For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Taibbi? He must be busy putting together his new online publication, due to launch this fall. He hasn't been that busy on Twitter, even. He was on Max Keiser last month.
Matt Taibbi Disappears From Omidyar’s First Look Media By Andrew Rice
Photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images Matt Taibbi, the star magazine writer hired earlier this year to start a satirical website for billionaire Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media, has taken a leave of absence from the company after disagreements with higher-ups inside Omidyar's organization, a source close to First Look confirmed today.
Taibbi's abrupt disappearance from the company's Fifth Avenue headquarters has cast doubt on the fate of his highly anticipated digital publication, reportedly to be called Racket, which First Look executives had previously said would launch sometime this autumn.
When he was hired, amid much fanfare, Taibbi's website was meant to be the second in an envisioned fleet of titles to be published by First Look, an ambitious digital journalism company funded by Omidyar, the founder of eBay and one of the richest tech moguls in America. Like its counterpart the Intercept, launched earlier this year by Glenn Greenwald and others to pursue investigations of NSA surveillance and the intelligence world, it was a venture centered around a brand-name polemicist without much management experience. Prior to joining First Look, Taibbi made his name by gleefully skewering fat targets for Rolling Stone — most famously, he described Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity" — and he said at the time of his departure that he was lured away by the chance to lampoon the financial industry in the "simultaneously funny and satirical voice" associated with the legendary magazine Spy. Over the succeeding months, the mission of the publication broadened to encompass political satire as well, and it brought on a number of high-profile names from the New York digital scene, includingdeputy editor Alex Pareene, formerly of Salon, Laura Dawn, a digital video producer who formerly worked with Moveon.org, and Edith Zimmerman, founding editor of the Hairpin.
"Journalists should be dark, funny, mean people," Taibbi told New York in an interview in March. "It's appropriate for their antagonistic, adversarial role."
Omidyar originally conceived of First Look as a network of interlinking sites run by "independent" journalists, many of whom took a similarly confrontational approach to journalism. Over the last year, however, the center of gravity of the organization has shifted, as Omidyar and his Silicon Valley braintrust have exerted control over budgets and vacillated over the journalistic mission. Over the summer, Omidyar appointed a longtime confidante, John Temple — a former newspaper editor who previously led an Omidyar-financed civic journalism venture in Hawaii — to be the president for audience and products, putting him in a position above Eric Bates, the former Rolling Stone editor who was brought on as a First Look editorial director, who is close to Taibbi. The confrontational approach that made Taibbi's name at Rolling Stone — and before that, as the founding editor of the gonzo Moscow expatriate magazine The eXile — appears to have contributed to internal trouble at First Look.
Sources confirmed that Taibbi has been absent from the office for several weeks, only returning on one brief occasion to address the staff. Although those hired have been reassured that the project would continue on during the unspecified term of Taibbi's absence, the the launch date for Racket — which Taibbi indicated in September would be coming "in a month" — now appears to have been pushed off.
"We have a target date but I wouldn’t make a launch date public," said Temple, who is based in San Francisco, when reached by phone this morning. "I don’t comment about internal matters and I don’t comment on personnel matters. ... I mean we’re a private company, so why would we ... no."
Taibbi's absence, the term of which is unknown, is only the latest in a series of shifts inside First Look, which Omidyar founded last year, originally in response to the disclosures of NSA surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden to Greenwald and his Intercept colleague Laura Poitras. Omidyar initially committed $250 million to the project and began laying plans for a large general interest website and a number of more narrowly focused "digital magazines." In July, the billionaire announced he was scaling back the plan for the time being, choosing instead to focus on Racket and the Intercept as prototypes for a new technological model of journalism. The Intercept has lately been publishing vigorously, breaking several major stories — federal investigators are reportedly pursuing the alleged leaker responsible for a story on the site about the government's voluminous terrorist watch list. But Racket has been much slower to materialize, leading to rumors of staff anxiety.
