The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Matt Taibbi: mainstream media, the twitter files, and online censorshi

Episode Date: May 30, 2023

In November 2022, substack journalist Matt Taibbi joined us on stage for our Munk Debate on Mainstream Media. Matt and his debate partner, political commentator Douglas Murray, argued in favour of the resolution, Be it resolved, don’t trust mainstream media, against best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (Matt and Douglas won a decisive victory, it was the biggest voter swing in Munk Debate history). Right after the debate, Matt got on a plane to San Francisco, where he went directly to Twitter’s head office to meet with its new CEO, Elon Musk. What came next was perhaps the biggest news story to close out 2022: the release of the twitter files, which exposed content moderation decisions at the social media company, often at the behest of politicians and government agencies. What followed was a tumultuous few months for Matt which included testifying before congress, a house visit from the IRS, a public fallout with Musk, and the end of his reporting on twitter. On this episode of the Munk Debates Podcast, we're joined by Matt Taibbi for an in depth chat about his life post-debate, why his reporting on the twitter files came to an end, and how growing distrust in the mainstream media could affect the 2024 US election cycle.   The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/   Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When you're a journalist and people don't trust you, it's always your fault. These people need to be represented. They are Canadian. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. It is time to go back to the office, and the time is now. Russia had reasons to be concerned. They had reasons to be fearful. We're at an absolute turning point in reproduction. This is the problem with realism. They just treat all countries the same. They don't distinguish between dictatorships and democracies. Hi, Monk listeners. Roger Griffiths here.

your host and moderator, welcome to this, our continuing conversations called the Monk Dialogues. These are in-depth Q&As with some of the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers. On each and every Monk Dialogue, we go deep into the big issues that are transforming our world and shaping our future. A good journalist should always be ashamed of error, and it bothers me to see so many of my colleagues not ashamed. News media shouldn't have a side. It should focus on getting things. right, which believe me is a hard enough job. Until we get back to the basics, we don't deserve to be trusted, and we won't be. Well, that was Matt Taibi's opening statement from our Monk debate on mainstream media from last November. Matt and his debate partner, Douglas Murray,

were arguing in favor of our motion, be it resolved, don't trust mainstream media, and had a decisive victory at the debate. It was one of the largest swings in the history of the Monk debates in terms of how people voted before and after the debate, a sign of just how vital and important this conversation is about the state and future of media in our democracy. Mack was right in the center of it, not only on the Monk debate stage, but in the weeks and months after. Right after our debate, Matt got on a plane to San Francisco where he went directly to Twitter's head office to meet its new CEO, Elon Musk. What came next was perhaps one of the biggest news stories of this year so far, the release of the so-called Twitter files, followed by

a tumultuous few months for Matt, including testifying before Congress, a house visit from the IRS. Isn't that always fun? And a very public fallout with Elon Musk, along with the end of his reporting on the Twitter files. Today we're joined by Substack journalist Matt Taibi for an in-depth chat about his life after the Monk debate on mainstream media. His thoughts on the future of the press and journalism in our society today and how growing distrust in media organizations could affect the 2024 U.S. election cycle. Matt Taiibi, welcome to the Monk Dialogues. Thanks for having me, Roger. Well, great to be back in conversation with you. We met in person and had a wonderful evening together at Roy Thompson Hall, late November.

22, when you were on stage for our mainstream media debate, little did we know, Matt, that that was a pretty crazy week for you. You were spinning a whole bunch of pie plates and more than just appearing on our stage alongside Malcolm Gladwell up against him and Michelle Goldberg from the New York Times with Douglas Murray as your sparring partner to open up this conversation with our monk listeners. why do you just remind us what was happening that week and what you suddenly got pulled into, literally the moment you got off the monk stage at Roy Thompson Hall? Well, thanks for the question. Yeah, that week, it was the end of November 2022.

I got a direct message on Twitter, basically asking me if I would like to dig into the the internal memoranda and emails of Twitter. And in fact, I think you asked the question on stage about that because Elon Musk had mentioned something about material coming out that week. And I had to kind of, you know, play it cool and pretend I didn't know what that was about. I actually deflected the question to Douglas. But I already knew that I was headed to San Francisco. right after the debate.

