The Inside Story of Matt Taibbi's Departure From First Look Media

[Luminous Animal]

By Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and John Cook
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/inside-story-matt-taibbis-departure-first-look-media/

Matt Taibbi, who joined First Look Media just seven months ago, left the company on Tuesday. His departure—which he describes as a refusal to accept a work reassignment, and the company describes as a resignation—was the culmination of months of contentious disputes with First Look founder Pierre Omidyar, chief operating officer Randy Ching, and president John Temple over the structure and management of Racket, the digital magazine Taibbi was hired to create. Those disputes were exacerbated by a recent complaint from a Racket employee about Taibbi’s behavior as a manager.

The departure of the popular former Rolling Stone writer is a serious setback for First Look in its first year of operations. Last January, Omidyar announced with great fanfare that he would personally invest $250 million in the company to build “a general interest news site that will cover topics ranging from entertainment and sports to business and the economy” incorporating multiple “digital magazines” as well as a “flagship news site.”

One year later, First Look still has only one such magazine, The Intercept.

Omidyar has publicly and privately pledged multiple times that First Look will never interfere with the stories produced by its journalists. He has adhered to that commitment with both The Intercept and Racket, and Taibbi has been clear that he was free to shape Racket‘s journalism fully in his image. His vision was a hard-hitting, satirical magazine in the style of the old Spy that would employ Taibbi’s facility for merciless ridicule, humor, and parody to attack Wall Street and the corporate world. First Look was fully behind that vision.

Taibbi’s dispute with his bosses instead centered on differences in management style and the extent to which First Look would influence the organizational and corporate aspects of his role as editor-in-chief. Those conflicts were rooted in a larger and more fundamental culture clash that has plagued the project from the start: A collision between the First Look executives, who by and large come from a highly structured Silicon Valley corporate environment, and the fiercely independent journalists who view corporate cultures and management-speak with disdain. That divide is a regular feature in many newsrooms, but it was exacerbated by First Look’s avowed strategy of hiring exactly those journalists who had cultivated reputations as anti-authoritarian iconoclasts.

[LawDeeDah]

1. The smearing of Taibbi has begun, I see.

Will wait to hear what Matt has to say. I don't believe Greenwald nor Omidyar.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Clearly, you did not read the article. Matt comes out looking far better than

Omidyar.

[Raine1967]

18. Omidyar and Taibbi Both come out looking bad.

I thought this part was interesting:

Over the weekend, Taibbi reached the conclusion that his relationship with Omidyar, Temple, and Ching had become irreversibly poisoned, and that no agreement would shield him and Racket from their ongoing involvement and interference. Rather than continue the negotiations, he decided to end them and walk away from the project. On Monday morning, he told Cook and Greenwald that he was leaving. The next day, after New York reported that Taibbi had been on leave, First Look announced his departure.

The fate of the remaining Racket staff remains uncertain. Taibbi’s departure means that First Look has lost a talented, unique, and influential journalistic voice before he published a single word. After months of struggle and negotiation, The Intercept has arrived at the point where it can function effectively: with full editorial freedom and an ample budget. But First Look and Taibbi failed to reach a similar mutual understanding. Those two radically different outcomes underscore the ongoing difficulty of finding the ideal model for well-funded independent journalism.

I think this looks like Taibbi is being thrown under the bus by the authors.

I am not a fan of the way Taibbi expresses himself. I do appreciate his reporting. This looks like a long way to go to say that Taibbi deceived what he got for not doing what the authors say they themselves did -- I bolded that part.

This is all so gossip column.

and to the fact that they wrote of an inappropriate incident, to me, speaks volumes. I think this is the first of that being reported. I may have missed something between the NYMag piece and this. so forgive me if I had.

[Luminous Animal]

57. My read of the article is that The Intercept could succeed because Omidyar

acceded to their demands. Likely because the Intercept has three high-profile journalists.

It appears that Omidyar and management preferred to take a more hard-nosed approach to Matt's venture.

[Raine1967]

94. I think you and I are having a different read on this article.

Taibbi is also a high profile journalist.

To be very honest, this looks like unneeded damage control. As I stated, I am not a big fan of Matt, but something does't seem right here.

[Luminous Animal]

101. Really this is damage control? From the article....

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[Raine1967]

110. I read that part.

And I am left wondering about a few things. Off the top of my head…

First: whose perspective? (there were three people on the byline)

Second: Why did they feel they needed to write this article?

Third: They seem to like Taibbi but seem to be saying that they decided to acquiesce to the 'First Look'

It may be speculation, but these people on the byline look, to me, like they are trying to play it both ways. That's the way I am reading it.

[Luminous Animal]

117. Okay...

First: Not sure what the question is (and there are four people on the byline).

Second: To get ahead of the story. Lots of speculation since his departure was first announced.

Third: They do like and respect Matt but I am not getting where they decided to acquiesce to First Look.

First Look is the umbrella organization. Glenn, Laura, Jeremy & John work and run The Intercept. Matt was in charge of a second venture which engages in their own and separate hirings, editorial decisions, etc.

It appears that after months of negotiations, The Intercept got the recourses and commitment and follow through to run themselves. And it appears, in the end, Matt was unable to get that commitment. Kudos to him for walking.

[Blue_Tires]

115. It is notable that Greenwald, Scahill, et al never

interceded on their colleague's behalf...

At least this permanently puts to bed the question of how much involvement Pierre has over his little puppets...(This is the part where you admit I was right all this time)

[Luminous Animal]

122. How the hell do you know this? The article also states that they wrote a joint letter

with Matt in June. Followed by lengthy meetings and discussions.

That letter led to lengthy and often heated discussions. But they were productive: Most of The Intercept’s problems were eventually resolved. The magazine received a substantial budget, which Cook was free to use as he wished without consultation with First Look, and The Intercept resumed hiring a team of talented reporters, editors, and researchers. The site began producing stories more regularly, morale improved significantly as oversight from First Look diminished, and the team is free to do the reporting it wants to do without interference.

For a time, it appeared that Taibbi’s project had also found the right path. It, too, received its own multi-million-dollar budget, began to hire more reporters, filmmakers, and editors, and set a launch date for September.

[Blue_Tires]

129. If you want to believe that, be my guest

Paul Carr has already said he has e-mail proof from Taibbi that shows the Intercept is lying their asses off...

[Blue_Tires]

128. They left the smearing to Gawker, so Greenwald/Omdiyar's hands stay clean:

http://gawker.com/matt-taibbi-left-first-look-media-after-female-staffer-1652961860

And I don't need to tell you where John Cook came from, do I?

[m-lekktor]

4. did you even read this article?

there is no *smear* of Tiabbi.

[LawDeeDah]

10. Yes, I read it all.

Apparently Taibbi is a sexist abusive guy that can't get along with others.

What could be smeary about that?

[Luminous Animal]

14. Um, those were the allegations from one staffer. Allegations are not proof

and the article does not present them as proof of anything.

[LawDeeDah]

32. But Greenwald and etc., included the 'allegations' nonetheless.

Maybe Matt can 'allegate' without proof that Greenwald and Pierre torture puppies in the copy room?

[randome]

39. I sense an immovable rock/irresistible force moment coming on.

Greenwald alleged that? That can't be. He's golden!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

42. Well put. All of these folks are worshipped by a certain segment of DU. That will not survive this

event I think, without some real self-delusional mental gymnastics by those who worship them.

[JDPriestly]

202. Taibbi is a writer, an artist, not a manage.

I hope that he will continue to write. I can understand that he and Omidyar may both be rather strong-willed people with clear visions about what they want to do.

It makes sense to me that they may have been unable to come to terms that permitted Taibbi the freedom to manage the business of his operation the way he wanted.

In short, a lot of what I like about Taibbi's writing style and his choices of topics is that he is quite temperamental. His free association is great. Makes his writing spicy and funny but also bitter and abrasive. He has great style.

But I can see that he might be impatient with anyone who wants to put the brakes on him even if he really does need to slow down. My impression is that Taibbi is an individualist.

I am rather amazed that Greenwald and Poitras and Scahill have been able to work out a deal that they can accept with Omidyar. They are also very individualistic. But Greenwald's background is in law. That means he can probably negotiate pretty well. Also, if you read Greewald's book No Place To Hide, you probably know that he seems very cautious and very careful in dealing with people. He was very slow to respond to Snowden's approaches to him for instance.

So it does not surprise me that Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill could make a workable deal that they could accept with Omidyar, a deal that would allow them to remain independent but that Taibbi found making a deal was too difficult.

I just hope that Taibbi keeps writing as an independent. I'll be lookiong forward to reading what he writes. Same for Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill. I will all four of them luck in their future careers.

This morning I spoke to a man who thinks that the theory of evolution is a hoax and that global warming (which he admits is happening) is due to changes in our universe and only a little bit to man's use of fossil fuels. He claimed that all oil that comes out of the earth is the same. (It isn't. I know the field fairly well. Some has more lead, some more sulfur, etc.) He seemed very surprised to learn that oil is composed of organic matter. He claimed that the earth makes oil all the time and that we will never run out. I tried to explain to him that while we continue to have enough oil, coal, etc. now, what we are now extracting is more difficult to bring to market than what we have used in the past.

I tell that story to make the point that we have far more important things to be concerned about that whether Taibbi could finalize his deal with Omidyar. I hope that Taibbi and Omidyar can continue to work together perhaps in a way that does not place on Taibbi the burden of organizing his business to Omidyar's liking.

We progressives have too great a responsibility for the future of the world to be worried about these personality and management differences.

Thanks to Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill for trying to help make Taibbi's project work and for struggling to bring their new, independent media to us. Good look to Taibbi and Omidyar.

[Luminous Animal]

47. No. Greenwald did not. Another person who did not read the article.

Another staffer made the allegations. Greenwald, et. al., state in the article: "None of us witnessed any of the alleged behavior on Taibbi’s part that sparked the investigation"

[MADem]

55. Well, he was downgraded based on them, so what's up with that? This is not a good article for

Taibbi. It sounds like there's trouble in First Look paradise, too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. who could have guessed???

that sure didn't take long...

[Luminous Animal]

46. You think they should have lied by omission? I can just imagine the

outrage if they hadn't included them in the article and another publication later on did.

[LawDeeDah]

70. That's the new journalism, I suppose. Allegate without proof.

Greenwald has practice in that.

There was no reason to include that and still make their story. They included it to tarnish Tiabbi. Tiabbi may not be the nicest guy around either and this is why I am looking forward to his side of things.

