General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Inside Story of Matt Taibbi's Departure From First Look Media [View all]Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)As reader Christopher put it, this got ugly fast.
Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and John Cook issued a joint inside story on why Matt Taibbi left First Look. Let us note that it is pretty much unheard for journalists to report on personnel matters at their own employer, particularly so rapidly after a story breaks. The reason for the haste, and the focus on laffaire Taibbi, appears to be to get out in front of an article coming out in New York Magazine about their patron, Pierre Omidyar.
The real issue, as we discussed in our earlier post, is whether this account supports the claim made in Omidyars press release about Taibbis departure: that it has nothing to do with editorial independence. As well discuss, this story does not lay that issue to rest; in fact, it attempts to draw a bright shiny line between corporate matters like overall direction, editorial philosophy, mix of stories, as well as routine matters like expense controls, and editorial freedom. The distinctions arent that tidy. The degree of retrading of Taibbis deal for The Racket, his publication, and ongoing pressure to keep refocusing his the initiative looks like bad faith. And one reads between the lines that Omidyar might have cooled on Taibbis plans to foray out of satire into more costly and more disruptive investigative reporting.
The article attempts, not exactly convincingly, to depict the row as a result of a culture clash between a controlling billionaire (read boss from hell) and a writer used to more free rein. The Intercept writers and editors say they also chafed from the interference, including what both fledging publications took to be a three month hiring freeze after Omidyar scaled back his ambitions for the venture. However, the Intercept team managed to work out an accommodation with their billionaire backer.
The scurrilous part of this account is that Taibbi allegedly blew up at a female staffer, who then complained to management, and suggested that his action might be sexist. That led to an internal investigation. You have to love the throw him under the bus formulation:
Lets translate: Did not rise to the level of legal liability means the staffer had no case. A deep pockets organization, which is normally a plum litigation target, didnt even bother hiring an outside law firm. But notice also she accuses Taibbi of bad-mouthing upper management, making staff unhappy, and telling his direct reports to resolve any grievances directly with him. Um, in a normal hierarchical structure, you do go to your manager first with complaints. Its only when you cant get them remedied that you escalate.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/slugfest-taibbi-exodus-first-look-fails-address-editorial-meddling-doubts.html