And then I was going to have, you know, a few days to do the first story. I hadn't actually looked at any of the material yet, but basically the debate, I found out just before the debate that the Twitter files was going to happen. And Matt, you know, as a journalist, how did you approach this opportunity? Because it's a pretty unique circumstance. You have this company that's been acquired by Elon Musk. It's in a sense been taken private. He clearly has an agenda that he wants to push.

How did you engage with him? What were the kind of parameters? And how did you feel in the end okay with putting yourself into the kind of lion's den here with this very sensitive information? We would go into that in a sec that really, you know, exploded across the mainstream media in the ensuing weeks. Yeah, that's a good question too, because it was a unique situation probably ethically in journalism.

There were so many different moving parts involved, so many different questions that there really wasn't an analog for. So I asked a lot of people for advice about this, but basically you have a CEO who's coming forward. He's very wealthy, very powerful person at the time, the richest man in the world, and wants to share the internal correspondence of one of the world's most most,

powerful companies and you're told that you're going to have basically free reign to look at anything you want that you can enter any search terms you want the the only condition that i was asked to agree to um well one was an attribution and which was just sources of twitter and the other one was that the material had to come out on twitter first uh which i was fine with i mean i think as long as my subscribers were okay with it, and they were for the most part, I thought it was worth it. After that, I thought the test was, you know, once I started to see the material, the test was, you know, is this stuff true? Can it be confirmed? Are these self-contained news stories?

I think what I decided I was going to do was that I was only going to run material that I could independently confirm somehow. and that by itself was a news story so that there wasn't going to be some kind of additional context that would come out that would completely change the nature of the stories. So, for instance, we found emails about a communication route between Twitter and the FBI and the DHS and how that worked leading up to the 2020 elections. no matter what else came out, if there was another side to that story, what we were putting out was still true. And it was at least part of a story. So that's what we tried to do.

It got more complicated as time went on. And that ultimately is what I think sank the project is there were just too many different issues that were too difficult for all the parties to balance at the same time. But for a while, it was unique. Yeah. And again, just serendipity, let's frame it in the positive, leaving that monk debate stage, be it resolved, you know, don't trust mainstream media. And then as an independent journalist, getting kind of shoehorned into what became, you know, the biggest story, I think, to close out, you know, 2022. How did you respond to, I'm just thinking, you know, the mainstream media rebuttal, which would be, hey, we're the New York Times. We've got. an editorial staff of, I don't know, what is it, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 journalists, you know, we're equipped to deal with this. We have the depth in the bullpen and the resources to handle this. You're an independent investigative journalist out on your own with substack and, you know, great network and contacts. But how did you kind of push back, Matt,

against that argument that really this was or should have been a job for a big incumbent media player who could have brought all those different resources to the table. Well, again, I think under normal circumstances, absolutely that's what you would expect. But the subject of the Monk debates, I think answers that question. Elon Musk, I think very intentionally chose only independent journalists. I think he was trying to make a point about not only about how he felt about mainstream journalism, but also I think there was an element of he wanted the material to be believed. And there was going to be an issue if it was farmed out to the Washington Post and the New York Times and they did what they would do.

I mean, I think one can predict how they would cover a story like that. when he handed the ball off to people like me and Michael Schellenberger and Barry Wise and the other people who eventually became involved. It was actually pretty unpredictable from his point of view. That was one of the things that I liked about this project is that, you know, he didn't really have any idea where this was going. The company didn't really know. And I thought that was a more interesting story if you didn't know in advance what the narrative was going to be coming out of it. So yeah, and also when the, when the material started to come out, as an investigative reporter, what you're always hoping when you do a story that has some kind of explosive material in it is that the cavalry is going to come and other journalists will come and start digging themselves and find new angles and advance the story forward. But that's exactly what didn't happen with the Twitter files. Instead, they turned on us and turned us into the story and really just attack.

