Matt Taibbi vs. Jon Gold plus Taibbi on WTC7

[Walter Ego]

Add articles, and books by Matt, to the things Red has no clue about.
Going after the Gov,and various other scum bags, is what Matt is ALL about!

Which is precisely why the execrable Jon Gold is so angered that Taibbi won't take the TM seriously. Gold really comes off like a petulant dork in the email exchange whereas Taibbi comes off as completely reasonable.

Consider this:

Jon Gold: Would you like to have a real debate on whether or not we have been told the truth about 9/11, and if there needs to be justice and accountability for what happened that day? A real debate on a podcast. Let me know.

Matt Taibbi: Tell you what — you come up with one piece of real evidence that the US had something to do with planning 9/11, and I’ll consider it.

Taibbi had to ask this simple question several times and Gold cannot answer it except to come up with a laughable laundry list called Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit.

I mean come on Truthers, one piece of real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job! It's been almost 10 years and we're still waiting.

 

[funk de fino]

The guy has no integrity.

You of all people have got to be joking!!

 

[metamars]

If snark were actual journalism, Taibbi would be Edward Murrow. But he's not.

Other than spite what could possibly be the logic behind this doozy:


Who cares what "truthers" insinuate? If he really believes "the government lies about everything" he would research those lies, instead of worrying about what some "truthers" are saying.

The guy has no integrity.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, I myself have questioned his integrity. His descriptions of Tea Partiers were so one sided or exaggerated that they amounted to not just smears, but absurd smears. Here's a precious Taibbi quote, which shows the character (and/or rationality) of the man.:

“The individuals in the Tea Party may come from very different walks of life, but most of them have a few things in common. After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. (“Not me — I was protesting!” is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with “people who do not cherish America the way we do” is that “they did not read the Federalist Papers.”) Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill “cracker babies,” support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called “White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo,” checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America.”

The most absurd smear here, IMO, is #2.

 

[Oystein]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, I myself have questioned his integrity. His descriptions of Tea Partiers were so one sided or exaggerated that they amounted to not just smears, but absurd smears. Here's a precious Taibbi quote, which shows the character (and/or rationality) of the man.:

The most absurd smear here, IMO, is #2.

Why? On of the defining goals of the Tea Party Movement is "adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution" (Wikipedia). In other words, a genuine member of the TPM claims that he is more advocating adherence to the original intent of the framers of the USC than his various possible opponents, whether they be politicians, or journalists like Taibbi. Now here are all possible reasons for why that TPM might make such a claim:
a. He knows the USC and its original intent better than opponent
b. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but lies about it
c. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but disagrees with it
Option a. is the most benign interpretation, as b. and c. at least hint at treason on the side of non-TPM adherents, or at least too little cherishing America.

Now what did Taibbi say in #2?

Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with “people who do not cherish America the way we do” is that “they did not read the Federalist Papers.”)

You may accuse him of being somewhat over the top, but thats poetic license in my book. Basically, Taibbi points out that TPMers generally feel that they either know the USC's original intent better than others, or that they cherish the USA, as originally framed by the USC, more than others.
Which is precisely what the core of TPM believes is all about.

 

[metamars]

Why? On of the defining goals of the Tea Party Movement is "adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution" (Wikipedia). In other words, a genuine member of the TPM claims that he is more advocating adherence to the original intent of the framers of the USC than his various possible opponents, whether they be politicians, or journalists like Taibbi. Now here are all possible reasons for why that TPM might make such a claim:
a. He knows the USC and its original intent better than opponent
b. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but lies about it
c. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but disagrees with it
Option a. is the most benign interpretation, as b. and c. at least hint at treason on the side of non-TPM adherents, or at least too little cherishing America.

Now what did Taibbi say in #2?



You may accuse him of being somewhat over the top, but thats poetic license in my book. Basically, Taibbi points out that TPMers generally feel that they either know the USC's original intent better than others, or that they cherish the USA, as originally framed by the USC, more than others.
Which is precisely what the core of TPM believes is all about.

