Matt Taibbi vs. Jon Gold plus Taibbi on WTC7

[Walter Ego]

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

Quote:

Help me out, Truthers. Exactly why would the conspirators tell Jane Standley and/or the BBC in advance about the collapse of WTC7? Is it so the news networks wouldn’t forget to report the collapse of a 47-story building? I mean, if the buildings are going to collapse anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense just to let the networks, you know, cover that as it happened? It would seem to have more, well, verisimilitude that way, wouldn’t it? The only thing giving them the script in advance does is introduce the possibility of them inadvertently revealing the conspiracy on the air.

But why not, I guess, when we’re dealing with a bunch of people who ostensibly got together, decided to mine WTC7 to destroy evidence in an SEC case (as part of a larger conspiracy to incite America to launch foreign wars of conquest by knocking down the Twin Towers), then knocked on the doors of all the networks and handed them scripts, telling them the building was going to fall down at 5:32 p.m… I mean, what the ****? Am I losing my mind? How can you not see how crazy that is?

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

Lol.

Quote:

You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is.

[angrysoba]

Jon Gold displays all the classic signs of the Truther:

Quote-mining:

Quote:

Matt Taibbi: “Of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11″

Self-pitying and self-aggrandizing at the same time:

Quote:

thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.

Swinging wildly between "I'll be your best friend!" fawning and "I never like you anyway!" petulance:

Quote:

For those of you that don’t know, Matt Taibbi is an accomplished journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine.

Over the years, he has written several good articles pertaining to things like Wall Street, health care, the housing crisis, and so on.

Quote:

I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.

Equivocating between "JAQing off" and believing the Troof is obvious while being incoherent:

Quote:

The next question is, was that “Al-Qaeda” system used for 9/11? Hmmm… let’s see… there’s evidence of Saudi involvement, ISI involvement… hmmm… the system that I spoke of used the Saudis, and the ISI. It also included the CIA. Hmmm…

Dick Cheney, according to ABC, Seymour Hersh, and others, used the CIA/ISI relationship to fund, train, and use “terrorists” for “terrorist” purposes inside Iran. After 9/11. Wait, you mean that’s an example of Dick Cheney’s knowledge of the system I spoke of? Again, was that system used for 9/11?

And finally, in typical no-self-awareness Truther fashion, Jon Gold pretends that Matt Taibbi is the one that's been wasting Jon Gold's time rather than the other way around:

Quote:

Are we done, because I’ve got other things I can be doing.

Anyway, good find Walter. Thanks. And thanks to Comedy Gold for the belly laughs. I don't expect Jon Gold to realize just how hilarious his side of the conversation was, though.

[Dog Town]

Gotta love the mind of Matt.

Quote:

I really wish Mark Twain were alive for that reason. A Jim Fetzer's Literary Offenses would potentially be one of the funniest things ever written in the English language.

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-06-2...se-change-crew

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .

Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog).

Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events. By announcing the story ahead of time, they made sure that plenty of cameras were focused on the building when it really came down. Of course, the building's demise had been predicted since early afternoon and undoubtedly what actually happened was that the BBC's source heard that and mistakenly thought the building had actually collapsed. Indeed, the Truthers all seem to have forgotten that CNN also reported the collapse early, although Aaron Brown was careful to state that the building either had collapsed or was going to collapse.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events. By announcing the story ahead of time, they made sure that plenty of cameras were focused on the building when it really came down. Of course, the building's demise had been predicted since early afternoon and undoubtedly what actually happened was that the BBC's source heard that and mistakenly thought the building had actually collapsed. Indeed, the Truthers all seem to have forgotten that CNN also reported the collapse early, although Aaron Brown was careful to state that the building either had collapsed or was going to collapse.

Proving, if proof be needed, that Truthers have no idea of how news of breaking events is gathered and reported or how the real world in general operates. (You can watch news coverage of that day from all the major networks plus the BBC here.)

In any case, if the MSM had the scoop of the WTC7 collapse in advance, they failed to get cameras in place at the appointed time. The only live coverage I know about is from NBC and that only because reporter Ashleigh Banfield was interviewing people nearby on air when the building came down. (Listen also to anchor Brian Williams say, "what we have been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened.")

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[cantonear1968]

I'm a fan of Matt Taibbi from his many visits to Bill Maher's show Realtime. Very intelligent individual with an amazing insight on world events. (If I'm not mistaken, he was interviewed for one of the BBC documentaries on this subject and gave an interesting commentary on the appeal of conspiracies for conspiracy theorists).

Reading the exchange now so it should be interesting.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.

A "finale" more "spectacular" than the collapse of the towers? A finale involving a much smaller building with no one inside it? I think the NWO needs to read up on how to construct a compelling narrative, they have it all backwards.

