cognitive dissonance.

[stevenleser]

16. No. Because he doesn't tell the truth. You defend him because of your agenda, and give him a pass

on not telling the truth because of it.

[MADem]

30. Well, when one considers where he honed his craft (and he did so while addicted to heroin) one can

understand how he might have missed a few basic lessons on that whole "integrity" thing.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/02/exile-201002

His father, OTOH, was a fine journalist who recently retired. He was a fixture in Boston for decades before he moved on to the national networks.

[cui bono]

38. Not true. They're not supporting the Dems who are actually fighting for the people.

In fact, they are now supporting the rw nutjobs who want to pass the TPP while they post OPs attempting to smear Sanders.
Because Obama.

[Marr]

50. I *wish* it were ideological. It's purely personality/team driven.

People defend their favorite political celebrities regardless of what they do policy-wise.

[LittleBlue]

55. Agreed. It's all about supporting the party

As soon as x journalist publishes something negative about Obama, these types come out of the woodwork with their dossiers.

I can't take party officials seriously

[Cha]

62. No because Taibbi lies his damn head off."You people do not recognize your own cognitive dissonance"

backatcha

[KG]

17. I lulz'd

[stevenleser]

18. Thank you for kicking my OP. nt

[Cha]

19. "Taibbi is good with rhetoric, but fast and loose with the truth" First comment under

the fourth link.. Perfect!

[stevenleser]

20. And I think whoever said that was being generous.

I wish I could find the account by the person who talked about Taibbi's account of a Kerry supporter meeting where Taibbi slammed the Kerry campaign because of the behavior of a couple of volunteers.

[Cha]

22. Taibbi is always slamming what he doesn't understand.. there are a lot of people who see through

his propaganda but of course he whips up the right amount of ignorant hate towards Obama now to make him wildly popular with the ODS bunch.

He makes me sick to look at him. I think some day his karma will blow back on him.

[Marr]

21. I think the word you were looking for was 'rationalized', not 'analyzed'.

[stevenleser]

23. Nope. But you are free to point out specific instances where the analyses of his articles are wrong.

Of course attacking me is easier, but it doesn't change anything.

[Exilednight]

25. I get it. You don't understand the kind

Of journalist that Matt is. Hunter often said there is more truth in a lie than there is in the truth.

I would ask that you please forgive Matt for making you think, but it seems you do not need that type of forgiveness.

[randys1]

26. Hunter would be crucified if he wrote today.

[Exilednight]

28. I didn't always agree with Hunter, and I often found

Him a bit over the top when face to face, but behind the derangement was a man who really understood the system and wasn't afraid to make you think.

Matt is better at brining the reader into the story, but he lacks the imagination of Hunter.

[randys1]

29. You met him? tell me more please

[Exilednight]

31. A few times. Half the time I was with

him he scared the shit out of me. I could never tell if his actions were just for show, or if that was the way he really was.

Every once in a while he would look at me with a small smile in his eyes like he knew a secret that the rest of us did not.

[randys1]

33. Sounds like the persona we know - how were you in his company, why?

did you live near him?

[Exilednight]

34. My father knew him. My dad was a civil rights

Attorney and knew a lot of famous people. Hunter was famous for staying at a friends house, running up there phone bill and then leaving without saying a word.

No one dared confront him about it. Everyone was too scared to.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

56. Have the courage off your convictions and him a liar if that's what you mean.

if you're 60, you should be mature enough to drop the language of 22 year olds and clearly state that you believe the other poster is a liar.

Tell me, how is it that I already know you're not going to?

[randome]

27. Not one poster so far addresses your points.

Made by other DUers, as you pointed out.

IMO, anyone we look up to should be held to a more stringent standard than others. It's practical to do so and it is owed to the person in question. If the 'friends' of a journalist won't tell him/her what he/she's doing wrong, then who will?


[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Exilednight]

32. There's nothing to address. Either you understand what he's trying

To tell you or you don't. If you need strictly fact based reporting, then there are plenty of droning channels and writers to get your news from.