No, I didn't accuse him of being "somewhat over the top". Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity. His integrity is indeed in question, which is not the same thing as saying he has "no integrity". (I believe his work on financial scandals is pretty good, so I wouldn't want to demonize him, completely. You know, basically like how he demonizes the Tea Party participants.)

 

[Oystein]

No, I didn't accuse him of being "somewhat over the top". Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity. His integrity is indeed in question, which is not the same thing as saying he has "no integrity". (I believe his work on financial scandals is pretty good, so I wouldn't want to demonize him, completely. You know, basically like how he demonizes the Tea Party participants.)

Do you take his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious that he is exaggerating? Ever heard of a little rhetorical device called "sarcasm"?

So what, exactly, do you think might be a lie there?

 

[Dog Town]

Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity.

How do you reconcile this attitude with the leaders of da Twoof, who have lied constantly?

 

[metamars]

Do you take his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious that he is exaggerating? Ever heard of a little rhetorical device called "sarcasm"?

So what, exactly, do you think might be a lie there?

It's obvious to me that he must be exaggerating. As in grossly exaggerating. Not a valuable tendency in somebody who is supposed to be an investigative reporter.

Hopefully, you have grasped my sarcasm in that previous sentence.

"Poetic license" is expected of poets and novelists. And even of political satirists.

If that's all he is - a political satirist - I wouldn't have much problem with him. However, it seems to me that he's more of warped commentator, sort of like a Rush Limbaugh, but of the left. Not on every subject, but clearly some subjects. Just because you or I may see through his distortions, and thus take him to be in entertainment mode, doesn't mean that other people do.

Even among his target audience that are astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating, how many of them are astute enough to realize that he's exaggerating a great deal? I'm sure some of Rush Limbaugh's fans realize that he exaggerates and distorts, but they also view it as "poetic license". I.e., minor distortions and exaggerations that don't deflect from an essential truth.

I would no sooner swallow yet another Limbaugh pronouncement on liberals, than I would a Taibbi pronouncement on Tea Partiers. Or 911 truthers.

 

[Dog Town]

I would no sooner swallow yet another Limbaugh pronouncement on liberals, than I would a Taibbi pronouncement on Tea Partiers. Or 911 truthers.

You obviously don't want to spoil your appetite, for WOO!

 

[Oystein]

It's obvious to me that he must be exaggerating. As in grossly exaggerating. Not a valuable tendency in somebody who is supposed to be an investigative reporter.

Hopefully, you have grasped my sarcasm in that previous sentence.

"Poetic license" is expected of poets and novelists. And even of political satirists.

If that's all he is - a political satirist - I wouldn't have much problem with him. However, it seems to me that he's more of warped commentator, sort of like a Rush Limbaugh, but of the left. Not on every subject, but clearly some subjects. Just because you or I may see through his distortions, and thus take him to be in entertainment mode, doesn't mean that other people do.

Even among his target audience that are astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating, how many of them are astute enough to realize that he's exaggerating a great deal? I'm sure some of Rush Limbaugh's fans realize that he exaggerates and distorts, but they also view it as "poetic license". I.e., minor distortions and exaggerations that don't deflect from an essential truth.

I would no sooner swallow yet another Limbaugh pronouncement on liberals, than I would a Taibbi pronouncement on Tea Partiers. Or 911 truthers.

So what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?
And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?

Because yes, I assume that every reader who reads the media he write in is astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating. Or do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating? You think anyone never heard of a little rhetorical device called "sarcasm"?

(I hope you are astute enough to realize that I repeated my questions, because you didn't really answer them)

 

[metamars]

So what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?
And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?

Because yes, I assume that every reader who reads the media he write in is astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating. Or do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating? You think anyone never heard of a little rhetorical device called "sarcasm"?

(I hope you are astute enough to realize that I repeated my questions, because you didn't really answer them)

A statement can be both a lie and exaggeration, depending on intent. If a man catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally, it's fair to say that he's exaggerating, but not lying. If, on the other hand, he tell his girlfriend the same thing, expecting her to believe it, he's lying as well as exaggerating.