Arcs and sparks to follow shortly between Greenwald and Matt that might be worth following for shits and giggles. Cage match.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Greenwald is making no such allegations. A STAFFER DID and the accusations were investigated

Greenwald et.al., are reporting the events.

I just imagine the comments if they hadn't.

[LawDeeDah]

87. That is Greenwald with his famous weasel words - perfect example that.

It was not his story to tell if for one thing the staffer doesn't seem to want to go public with it (therefore there will not ever be any 'proof' if that is the case - which makes it slimey but easy for Greenwald to make it public. Just plant that seed and let imaginations grow, that's what he did there and one would have to be truckloads of naive to not see that.

He just slipped that in to impress upon his readers and followers that Taibbi is the 'bad man' here for the upcoming twitter wars between the two.

[Luminous Animal]

89. You have it precisely backwards. If they were trying to portray Taibbi as the bad man

why would they have included this:

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[LawDeeDah]

93. CYA, that is what it is. Fakery just so they don't sound TOO viscious.

[grasswire]

124. off topic

what was your previous name on DU? I have read your prose before.

[LawDeeDah]

127. A lot of people don't trust or like Greenwald

Maybe you should face up to that instead of off topicing with kindergarten speak instead of engaging in the conversation.

[Luminous Animal]

145. topicing? Okey-doke.

[randome]

150. So why is Greenwald taking time out from world-saving to 'report' on office gossip?

Pshaw!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Tires]

107. LOL at Greenwald breaking the irony meter:

"Taibbi’s abrasive demeanor was alienating some on his staff." —a sentence in an article written, unironically, by Glenn Greenwald

[sabrina 1]

154. The article tells us what Matt has to say. I saw no smear in the article, if I did I would be the

first to point it out.

[JDPriestly]

201. Please read the article. Posts based on mere assumptions about what articles say

are not helpful. I hope you are not one of the DUers who rush to post a negative response to any post they think they might disagree with or any post that gives the opportunity to say something derogatory about someone they don't like.

[frazzled]

3. Awww, it's so sad to find out that " anti-authoritarian iconoclasts"

is just another term for "assholes."

I personally witnessed MT being an asshole, and that was in his guise of a journalist, on assignment. He infiltrated (which is okay, I guess) an early meetup for a potential presidential candidate in 2003, organized by some college students in a bar. (I was there.) He introduced himself as a producer of porn movies; and then, on the basis of their looking a bit bewildered or flummoxed at that pronouncement, proceeded to write a hit piece in the Nation about how naive supporters of this candidate were (not okay). Note: these were not campaign staff, just some earnest young people who had advertised a meetup of interested parties (during the days of "Meetup&quot . Now that's an asshole. Not Gonzo, just asshole.

[Luminous Animal]

7. I did not post this so people could come here to bash Matt.

Like Greenwald, et.al., I feel his departure from First Look is a great loss.

And, in my opinion, Matt came out looking far better than Omidyar.

[frazzled]

9. You're being authoritarian, then

Sorry, but I'll feel free to post my opinions when and where I wish. Just as I respect your right to do so.

Personally, I'm enjoying the real-time implosion of First Look.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Never suggested any restrictions. Simply stating MY opinion.

[stevenleser]

11. Interesting. That is my general impression of his approach to journalism in a nutshell.

What you describe is only half a level or so better (if that) than what a James O'Keefe might do.

If Stephen Glass' escapades taught us anything, it's that if someone keeps coming out with articles that appear to scoop everyone else and have the inside angle, sure, it's possible they are journalism's next best thing, but its also a good idea to take a closer look at how they operate.

[MADem]

23. Wow. And The Nation published it? No vetting?

And what kind of moron doesn't know the diff between a meetup (those were the days) that anyone can attend, and an actual campaign staff meeting?

I agree--an asshole. Not Gonzo. Lazy and a bit stupid, maybe--and a "misrepresenter of facts" to put it politely. You were justified in having been annoyed.

[stevenleser]

35. Yep. L.A. posted the link below. Seen in the context of what frazzled wrote, it reads as a fake

story from beginning to end. I'm getting the impression that Taibbi is another Glass, the difference being that Taibbi at least makes sure the general events to which he reports on actually occurred. So the candidate did go to the restaurant, but I doubt anyone at the restaurant said to Taibbi what he claims they said. So Taibbi did speak to a few grassroots folks at the Clark event, but he confused them in O'Keefe style by claiming to be a porn producer and then asked them questions while they were still digesting that and then portrayed their answers as typical of "The Clark Campaign".

One Edit: And the impression he gave of Clark is a poor caricature of a person, not a description of Clark.

[MADem]

72. He's had serious (heroin) substance abuse issues in the past.

That kind of thing can mess up one's judgment...!

He was also pretty sexist when he was working at the eXile--and he seemed rather proud of it, too.

[Luminous Animal]

26. I found the article, It is a hoot and very insightful into the character of both Clark

and the Clark campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1128-05.htm

[frazzled]

30. It wasn't the Clark campaign

It was an unaffiliated meetup of a couple dozen people with no relation to the campaign whatsoever (there was barely even a campaign then). Given your reading comprehension skills of my post, I guess it's natural that you think this may have been an "insightful" piece when it was really a pack of crap, largely repudiated.

And if you think it's funny to pass yourself off surreptitiously as a porn producer, you're as juvenile as MT. The college kids who had organized this meeting were more sophisticated than that.

[stevenleser]

36. See my #35 above. From your reports it's pretty obvious what Taibbi seems to be about. nt

[Luminous Animal]

50. He clearly states that it was a meet-up. But he also writes about the

campaign which my comment was referring. I did not confuse the two.

[MADem]

74. Seems kinda gotcha and mocking to me...nt

[Ykcutnek]

5. World-class assholes farting on each other.

Win/win.

[Maedhros]

21. Wow.

You definitely deserve to be ignored.

/ignore list.

[Electric Monk]

24. MohRokTah, aka Functioning Cog, aka Pretzel Warrior deserves more than to be ignored. nt

[seaglass]

28. Is there a history lesson in there somewhere? :-) n/t

[Aerows]

37. Jury results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. "Deserves more" is a potential threat of violence. If not, definitely disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 30, 2014, 03:30 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What threat of violence?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, FFS! Now we're reading violence into stuff like this? The poster just thinks they should be banned. I can't say I disagree.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: EM is exactly right. It is not wrong to point out trolls and disrupters. MRT is both.

[Ykcutnek]

41. 99% of my posts are anti-McConnell and people want me banned?

Turtle's reach is longer than I thought.

[randome]

44. Basement turtles don't often get their nails clipped.

So they can reach further.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

69. What a rude thing to say.

And to imply.

[randome]

149. That was a McConnell joke, you, you...nice person, you.

Geeze, everyone, lighten up!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

161. It's amazing how many people don't realize that one of the most powerful people in Congress

is derided as some iteration of "turtleboy" across the Democratic spectrum.

So quick to take offense and not read contextually ... oh well, this IS DU. It's impossible to lighten up--everyone has to be MAD and take OFFENSE and misinterpret--otherwise there'd be no IMPORTANT internet fights!!!



Here, a picture to clarify and lighten that mood:

[randome]

166. What more need be said?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[LawDeeDah]

78. lol

everthing is a shell game to the basement turtles

[Aerows]

111. I'd rather be a "basement turtle"

with convictions than an artificial Democrat whose opinions change based upon the statements of a politician.

You know what you are by what you believe in. When you believe in a person instead of ideals, you are setting yourself up for destruction, because there isn't a human being alive that is perfect.

That goes for political parties, politicians, celebrities, and the man down the street that you admire.

Hell, this thread gives me reason to have less faith in the Democratic party. I don't have to buy everything you sell to "belong", I already belong.

That's what a few of you do not understand.

[LawDeeDah]

114. That's nice

[Aerows]

126. It's honest. n/t

[Aerows]

61. Whatever you are implying

I'm sure you are not correct.

Are you implying that those that disagree with you are fans of McConnell? Need you be reminded you are on DU and not "batshit crazy Republicans underground"?

[Ykcutnek]

64. "batshit crazy Republicans underground"

After the way I was treated upthread, I did do a double take to make sure.

[Aerows]

67. We are Democrats

We don't march in lockstep with each other. We will disagree with each other - that doesn't make us right-wingers.

That accusation gets thrown around far too often.

[malaise]

162. +1,000

[Enthusiast]

207. "batshit crazy Republicans underground" Pfft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Maedhros]

60. Nah. Those types love the negative attention.

Better to just let them shout into a void.

[Aerows]

63. I truly do not get it.

Why come to DU proclaiming to be a Democrat only to stir up shit?

[Maedhros]

103. Their lives are empty and shallow.

Being obnoxious on the Internet is their only way of building self-esteem.

[LawDeeDah]

174. That Piece of Shit Salesman article was really stirring the shit...

What side of that were you on where a Democratic President was maligned in such an ugly manner right here on Democratic Underground? Did you voice the same opinion about that or did you agree with the originator?

[Puglover]

187. Question is

what side of that were YOU on? You didn't join the site until months later. Just a lurker then I'll bet.

[LawDeeDah]

191. I thought that was a fair question and wonder if that poster consistently applies

not speaking ill of Democrats.

I was on the side of aghast with laughter with a smidgen of contempt. It was spread around other liberal forums, and I am sure the conservative ones were having a great ole time with it!

Life and reading does not start and end with democratic underground, there is a whole bunch of information, some overlapping, on a whole lot of other places.

[Puglover]

195. Of course.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. not by me....UNignored!

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. I wanna know a lot more about this, from all sides of the issue.

I respect Cahill and Taibbi's works over the years.
More here than meets the eye.

[Cleita]

58. Me too.

Thanks for saying this.

[MADem]

144. Google is reporting everyone's POV save Taibbi's. He has not yet commented. nt

[JI7]

8. i still can't figure out what exactly the problem was

what specific differences in style was there ?

why is greenwald able to work with them but not taibbi ?

[stevenleser]

16. I think if you research Taibbi's history with The eXile, it may give some insight

This is not a guy accustomed to a corporate environment at all. Even after leaving The eXile, most of his work was freelance where he probably worked from home. I can't speak to his working situation with Rolling Stone as associate editor.

Contrast that with Greenwald who practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of the largest law firms in the world and who obviously knows how to play the corporate environment game.

