[rayiner]

You’re lowering the bar here. If he actually did those things, he should be in jail. I didn’t say he should be in jail. Writing those things, which he undoubtedly did, is an indicator of being a misogynistic asshat. Which isn’t enough for jail, but surely enough to warrant our contempt and distance.

(I’m also not saying we should censor him. That’s different than giving him a platform.)

[kbenson]

> Writing those things, which he undoubtedly did, is an indicator of being a misogynistic asshat.

That depends entirely on context and intent, doesn't it? As called out in one of the articles on this very subject, as the creators of South Park misogynistic asshats for writing characters that behave in this way, when it's done as satire and to lampoon those that actually act in that manner? That's what the defenders are contending, and what at least some reporting is saying female employee(s) at the time are stating.

If you think the counter-arguments don't hold up, that's one thing, but so far your arguments seem to ignore all the points raised in the Paste magazine article. I'd be interested in what you think about them, since it didn't seem to sway you at all.

[rayiner]

I simply don’t find Taibbi’s post-facto rationalizations credible. Consider, for example, his gendered attacks on female journalists who called him out: https://www.thelily.com/vices-edgy-culture-created-a-place-f...

Is that dedication to staying in character? Or is it an attempt to whitewash conduct that was acceptable in that time and place, but is considered unacceptable today, in an attempt to avoid damaging one’s reputation? I can’t see it as anything but the latter.

[kbenson]

> Consider, for example, his gendered attacks on female journalists who called him

That was during the same period where they were doing the magazine, which is supposedly then doing a character. Wouldn't that be the characteristic response?

> Is that dedication to staying in character?

I'm not sure it's all that dedicated, it was at the same time as when they were doing that.

> ? Or is it an attempt to whitewash conduct that was acceptable in that time and place

It was during that time and place, not later. At least, I assume you are talking about this:

The Times of London’s Anna Blundy also received scathing write-ups by Taibbi after she wrote articles about the state of women’s rights in Russia. Taibbi said one of her pieces “oozed such obvious bitterness and desperation that it might as well have been a perpetually unanswered personal ad in the back of Sagging Breast Weekly.”

That was in 1999. Look, I don't know whether the whole satiric performance art explanation is true or not, but given what appears to be very specific behavior that appears to be limited to the scope of that time, and eyewitness people at that time (which would have been the victims if the behavior was true) that say it specifically was satire, it seems at least plausible to me, and I don't really have feelings about him one way or the other.

It sounds a little like you've fallen into a confirmation bias loop. You accepted and internalized some very negative information regarding him, and now any evidence presented by him in his defense is easy to dismiss because of your preexisting negative assessment, whereas if all the information was presented at once a more neutral impression might have been reached (I know this sounds presumptuous, I'm not trying to be, but this is a pet idea of mine for a while and I may be seeing it because I'm interesting in it).

That said, even if it is true that it was all satire and does not reflect his personal views, the vigor with which he went about degrading others for that satire does leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's entirely possible he's not a misogynist, but is (or at least was) a colossal asshole.

As an aside, it strikes me as odd that we as a society seem to have very mixed ideas about crimes and taboos and forgiveness. Sometimes it strikes me that we're more willing for forgive a murderer than someone that said harsh words and hurt feelings. Oftentimes I suspect that can be chalked up to the murderer asking for forgiveness and repenting, but I'm not sure that really works in the case of cultural taboos. Denial still has very many negative consequences now, but while admission and (truthful) repentance might sate a large number of detractors now, I suspect many multiples more people would see that as something to rally around against the person.

To some degree, the current climate of accusations reminds me of what I've read of McCarthyism and the red scare. Accusations are all that's needed to end careers. If in the 1950's and faced with an accusation that you attended a few communist meetings a couple decades earlier, is it ever a better idea to admit it than deny it? Denying it has a chance of you coming out somewhat intact, but admitting it may immediately ruin you in multiple ways, regardless of how involved you were or your current beliefs. This comparison obviously breaks down in certain ways, to greater or lesser degrees bases on the people and groups involved and their goals, and how problematic you view communism in that area generally. I'm really bringing it up to focus on the how accusations were used then, and may be trending towards being used now. I think the vast majority of accusations so far have been leveled rightfully and the punishments meted out deserved, I'm just a bit worried that a cultural moment for good will slowly be hijacked for personal gain and petty grievances.

[jessaustin]

I appreciate your protective feeling for HN, but you're simply wrong about Taibbi. We could lose 90% of our journalists, those whose efforts are primarily focused toward sticking to their assigned scripts, and we would be both better-off and better-informed. Taibbi is not among that 90%. HN is also not about sticking to the script.

[harryh]

In addition to all of rayiner's points (which I agree with), I think you vastly overrate Taibbi's journalism. Just because he attacks a lot of things you happen to be against, it doesn't make him a good journalist. He routinely exaggerates the facts, gets his economics wrong, and is otherwise misleading in his writing.

[jessaustin]

Wow, if only there were some forum in which these issues might be addressed, where you could write precisely the problems you've found with his reporting rather than blanket smears that mean nothing to anyone without all the background you're imagining we have. Perhaps it would be a forum in which Taibbi himself would be likely to see those specific complaints, and could if he chose respond in some fashion that might be educational for all of us...

Or, I guess we could use the opportunity to police his literary style.

ps. I'm giggling now because I'm thinking of all the journalists whose economics have been "right", and the number of days over which that has been the case...

[tptacek]

You didn't in any way address what Harry or Rayiner said. You just "giggled" at the suggestion that anyone might have legitimate problems with Taibbi's reporting on its own merits.

[jessaustin]

Dude just look at the words. I was giggling at the idea that we should get economics advice from journalists. I certainly don't get mine from Taibbi.

From Harry, we have:

He routinely exaggerates the facts, gets his economics wrong, and is otherwise misleading in his writing.

For discussion's sake I'll stipulate to the middle clause, but if the first and last were so "routine", someone in this entire thread would have given a single concrete example, which I or anyone else might "address". If such an example had appeared while Taibbi was still hanging around, he might have responded. Didn't happen. Instead we have this tedious whinging about how terrible his literary style is. The writing in question was clearly satirical to me in '99, and it hasn't grown any less clearly so since then.

You won't like all comedians. You won't like all musicians. You won't like all artists. You won't like all journalists. Tastes differ, and this ham-handed attempt to police tastes in journalism on HN has not succeeded.

[rayiner]

The script is protecting sleazy men because they’ve made some contribution we value. That’s not a script we should stick too.