Based on what it appears you believe, Matt, Colbert and Stewart do nothing to inform the public.

[randome]

35. Colbert and Stewart don't represent themselves as fact-based journalists.

They mock what they see as facts but at least you know it's satire, which often has more of a 'bite' than the simple truth. And they're funny. Taibbi is not.

He deliberately tries to get his readers to believe he has facts at hand but much of his reporting is, instead, innuendo. At least with Stewart and Colbert, you know where they stand.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Exilednight]

37. I know where Matt stands, it just seems that

Some people either do not know where he stands, or just don't like where he stands.

It appears to me that you don't get it. Matt'a never tried to be anything he is not. If you followed his work from Russia to today, then you may understand. His RS pieces are no different than his Exile pieces.

[KittyWampus]

41. You know where Matt stands? How nice. So he's not a journalist but an entertainer?

An opinion writer like the Left's version of Ann Coulter?

He's never tried to be anything he's not?

His whole schtick is pretending to be H.S.T.

[Exilednight]

48. You and the OP are trying to fit him into

A rigid little box because you either don't understand, or do not want to. He can be multiple things at one time.

Comparing him to Coulter is either intellectual dishonesty, or ignorance.

[randome]

36. Like when he quotes someone as saying the TARP bailout would cost $23 trillion.

Oh, sure, that's a 'fact' that someone said that but it was never credible yet he wanted us to believe it.

Not cool.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Exilednight]

39. I see that this is way beyond your capacity. Stick with PBS, you'll be happier.

[Octafish]

58. The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion

EXCERPT...

But something like this position was on display last week when the Federal Reserve criticized reports claiming that the total size of its emergency facilities was $7.77 trillion. The Fed argued that these reports overstated the size of the facilities because they added up all the loans extended despite the fact that many were short term loans that we simply rolled over. According to the Fed, the best thing to do is look at the total amount outstanding at one one time, which was just $1.7 trillion.

Just like the guy who only had one drink…at a time.

The counter to this is that the need to keep borrowing under what are supposed to be short term facilities shows just how badly financial institutions were faring during the financial crisis.

“The amount of overnight lending reflects how broken our financial system really is. A well capitalized, moderately leveraged system does not require this massive liquidity from a central bank — interbank lending should be sufficient. What the data reveals is that the financial sector remains dangerously under-capitalized and overleveraged,” Barry Ritholz writes at the Big Picture.

Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to assess the total size of the Fed’s commitments—not just loans made, but asset purchases as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.

That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued, incredibly, that the Fed’s bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the money was paid back.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390

So Taibbi was off in 2003. Compared to those saying Uncle Sam turned a profit, he was sage. He also reported the truth as he knew it.

[Octafish]

64. "Where is the best economics now being done? UMKC." -- James K. Galbraith

The son of the great Democratic ambassador and economist thinks the world of William K. Black and his colleagues at University of Missouri - Kansas City. These are liberals with integrity.

http://www.amazon.com/Inequality-Instability-Economy-Before-Crisis/dp/019985565X/

[Cha]

61. They don't care if Taibbi is fact challenged.. his rhetoric is enough to get their juices flowing..

pesky facts/truth be damned.. and, they will defend him no matter what.

The cult of taibbi, snowden, greenwald, assange.. as they accuse others who support the President of "cult".

They're so busy projecting they have no self awareness.

[Octafish]

43. Taibbi is doing his job. None of that shows he's lied.

Gee, stevenleser. No where in those links does it show Taibbi is liar.

From 2009:

Smear of Obama with mistakes pointed out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x54049

A post from 2009, referencing articles from 2003:

More half truths and non-truths about various Democrats here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=54049&mesg_id=54106

And more:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=790084

Guy reported quotes straight out of the subjects' mouths. Must've satisfied his editor at The Nation.

More criticizing Taibbi for mentioning crapola that is TARP:

And here is another spot on analysis;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022141335

Which is more about The Nation article in which he quotes Wes Clark.

And Taibbi's fabricated quotes about Wes Clark:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=54049&mesg_id=54107

Here's the Reality:

Neil Barofsky -- the Inspector General for the TARP program -- said for those without integrity, a pot of gold awaits...