[JI7]

17. i see

i thought first look was supposed to be something different and new but doesn't seem to be based on this.

[stevenleser]

27. Well, I hate to defend any of this bunch because I think all of their practices are questionable...

...but if you are going to be one of the top two folks at a major publication, usually either the Editor in Chief, or the Executive Editor, there is a certain way you have to comport yourself. At the Exile, which was based in Russia at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, Taibbi and the other folks basically had no diversity requirements, they could be mean, sexist, drunk, stoned, all of those things on the job and from all accounts they frequently were. They did things that here in the US would unquestionably get you arrested and then sued based on creating a hostile environment and other issues.

You have to take all of that into account with your demeanor if you are going to be running the place here in the US. I don't know exactly what went on but I don't think Taibbi ever had to take those things into account with his behavior and probably felt it stifling.

[adirondacker]

82. "they could be mean, sexist, drunk, stoned". Sounds an awful lot like FOX, nt

[stevenleser]

90. No, it doesnt. nt

[MADem]

20. Greenwald isn't an employee anymore. I find that telling that he and Poitras became

"independent contractors" and Omidyar wanted Taibbi to do the same.

Independent contractors have no employee protections. They pay their own social security, have to scare up their own health care, and they do their own income tax withholding. And if they go into an office, on a schedule set by the boss, and use the boss's equipment, and take direction from the boss, and are told when and where to go by the boss, they aren't very "independent" are they? What they have, is the ability to be fired on a whim with no ability to protest.

Sounds like Omidyar wants to hold all the cards, and have the ability to dump anyone who doesn't suit him. He's having his "independent contractors" drag Taibbi through the mud with this piece (not sure if Taibbi doesn't deserve it with the sexism claims, but we'll have to hear his side to know, I guess). And they did a good job--stuck the knife in subtly, there.

[Luminous Animal]

40. He never was an employee. They CHOSE to be independent contractors.

That is the meaning of "opted."

[MADem]

79. Well, Taibbi was given an option too--he just didn't "opt" to take it.

I guess when you want your paycheck, you'll do what you're told.

[Luminous Animal]

83. Where oh where did you come up with that "fact."

The only fact reported is that his status was as an employee and they tried to rescind it. You have no clue if he was offered any choice at the moment of hire.

There is an update to the article...

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[MADem]

119. You have no clue either--so stop pretending you do. I don't think I am the only one who

believed that Poitras and Greenwald were "employees" of First Look--not "independent contractors."

I doubt Greenwald left the Guardian for that kind of job insecurity--if I had to guess, I'd say the "independent" bit came after all the internal fights.

And you're quoting a guy who, per his twitter feed, is out of work. So there's that...!

He just put this gif up on his twitter feed...

[Luminous Animal]

153. Greenwald, when he signed on to the Guardian insisted that, in part, his work be reader supported

he felt that doing so would enable him to be more accountable to his audience than to the corporation. Opting (i.e. choosing) to be an independent contractor is in line with that reasoning.

And I know what Alex put on his twitter feed. Good on him for taking a stand. Good on Greenwald, Poitras, Scahill, and Cook for posting his views, not only in the body of the article, but in full at the end.

[MADem]

159. A new managing editor was hired in September, Taibbi was out in October.

Coincidence? I think not. https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordonhurd

[Tarheel_Dem]

230. Oops! That's gonna leave a mark.

[LawDeeDah]

80. I hope independents also don't have non disclosure or non disparage agreements.

I would like to see Tiabbi be free with his usage of words to explain his side of things.
Let the games begin. I have a feeling Greenwald will be coming into more 'interesting times'.

[MADem]

147. I wouldn't be surprised if Taibbi didn't care, or found a way to have a surrogate tell his story.

There are lots of ways to overcome those non-disclosure things! "He must have overheard my conversation with Omidyar! I didn't say a word outside the bubble!"

The fact that Greenwald is an "independent contractor" too--and not an employee with protections--makes him very vulnerable.

[stevenleser]

66. Yep, I knew it. See this other OP, Taibbi created a hostile environ for a female employee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025737195

You cannot do this in the US. You get away with it in Russia and Taibbi apparently behaved this way at the eXile, but you cannot behave this way in the US and that goes doubly or more if you are the boss.

[Raine1967]

100. This is looking more and more like tabloid stuff going on over at 'First Look'

What a mess.

[Octafish]

12. Speaking as an old anti-authoritarian iconoclast...

...I'd like to hear Taibbi's side, but in reading between the lines, it sounds like Taibbi didn't want to do what he was told by the suits and the suits didn't like seeing their suggestions get ignored by the talent. Push comes to shove and the guy with the $250 million will side with the suits with a nose for money. Talent, these days, one can buy.

PS: Wish I'd have seen a Help Wanted sign.

[Electric Monk]

22. re: Help Wanted

https://firstlook.org/contact/

Jobs
We are looking for talented journalists, technologists, designers and developers to join our team. If you would like to be considered for one of our open positions, please apply through our online system.

Story Ideas
To submit story ideas for The Intercept, please send to [e-mail]

[grasswire]

133. would it be appropriate to compare Taibbi to Olbermann? nt

[Blue_Tires]

15. Ah, yes...The corporate ass-covering press release...

Authored by Mr. Transparency himself...What an egotistical self-serving ratfuck scumbag...

Greenwald's circular logic of "We're so fierce and independent and anti-authoritarian that we can only hire the most fierce/independent/anti-authoritarian writers, so it's only natural that they rebel and lash out at management" insults everyone's intelligence... He might as well say his anarchist group disbanded because he tried to schedule too many meetings...



Now I at least know they're *really* scared if Greenwald is trying to get in front of the story before New York prints their next expose...He isn't fooling anyone...

[randome]

25. "He might as well say his anarchist group disbanded because he tried to schedule too many meetings."

Oh, that's good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

175. What's with all the people posting here who apparently didn't actually read the article?

Just jumped to the conclusion they wanted.

[Blue_Tires]

186. Because it's not an article, it's a press release to get their story out first

What's with all these DUers who all of a sudden can't tell the difference between legit news and pre-emptive spin??

Greenwald and the rest had a choice between standing up for their colleague and kowtowing to their big money benefactor; and we see where they made their bed, which is indefensible for any self-respecting journalist (which Greenwald never was, anyway)

[MADem]

19. Uh oh---that reads like MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY.....

How long will "The Intercept" last, I wonder? Everyone working at that joint now is an "independent contractor" and they can write what they want...but Omidyar has the final say on if it gets published. And he can kick them to the curb because they have no employee protections.

But each time a resolution seemed close, a new set of demands revitalized the dispute. On Friday, Omidyar told Taibbi that while he was free to return in his prior role, he must ultimately find someone else to run Racket on a day-to-day basis. More inflammatory from Taibbi’s perspective was Omidyar’s demand that Taibbi immediately terminate his employment agreement with First Look and become an independent contractor, a change Omidyar argued would free Taibbi of the constraints that come with being a corporate manager while diminishing his authority to act formally and legally on First Look’s behalf (early on, Greenwald, Poitras, and Scahill all opted to be independent contractors rather than First Look employees in order to maximize their freedom to speak out and act).

Over the weekend, Taibbi reached the conclusion that his relationship with Omidyar, Temple, and Ching had become irreversibly poisoned, and that no agreement would shield him and Racket from their ongoing involvement and interference. Rather than continue the negotiations, he decided to end them and walk away from the project. On Monday morning, he told Cook and Greenwald that he was leaving. The next day, after New York reported that Taibbi had been on leave, First Look announced his departure.

But Taibbi? He's not coming off well in that piece, despite attempts to mitigate. They are making him sound like an abusive harasser (but of course they can't 'confirm' that...). A real "Some people say..." hit piece! This paragraph alone makes him sound like a whacko, sexist pig...some people say, of course....

These simmering problems came to a head this month when a Racket staffer complained to senior management that Taibbi had been verbally abusive and unprofessionally hostile, and that she felt the conduct may have been motivated, at least in part, by her gender. Temple conducted an investigation, and First Look determined that while none of the alleged conduct rose to the level of legal liability, the grievance bolstered their case that Taibbi should not be the manager of Racket. Among their concerns were the staffer’s claims that Taibbi had been privately criticizing First Look managers, particularly Ching, that Taibbi’s abrasive demeanor was alienating some on his staff, and that Taibbi instructed Racket staff to resolve any grievances directly with him rather than going to upper management.

They've made him look like a right asshole in that paragraph....he's always had a contentious reputation and been very "passionate" about his interests, but at some point people are expected to grow up. He comes off looking like a petulant, sexist child in this piece.

[Blue_Tires]

29. DU better remember those four names at the top throwing Taibbi under the bus

in the name of protecting their overlord and his overhyped, aborted "media empire" which was going to completely revolutionize journalism

[MADem]

33. Don't hold your breath, and don't expect anyone to tell you of your good judgment when

you turn out to have called it correctly despite being excoriated for your opinion, here!

That's not how it works, sadly. Shoot the messenger! Yeah, that's the ticket!

I'll give your assessment a though!

[Luminous Animal]

43. Um no, they are reporting the events as they happened... I notice that you did not

include this: "None of us witnessed any of the alleged behavior on Taibbi’s part that sparked the investigation..."

[MADem]

52. Yeah--"None of us witnessed it, but that didn't stop us from gleefully reporting the accusations in

excruciating detail, speculating on that being the reason that the guy got downgraded and shoved out the door (principled departure, my ass), and that didn't stop us from publishing WITHOUT GETTING ANY COMMENT from the guy we're accusing of being a sexist shitheel who was volatile, disloyal, and fomented dissent amongst his staff!"

That's the take-away from this thing, like it or not.

I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I or anyone else said something nasty about you that started out "None of us witnessed any of the alleged behavior...." but then followed up with you being stuffed under a bus.

This is a hit piece. It might be deserved, it might not, but make no mistake--this is a crucifixion of Taibbi. And it sounds to me like it's a top down deal.

[Luminous Animal]

62. And if they hadn't reported it and some other publication had, you would have bashed

them with that.

And yes, they reported that Taibbi denies the accusations. Why do you keep ignoring that?

[MADem]

71. This is an ARTFULLY constructed piece--it purports to show "both sides" but it doesn't.

It shows one side saying "Some people say" this nasty shit about Taibbi, and it throws a very tiny amount of shade towards Omidyar--but it leaves him still looking justified, because, after all, Taibbi was disloyal, he was fomenting hate and discontent amongst his staff, he was abusive towards a woman, he was "The Bad Guy" who would not work/play well with others.