I was driving to work the morning of 9/11 while most of the tragedy was unfolding. At one point my local NPR affiliate reported that the White House had been attacked. Did the NWO accidentally hand them an earlier draft of the script?

ETA: I generally try to not mock Truthers too much for the simple reason that I myself believed all sorts of ridiculous things as a child and into my early 20s. The difference was that my beliefs didn't force me to conclude that 98% of the rest of the world was evil and/or stupid.

[RedIbis]

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:

Quote:

Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11.

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.

[cantonear1968]

From Gold:
"I asked Matt for his permission to post this, and never heard from him."
Typical trutherism; in the absence of evidence take it as complicity.

"which tells me you really don’t know jack **** about this issue"
Again, in the absence of evidence, fill in your own.

"What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about"
And when challenged on your beliefs, lash out. There is nothing else.

Next is a perfect example of the so-called debate about 9/11:
Taibbi:"But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?"

Gold:"9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime."

A direct call for evidence and an assertion of facts not entered into the evidence; "the proof that they were involved is that they were involved".

Sorry Mr. Gold, we're going to need a little more that that!

But my favorite from Matt Taibbi, and should be the headline of every truther website, if nothing more than a proof in advertising disclaimer:
"On the other hand, who are you? Have you even once picked up the telephone in your “investigation?” You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is."

There's a great sentence in the new Dan Brown book The Lost Symbolwhich applies to conspiracy theorists more than any other group:
"Google is not a synonym for research"

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.

Lamest. Finale. Ever.

I hope that's not true, because it means Truther expectation are completely ass-backwards.

"We've just flown planes into two of the tallest buildings in the country, demolished them in a rather spectacular way, flew a third plane impressively close to the ground, over a busy highway, taking out streetlights before smashing into the very heart of our military, and then crashed the fourth plane into a field to create a rousing hero story.

"Now, for our grand finale... We'll collapse a 47-story building in relative silence. Mua-ha-ha-ha!"

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

Cause Tabbi was saying that the Government lied about its incompetence and corruption that allowed the attacks to be successful. NOT about being complicit. He says truthers are so stupid and so distracting from actual arguments, the real truths and crimes of 9/11 will most likely never be known.

Good job truthers! You helped the real criminals get away with it!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

That's a good point. He's set up a false dilemma, I would investigate but can't because some people have wild ideas.

John Farmer clearly doesn't think that other people having wild ideas can stop him investigating.

Having said that Taibbi does give his answer to the question of why he isn't investigating and that is that there are more important things to get outraged by. I do think Taibbi wouldn't make a good chess player, though, as clearly Jon Gold's next question should be, "Then why do you get outraged about 9/11 Truthers to the extent that your professional time is spent investigating us morons?" Or something along those lines. Fortunately Jon Gold is also not a very good chess player.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

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!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's also covered over @ Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

Hey RedIbis, did you find your first 9/11 fact yet so you can finally start that 9/11 Fact Movement you were talking about years ago?

No?

LOL!

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

That's also covered over @ Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Hence the reason for the hat tip, in the OP.

[JohnG]

But what's the tipping point between what is and isn't "worth" investigating? How do you prioritize the order in which the theories should be investigated? Doesn't it all just go back to evidence, that bugbear of the Truth Movement?

Does it necessarily follow that since the "Government lies" (no ****, Sherlock) that all allegations against them deserve attention and more to the point equal attention? Even the laughably bizarre Rube Goldbergfinger theories of the Truth Movement?

If an individual who is known for being a liar denies that they were responsible for the Japan Earthquake does then it follow that they must have played some part in the creation of the earthquake? Or do even pathological liars occasionally tell the truth?

Is the Royal Family under any obligation to consent to genetic testing because some small subset of the population believes that the Royals are "reptilians"?

As others have said, I don't doubt that "the Government" have told either inadvertent untruths (based on false data) or flat out lies about 9/11, but I've seen nothing at all to indicate that such untruths and lies are anything more than exercises in CYA for not following leads that could have foiled the 9/11 plot before it (literally) got off the ground.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Hence the reason for the hat tip, in the OP.

Yuppers!

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events.....

I hear what you're saying, but then there's also a sub-cult of trutherdom who reckon WTC7 was 'supposed' to come down during WTC1's collapse, that it all went wrong, but was corrected later.

It's all a pile of festering bollocks, frankly.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The guy has no integrity.

You of all people have got to be joking!!

[metamars]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.:

Quote:

“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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by metamars

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

Originally Posted by metamars

...
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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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?

Quote:

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"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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]

Originally Posted by metamars

"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???

Originally Posted by metamars

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?!?

Originally Posted by metamars

, 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?

Originally Posted by metamars

I think Taibbi intended to smear and deceive.

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

Originally Posted by metamars

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.

Originally Posted by metamars

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.

[quote=metamars;7030076] 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?

Originally Posted by metamars

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.

Originally Posted by metamars

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.