Taibbi is both exaggerating and lying. Even if the people who are stupid enough to believe him literally are only 1% of his fan base, while the other 99% of his fan base are still stupid enough not to realize he's grossly exaggerating.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether he was lying or exaggerating. What matters is that his "exaggeration", if you will, was so extreme that it amounted to a smear. His intention is either to deceive, or else he's so irrational that he believes the things he writes (even understood as slight exaggerations, satire, "poetic license", etc.). His writings in this vein, like Rush Limbaugh's rantings, pander to the lowest elements in the public, confirming them in their mutual and cherished hatreds. Edward R. Murrow, he ain't.

Shall I take it that you have no problem with taking Rush Limbaugh's grossly distorted exaggerations seriously, either? And if you do have a problem with doing so, should you all of a sudden grant his opinion of 911 Truthers more value than that of a more objective media person? That'd be really stupid, IMO.

 

[metamars]

The 911blogger story of the Taibbi - Gold debate is here. It got lots of comments.

 

[Oystein]

A statement can be both a lie and exaggeration, depending on intent. If a man catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally, it's fair to say that he's exaggerating, but not lying. If, on the other hand, he tell his girlfriend the same thing, expecting her to believe it, he's lying as well as exaggerating.

Taibbi is both exaggerating and lying. Even if the people who are stupid enough to believe him literally are only 1% of his fan base, while the other 99% of his fan base are still stupid enough not to realize he's grossly exaggerating.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether he was lying or exaggerating. What matters is that his "exaggeration", if you will, was so extreme that it amounted to a smear. His intention is either to deceive, or else he's so irrational that he believes the things he writes (even understood as slight exaggerations, satire, "poetic license", etc.). His writings in this vein, like Rush Limbaugh's rantings, pander to the lowest elements in the public, confirming them in their mutual and cherished hatreds. Edward R. Murrow, he ain't.

...

Geez - is there a School for Trutherism somewhere, where you all learn how not to answer questions?

I asked "what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?". I also asked "And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?". And I asked "do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?". I could reword the last question as "Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?", because in the highlighted part of your reply, that intention seems to be what your argument hinges on.


When you say

...
Taibbi is both exaggerating and lying. Even if the people who are stupid enough to believe him literally are only 1% of his fan base, while the other 99% of his fan base are still stupid enough not to realize he's grossly exaggerating.
...

do you mean an exaggeration, meant to be understood by the audience to be an exaggeration, becomes a lie the moment one member of the audience is too dull to catch sarcastic exaggeration? Then, by the same reasoning, the guy who "catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally" becomes a liar not by his own deed, but by one dull friend who didn't get it?

Shall I take it that you have no problem with taking Rush Limbaugh's grossly distorted exaggerations seriously, either? And if you do have a problem with doing so, should you all of a sudden grant his opinion of 911 Truthers more value than that of a more objective media person? That'd be really stupid, IMO.

Limbaugh is not the topic here. I don't live in the USA and have never once followed one of Limbaugh's programs, so I can't comment on that. Apparently, your judgment is coloured by your personal taste of left and right rather than by rational analysis.


Allow me to finish by repeating the questions you so far failed to answer, so that hopefully you will do this time:

• what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?
• What, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?
• do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him?
• Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?
• Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?

 

[metamars]

Geez - is there a School for Trutherism somewhere, where you all learn how not to answer questions?

I asked "what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?". I also asked "And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?". And I asked "do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?". I could reword the last question as "Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?", because in the highlighted part of your reply, that intention seems to be what your argument hinges on.


When you say

do you mean an exaggeration, meant to be understood by the audience to be an exaggeration, becomes a lie the moment one member of the audience is too dull to catch sarcastic exaggeration? Then, by the same reasoning, the guy who "catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally" becomes a liar not by his own deed, but by one dull friend who didn't get it?



Limbaugh is not the topic here. I don't live in the USA and have never once followed one of Limbaugh's programs, so I can't comment on that. Apparently, your judgment is coloured by your personal taste of left and right rather than by rational analysis.