the idea of releasing any of this material. And I think that, you know, there's your answer for why the New York Times and the Washington Post weren't given this story because they didn't want it, really. They didn't want it unless they could completely control it. Fair point. What do you think about, Matt, all those documents that you went through and that you looked at, what would be the big takeaway from the information that you used? had access to. What kind of concerned you the most? If you're going to put all that together

into an expression of public interest, like what went wrong? And we can talk about solutions later, but I just first want to understand what you think the Twitter file is exposed in terms of an urgent problem that somehow at some point we're going to have to figure out. I think the most explosive stuff had to do with the relationship between these tech platforms and agencies like the FBI, the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, internationally where, you know, we have a story coming out just today

about some Twitter files material about the Australian intelligence agencies talking to Twitter. We saw it from, you know, all over the world. there were these enforcement agencies funneling these massive amounts of content moderation requests to these companies and not just Twitter like a whole bunch of these firms. And this was done in a way that was increasingly formalized with time. Like there was a, we worked pretty hard to figure out what the formal line of communication was between all those actors in the United States was.

I think that's very concerning because I think people, until a recent, had this idea that they were looking at some kind of organic representation of reality when they went on social media. Now we're finding out that it's sort of exquisitely stage managed, that they can dial up the engagement for one account all the way up to everybody sees it and another account all the way down to zero and that can be done at the behest of a government. And so there's a lot of issues that are very troubling and haven't really been discussed publicly. So I think all those things are very important. It might be our most important monk debate ever. On June 22nd at Roy Thompson Hall will be convening two of the world's leading experts on artificial intelligence to debate the motion, be it resolved. AI research and development poses an existential risk. Be sure to attend this debate and listen and learn from Max Tegmark and Jan Lacoon. Again, top experts who know AI like few.

other people. They're going to share their thoughts on how AI will transform our workplace, our society, our democracy will cover it all the risks, the rewards of AI at this critical monk debate. For more information, go to our website, triple W, monk debates.com for the monk debate on artificial intelligence. Matt, do you have a sense of why Twitter pre-Elon Musk was just so accommodating to, and we can talk a little about it, not just intelligence agencies, but in a sense, political actors within the White House, within mainline political parties. Did you ever get a sense, is this some kind of dance between the threat or specter of regulation or what social media platforms would argue is over-regulation versus access? Are they kind of trading on, okay, we're going to

scratch the back of your national intelligence agency, but, you know, nod, nod, wink, wink, there's a deal here. I'm just trying to understand where you think, having looked at all these documents, where the impetus, the rationale for Twitter to do this, because as you say, it's such a, it's such a distortion of the public image that they project, the sense of a digital public square, of authentic conversation and dialogue. I mean, they must have known that they were running at risk. Absolutely. It's funny.

In August of 2017, we saw that Twitter had received had been forwarded a paper written by an academic from Notre Dame named Danielle Citron. And it was about

censorship creep. And the paper basically detailed the history of how tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Google had been increasingly pressured to accept more and more government content moderation requests culminating in 2015 and 2016 when after bombings, terrorist bombings in Brussels

and Paris, all of the companies got together and they signed, I forget what it was called. It was like an agreement about hate speech that sort of formalized. certain rules about content release and increase the government's role and having a say and what went online. This pattern, you know, was repeated in the United States. One of the reasons they were circulating that paper is because at that exact time, the Senate Intelligence Committee in the U.S. was putting a lot of pressure on Twitter to provide research about Russian bots and come up with certain kinds of numbers about how many Russian bots that had been in their platform.

And that was the carrot. They were asked to produce something. The stick was that there was this threat of regulation and taxation that was coming, you know, sort of at the same time. And Twitter understood this implicitly. I tried to sort of show that in a couple of the reports that this was what was going on internally. The company was very worried about this increased regulation.

And you saw at first, they did not. want to be partners with the government in 2017. There was a lot of internal tension about this, but within two or three years, they'd given up. And essentially, they had embraced the idea of becoming full-fledged partners with the government, with civil society organizations, and even the news media in this kind of subterranean content moderation scheme. That's just very complicated and um i think it's not where they were intellectually you know silicon valley was in a very different place 10 years ago now they're in this other place and and that was what we were seeing in the documents i think one of the things maybe that surprised people the most or they surprised me was the

extent to which political appointees political actors were had these special lines of communication into Twitter and we're able to, if not, as you say, pull down content, turn those dials on content based on perceived public policy objectives of the government of the day, particularly the White House. What are your thoughts on that? And again, did Twitter try to draw any lines between, let's say, okay, a national security agency? Maybe that has, I don't know, some rationale that there is an analytics. who's not a politician, who's not a political pointee, who thinks that this information is dangerous or causing public harm, versus a politician or a political appointee pursuing a, you know, a narrow partisan interest and then foisting that interest in a sense onto the platform to respond to. They did. They did differentiate absolutely. And that was one of the really interesting subplots of, you know, the documents or at least what we could glean from them.

