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)In the days since Matt Taibbi quit Pierre Omidyars quarter billion dollar media startup, two things have become clear.
The first is that Taibbis former colleagues at First Look are determined to smear him as a bullying mismanager who stormed out after failing to find a way to secure editorial independence from Omidyar. The implication, of course, being that those left behind are the opposite: People-persons who have succeeded in carving out a Passport To Pimlico style independent dukedom inside Omidyars empire. Lest Taibbi feel moved to rebut those claims, Glenn Greenwald, John Cook and the rest of the Left Behind were careful to throw in a few hints about gendered harassment which
well
they didnt witness (had they done, they would of course have blown the whistle!)
but one never knows, does one?
The second thing that has become clear this week is that, right up until the end, Matt Taibbi lied to me (and, by extension, to you) about the alarming extent to which Omidyar was attempting to interfere in editorial operations at First Look. Worse, Taibbi demanded his lies remain off the record in the hope that he could create a false narrative around First Look without leaving any of his own fingerprints.
How you respond to my telling you about Taibbis off the record lies will depend on your understanding of the role of journalists, and to whom they owe their primary loyalty: Sources or readers. But lets table that Rorschach test for a minute while we recall the history of Taibbi and First Look.
When Taibbi was first hired by billionaire Pierre Omidyar to launch a new publication focusing on financial and political corruption, many of us were cynical that Omidyar would be able to sit back as his employee ripped apart the very same Wall Street that had made the eBay founder so wealthy. Pandos Mark Ames, in particular, has written extensively about Omidyars ties to the US government, his companys private police force, and his involvement in influencing overseas elections. Was this really the natural employer of a journalist who made his name exposing oligarchs?
For his part, Omidyar insisted that First Look had structured both our flagship organization and our growing network of digital magazines to provide our journalists with the kind of autonomy that is too often undermined by the demands of advertisers and investors. But the smell of rat lingered, growing especially stenchy in July when Omidyar issued a press release recasting Taibbis forthcoming publication as a digital magazine with a satirical approach to American politics and culture.
As I wrote here on Pando, the disappearance of the words financial corruption from the magazines pitch was troubling given Omidyars background. Also troubling was the fact that it was Omidyar, not Taibbi or any of the other journalists at First Look, who was describing the companys editorial priorities.
http://pando.com/2014/11/02/everybody-sucks-except-matt-taibbi/