But who is MISSING from this "well rounded" piece?

Answer: Taibbi.

If you can't see that, and see that this is what is wrong with this piece, I can't help you. You're the only one who has this interpretation that it is an equal-opportunity bashing. To me, it reads like a "stoops to conquer" exercise on the part of Omidyar. "See? They can talk a little trash about me...I don't mind!!! Everyone will go with the 'take-away' that Taibbi is a miserable sexist pig who was a lousy manager and disloyal to the firm!"

[Luminous Animal]

75. You are the one who is painting Taibbi as a miserable sexist pig. That is a characterization

that the authors unequivocally reject.

[MADem]

85. Where would I get such an idea? From Greenwald, Poitras, etc., that's who.

They told us about an accusation, and then they told us that their boss (cough--but they're independent contractors who could be fired at any moment) lost confidence in Taibbi as a result of the accusation and some other horrible, awful stuff he did.

In sum, that "sexist pig" accusation is part of the reason why Taibbi is not working there anymore.

I don't think there's anything useful underneath this pile of shit. This is a hit piece--a clever one, but a hit piece nonetheless. Taibbi now has a reputation as a disloyal, scheming abusive sexist pig who got "quit before he was fired" because he was a shitty manager who couldn't work well with others --and all that is a direct result of this article.

That's the take-away. Run through this thread again--I'm not the only one with this POV. You harbor a bias towards Taibbi, or towards the whole First Look entity and all their associates--and I think you're having a crisis of cognitive dissonance, here. Taibbi is under the bus, and Omidyar, Greenwald, Poitras, et.al. shoved him there, and gave him a few good kicks so he couldn't crawl out.

[Luminous Animal]

88. Yes. They shoved him under the bus that is why they added this update.

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[MADem]

98. Where's the link? A snip out of context doesn't give us the full picture.

From what you've provided all I can say is how long do you think that guy will keep his job .... if he hasn't already been let go?

His hostility was reserved for his superiors, says this guy? So he WAS hostile, then? That's one helluvan endorsement!

And then this guy calls "John Cook" (a superior) an asshole! Wow--what a professional outfit (not).


And since this guy isn't a woman, we know he wasn't the one who got the gender-based abuse!

[Luminous Animal]

108. In my OP. He's not calling John Cook an asshole. John Cook is the Editor-in-chief of

The Intercept. He is not management of First Look.

[MADem]

169. Management of FIRST LOOK is a new guy, brought in a month before Taibbi quit.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordonhurd

Meet the gatekeeper! So much for "independent journalism."

[MADem]

113. When Taibbi speaks, we'll know. The New Yorker is calling his departure "abrupt."

His underling's twitter feed sounds like he has been fired.

[deurbano]

91. Gawker already did, so you're right.

[MADem]

123. The article asks Taibbi to respond to a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type charge.

They reported an accusation that they didn't vet, they didn't prove happened, and then they published his denial to Omidyar--not his "statement."

They didn't even talk to him for this piece. There'd be at least one quote from him if they did.

[Luminous Animal]

130. No it does not. It accurately reports that an accusation was made and

that the accusation was investigated and presented no legal liability. No LEGAL liability means that the investigation led nowhere in regards to gender discrimination. Thus the accusation had been vetted.

And, again, you are peddling speculation. Matt tweeted today that he is grieving. Perhaps he is incommunicado.

[MADem]

135. You're the only one who sees it that way. Everyone else sees it as a hit piece.

Maybe he's grieving over the death of Mayor Menino. A lot of us are.

[Luminous Animal]

136. Um no. He specifically stated he is grieving for the Racket.

[MADem]

141. Well, he should be--looks like he killed it, or his boss did!

Boy is this revealing:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/10/the-near-future-of-first-looks-next-site-racket-looks-fuzzy/

[Luminous Animal]

137. Yes. The usual gaggle sees it as a hit piece. And apparently the usual gaggle

does not understand that no legal liability means that the accusation was unfounded so no need to fire the guy to protect their asses.

[MADem]

142. That's a cheap shot, you know. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "usual gaggle" of some sort.

You might want to jump on your google--the usual gaggle is approaching critical mass.

Stop focusing on "legal liability." There is none. Damage to reputation can and often does happen with nothing more than insinuation. Your fixation is ... curious.

No need to fire the guy...so why DID they, then? He clearly didn't want to go, if he's "grieving" as you point out.

He jumped before he was pushed...or he was pushed and they said he jumped to save him some face.

[Luminous Animal]

143. Really. Where did you get fired? It's not in the article. The article clearly states he walked

away.

"He jumped before he was pushed...or he was pushed and they said he jumped to save him some face."

Ooooh! I don't know MADem... maybe he is part of a conspiracy to give cover to Omidyar. Hmm? Hmmm? Hmmmm?

[MADem]

146. I read between the lines. We'll know what the deal was when Taibbi speaks--and he hasn't, yet.

Why are you getting so pissed off? I think it's rather amusing that you are allowed to wildly speculate as to motive (No, no!! No one is being mean to Matt!!) but no one else is...?

Maybe you ought to just step back a bit and let people do a little mulling this over. There's no harm in it, and I'll bet there are a lot of people here whose speculations will bear fruit.

You can be damn sure that Omidyar isn't going to publish anything that makes HIM look horrible. After all, this IS his platform. He'll allow his scribes to make him look human, but not mendacious. They'll have to quit to trash him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

232. "Gaggle"? You mean like the Tiger Beat crowd? Could they not be considered a "usual gaggle"?

[Luminous Animal]

151. Um no,they selectively reported on The Intercept's article. They drew conclusions not

presented in the article.

[Blue_Tires]

131. "Reporting" and "Pre-emptive press release" seem a lot alike

I've done both, and I know the difference...

[Luminous Animal]

134. Of course you have.

[Blue_Tires]

138. You want my PRSA membership number?

[Luminous Animal]

139. No. I don't want to know anything about your real life.

[Blue_Tires]

140. It's cool...I just don't like my credentials being doubted...

[leftynyc]

31. I took all three of them

to back the bus over Matt's body? This thread should be interesting.

[MADem]

34. There are FOUR "independent contractors" who wrote this (hit) piece.

Mister Omidyar, no doubt, was pulling the strings. But his name isn't on the byline...so that's five bus drivers, if you count him!

You wanna get paid, you'll do what I tell ya to do!!

[Luminous Animal]

45. What makes you think that John Cook is an independent contractor?

[MADem]

48. Because everyone else is--you think he's not?

He's the special employee, who actually has employee protections, ya think?

If he is an employee, he's probably the hit-man overseer that made sure the article was written to Omidyar's specifications!

This is clearly an ass-covering piece. The only question is, how much of it was coerced and molded?

[Luminous Animal]

53. Who is everyone else?

[MADem]

65. Did you read the article?

But each time a resolution seemed close, a new set of demands revitalized the dispute. On Friday, Omidyar told Taibbi that while he was free to return in his prior role, he must ultimately find someone else to run Racket on a day-to-day basis. More inflammatory from Taibbi’s perspective was Omidyar’s demand that Taibbi immediately terminate his employment agreement with First Look and become an independent contractor, a change Omidyar argued would free Taibbi of the constraints that come with being a corporate manager while diminishing his authority to act formally and legally on First Look’s behalf (early on, Greenwald, Poitras, and Scahill all opted to be independent contractors rather than First Look employees in order to maximize their freedom to speak out and act).

It's not "better" to be an independent contractor--you have zero employee protections, you have to pay your own taxes, you have no bundled health care or paid vacation days, and you can be fired with a flick of a finger. No unemployment insurance, either. Now, what's said here--that all those independent contractors have... diminshed authority to act formally and legally... in short, they're just piecework worker bees.

Hmmm.

[Luminous Animal]

84. There are a lot more than 3 people working for First Look.

[MADem]

92. These are the people that the fans know, though. The first two, especially.

The libertarian left and the anti-government right, the CATO crowd, know Greenwald and Poitras well. They read what they put out. They are the best water carriers on the payroll to carry a discrediting message about Taibbi, because they have a wide reach.

Taibbi may have misunderstood, or he may have been too much of an agitator for Omidyar's tastes--but in any event, he's being trashed in this article. He comes off like the shithead they wanted gone, a jerk, a sexist pig (just in time to coincide with that catcalling video), a loose and disloyal cannon who was screwing up the works, and that image was carefully crafted and well developed in this article.

[Luminous Animal]

96. From my point of view, it is Omidyar who comes off as a shit head and I stated that

in my 2nd or 3rd post.

It looks like my view is led some credence by the update appended to the article.

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[MADem]

109. Looks like he is out of work...

https://twitter.com/pareene/status/527941803362635776

my Halloween costume is "executive editor of an exciting new media project"

Reply to @pareene
J. Edgar Hitler ?@onekade 15m15 minutes ago
@pareene dude did you quit
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites


Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Suzanne Munshower ?@expatina 14m14 minutes ago
@pareene Would that be pajamas, then?

Much more at link.

[leftynyc]

54. Matt was the only one

I had any respect for in the first place. I hope Rolling Stone will offer to take him back - I loved his stuff there.

[MADem]

56. Did he burn bridges on the way out of there? I don't remember. nt

[leftynyc]

59. I don't remember but

that really doesn't sound like him...I'll look further when I get home.

[MADem]

68. Here--no need, I shouldn't have been lazy, it was an easy find.

It seems like they parted on very good terms--this seems sincere.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/thank-you-rolling-stone-20140220

[leftynyc]

158. He was smart

My dad always taught me to never burn bridges with employers. It was excellent advice that has served me well. Hopefully he'll go back (if that's what he wants) and continue his great writing.

[MADem]

160. I learned from a lot of smart people to be nice to folks on the way up,

because you'll meet them again on the way down!

[leftynyc]

167. Excellent turn of phrase

I'm looking forward to reading Matt's view on this kerfuffle. He may not want to acknowledge that but when people are starting a whispering campaign about him being a sexual harasser, I think he may feel he needs to.

[MADem]

168. A lot of people are weighing in on this matter-- reporters on twitter, plus there are a lot

of articles making note of it. This isn't a simple, clean evolution--there was a lot of blood on the sand, I think.