The Twitter executives, in particular the trust and safety department, which was led by a guy named Mule Roth, they were very skeptical, for instance, of the State Department's Global Engagement Center, which was a new agency that didn't like those folks a lot. There were some academic agencies that were connected to the House Intelligence Committee that they were very skeptical about. There were some think tanks they really didn't like. there were some politicians that they, you know, internally were very, they were very exhausted with having to deal with certain members of Congress who had a lot of requests. There was some humor when, you know, there was one senator who sent like a list with, you know, a gigantic Excel spreadsheet with 300 names on it, basically saying, can you take all these down? I mean, it wasn't that overt, but it was essentially what the

ask was. But yes, there was a sliding scale of trust. They had a lot more belief and faith in the FBI and Homeland Security. Those were the two agencies that they felt confident in. And in the end, they settled on this system, which I thought was really interesting, which was if the agencies they didn't like had a request, as long as it came through the FBI or the DHS, they would accept it. And this was sort of the big bargain that everybody came to in the end, which I thought was kind of fascinating Machiavellian, synony bull. There's so many different ways to look at that and parse that. It's just that. But yes, absolutely.

They were trying to distinguish it. But as time went on, you see those wrinkles were getting smoothed out. And yeah, that was very interesting. Okay. Thank you. It's fascinating stuff. and just to hear it from you, having done all the hard work at the coal face to try to extract the key information. It's just invaluable to have this conversation with you, Matt.

So let's talk about what happened with your relationship with Elon Musk and Twitter, because what initially started out as a very seemingly open, transparent, as you say, kind of hands-off attitude that Elon Musk and the new kind of Twitter took to this, that relationship began clearly to sour. What went on there? What happened? And then we can talk about where things ended up. Well, I don't know fully all the answers to those questions because I only know my side of the story.

When I entered into the agreement to do this work, and I wasn't involved in conversations with the other reporters. I mean, we didn't go as a group to talk to anybody at Twitter. All these arrangements sort of happen separately. I mentioned before that normally when somebody comes to you with a story, you always want to understand what they want to get out of press coverage because you don't want there to be misunderstandings down the road. And it's also important for your understanding of what the material is. Why is this person coming forward?

What does this material mean to them? And I can't say that I ever fully completely grasped what the thinking was from the Twitter side. But as soon as I started seeing the material, I thought, it doesn't matter. Like this stuff is so explosive, you know, just as purely as a news phenomenon, the mode of question, I think we can sideline that for now. And I'm just going to try to get as much as I can and see how much information. information there is to be gleaned from this and I'll worry about all that later. In hindsight, I do think that was the right move, but maybe there might have been a way to do things differently so that we could have extended the project a little bit more. But I, from the very beginning,

thought the priority was get as much stuff as you can because the public is curious about it. But over time, you know, they, they started to become unhappy and not really fully sure what that was all about. Did they express what the unhappiness was about? Was it about the knock-on effects of how Twitter was being covered? I mean, as you say, they went into this seemingly eyes wide open. They knew what this information was. So did they expect something else to have happened as a result of these disclosure? I don't know. I mean, clearly there were negative consequences for them for doing the story.

I think there were advertiser boycotts. I don't know whether they were directly tied to the Twitter files, but I'm sure it didn't help. There were probably all sorts of people in government who weren't happy with this stuff going on. There were relationships that had to be strained as a result of this reporting. There were people still have. the company whose names were coming out in some of these emails, and that had to be stressful internally. Elon was meeting with people like John Podesta, who was one of the subjects of some of these stories. So it had to be difficult in a lot of different levels that I didn't hear about.

