It must be lonely for Matt Taibbi. No, I’m not making light of his situation. He’s doing well covering the stories news outlets avoid out of political bias, and he’s a true blue Democrat. The former contributing editor for Rolling Stone isn’t a Trump supporter, nor can he be part of a Democratic Party that stifles speech and runs with some of the most obtuse and illiberal policy positions in recent memory, namely the attacks on freedom of speech. Taibbi is one of the few liberal reporters who was a Russian collusion skeptic and has torched his side for losing the plot on core democratic values.
He’s on an island alone but thriving, especially now that Biden is out of office and the IRS isn’t targeting him anymore. Taibbi got audited not long after he testified before Congress about the Twitter Files and the system on thought control and censorship the social media giant and the FBI had created before Elon Musk bought it.
It's why he’s likely equally amused by the Associated Press’ war with the Trump White House, which the latter couldn’t care less about. The legacy media’s influence is dying, the AP style guide is left-wing trash, and no one said anything about other systems of censorship before AP got hilariously barred from the Oval Office and Air Force One. Taibbi noted how the AP guide slowly became infected with the woke virus and how it’s not uncommon for journalists to be chilled out of the White House—Trump isn’t the first or last president to freeze out reporters he didn’t like. AP should recognize the changing times because they’ve already lost the PR war (via Racket News):
Statement from the Associated Press:
This is about the government telling the public and press what words to use and retaliating if they do not follow government orders.
The White House has restricted AP’s coverage of presidential events because of how we refer to a location. The Associated Press has provided critical and independent coverage of the White House for over 100 years.
“Telling the public and the press what words to use.” Right.
[…]
As anyone who’s read Hate Inc. can attest I’ve long been critical of once-common newspaper practices like plastering mugshots online. These linger and the acquitted tend not to live them down, and in many cases coverage is just unnecessary (broke moms busted for shoplifting, pictured and named?). But AP’s now-gigantic Stylebook goes beyond better practice and asks reporters to abandon common sense or speed for constantly shifting political precepts. Hence, no references to “both, either, or opposite sex” because “not all people fall under one of two categories for sex or gender.” These are journalists, not scientists, telling people how many sexes there are.
I left strict observance of AP style years ago over the Black issue, not for moral reasons but exhaustion (I guarantee that term will be changed five or six more times). As an independent I also don’t have to care now. But, the combination of AP’s nun-like word severity and increasingly transparent slant made the organization ripe for a dressing down. Enter this Gulf of America fiasco.
I don’t see what Trump is doing as a moral issue. The AP doesn’t have to change its guide, and Trump doesn’t have to let them in the Oval office. Both are trying to influence the other. It’s how this dance works.
I get some speech advocates are wringing hands over Trump’s open stating of the reason for barring, which does make it a technical violation of viewpoint discrimination. Still, it’s hard to summon outrage when previous White Houses have long frozen out or barred reporters without giving reasons (an example being the New York Post during the Biden years). That, and the fact that the AP and all the press orgs rushing to its side now haven’t said boo about years of state censorship or other actual threats to media, including some involving me. But fine, take it to court, since it does cross a line. The AP will win, and go back to cheering or ignoring actual suppression of media. But they’ll be a net loser in this PR standoff.
The real issue is why Trump felt it could bar the AP at all. Normally the White House is afraid to make enemies of a big, influential news organization. They stop being afraid when a) those organizations lose audience or influence, or b) when they figure they have no chance of getting anything but negative coverage anyway. Both factors come into play now. News organizations want to force politicians to treat them well. When they lose the ability to do that despite enormous resources, they should ask themselves why. Will AP ask itself that question?
Recommended
For now, AP is barred from certain events. The censors have been censored.
“That’s how life works,” said Trump, which is a vintage answer.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member