[leftynyc]

170. I saw some of the twitter stuff

on Little Green Footballs (a site I visit more and more these days). I'm not on twitter myself - or facebook for that matter but many there are and it seems that site has a tighter grip on reality than most. Given the fanfare when they hired Matt, I'm thinking it had to have gotten pretty bloody not only for him to walk away but for them to immediately issue an essay including an accusation about sexual harassment (that was a disgusting thing to do). I'll honestly never understand the worship of Greenwald around here.

[randome]

171. "I'll honestly never understand the worship of Greenwald around here."

In the absence of firebrand heroes, people will take what they can get.

That's why I've been afraid we'll end up with the type of demagogue we have always railed against. The environment is conducive to that right now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[leftynyc]

173. Well, that's a depressing thought

I'm guessing they haven't noticed that Greenwald has never offered any solutions to anything. All he does is bitch and complain about the US (and throws Israel in there for good measure) and how we're the source of all evil. I find him a tiresome little slug of a man. To each their own, I guess.

[MADem]

179. It does seem like a death match over there--I think the Racket franchise might be in trouble.

I get the feeling that the concept of a bunch of independent journalists running around doing "edgy" journalism sounded better as an idea than it did in practice. Omidyar is checking invoices, looking at issues of productivity, and questioning direction...that hardly sounds like a "hands off" approach to me. And he just hired a guy to be "Managing Editor" at First Look who used to work at ... AOL!

[leftynyc]

180. That's hilarious

Matt is going to be glad he got out when he did. Sounds like quite the clusterfuck is in the cards. Even billionaires don't like throwing money down the sewer.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Really? You took that as a hit piece? Over and over again

the authors' emphasized Omidyar's and management's meddling. They wrote about their and Taibbi's dissatisfaction, the months of negotiations to reach an agreement to be able to work freely.

The article makes it clear that management was trying to cut Matt off at the knees. His principled walk out makes him look far better than Omidyar.

[MADem]

49. The article calls Matt an abusive, sexist angry flake who was regarded as too volatile to manage the

publication that was supposed to be "his." The article makes it clear that Omidyar wanted to downgrade him to a contractor position so he couldn't and wouldn't have any management responsibiities. The article makes it clear--without any rebuttal from Matt--that he didn't work or play well with others.

[Luminous Animal]

51. No the article does not CALL Matt anything. They are REPORTING the accusations.

They then REPORT that the investigation led to a finding of no legal liability. Then they REPORT that "None of us witnessed any of the alleged behavior on Taibbi’s part that sparked the investigation..."

And yes, there is a rebuttal from Matt: "Taibbi was adamant that the complaint had no merit, and rejected any demotion or change in his responsibilities."

[MADem]

77. No--they are CALLING him those things. How can they "report" what they haven't seen?

"Some people say...." journalism is a low blow on a good day. They sure "reported" the accusations and they sure "reported" how Omidyar wanted him downgraded and stripped of his authority as a consequence of them.

That is NOT a rebuttal from Matt that you cited--that's Omidyar telling his scribes what Taibbi supposedly said to HIM. Put another way, that's not Matt talking to the reporters, that's Matt YELLING at Omidyar, and Omidyar telling his stenographers what Matt said, according to Omidyar, anyway--in essence, what to write about their former fair-haired boy. And those "independent contractors" did it.

There's no reportage FROM Matt in that story at all. It's all ABOUT him, through the eyes of others. And it is an unflattering portrait.

That is obvious to anyone reading this article without a heavy veil of bias. Step back, and read it again--this does Taibbi NO favors--it's a kick in the ass on the way out the door.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Update from The Intercept

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[MADem]

121. You keep posting that--that guy is outta work, per his twitter feed. nt

[Luminous Animal]

125. You expected otherwise? With Matt gone, the entire division was at risk of closure.

Alex probably thought adding his view point was worth it.

[MADem]

132. Maybe Salon will take HIM back...or Wonkette... nt

[SidDithers]

73. Well, there's the billionaire's side of the story...nt

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

86. Yes. From the article

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[zappaman]

95. GG likes being top dog so MT goes under the bus!

[Luminous Animal]

97. From the article (another person who did not read it.)

Statement from Racket executive editor Alex Pareene:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

[zappaman]

102. Read it.

AP is not GG.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Greenwald, et. al., appended it to the article THEY had written...

obviously they find value in it because they could have chosen not to.

[UTUSN]

105. Bwah-hah when a Patron buys stuff, he expects his knickknacks to sit prettily on the shelf!1

Waiting for the rest of the meltdowns:

[MADem]

163. You got it in one, I think.

And when they don't "sit pretty" he hires an enforcer...er, manager...to make sure they do!!!!



https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordonhurd

[navarth]

112. sadly, this thread has become badly polluted

but I will continue to enjoy the articles of Taibbi and Greenwald wherever they are.

[Luminous Animal]

118. Has it ever! And yes, I will continue to read them as well.

[Maedhros]

155. I am seeing only 8 posts.

Looks like there have been at least 158 made.

I am effectively avoiding the pollution!

Love the ignore feature.

[MADem]

164. No, it hasn't. Google Taibbi's name and do some reading.

What's being said in this thread is being reported by news outlets everywhere. This was not a happy departure by Taibbi, and there's trouble in FIRST LOOK paradise.

Unless the truth, as opposed to fantasy, is "pollution" of some sort? FIRST LOOK was all about transparency--they're being slightly less than transparent in their reasoning for MT's departure, while affecting a transparent-like mood.

There's way more here than they're saying. Time will out it all.

[navarth]

177. Yes, it has. Don't tell me what to do.

I don't need to do any more reading about Taibbi to know this thread is polluted.

I've seen, heard and read Taibbi, Schahill and Greenwald enough to know what I think of them. I will continue to read them when and where I choose.

Pollution.

[MADem]

178. No, it hasn't--and no one is telling you to not read the writers you have listed. Not one person.

But nice victimization effort, there!

I urge you to google Taibbi's name because this issue is being discussed at every news outlet.

But don't, if you don't want to learn more--I certainly can't MAKE you. Nor would I WANT to.

I was under the mistaken impression that you were interested in the facts surrounding this issue, and there's a ton of new material, published in the last day or so, out there.

But hey, never mind!

[navarth]

181. 'victimization effort'

That's it, I was trying to play the victim.

And I don't want to learn more.

I'm not interested in the facts.

In my opinion this thread is polluted. No point in arguing about that.

[MADem]

200. You indicated that you were being constrained from accomplishing an action, when that was not

the case, so if the shoe fits...

And if you don't want to learn more, don't.

Turns out, the "polluters" were correct--even the NYT says as much in their edition this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/business/media/at-first-look-media-personalities-prove-tough-to-manage.html?_r=0

...The Racket, a so-far-unpublished digital magazine Mr. Taibbi was brought in to create, was envisioned as a modern version of Spy magazine, whose blend of satire and reporting skewered the establishment in the 1980s and 1990s. But it has so far been subject to the kind of muckraking it aspired to. As for its fate — and those of its dozen or so employees — it’s unlikely to continue as Mr. Taibbi envisioned it, people inside First Look say, though there is a desire to keep the publication in some form. Morale inside the company was damaged, these people said, and there is concern over retaining and hiring staff. Mr. Taibbi, meanwhile, has a feature article in the next issue of Rolling Stone, the magazine said on Friday. Representatives of First Look and Mr. Taibbi declined to comment.

....Mr. Omidyar’s concerns about the atmosphere at First Look can perhaps be guessed from a job description for a publisher to oversee both The Racket and The Intercept. The posting was emailed to prospective candidates in recent weeks and obtained by The New York Times. Requirements included “interacts civilly,” “ego in check: it’s about the team, not about me” and “you care more about the company’s success than about your title or status.” It also specified reacting “calmly to criticism and negative feedback.”...

The knives were out at Omidyar's shop.

[Blue_Tires]

116. So do we ever hear Taibbi's side?

Or will we have to wait for Poitras' insider documentary to premiere at Cannes?

[LawDeeDah]

120. I'm sure we will. This article was a preemptive strike. The first blow in the battle.

I don't expect someone like Taibbi to take this sitting down.

[LawDeeDah]

148. From Pando:

http://pando.com/2014/10/30/first-look-staffers-finally-admit-omidyar-massively-interfered-with-editorial-say-taibbi-accused-of-sexist-bullying/

First Look staffers finally admit Omidyar massively interfered with editorial, say Taibbi accused of sexist bullying
By Paul Carr
On October 30, 2014

-------------
In the post, the First Look staffers finally admit what Pando has been reporting for months: That Omidyar exercised a ridiculous level of editorial control over First Look. That control included vetoing editorial hiring and firing and even at one stage approving reporters’ taxi expenses.
-------------
At the same time, Glenn Greenwald, John Cook, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill claim that they have managed to find a way to insulate themselves from that interference…

The Intercept has arrived at the point where it can function effectively: with full editorial freedom and an ample budget. But First Look and Taibbi failed to reach a similar mutual understanding.

------------
(comment section):
raul_imbroglio 3 hours ago

They say Pierre didn't interfere with editorial, but when you're controlling who is hired and fired, do you really need to? Do you need to tell reporters what to write when you can pre-screen for toadiness factor? Do you need to tell reporters what to report on when you're holding a veto over something as basic as their ability to get somewhere and do the reporting? What a mess.

And I see a lot of "oh how courageous! This took real balls!" etc in response to Intercept posting this. Is it really courageous to soft-pedal things that have already been resolved, especially when doing so -- by total coincidence! -- bolsters the appearance of credibility given to the part where you throw Taibbi under the bus and spin the wheels until he's a pink mist?

[Cha]

156. "These simmering problems came to a head this month when a Racket staffer complained

to senior management that Taibbi had been verbally abusive and unprofessionally hostile, and that she felt the conduct may have been motivated, at least in part, by her gender."

Who exactly has the Racket going on?

Per the comment..

"They say Pierre didn't interfere with editorial, but when you're controlling who is hired and fired, do you really need to? Do you need to tell reporters what to write when you can pre-screen for toadiness factor? Do you need to tell reporters what to report on when you're holding a veto over something as basic as their ability to get somewhere and do the reporting? What a mess."