And I also thought it would really, I didn't want to ask about, frankly, you know, that was on them. If they, you know, they had a problem with this or this was creating problems internally. All that meant, as far as I understood, was that this project was probably going to be finite. It wasn't going to go on forever. But the more concrete issue that we eventually ran into, which was a dispute between substack and Twitter. And I don't even know the full story there, but what happened was that we woke up one morning and substack links. weren't being shared on Twitter or they were being frottled down.

And because I'm a substack contributor, that was a major problem for me. And Elon and I kind of had a difference of opinion about that. And that was it. I was out of the project at that point. Yeah. So again, this is fascinating because in the end, the breakup seemed to somehow happen, not because of the Twitter files, but because of some perceived maybe threat that Twitter felt

substack represented because substack had made some internal changes in terms of how its content was being presented that could be said to be Twitter-like. Is this just as simple as, I don't know, a kind of commercial dispute

that then escalated and had collateral effects, which was you were out of the project, the kind of Twitter files to a large extent, kind of wound down. Yeah, on the surface, that's the explanation. Maybe that's what it really was. I don't know. But it felt a little abrupt to me. I mean, I went to Elon with a question at one point and basically said,

and I'm only disclosing this because he did. What would you have me do? I mean, if I'm at substack, you know, I can't really continue doing this. And this, I mean, just for people to understand, I mean, this is how you make your living as a journalist. So when links are not being shared on Twitter and you're doing all this work on the Twitter files, you're in a sense, well, not that you're uncompensated, but that you're, you have a way to make a living. And that living, in a sense, is now being threatened by the person and the company that then brought you into this partnership. I mean, I'll just speak for you, Matt. It sounds a bit abusive.

It was a little weird. I mean, yeah, especially since. since the implication of the Twitter files was that, you know, we're being advocates for free speech and, but this was kind of a violation of sort of basic net neutrality ideas, right? And I did not see this coming. I didn't even think of it as a potential problem. And when it did come and when I asked,

well, what should I do about this? The answer was, we'll come and be a subscriber at substack, at Twitter, you know, because Twitter was developing this sort of substack like feature. And I thought that would be a disaster because we're already getting killed. You know,

every time I turned on the internet, I was being accused of being a lap dog for Elon Musk, which again, I thought it was worth it. I was willing to take as much abuse as possible for this material. But this was kind of a bridge too far. I mean, I can't go and,

you know, have a financial relationship with the company, especially if I've already seen that they're willing to, you know, mess with the content and, you know, throttle it up or down. And so that was just, I thought I was trying to protect the story. And he didn't see it that way. And, you know, we just sort of went in opposite directions. But tellingly, it hasn't, the project hasn't continued with other reporters, really, since then. I mean, there's been a few things.

But, you know, I don't really know what's going on there. Yeah. And where's the dispute right now between Twitter and substack? I mean, it's, again, that seemed to kind of come up as like in the news cycle and then it's kind of disappeared. And from what I can see, there's lots of substack links on Twitter and vice versa. I guess, I don't know. It's all conjecture, but it is amazing. And here I kind of saluting on Musk, you know, this guy is exposed to so much regulation across so many of his businesses, right? If you think of his solar panels, his cars, SpaceX. If the government ever wanted to tighten a screw on somebody, they probably have a million pressure points to make him feel some pain, not on Twitter, but on one of his other related businesses. So in some ways, I find it remarkable when these people that are so exposed, in a sense, to the pressures that vested interests,

especially in the state, can bring to bear on you. And then they still go ahead and do these things. There's something very courageous to it. But at the end of the day, I also remind myself that these are people that are very exposed that have these complex relationships with the state on a whole bunch of other files that are pretty important to them. Yeah, it's very difficult to know who's pressuring him to do what. I mean, that's one of the reasons that you're exactly right. At the very beginning of the project, I thought, this is incredible.