In August, Temple told me Taibbi's site was experimenting with a variety of journalistic approaches — not just satire and humor but also investigative journalism. For instance, Ellen Miller, head of the campaign finance watchdog the Sunlight Foundation — a nonprofit also heavily financed by Omidyar — met with the staff over the summer to discuss how it might dig into issues of money in politics.
"We're supporting Matt in creating something unique — and it's Matt's," Temple told me. "He's building a team and there's great esprit in Matt's team."
Taibbi's clashes those at the top are likely to drive further speculation about the fate of the long-incubating project, and about the journalist's own continued involvement. Nonetheless, the site is apparently still hiring.
It looks like another iteration of the classic case: a brilliant employee/journalist does not necessarily have the skill set to be an equally brilliant manager.
It looks like another iteration of the classic case: a brilliant employee/journalist does not necessarily have the skill set to be an equally brilliant manager.
Well, that and that the publisher isn't as hands-off as advertised.
"clear it up" ?
if anything, would say that the 'desired effect' has been accomplished = take matt off the beat
along with the heat from the subject he covered so effectively.
SCORE!!
(for the political:criminal class thats now FULLY in-charge and even MORE emboldened) evidence of this?
Well, that and that the publisher isn't as hands-off as advertised.
True. But while the article is written in a pretty balanced way, I don't see both sides bearing equal responsibility here. The article makes it pretty clear that even Taibbi acknowledges that his journalism had never been questioned, only his management:
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.
First Look doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, though it does come off as somewhat naive. A publisher is, in fact, responsible for making sure that its management isn't involved in sexual harassment lawsuits and the like. And while it is a hassle to have someone adding up reimbursement receipts, that is a necessary part of having to keep books that balance, for any legal entity. It's not like these things are really optional, given existing laws of this land.
Taibbi is a brilliant writer, but has no management experience. If Taibbi understood "hands-off" to mean the same as "no rules at all, anything goes," that just isn't realistic in any organization. And of course, First Look was probably also not being realistic when it tried to enter the publishing business for the first time without understanding the anti-corporation culture of newsrooms. It probably was being hands-off, compared to its past experience. Just not enough so for Taibbi. So the blend of these parties was a recipe for tension.
I actually think it speaks well of both the Intercept staff and First Look that they were able to hammer out a working publishing model in spite of having an identical cultural chasm between them. One of the things that really stands out here is how Taibbi's end result contrasts with Greenwald's.
I do have enormous respect for Taibbi's investigative journalism, but I can easily imagine that someone Glenn Greenwald describes as an anti-authoritarian iconoclast might struggle under even minimal management requirements. The article seems to chalk the conflict up to poorly communicated expectations, more than anything else, and since this is coming from people who had just emerged from the exact same process that Taibbi was struggling with, that carries some weight. Even so, they had to admit that Taibbi had rejected the same solution of a legally independent contractor status that had solved the liability/independence balance for them.
First Look did fail to understand the newsroom, and that is indeed a problem. But Taibbi appears to have misunderstood the reason for the existence of corporations (limited liability). That's not great for someone who writes about corporate misconduct. Not because his motives are suspect, far from it. But because his depth of understanding now may be.
Don't get me wrong, I still want to read as much independent reporting from Taibbi as I can get my hands on, and I do hope that his approach to financial journalism is broadly replicated.
But that's not the same thing as saying he himself should be an executive editor, managing the finances (without checking receipts) and personnel (while abusing staff).
I hope he finds another wide-distribution outlet soon, so he can stop fighting these kinds of internal battles, and go back to fighting on behalf of the people. He is desperately needed on the front line.
...
Sorry for droning on again, but I'm spending so much time thinking and writing about this mostly because it is part of a much broader problem; one that I'd very much like to see discussed by the impressive brain trust around here:
It is an ongoing challenge for those who would foment change to organize themselves in a way that maximizes their real impact.
Occupy Wall Street refused to adopt a structure, and while it did succeed in raising a bit of awareness, it ultimately fizzled and died. The reason is that in eschewing any structure (to avoid being co-opted) they also eliminated the possibility of implementing a structure that could actually make them effective.
It's all well and good to "stick it to the man." But if those who seek change don't acknowledge that "the man" was at one point given power in the first place to meet a (usually valid) need, and themselves come up with an alternate structure that will also meet that original need, then no change can ever happen.