But, he has LOTS of $$$$$$$$$$

Thank you for the link, LawDeeDah

[Cha]

157. "Matt Taibbi Is Out at First Look Media and That’s a Good Thing (Updated x2)"

snip//

"Update 2 10.30.14: Alex Pareene, whom Taibbi brought in as his executive editor, is indirectly pissing all over the crew of The Intercept for pissing all over his former colleague. More than that, he’s eviscerating Pierre Omidyar. All of it comes by way of an official response to the Intercept piece:

Working with Matt Taibbi was one of the best experiences of my career and I’d be thrilled to have the opportunity to do so again. From my perspective, the management of First Look Media repeatedly took incidents that should’ve been minor hiccups of the sort experienced at any media company or startup and, through incompetence, escalated them into full-blown crises. Having worked closely with Matt since he hired me, I witnessed no behavior on his part that I would characterize as “abusive,” and his hostility was reserved for his superiors, not his subordinates. He certainly was no more “combative” than any number of other editors I’ve worked with, including Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook. I also categorically reject the allegation that there was a gendered component to his managerial issues. We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up. I regret that the world won’t get a chance to see Matt Taibbi’s Racket.

Adding: You’ve gotta love that this is the first interesting story The Intercept has published.

Bottom line: First Look Media is a fucking disaster. But it’s admittedly kind of fun to watch this absurd soap opera. Also, if I were Taibbi I’d have hired a lawyer by now to take on what’s being written about him. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t — but it’s pretty defamatory.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/matt-taibbi-first-look-media-thats-good-thing/

Oh, and..

The 4 Questions Glenn Greenwald and Pierre Omidyar Still Haven’t Answered

snip//

Pando Daily writers Paul Carr, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine have asked Greenwald to state whether he will hold Omidyar to the same standards he holds everyone else to, particularly given the fact his new boss supported going after journalists who leak documents from private companies. Back in 2009, Omidyar tweeted this after TechCrunch published leaked documents from Twitter:





To summarize, here are the questions Omidyar and Greenwald have yet to answer:

1. Will Greenwald accept that there’s a conflict of interest in entering into a business partnership with Omidyar whose existing business is in an alleged partnership with the NSA?

2. If so, will Greenwald release any and all documents pertaining to PayPal’s collaboration with the NSA, if they do indeed exist?

3. Are there any contractual agreements with Omidyar about the release of the remaining NSA files and NewCo? Will Omidyar and Greenwald publish them for the public to see?

4. Will Greenwald pledge to cover any potentially corrupt Omidyar’s business practices and hold him and his NSA collaborating business to the same standards he has everyone else?

Greenwald is an expert at applying ludicrously high standards of transparency and accountability to anyone he chooses to focus his laser-like attentions on. When it comes to himself, not so much evidently.


"Greenwald has repeatedly mocked criticisms aimed at his new organization’s apparent conflicts of interest, stating that all journalists make money and all media organizations have wealthy owners. This is true, but it’s also a lawyerly trick to deflect attention away from himself and not answer any questions"

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/why-wikileaks-doesn/

[MADem]

165. Be funny as hell if Snowden turned out to be an NSA 'asset,' along with Greenwald.

I mean, really--Greenwald's and Poitras's boss is, and that's just one degree of separation. Or maybe they're useful tools...? We'll probably be long gone before that mystery is solved~!

I can't figure out what the end game would be, but I don't write screenplays for Hollywood spy thriller films, either!

[grasswire]

203. Daily Banter is not a legitimate source.

Merely a gossip sheet.

So stop citing it.

[LawDeeDah]

209. ''So stop citing it!'' My, how anti-authoritarian.

...

[Cha]

211. I'll cite it all I damn well please, mr authoritarian.. I trust that source a hellava lot more

than that weasely authoritarian GG.

[Warpy]

152. Good. It struck me as a bad fit

because Taibbi has really hit his stride as an investigational reporter. Being the administrator over other people who are doing the work that he's so good at would have been a source of unbearable frustration, I think.

I do hope "Racket" takes off and lives up to its name, exposing all the racketeers in this country and shaming the DOJ for letting them stay in business.

I also hope that Taibbi continues to do what he does best, write the stories about them.

[Vinca]

172. I've been routinely checking the "First Look" site for as long as it has been up.

I think the only thing they need blame is themselves. In my opinion, Taibbi has wasted valuable time dealing with them. There's an election to cover and I want to read Matt's take on it. Let's hope he returns to RS.

[Blue_Tires]

176. First Look staffers finally admit Omidyar massively interfered with editorial

First Look staffers finally admit Omidyar massively interfered with editorial, say Taibbi accused of sexist bullying


Well this is absolutely remarkable. Just a few days after NY Magazine reported that Matt Taibbi was on the way out of Pierre Omidyar’s First Look Media, Taibbi’s former colleagues have published what they claim is the inside story on his departure.

In the post, the First Look staffers finally admit what Pando has been reporting for months: That Omidyar exercised a ridiculous level of editorial control over First Look. That control included vetoing editorial hiring and firing and even at one stage approving reporters’ taxi expenses.

At the same time, Glenn Greenwald, John Cook, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill claim that they have managed to find a way to insulate themselves from that interference…


The Intercept has arrived at the point where it can function effectively: with full editorial freedom and an ample budget. But First Look and Taibbi failed to reach a similar mutual understanding.

They also claim that their former colleague’s departure was in part prompted by Taibbi’s sexist bullying of another employee…


These simmering problems came to a head this month when a Racket staffer complained to senior management that Taibbi had been verbally abusive and unprofessionally hostile, and that she felt the conduct may have been motivated, at least in part, by her gender.

The whole post is absolutely staggering. We’re still digging into exactly what the hell is going on at First Look today and will have much more to say later today. Stay tuned.

http://pando.com/2014/10/30/first-look-staffers-finally-admit-omidyar-massively-interfered-with-editorial-say-taibbi-accused-of-sexist-bullying/

[randome]

182. Next up: Edward Snowden, editor-in-chief!

Omidyar can claim 'communication problems' when Snowden fails to show up for staff meetings.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Tires]

184. Snowden can just Skype for staff meetings like Greenwald does

[Hissyspit]

198. Pando is a mess itself.

Please...

[grasswire]

204. what the hell is Pando?

...another gossip sheet? The editorial director cites as his previous experience the "founder and editor in chief of NSFWCORP".

What the hell?

[Zorra]

183. Hire free spirited, fearless, outspoken truthtellers, and then try to control what they say and do.

Duh.

Capitalism: Proof that you can't fix stupid.

[Blue_Tires]

185. Taibbi returns to Rolling Stone, promises "big story" in next issue

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/matt-taibbi-returns-to-rolling-stone

Wow...How could Taibbi have a big story ready for RS the day after leaving FLM unless he'd already "left" a bit sooner?

[MADem]

192. The new "managing editor" came onboard in September.

I think MT was taking a few weeks off this month--probably working up that very story.

[Blue_Tires]

188. The Giant, Ridiculous Soap Opera That Is Matt Taibbi’s Departure from First Look Media

Part of what we do here is write about the media and there’s nothing more inside baseball than writing about the media. There are more jokes than I can count that involve journalists breathlessly detailing the comings and goings of other journalists as if any of it really matters, because the truth is we’re an arrogant bunch who believe our business is so damn fascinating that others should not only be required to know about it but will actually enjoy the experience. I thought about this a lot yesterday as everyone here, myself included, freaked out at the news that Glenn Greenwald and the rest of the Intercept all-stars were effectively throwing Matt Taibbi under the bus then backing over him a few times.

There are admittedly some soap opera-like twists and turns to the story that almost anyone can appreciate, though. At least I think. In addition to the undeniable fact that what happened yesterday makes it look like First Look Media — which you’ll remember was supposed to be this new, non-hierarchical model of utopian journalism — is a fucking mess inside and out, it’s really something to see an ostensible news operation issue what’s basically a press release trashing a former colleague (and doing it under the guise of simply being transparent). The fact that this press release also steps right up to the precipice of insulting the founder of First Look and the man holding the purse strings, Pierre Omidyar, while being careful not to cross that line is also noteworthy. What the Intercept crew did may have called out Omidyar a little, but not enough to get them in any kind of real trouble. In fact, by going only as far as they did, Greenwald & Co. get to shore up their independent bona fides while not actually putting their jobs in any kind of jeopardy.

The same, of course, can’t be said for Alex Pareene, who in defending his friend and former coworker from the Intercept attack just came right out and went full scorched earth on First Look, saying that its management “stepped in to fuck things up” just as they were coming to a solution to all this nonsense involving Taibbi. Pareene by the way disputes most of the allegations made by The Intercept regarding Matt Taibbi’s supposedly “abrasive” dealings with his staff, up to and including the publication’s potentially actionable claim that Taibbi worked over one of his underlings because she was a woman. Pareene, probably understandably at this point, is either so frustrated or so over it all that he’s willing to torch his bridges at First Look. If I were him I’d position myself with Taibbi wherever he goes next, because right now that’s a hell of a better connection to have than being attached to First Look, which feels more than ever like a plane going down.

That First Look is having these kinds of problems shouldn’t surprise anyone. From the very beginning its model was complete pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. You can’t reinvent decades of journalistic process just because it sounds good to say it out loud and it makes you feel like you’re sticking your thumb in the eye of the establishment when you do. You also can’t have an organization that has no actual leaders, where everyone is essentially at the same level. That’s a wonderfully Garden-of-Eden-like fantasy but that’s about all it is. And again, anyone who believed that Omidyar wasn’t going to exert control and begin moving the goalposts once it became apparent that, as Bob Cesca put it yesterday on the podcast I do with him, he couldn’t herd the cats he’d brought in, that person is completely oblivious to reality...

Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/giant-ridiculous-soap-opera-matt-taibbis-departure-first-look-media/#ptcW02VvqofLyR3H.99


(I need to do a victory lap somewhere)

[MADem]

193. Pareene came from SALON by way of Wonkette...maybe he can get back there?

It wasn't such a bad gig, and at least there was work to do.

[grasswire]

205. come on..........Daily Banter???

This is ridiculous.

Are you going to present something useful? Or just the hallucinations of gossipers?

[Blue_Tires]

189. Slugfest Over Taibbi Exodus From First Look Fails to Address Editorial Meddling Doubts

As reader Christopher put it, this got ugly fast.

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and John Cook issued a joint “inside story” on why Matt Taibbi left First Look. Let us note that it is pretty much unheard for journalists to report on personnel matters at their own employer, particularly so rapidly after a story breaks. The reason for the haste, and the focus on l’affaire Taibbi, appears to be to get out in front of an article coming out in New York Magazine about their patron, Pierre Omidyar.