Like, who else would do this? he's either crazy or incredibly interesting or, you know, a combination of those things. If I were his lawyer, I would, you know, I don't even know what I would do. Like the idea of having these, you know, journalists just roaming free in an office and looking through all your files and, you know, think about all the liability issues that could come up as a result of something like that. being indifferent to that to the degree that he appeared to be was was amazing to watch so i'm totally in agreement with you but the this dispute with substack is not as i don't think it's a small thing it may be a small thing financially because substack's not really a competitor to twitter in any real way i mean at least not yet i don't see that happening but it is a place where

It's one of the last sort of bastions of, you know, independent media where there's a whole bunch of kind of non-mainstream journalists on this one platform. And a lot of those people were very ardent supporters of, you know, the new Twitter and Elon Musk and all that. And they're still kind of being throttled on the platform. I mean, you know, I'm getting complaints all the time from substack writers about how difficult things. are and you know i don't know i don't know what to think about that uh if if you're if your approach to business ends up resulting in you know this kind of a impact on independent media i mean how are you to interpret that it's it's a difficult thing yeah well it's interesting because that's what i wanted to go with you next because you were back on stage i'm thinking back to

november on our debate on mainstream media and at that time in that debate you're good at a my questions now I understand why but we I was trying to understand help the audience understand like where did Twitter fit on that spectrum itself right and I think we all because of musk's own seeming commitment to free speech and then the action as you say of creating the Twitter files project it seemed definitively non-mainstream but you know following the dispute was substack the extent to which the Twitter files gets shut down I don't know Matt, it seems like Twitter's evidencing some of those negative characteristics that we know from how mainstream media behaves, a kind of, you know, a group think, a monopolistic view

of information in the public square. Do you have a feeling that that somehow happened, that there's been some kind of shift in Twitter over the last six months as we, as this company really does struggle through a very difficult period? I don't know. It's difficult to say because, again, I'm not really privy to what the financial pressures are and what the solutions to those pressures might be. But clearly, the old Twitter had evolved into something that was sort of massively enhancing the visibility of traditional mainstream press at the detriment of independent media. And that was also going on at Facebook and especially Google. I think Google was probably worse than the other two platforms in this respect.

But yes, and when Musk came on, I think there was a lot of hope among independent journalists that were finally going to be allowed to be on an even playing field. And that's kind of what it felt like for a while. I mean, the Twitter files felt like a blow back in that direction. And then you started to get these criticisms from certain quarters about how the Twitter files are a limited hangout. It's something that looks like it's rebellious, but actually it really isn't. It's a setup. You know, I never really saw it that way, but here I am on the outside now, right?

So, you know, I tried to play this as down the line as I could. And doing that proved not to be viable in the long run. So what does that tell you? I think it's, you know, the answer to your question is somewhere in between. I mean, Twitter is, my conclusion at the end of the day with all this stuff is that whenever you have owners with these platforms, no matter what happens. Eventually, there's going to be, you know, thumbs on the scale in some direction or another. And there's just no avoiding that. And some people are going to have their speech suppressed and others are going to have an amplified and there's nothing you can do about it unless you have kind of a suppression resistant.

mechanism like a protocol like email i i don't know i don't know a way around it yeah no and i just think it's you know corporations will behave like corporations and you know they're self-interested they're often aggressive and um they like to acquire stuff they like to dominate and often those values are they're hard to reconcile with as you say the more freewheeling open you know discourse that is what we hope, the kind of foundations of a, you know, a democratic society that is, in fact, free and open. Just at our remaining moments, Matt, I want to just talk to you because we'll catch up again from the debate six months ago. You know, I say this with no relish at all, but I have a feeling that, you know, the mainstream media has really struggled over this last period. There's,

seems to be almost a kind of narrowing of what is tolerated as conventional thinking and opinion. And it goes, you know, the Twitter files was part of that and the blowback that you got. But, you know, all the revelations that have come up around the so-called Russia gate and the extent to which, you know, that really does look like disinformation, not peddled by Russians, but peddled by, you know, a domestic U.S. political actor and, you know, his or her political party. We now have, you know, again, serial denials seemingly in mainstream media around, you know, the Hunter Biden and the revelations that have come out of the U.S. Congress of wire transfers and bank accounts and millions of dollars flowing to individual members of the Biden family. But I don't know, Matt, it's so frustrating. All this seems so hived off.