In other words, to change any system, you have to understand how, but more importantly why, that system was constructed in the first place.
We talk a lot on this site about the need for change. In the financial system. In government. In the media. And there is an incredible wealth of management experience represented on this site as well. So I ask:
If you wanted to organize an effective movement to enact real change, but also one that was hard for existing powers to influence, how would you structure it? And how would you ensure that the same structure did not simultaneously alienate powerful but iconoclastic advocates, like Taibbi?
Last edited by astonas; October 30, 2014, 05:10 PM.
He cites a post from one of Taibbi's hires that lays the blame firmly with Omidyar and co.
Wow, you're having fun with the academic understatement, "unique"! "Tbogg's" writing is almost unreadable!
The quoted post from Pareene you refer to is interesting, though it too could be more clear. It starts by saying there weren't really any issues, and then ends with "We were successfully working to address those issues when First Look once again stepped in to fuck things up." So ... were there issues that needed work, or not?
For a professional journalist to throw out something that is so obviously internally inconsistent (this guy's living is made with the written word) points to it not being read even once before it was posted. That makes it more of an emotional rant, rather than a considered opinion.
So while there is some new information here, I'm still reading this as mostly a temper tantrum from someone who is disappointed that the guy he was thrilled to work for just up and left, probably leaving himself jobless soon as well. (Racket without Taibbi is dead.) Of course, the smart move is to take Taibbi's side. He was just hired by him, and can probably hope to follow him to whatever place he lands.
Taibbi's coat tails are still pretty long in some circles. And I'd guess Omidyar's influence in the industry he was trying to disrupt is either nil or negative.
Still, I'm sure more information will come out in time, and I may still be proven wrong. It'll be interesting to watch in any event.
Is somebody's class slip showing? How rare is that
yeah yeah yeah.... go ahead, mr don - laff it up
its a sad day for good investigative journalism, either/any way one wants to spin it
but this kinda suggests that these particular masters of that universe are right up there with the ones that brought The Rest of US to where we are now (and why some of us are meant (or would that be 'doomed') to be SELF-employed ;)
...dangled some serious cash to lure an impressive collection of writers to his media stable, in many cases probably more than most of them have ever seen in their lives. Once they arrived, he dialed back his plans and the $250 million promised to fund the whole she-bang turned out to be a twenty wrapped around a bunch on singles. And while (omidyar) dilly-dallied over ‘vision’ and ‘direction’ and other high-minded chin-strokey things, WaPo wonk Ezra Klein launched Vox (which “Voxplains” stuff), and NYT numbers wonk Nate Silver launched 538 (which ‘numbersplains’ stuff.) The Intercept brought up the rear, eventually launching, but posts were, until recently, at best sporadic making it appear that the high profile writers were sitting around doing nothing except banking paychecks while management got its shit together which, as recent events clearly show, is decidedly not together still.
which again suggests that the ultimate plan (and hidden agenda?) - involving the flaunt of unimaginably HUGE sums of 'bribery' - for want of a better term - was to take matt OUT of the game, at the PEAK of his effectiveness
with a very effective 'murphy's law' tactic: "if anything can go wrong...."
and/or pete's
"...each individual within an organization will rise to his own level of incompetency..."
or maybe its the dilbert principal in action:
"...that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management (generally middle management), in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing...."
what else are ya gonna do, lek. Hope a billionaire finances a hard hitting expose mag on his own class? I love our few muckrakers and are never surprised at their demise, through censorship or co-optation. Meanwhile, enjoy them, hope for the best and . . . laugh.
.....our few muckrakers and are never surprised at their demise, through censorship or co-optation. Meanwhile, enjoy them, hope for the best and . . . laugh.
looks like its about to start getting... er... ahhh... even funnier - eh, mr don?
esp on the 'management' end of things, esp on... uhhh... editorial/content direction
(which sounds more and more like i thot was happnin?)
amazing the tidbits one can find in the most... ummmm... out of the way places . . .
Tweet
Comment