Some of us tried to warn you about Tiabbi in 2004 but since we supported Dean we were crackpots

[dsc]

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

and thus unworthy of being quoted here.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=5&s=tai...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&c=2&s=tai...

http://www.nypress.com/16/44/news&columns/cage.cfm

All of these articles are by a person named Matt Taibbi. All three are excellent examples of clowning by our press corps. The first one about Clark features this bit of nonsense.




For the two weeks or so that I had been a volunteer, I had tried, unsuccessfully, to get a rise out of my fellow Clark supporters. Just to see how they would react, I had introduced myself at the first meet-up as an adult-film director named Rondell Abrams. Massachusetts campaign staff member Dave Rubin, a skittish young Brandeis grad, gritted his teeth when I told him I'd just finished making Asian Ass Vixens 6.

"I also did the East St. Louis Street Hookers series," I said.

If you don't believe me go to page 3 paragraphs 1 and 2. Sadly I am not making this up. This is the depths to which are political discource has sunk.

Here is a somewhat less agregious passage from the Dean article.

Then there was the Imageering 101 political staging, a subject of much snickering in the press pool. At most every stop Dean had a statistically accurate multicultural microcosm await his arrival on stage, usually against a background of a giant American flag. Milwaukee, the second stop on the tour, was the most painful: seventeen supporters of various races (in proper proportions: three blacks, two Hispanics, etc.), frozen and seemingly afraid to move or make a face against the backdrop of a mammoth Old Glory. Watching them wait for Dean gave me shivers; they looked like sausages nailed to a giant red, white and blue crucifix.

This one from the third article which disses all of our candidates is particularly ironic. You see, his problem is that our candidates aren't serious enough and use trite language.

The penis test. Campaign oratory has worsened considerably since the advent of the dial-survey–that hideous research technique in which test subjects are asked to turn a dial to one side (favorable) or another (unfavorable) in response to words spoken by candidates. The results of these surveys guarantees that certain words will be repeated ad nauseum, often forced into places in the text where they don’t belong, to fit some kind of mandatory quota.

Sadly, I haven't made this stuff up. Frankly, I couldn't if I tried. I am not that creative. But the Nation, in two of the three cases, found fit to print this nonsense. Many on this board can remember a time when the Nation was a serious magazine for serious people and about serious issues. A time when it represented the hopes and asperations of the left. Now it is a serious mess in need of serious cleaning from serious people. It is bad enough the likes of Taibbi polute our public discourse. His clowing has no place here. No matter which candidate he is trashing next time.

end of quote

I must say, the Nation has largely wised up and is back to being serious. Good for them.

[WeDidIt]

1. Taibbi writes pablum for unthinking liberals

Much like Beck is pablum for unthinking conservatives.

[AllyCat]

2. Huh? None of your links seem to go to anything.

The only one that works goes to an article with no author listed. How do you know it is Taibbi? Do you just not like him because he writes intelligbly?

I find his articles interesting, particularly in respect to the ones about Goldman. Or do you work for them?

[dsc]

4. the links are four years old

so sorry they don't work.

[democracy1st]

7. they work

[JVS]

6. That's because he copied and pasted the old post he had.

If you click on his DU link, you can read all the articles because the links have not been broken by being cut and pasted in their abbreviated forms.

[girl gone mad]

3. It just seems like you're carrying a grudge.

Everyone in the world of politics and political opinion is going to say or do something at some point that you dislike or disagree with. That's the nature of the beast.

[boppers]

5. I hate Rush and Beck for things they did years ago, *and* recently.

Demonstrating a multi-year pattern help people find trends, and consistencies.

[LooseWilly]

8. As far as I can tell, Taibbi is just a cynic, writing cynical interpretations of all politicians...

I remember being annoyed by him in '04, when I was excited about Kerry, and Taibbi talked nothing but trash about him. That he talked trash about Dean doesn't surprise me, and the trash he's talking about Obama now doesn't surprise me either.

From what I can glean from his writings, he does his journalistic research, and then he interprets the facts he gathers through the "lens" of his political cynicism. Since he writes for Rolling Stone, I personally interpret his perspective as the newest incarnation of "gonzo journalism"... and I don't disagree with that last sentence from the Nation that refers to his perspective as "clowning".

That said, I do feel like it is worth pointing out that his clowning, and even more his cynicism, does generate a perspective that is at least worth consideration. Disagree with his perspective/interpretations as one feels inclined... I think they are worth consideration as a sort of illumination or voicing of the cynics' view of the facts... in contrast with the talking point/spin perspective that the politicians themselves, on either side of the aisle, like to distribute- and which the talking heads of the media in general use as foundations for their "examinations" of the "facts".

I mean, let's face it... there is a cynical side to every politicians' every decision... the calculating considerations of juggling the interests and cost/benefit analyses of same... underlying everything every politician does. Taibbi has become rather good at cobbling together some extremely cynical interpretations of everything political... which is a perspective that can be useful for contrasting with the talking points/spin that come from the more respectable sources.

I suspect that the "truth" usually lies somewhere between the two perspectives... or maybe it is both at the same time. A part of me would suggest thinking twice before unilaterally villifying the likes of Taibbi... but I think that villification of his perspective is actually irrelevant, so I won't bother. The perspective functions quite well as a villain.

:+

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. You're not even giving yourself enough credit there. That post is dated 2003.