It seems like, you know, there's one set of media outlets that cover these types of things with relish, maybe sometimes with, you know, too much innuendo and speculation. And then a lot of the rest of the mainstream press, which is hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. It's a bizarre circumstance we find ourselves in, I think going into the 2024 U.S. presidential election. I totally agree. I think you really nailed it. It's not a pleasant development. I mean, I'm independent journalists, and I want the mainstream media.

to succeed. I think it needs to. The countries are not healthy if they don't have a functioning mass media and nobody believes them. And I think increasingly that's kind of the problem is there's this lingering, worsening trust issue that can only be addressed by dealing with, you know, some of the factual issues. And you talk about the Russia story. There was that massive Columbia journalism review expose 24,000 words. That's a lot of errors to, you know, address. The Twitter files, you know, expose a few of those things. There's the Hunter Biden story.

And the thing with that is not even so much whether or not that story was important or whether it was terribly damning. It was more the behavior of the media during that story that was really troubling, you know, not just turning a blind eye to it being suppressed, but also as we found out, you know, planning these what they call a tabletop exercise to, to, you know, how should we all respond when this story comes out? That is a terrible look for media, right? Because we should never be on the side of people, politicians who are planning for a negative story. It's just so strange. So I think these. corporate media organizations are stuck because they have an audience and they know how to retain some semblance of it. But those techniques that they've used to retain that audience have gotten them into so much trouble that the trend that you've talked about in the last six months, it's only going to get worse, I think, until we've seen it, BuzzFeed, Vice. I mean,

these big companies are sort of disappearing. And I think it's going to, lead to a kind of a rethink of how corporate media works. So this is critical because I've really struggled to think, well, why are they behaving this way? Like, why would they, this kind of shutting down, not simply of debate, but the shutting down of the conveyance of information that is in fact factual. Like this is verified information. You saw the emails and the memos.

They exist as a physical record. The House committee may think the House Republicans are insane, but they have from the Treasury Department factual records of bank transactions and shell companies. And yet it's as if the information itself isn't even flowing from legitimate sources into the press. And is it to protect the audience, Matt? Is that is it they worry they're going to lose audience if they're exposed? to, you know, alternative facts that don't conform to their theory of, you know, how the world is. I don't know. I just struggle to think of how journalists can sit there and just ignore facts.

I mean, isn't that the whole purpose of journalism to address facts, to take them seriously, to spend the time and effort to verify them and then bring them to the public so the public can make up their own mind? you would think that would be the purpose of it. But I think the, and they took what was, I think, a relatively simple job. I mean, the model you just explained, which is we get a bunch of facts. We sort of figure out what they are. We give them to the audience and then it's up to them to kind of deal with it. That's a, I mean, that's a hard job because you've got to do all the confirming and all the phone calls.

But conceptually, it's not that difficult. But they massively complicated it by creating this new revenue model, which is this sort of audience optimization form of media where you're, you've trained an audience to expect a certain narrative and to expect that they're going to be told a story that is consistent on a day-to-day basis. The Republicans are the bad guys. The Democrats are the good guys. And that's the angle from which we're going to approach everything, more or less, right, from certain media organizations. So even the story you're just talking about with, you know, the House Committee and the financial transactions, the New York Times did that story. They got a lot of those facts in the story. But if you look at the headline, it's something like House Committee finds no wrongdoing, right?

By President Biden. Right, yeah. That's like the point. There's 11 family members, including grandchildren, that have received. hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars of cash transfers from shell companies. Yeah, but they clearly felt pressure to present the information some other way. Look, they're making a lot of money with subscriptions. They have the largest subscriber base in the world, I think.

And so that works for them on some level. But at the same time, while you're doing that, you're also alienating this, but, you know, other potential audience base. And I think it has this downstream effect where people eventually they start comparing notes and reaches a critical mass for audiences. Even the ones that like you, they stop kind of believing in you deep down inside. And that's a terrible place for the press to be. I mean, once you lose trust, it's over. I mean, it's like a run in a bank.

I mean, it gets wiped out in a second. So, yeah, I don't know where they go from here, but it's, it's, it's. It is difficult. So just in our final question here, looking forward to the upcoming presidential electoral cycle in 2024. What do you think happens? Is it just, as you say, this declining trust, a public square that's either rife with disinformation or the absence of facts because people are living in these hermetically sealed truth bubbles, I don't know, on either side of the ideological or cultural divide.