The real issue, as we discussed in our earlier post, is whether this account supports the claim made in Omidyar’s press release about Taibbi’s departure: that it has nothing to do with editorial independence. As we’ll discuss, this story does not lay that issue to rest; in fact, it attempts to draw a bright shiny line between “corporate” matters like overall direction, editorial philosophy, mix of stories, as well as routine matters like expense controls, and “editorial freedom”. The distinctions aren’t that tidy. The degree of retrading of Taibbi’s deal for The Racket, his publication, and ongoing pressure to keep refocusing his the initiative looks like bad faith. And one reads between the lines that Omidyar might have cooled on Taibbi’s plans to foray out of satire into more costly and more disruptive investigative reporting.

The article attempts, not exactly convincingly, to depict the row as a result of a culture clash between a controlling billionaire (read boss from hell) and a writer used to more free rein. The Intercept writers and editors say they also chafed from the interference, including what both fledging publications took to be a three month hiring freeze after Omidyar scaled back his ambitions for the venture. However, the Intercept team managed to work out an accommodation with their billionaire backer.

The scurrilous part of this account is that Taibbi allegedly blew up at a female staffer, who then complained to management, and suggested that his action might be sexist. That led to an internal investigation. You have to love the “throw him under the bus” formulation:

Let’s translate: “Did not rise to the level of legal liability” means “the staffer had no case”. A deep pockets organization, which is normally a plum litigation target, didn’t even bother hiring an outside law firm. But notice also she accuses Taibbi of bad-mouthing upper management, making staff unhappy, and telling his direct reports to “resolve any grievances directly with him”. Um, in a normal hierarchical structure, you do go to your manager first with complaints. It’s only when you can’t get them remedied that you escalate.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/slugfest-taibbi-exodus-first-look-fails-address-editorial-meddling-doubts.html

[Blue_Tires]

190. Crawling from the wreckage: Looks like Pierre Omidyar drove his fancy $250 million blog empire into

Crawling from the wreckage: Looks like Pierre Omidyar drove his fancy $250 million blog empire into a ditch


hit just got real over at The Intercept, the one fancy-schmancy blog that eBay founder Pierre Omidyar managed to get off the ground after much fanfare and hoohah and $250 million cash-waving-about.

As the kids say, “pass the popcorn,” because a key attraction left in a huff, Intercept headliners are indulging in an airing of grievances, and the whole thing is turning into what my grandmother would call “a good old fashioned country clusterfuck.”

If you’re into the whole inside-baseball aspect on Intertube new-sites and blogs and whatever the hell The Daily Caller is supposed to be, you are probably aware that First Look Media’s marquee hire Matt Taibbi has taken leave of the company before the first pixel of the his web-zine — called Racket – launched. How awkward and curious and intriguing.

Let’s dig in, and for musical accompaniment might I suggest: ‘Take this Job and Shove It‘ by Johnny Paycheck, ‘Free Bird‘ by Lynyrd Skynyrd, and ‘Welcome to Planet Motherfucker‘ by White Zombie.

Cool. Now for the details.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/crawling-from-the-wreckage-looks-like-pierre-omidyar-drove-his-fancy-250-million-blog-empire-into-a-ditch/#.VFLeFi7b7hY.twitter

[MADem]

194. Holy SHIT, indeed--I guess the polluters were right.

This afternoon the founding hires at First Look — Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill, along with editor-in-chief John Cook — used The Intercept to self-cover the story in an oddly passive-aggressive way that laid out the rationale for FLM’s decision along with some serious “Shit is fucked up and bullshit around here but we don’t want to blow this sweet high-paying gig” subtext.

Oh hell, it wasn’t even subtext — they all but admitted that Omidyar promised them unicorns and then delivered donkeys painted like zebras just like the ones you get your picture taken with in Tijuana.

...So now Omidyar has The Intercept – whose traffic is nothing to write home about — and maybe no Racket (except whichever one Omidyar is personally running), and a whole lot of dirty laundry being aired.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/crawling-from-the-wreckage-looks-like-pierre-omidyar-drove-his-fancy-250-million-blog-empire-into-a-ditch/#.VFLeFi7b7hY.twitter

[Hissyspit]

197. Hit piece.

[MADem]

199. Absolutely--that's what most of the "polluters" have been saying.

That this is an agenda-laden article to try to mitigate damage to Omidyar and trash Taibbi on his way out the door (to weaken his account, when he tells it, no doubt) when the story broke in other outlets....

Omidyar has a lot of money. He can afford to pay for the most influential water carriers. At what price to their integrity, though?

[grasswire]

206. there seem to be quite a few hit pieces out there right now.

It's quite revealing of the gossipers.

[MADem]

210. And there are a few articles calling out this Greenwald et. al. opus as a hit piece.

This one pretty much calls out EVERYONE.

http://pando.com/2014/11/02/everybody-sucks-except-matt-taibbi/

[Hissyspit]

212. Pando has been posting nothing but hit pieces about First Look for quite a while.

They really don't have much to stand on.

[MADem]

215. Pando's hitting everyone in that article, though. nt

[Hissyspit]

218. People who live in glass houses...

http://valleywag.gawker.com/pando-abruptly-fired-two-high-profile-staffers-without-1595758189

All the attack responses to this post are from Pando. Pretty weak, petty and hypocritical coming from them.

[MADem]

221. Well, who lived in a bigger "glass house" than Matt Taibbi?

It's astounding that he was able to overcome some of the childish and reprehensible shit he did while he was running the eXileD to find work at Rolling Stone (which is, like it or not, a very CORPORATE enterprise).

I mean, really--check this out: http://exiledonline.com/feature-new-york-times-hack-eats-horse-sperm-pie/

And I doubt this kind of shenanigans would go over too well in the current climate here at DU, yet many people who cheer Taibbi seem unaware of this misogynistic conduct and attitude:

http://open.salon.com/blog/sarah_j/2010/03/01/misogyny_in_exile

[Blue_Tires]

213. And now the REAL story comes out...

Every September, for a siren-snarled week, much of midtown Manhattan surrenders to a pair of occupying powers: the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative. The U.N.’s annual General Assembly brings in the foreign excellencies and tin-pot dictators, but it’s Bill Clinton’s event that attracts the billionaires. This year’s edition, co-sponsored by, among others, a Greek shipping magnate’s wife and a Ukrainian oligarch, took place inside the barricaded Times Square Sheraton, where the Clintons made evangelical “calls to action” on issues like water scarcity and women’s empowerment.

One evening, in conjunction with CGI, Pierre Omidyar threw a reception across the street. Omidyar, the programmer who created eBay, is one of America’s richest men, a 47-year-old philanthropist intent on giving away the fortune he made when he was 31. He is on collegial terms with the Clintons and has been a partner in their charity work. His guests, sipping wine inside a vaulted glass atrium, represented foundations and banks, governments and NGOs, tech start-ups and McKinsey. Omidyar’s foundation had just unveiled a $200 million Global Innovation Fund, established in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development. The announcement was timed to coincide with President Obama’s speech to the conference that afternoon on nurturing civil society.

Omidyar was late to the party, however — he’d spent much of his day hatching plans with some of Obama’s most uncivil opponents. Down in the Flatiron District, he has been building a ­digital-media organization dedicated to a scorching brand of “fearless, adversarial journalism.” Its prime target is the U.S. intelligence apparatus, and its marquee voice is Glenn Greenwald, the columnist who shared a Pulitzer Prize this year with documentarian Laura Poitras and others for obtaining and publishing Edward Snowden’s leaks about NSA surveillance. Since that story broke, Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras have become heroes of a crypto-insurgency. More quietly, Omidyar has become the movement’s prime benefactor, financing an operation to disseminate government secrets.

Earlier this year, Greenwald, Poitras, and a third comrade in arms — former Nation writer Jeremy Scahill — launched a website called the Intercept. It is meant to be the prototype for a fleet of publications funded by Omidyar’s flagship company, First Look Media, to which Omidyar has initially committed $250 million. “We have the luxury of doing something different because we have this kind of infinite-resource backer,” Greenwald told me on the phone from Brazil, where he is based. “We’re thinking about how to do journalism structurally differently.” At the time of Omidyar’s visit, a second site, Racket, was also revving up for its launch. Headed by the polemical magazine writer Matt Taibbi, it was going to offer scabrous satire of the financial industry and politics.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/pierre-omidyar-first-look-media.html


http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/i-read-the-new-york-magazine-omidyar-article-so-you-dont-have-to/

[Blue_Tires]

214. Everybody sucks, except Matt Taibbi

In the days since Matt Taibbi quit Pierre Omidyar’s quarter billion dollar media startup, two things have become clear.

The first is that Taibbi’s former colleagues at First Look are determined to smear him as a bullying mismanager who stormed out after failing to find a way to secure editorial independence from Omidyar. The implication, of course, being that those left behind are the opposite: People-persons who have succeeded in carving out a Passport To Pimlico style independent dukedom inside Omidyar’s empire. Lest Taibbi feel moved to rebut those claims, Glenn Greenwald, John Cook and the rest of the Left Behind were careful to throw in a few hints about gendered harassment which… well… they didn’t witness (had they done, they would of course have blown the whistle!)… but one never knows, does one?

The second thing that has become clear this week is that, right up until the end, Matt Taibbi lied to me (and, by extension, to you) about the alarming extent to which Omidyar was attempting to interfere in editorial operations at First Look. Worse, Taibbi demanded his lies remain off the record in the hope that he could create a false narrative around First Look without leaving any of his own fingerprints.

How you respond to my telling you about Taibbi’s off the record lies will depend on your understanding of the role of journalists, and to whom they owe their primary loyalty: Sources or readers. But let’s table that Rorschach test for a minute while we recall the history of Taibbi and First Look.

When Taibbi was first hired by billionaire Pierre Omidyar to launch a new “publication focusing on financial and political corruption,” many of us were cynical that Omidyar would be able to sit back as his employee ripped apart the very same Wall Street that had made the eBay founder so wealthy. Pando’s Mark Ames, in particular, has written extensively about Omidyar’s ties to the US government, his company’s private police force, and his involvement in influencing overseas elections. Was this really the natural employer of a journalist who made his name exposing oligarchs?

For his part, Omidyar insisted that First Look had “structured both our flagship organization and our growing network of digital magazines to provide our journalists with the kind of autonomy that is too often undermined by the demands of advertisers and investors.” But the smell of rat lingered, growing especially stenchy in July when Omidyar issued a press release recasting Taibbi’s forthcoming publication as a “digital magazine with a satirical approach to American politics and culture.”