Neil Barofsky Gave Us The Best Explanation For Washington's Dysfunction We've Ever Heard

Linette Lopez
Business Insider, Aug. 1, 2012, 2:57 PM

Neil Barofsky was the Inspector General for TARP, and just wrote a book about his time in D.C. called Bailout: An Insider Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.

SNIP...

Bottom line: Barofsky said the incentive structure in our nation's capitol is all wrong. There's a revolving door between bureaucrats in Washington and Wall Street banks, and politicians just want to keep their jobs.

For regulators it's something like this:

[font color="green"]"You can play ball and good things can happen to you get a big pot of gold at the end of the Wall Street rainbow or you can do your job be aggressive and face personal ruin...We really need to rethink how we govern and how regulate," Barofsky said.[/font color]

CONTINUED... http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-barofsky-2012-8

For those with integrity, along for the rest of us, it's Austerity Time. Again. Which is what Taibbi wrote. So where's the "truthiness", stevenleser?

[MannyGoldstein]

52. You beat me to it

I was going to take a look at some links.

There seems to be an epidemic of "Look at all of the links I have proving that X is BS", but when the links are followed, they just don't support the thesis very well or at all.

[Octafish]

53. It's a form of Disinformation, Distraction, Disruption...

Amazing how many go along, too. By the time the X is BS gets shot down, a bunch of DUers trying to learn have strayed off the track of some pretty important news and information elsewhere on the board.

Something to take away the "five minutes of my life I'll never get back" sting: That the OP makes a claim damaging the reputation of a "fellow journalist" says a lot about integrity.

[MFrohike]

46. The first link

Your first link should be deleted. It's almost 6 years old and has been so completely overtaken by events that it's not even funny. I'll include links of my own.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/12/13/obamas-big-sellout-president-has-packed-his-economic-team-wall-street-insiders

The story under discussion. I couldn't find the original Rolling Stone link, so I hope this will suffice. While it's typical over-the-top Taibbi style, Andrew Leonard's carefully picked complaints are quite noteworthy. Not a word about Gary Gensler in his article. There is a claim that Taibbi called Austan Goolsbee a populist, which the quick use of CTRL-F will decisively disprove. Taibbi said that Goolsbee emphasized populist themes, going so far as to say that AIG executives should receive a Nobel Prize for evil. While it doesn't seem like much of a complaint, bear in mind that Leonard hyped the phrase "could eventually reach" into a definitive statement. What's good for the goose is a good rule to use in this case.

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/11/matt_taibbi_barack_obama/

This is a working link to the original Leonard article. Well, I hope it works. I had to manually search for it. Read the Taibbi piece, then read Leonard's piece. Decide for yourself who's got a bigger problem with the truth.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/29000000000000-a-detailed-look-at-the-feds-bailout-by-funding-facility-and-recipient

For fun, here's a paper from a UMKC grad student on the total cost of the bailout support offered by the Fed. It's actually a bit higher than Barofsky's estimate in 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suskind-book-female-advisers-in-obama-white-house-sidelined-and-ignored/2011/09/16/gIQAAOSSXK_story.html

Leonard highlighted the role of Christina Romer in his article as a way of refuting Taibbi's claim that Obama's economic team was too close to Wall Street. The link above adds some context to her role on the economic team by way of a review of Ron Suskind's book, Confidence Men.



Edit: I can't speak to the rest of the links. I'm not terribly familiar with the subject under discussion in them. I do have to wonder about them. If the first link was that terrible in terms of its own "truthiness," what would I find if I check the rest?

[Katashi_itto]

51. I'm glad we have a top notch investigative journalist posting stuff like this.

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Someday we will see him among the ranks of the greats.

Like Joe Scarborough or Fox and Friends.

Go Dude GO!

[ucrdem]

57. Yep. Too bad he didn't catch on at First Look at Old News

where we'd never hear from him again.

[shawn703]

65. I guess I'm late to the party

But is there a specific article which needs to be examined more closely for accuracy?