And then independent journalists, you know, as you say, a lot of them at Substack, increasingly under pressure from possibly, you know, predatory, you know, marketing practices by the platforms. I don't know, man. It starts to get pretty, pretty grim here. Like, what the heck? I mean, do we just go to chat GPT and like punch in, I don't know, tell me what the weather is today and be happy with that? That's a whole separate discussion because we'll have to talk about that one another time. But yeah, no, this fragmenting, this chaos, I think it's very difficult and very stressful for people to look at the information landscape and see so many choices and not know whom to trust. When you talk about the election, I remember when I first started working in the U.S. for kind of big time mainstream journalism, one of my first.

Jobs was traveling around following the John Kerry campaign. And it was amazing to watch because you would sit in a room with 20 journalists. And these were the people who were basically deciding who was going to be president. They would sit around and talk about which candidates were, what was the word they used, electable or viable? And then they would sort of snort at the other ones. And those were the ones who would get bad coverage. And they had so much authority with audiences.

and there were so little comparatively alternative media. Remember, this was at the time when alternative newspapers were dying in big cities. So now it was like they had a monopoly everywhere. It's been completely reversed. That entire situation is gone. Even that phenomenon of campaign journalists, you know, thinking that they have a say in how people vote, that's been exposed and people are wise to it. and audiences are very, very attuned to how things are covered on the campaign trail. So it becomes very difficult to sort out who's going to win, who has a chance, what polls do you believe?

I mean, it's the Wild West right now. I mean, even in the middle of it, I don't understand it. So it's, I don't know how ordinary people deal with it now. Yeah. Well, I think one solution is to read you on substack. Great. I love it. Thank you.

No, seriously, Matt. I mean, there's a few people that I think have, have your kind of intestinal fortitude and intellectual courage to genuinely be independent. And you'd be the first to admit. No one gets it right all the time. But it's the ethos that you approach your work and the kind of public spiritedness, which you've asserted your own journalism and the role of independent journalism in society today. It's critical.

You're a rare bird, Matt. So we always like having you here on the monk debates and making people aware of the important work that you're doing. Excellent. Well, thank you so much. I wish my mother could hear that. I'll make sure Ricky clips that and we'll, Ricky our producer and we'll make sure your mom guessed that.

Absolutely. Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. And thanks for having me on. Hey, thanks for your time today. Well, that wraps up today's Monk Dialogue. I want to thank our guest, Matt Taibi. He gave us a lot to think about.

Please check out his amazing debate with Douglas Murray against Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times. You can do that right now on our website, triple-w monk debates.com. Also, support Matt. It's great to have independent journalists like him doing the hard work for us so that we get information and news that we can use. Subscribe to Matt Taibi's substack column today.

You can find him at substack.com. Also, please give us your feedback and reflections on what you've just heard or on any of our other podcasts. You can do that right now by sending us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com. Also a friendly reminder that our weekly current affairs podcast Friday focus that comes out, yep, you got it. Every Friday is available to you as a sample in this podcast feed.

Check it out. Janice Gross-Sne and myself dig deep into the big issues and ideas of moving the news each week, leaving you with some new analysis and insights. Consider subscribing to our Friday Focus podcast. You can do that right now on our website, triple W monthdebates.com. Look for Friday Focus in the top right navigation. And finally, a heads up that our big debate

on artificial intelligence is approaching fast. We've sold out over 2,000 people gathering on June 22nd in Toronto, Roy Thompson Hall, to listen to an important debate, be it resolved. AI research and development poses an existential risk. We've got two of the biggest names in AI on stage to hash this out for our benefit. We will have a live stream available to Monk donors. Little is $25 a year.

You get all kinds of great perks, live streaming our debates, access to our 10-plus-year archive of main stage debates. And, of course, that Friday Focus podcast at current events, Become a donor today and we'll send you information about the AI debate live stream as that comes available in the next few weeks. You can do that again at www. monkdebates.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of civil and substantive conversation. One dialogue at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith.

The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk charitable. foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.