Thread by @SethAbramson

I’m seeing a lot of tweets today that imply what Matt Taibbi has been doing with Elon Musk is “journalism” and therefore discussion of it should track with discussions of journalism (e.g., as to revealing sources). In fact, Musk is a known unreliable source who gave Taibbi...

...partial access to internal Twitter data that would further the narrative Musk wanted in the public view for personal and financial reasons. Taibbi, for the sake of subscriptions to his Substack, then went on to present only information that would please his Substack readers...

...and all of this has been proven. Musk withheld internal data from Taibbi that had previously been reported on by The Guardian and showed a systemic *far-right* bias at Twitter.

And Taibbi was *repeatedly* caught framing his narratives to please Musk and his Substack audience.

The project that Taibbi embarked upon was not a journalistic project; it was corporate stenography. House Democrats were absolutely correct in implicitly *rejecting* the notion that source protection was an issue here and in focusing on Taibbi’s *financial motives*. None of us...

...is obligated to treat as journalism that which in its very parameters rejects journalism. To be clear, a journalist can move between journalistic and non-journalistic projects; many is the journalist who’s written fiction or poetry or memoir instead of any genre of journalism.

Maybe one day Matt Taibbi will *return* to journalism. He will do what journalists do: reject unreliable sources like Elon Musk; reject corporate initiatives disguised as journalism; insist on full access to a data-set rather than partial access; stop putting fraudulent frames...

...around data for the sake of pleasing an audience; stop ignoring other journalists and subject matter experts when they issue corrections on his reporting; stop appearing on networks that are political propaganda organs rather than legitimate news organizations. Last night...

...Taibbi plugged his PR work for Elon Musk and Twitter on a farcical propaganda program run by failed politician, washed-out Secret Service agent and scary aggro disinformation barker Dan Bongino. His pearl-clutching over not being treated as a journalist is genuinely pathetic.

Matt Taibbi has been a journalist long enough to know the difference between getting an exclusive and being a corporate tool.

And he’s been a journalist long enough to know that his “reporting” on Russia was repeatedly filled with Kremlin propaganda and false statements of fact.

Taibbi had a choice when Trump came to power: continue being a journalist or (a) take a run at more money than he had ever seen in his life while (b) shilling for a country he lived in for many years, engaged in a lot of misconduct in, and clearly feels a connection to (Russia).

He chose the latter, and now he can’t live with his decision, so everyone else must be smeared: critics of Twitter; House Democrats; journalists who lost respect for him; experts on the Trump-Russia scandal who’ve repeatedly called out his lies; onetime admirers who turned away.

As with every invented scandal on the right—which is more or less all that social media has time to deal with on a daily basis—the outrage from the Taibbi camp is just a massively disingenuous waste of time based on false pretenses, frames and presumptions. But it’ll still trend.

My question is why we treat any of this as surprising rather than an ancient tale: billionaires come calling on people of principle waving around untold sums of wealth directly or indirectly and some folks sell out and some don’t. Taibbi and Greenwald sold out, period, full stop.