As I wrote here on Pando, the disappearance of the words “financial corruption” from the magazine’s pitch was troubling given Omidyar’s background. Also troubling was the fact that it was Omidyar, not Taibbi or any of the other journalists at First Look, who was describing the company’s editorial priorities.

http://pando.com/2014/11/02/everybody-sucks-except-matt-taibbi/

[Hissyspit]

219. Pando especially sucks:

http://valleywag.gawker.com/pando-abruptly-fired-two-high-profile-staffers-without-1595758189

Fired David Sirota, for crissakes.

[Blue_Tires]

220. And Greenwald gave them a lot of shit for it...

so turnabout is fair play, as far as I'm concerned...

[Hissyspit]

222. It's not turnabout.

[Blue_Tires]

227. Of course, because Taibbi isn't the real story here

the real story is how much influence and input Pierre has over his supposedly "independent" journalists, which is a direct refutation of the myth Greenwald has been bullshitting us with for the past year...

[MADem]

231. BullsEYE. That's it, exactly. And that's the Big Story. nt

[Blue_Tires]

216. Does anybody still want to believe Glenn Greenwald is still some kind of renegade outsider?

Greenwald says that he and Omidyar plan to finally meet later this month, when they will appear at a very different sort of gathering: an invite-only event called Newsgeist, co-sponsored by Google and the Knight Foundation. Billed as an “unconference,” it has no agenda other than “reimagining the future of the news.” Greenwald told me “top editors, executives, moguls, and founders” are expected to attend, including Dean Baquet of the New York Times. I asked the organizer from Google about other attendees and speakers, but he said he could disclose no further details, to “protect the privacy and security of our invited guests.” It seems that the Newsgeist is very hush-hush.

Our hero, ladies and gentlemen -- Rubbing elbows with billionaires, business leaders and industry brass in a closed-door meeting that isn't a meeting...So much for the people's right to know from Mr. Transparency...

[MADem]

223. Anybody who really got suspicious would wonder if he's some kind of ... well ... asset.

I mean, Omidyar is all over the place with his fingers in all sorts of pies. It doesn't make sense, really, their alliance--Omidyar has never been a "hands off" kind of guy and he has some plain biases.

Greenwald and Omidyar could be playing a game we know nothing about.

[Hissyspit]

224. Or not.

[MADem]

225. Well, he's locked in a marriage of commerce with a hyper-controlling boss who

has just hired an authoritarian "managing editor for First Look" to oversee all the troublemakers and he's carrying his big boss's water for him by being lead byline on that "Under the Bus" article.

He's not coming off as an independent voice, no matter how much he claims to be one.

And unless Taibbi gets hit by a trolley car, he's going to write an article for Rolling Stone doing some 'splaining like Clarissa, and then we'll have heard his side of the story. I don't think First Look is going to look too good when he gets through with them. At that point in time, the cognitive dissonance will be fierce, and people will have to choose if they want to believe Greenwald or Taibbi.

[Hissyspit]

226. No they won't.

[MADem]

229. You're, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I am, of course, entitled to disagree with your view.

[Blue_Tires]

217. Revenge of the Interceptors: Oligarch's Team Mugs Renegade Taibbi

A few random thoughts on the imbroglio over Matt Taibbi leaving the media stable of oligarch Pierre Omidyar -- and the remarkable response to this by the oligarch's remaining celebs, led by Glenn Greenwald.

1. The Intercept article on Taibbi's departure -- bylined under the names of Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and John Cook, but almost certainly written mostly by Greenwald -- is, at its core, a scurrilous piece of work. Purporting to be a boldly transparent piece -- it even (lightly) criticizes the Boss! -- it is instead, transparently, an attempt by the oligarch's organization to get its side of the story out first before the famously acerbic Taibbi makes any statement.

2. It is also a means for the authors to laud themselves as "fiercely independent journalists" (yes, Greenwald actually wrote that about himself) who, despite being radical bohemians who "view corporate cultures and management-speak with disdain," were able to heroically grapple with their employer and procure for themselves "a sizable budget, operational autonomy, and a team of talented journalists, editors, research specialists, and technologists working collaboratively and freely in the manner its founders always envisioned" … unlike that loser Taibbi, who obviously lacked their moxie and got slapped around by the Big Boss Man.

3. The poison shiv of the article is buried deep in the acres of Greenwald's ever-deadening slabs of prose (as well as deep in Taibbi's back): the accusation of sexist behavior on Taibbi's part when he was upbraiding one of his staff. To be sure, the Interceptors make great show of saying that an internal investigation of the charge found that his action did not rise "to the level of legal liability" (libel-dodging weasel-wording at its best!) -- and added, as an appendix, an encomium from another Omidyar stablemate as to Taibbi's good character and lack of sexism. But the damage was done, as was obviously intended. The quick takeaway of anyone wondering about the situation will be: "What happened with Taibbi and First Look?" "Well, he was facing some kind of sex abuse charge or something, wasn't he? Abusing the women there, threatening or yelling at them, something." "What an asshole. They were right to get rid of him." Or maybe just a quick headline in the NY Post or Drudge Report: "Taibbi Leaves First Look After Sexism Row."

4. Anyone who has ever known or worked with Taibbi -- as I did in Moscow years ago -- knows that he is indeed a combative, abrasive personality. The Interceptors point this out repeatedly, ostensibly in his defense, as if to say, "Well, Taibbi's volatile ways were a known quality, part of what made his work so powerful; no wonder he clashed with the corporate structure of the organization." But this too is actually a subtle defense of the Big Boss Man, carrying a counter-implication: "Look, everybody knows Taibbi is an angry jerk; no wonder the Boss had to come down hard on him."

5. I have no way of knowing how Taibbi behaved toward the staff he hired with the "multimillions" Omidyar gave him to play with. I certainly don't know if he made a sexist remark to a staffer or not. I do know that when he and Mark Ames (whose work, like Taibbi's, I've frequently referenced here) edited The eXile magazine in Moscow, it was filled with relentless misogyny -- visceral, juvenile, contemptuous, and often highly personal, especially when directed at Taibbi's female former colleagues at the Moscow Times. But that was a long time ago, and I assume that both writers have grown up a bit since then in regards to their attitude toward women. I've certainly seen nothing of that sneering contempt in any of their work since their eXile days. If there was some blow-up with a staffer at Omidyar's shop, involving harsh and abrasive language, I would imagine it was more general then gendered. But in his editorship of The eXile, Taibbi did indeed give many hostages to fortune in terms of defending himself against later charges of sexism.

6. That's why bringing up already investigated and apparently dismissed sexism charges is a doubly effective technique for the Inteceptors: the insinuation poisons Taibbi's present reputation, while his past makes it harder for him to defend himself. "You say you aren't sexist? What about all that shit in The Exile?"

7. That said, I know for a fact that Greenwald will tell lies -- knowing, demonstrable falsehoods -- to blacken a person's reputation when it suits him. I know because he did it to me, just a few months ago. In response to some criticism of his journalistic methods, Greenwald spewed out a very nasty, petty, personal smear -- an outright lie which he had to know was a lie when he wrote it. [See here for details.] He was willing to do this in order to discredit criticism from what, in his position, could only be considered the most marginal of sources. How much more might he do to defend the billionaire oligarch who has given him "a sizable budget, operational autonomy, and a team of talented journalists, editors, research specialists, and technologists" from a high-profile PR threat like the renegade Taibbi? In any case, when it comes to discussing matters such as Taibbi's behavior, Greenwald has zero credibility.

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2439-revenge-of-the-interceptors-oligarchs-team-mugs-renegade-taibbi.html#disqus_thread

[LawDeeDah]

228. Good read, all makes good sense. K&R

[Cha]

233. "Greenwald spewed out a very nasty, petty, personal smear -- an outright lie..."

"Greenwald spewed out a very nasty, petty, personal smear -- an outright lie which he had to know was a lie when he wrote it. He was willing to do this in order to discredit criticism from what, in his position, could only be considered the most marginal of sources. How much more might he do to defend the billionaire oligarch who has given him "a sizable budget, operational autonomy, and a team of talented journalists, editors, research specialists, and technologists" from a high-profile PR threat like the renegade Taibbi? In any case, when it comes to discussing matters such as Taibbi's behavior, Greenwald has zero credibility.


Exactly. thank you for the link, Blue Tires.

[Tarheel_Dem]

234. "I know for a fact that Greenwald will tell lies -- knowing, demonstrable falsehoods-- to blacken.."

a person's reputation when it suits him."

Sibel Edmonds knows about this too. GG and his fanboi's are relentlessly vicious when they want to take down a critic.

[Blue_Tires]

235. Stanford University working with First Look Media on management

The management philosophy at First Look Media, the publisher behind the digital magazine The Intercept, is worthy of extensive consideration (by the Erik Wemple Blog, among others). Last week, that management came under scrutiny after star First Look hire Matt Taibbi quit and four other marquee employees wrote a remarkable post at The Intercept about the dysfunction within the operation — particularly between journalists based in New York and company executives with ties to Silicon Valley, where First Look funder and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar made his fortune.

One of those taking a hard look at First Look, it turns out, is First Look itself. The fledgling news outlet is working with a Silicon Valley institution — Stanford University — to examine management strategies at the start-up, several sources tell the Erik Wemple Blog.

Neither First Look nor Stanford is eager to talk about their collaboration. An inquiry to Justin Ferrell, fellowships director at Stanford’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (known as the “d.school”), who is reportedly involved in the study, fetched this reply from PR operative Debbe Stern: “Thanks for reaching out to both me and Justin at the Stanford d.school. We don’t really feel we have anything helpful to add to your story. I am sorry we can’t be more helpful.”

And John Temple, a top editorial official at First Look, declined to provide any information: “Sorry Erik. Not now.” Before joining First Look as president of audience and products, Temple was a senior fellow at Stanford’s John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships program, “focusing on design thinking as applied to journalism challenges.” (Temple is also a former managing editor of The Post). Sources with knowledge of the situation confirmed that Stanford is doing a study of First Look but didn’t provide details.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/11/03/stanford-university-working-with-first-look-media-on-management/


You know, you can only go to so many conferences and hire so many industry experts and consultants and advisors and analysts to point out what's wrong before you have to start looking at the mirror...

[MADem]

236. Ah, yes-Stanford University, home of Prof. Condi Rice and the Hoover Institution, which

is well known as a font for Republican national policy. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hoover-institution

Pull the string, people! Pull the bloomin' string!!!!