Allow me to finish by repeating the questions you so far failed to answer, so that hopefully you will do this time:

• what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?
• What, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?
• do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him?
• Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?
• Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?

what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?

"Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution"

What, really, has he exaggerated too much?

Are you serious? Besides "Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution", there's also his claims in #1, #3, #4, and #5, though #3 and #5 have more truth to them than the others.

"Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?"

I think Taibbi intended to smear and deceive. Whether he intended to grossly and dishonestly exaggerate, or whether he intended to be taken literally (by some fraction of his readers who really are that dumb; if you doubt this, read the lefty forums and blogs where claims are made about "all" the Tea Partiers being racists), or whether he intended both, realizing that his audience is heterogeneous, is a question of great interest to you, but not to me. And how am I supposed to know exactly these details of what he intended? Do you think I'm Taibbi's intimate confidante?

I wrote "Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity." And indeed, it is so, regardless of what exactly was going on between Taibbi's ears when he wrote his BS. My best guess is that he knows most of his audience won't take him absolutely literally, but is more than happy to let some smaller faction of his audience do so. In any event, successfully smearing to his audience, as a whole, is good enough for him.

I'm done with this thread. If anybody wants to try and make a logical case that Taibbi is a fair and objective commentator on Tea Partiers, I may respond to that laughable absurdity.

Then again, I probably won't, having no doubts on the matter.

As Taibbi lacks credibility wrt Tea Partiers, I see no reason to assume that he's credible with respect to 911 Truthers.

 

[Oystein]

"Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution"

Are you serious?
Ok, metamars, you dodged yet another question, and it applies here. I'll repeat it, with increased font visibility:
Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?
I mean, the statement is a contradiction in itself. As soon as "each and every one of them" is more than 1 person, they can't each be the "only person". Isn't this obvious? Dead obvious? Don't you agree that a reader has to be mentally retarded in order not to spot that this is an exaggeration, and it is sarcastic?

So you really - really?!? - think this could be a lie???

Are you serious? Besides "Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution"

Since this is obviously an exaggeration, any mildly intelligent reader can easily discern the intended meaning of this: Tea Partiers claim for themselves to personally have superior knowledge of the Constitution.

And now pray tell, metamars: Do you think that observation is false? Is it smear? Really? Really?!?

, there's also his claims in #1, #3, #4, and #5, though #3 and #5 have more truth to them than the others.

You got good grades in Truther Academy in your class Moving Goalposts 101, right?

I think Taibbi intended to smear and deceive.

Smear: Possibly. Deceive: No. Tea Partiers do define themselves as the true wardens of the Constitution.

Whether he intended to grossly and dishonestly exaggerate, or whether he intended to be taken literally (by some fraction of his readers who really are that dumb; if you doubt this, read the lefty forums and blogs where claims are made about "all" the Tea Partiers being racists), or whether he intended both, realizing that his audience is heterogeneous, is a question of great interest to you, but not to me.

FALSE. It is of interest to you, evidenced by the fact that you raised this issue in the first place.

And how am I supposed to know exactly these details of what he intended? Do you think I'm Taibbi's intimate confidante?

Reading comprehension, 8th or 9th grade. At most.

I wrote "Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity."

Do you think he meant to relate an objective fact, as in exact statistics?

And indeed, it is so, regardless of what exactly was going on between Taibbi's ears when he wrote his BS. My best guess is that he knows most of his audience won't take him absolutely literally, but is more than happy to let some smaller faction of his audience do so. In any event, successfully smearing to his audience, as a whole, is good enough for him.

I'm done with this thread. If anybody wants to try and make a logical case that Taibbi is a fair and objective commentator on Tea Partiers, I may respond to that laughable absurdity.

I am not going to argue that Taibbi is fair and objective. I am addressing the point you raised, namely that #2 was a lie or an unfair exaggeration, when in fact it is a sarcastic rendering of a benign observation.

Then again, I probably won't, having no doubts on the matter.

As Taibbi lacks credibility wrt Tea Partiers, I see no reason to assume that he's credible with respect to 911 Truthers.

I say that you lied or exaggerated when you commented on Taibbi's #2, and intended to smear, and deceive your audience.