Episode 78
Matt Taibbi | The News Media and Manufacturing Consent in the 21st Century
Episode 78
Matt Taibbi
Matt Taibbi | The News Media and Manufacturing Consent in the 21st Century
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Matt Taibbi, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone and winner of the 2008 National Magazine Award, about his latest book, Hate, INC.
Matt Taibbi is someone who truly needs no introduction. His polemical, but also highly illustrative and expository writing stands apart from his contemporaries, and the significance of his contributions, particularly to the public debate during the 2008 financial crisis cannot be understated. He served as an interpreter for what was, in his own words, “a crime story that most people mistakenly thought of as an economic story.” His attacks on those he identified as being chiefly responsible for the crisis were relentless, and in a media environment tenanted and owned by government apologists and banking sycophants, they were noticeably ruthless and unforgiving. In an article he penned in the spring of 2010 titled, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” Taibbi referred to the investment bank Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
Fortunately for Goldman Sachs, Matt Taibbi has since turned his attention towards the media itself, embarking on an ambitious project to update Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, for the 21st century, as a serialized book that he’s been releasing through sub-stack. The majority of this conversation deals with the subject of that book, which is a sort of operational manual for those looking to understand how journalists and the media shape social reality.
When Manufacturing Consent was first published in 1988, the media landscape was still largely dominated by print and broadcast television. We’ve since gone through two, major technological disruptions, first with cable, and then with the Internet, both of which altered the traditional pathways through which governments and big business try to shape and control public opinion. Matt and Demetri discuss these changes at length, including the amplification of “flak” through social media, the new orthodoxies of groupthink, as well as an exploration of victimhood hierarchies as understood through Herman and Chomsky’s “worthy vs. unworthy victims” framework.
Finally, Matt Taibbi and Demetri discuss the circus that is the media’s political coverage, including some amazing stories from Matt’s time on the 2016 campaign trail, as well as a scathing critique of his old buddies at Goldman Sachs, who are back in the news over their role in a scheme to defraud the Malaysian government and its citizens of billions of dollars through the use of a state-owned investment fund known as 1MDB. If you want access to this part of the conversation, as well as a transcript of the full episode along with this week’s 14-page rundown, which includes an updated outline of the propaganda model and a timeline of important events in the evolution of the news business, you can subscribe directly by clicking on the overtime, transcript, or rundown tabs within this episode page. Subscribers instantly gain access to our entire library of content, including nearly 80 transcripts, close to 60 rundowns, and overtime segments going back to the end of December 2018.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Matt Taibbi is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone and winner of the 2008 National Magazine Award for columns and commentary. His most recent book is ‘I Can’t Breathe: A Killing on Bay Street,’ about the infamous killing of Eric Garner by the New York City police. He’s also the author of the New York Times bestsellers ‘Insane Clown President,’ ‘The Divide,’ ‘Griftopia,’ and ‘The Great Derangement.’
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Illa tamen simplicia, vestra versuta. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur. Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Familiares nostros, credo, Sironem dicis et Philodemum, cum optimos viros, tum homines doctissimos. At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret.
Quod quidem nobis non saepe contingit. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur?
Quis, quaeso, illum negat et bonum virum et comem et humanum fuisse? Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Consequentia exquirere, quoad sit id, quod volumus, effectum.
Sed haec ab Antiocho, familiari nostro, dicuntur multo melius et fortius, quam a Stasea dicebantur. An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Tria genera bonorum;
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas? Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Quid est igitur, inquit, quod requiras? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit. Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur?
Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo.
Quod cum dixissent, ille contra. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. At certe gravius. Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse? Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Etsi ea quidem, quae adhuc dixisti, quamvis ad aetatem recte isto modo dicerentur. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias;
Itaque e contrario moderati aequabilesque habitus, affectiones ususque corporis apti esse ad naturam videntur. Hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus. Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Modo etiam paulum ad dexteram de via declinavi, ut ad Pericli sepulcrum accederem. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Haeret in salebra. Tu quidem reddes; Sed haec in pueris;
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Ad corpus diceres pertinere-, sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers?
Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt. Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.
Nunc vero a primo quidem mirabiliter occulta natura est nec perspici nec cognosci potest. Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret? Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Esse enim, nisi eris, non potes. Quoniam, si dis placet, ab Epicuro loqui discimus. At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Ergo omni animali illud, quod appetiti positum est in eo, quod naturae est accommodatum.
Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Nisi autem rerum natura perspecta erit, nullo modo poterimus sensuum iudicia defendere. Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. Poterat autem inpune; Quarum ambarum rerum cum medicinam pollicetur, luxuriae licentiam pollicetur. Ne discipulum abducam, times. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Nunc agendum est subtilius. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Cur fortior sit, si illud, quod tute concedis, asperum et vix ferendum putabit? Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Quid censes in Latino fore?
Hoc mihi cum tuo fratre convenit. Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit? Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur. Perturbationes autem nulla naturae vi commoventur, omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac iudicia levitatis.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Totum autem id externum est, et quod externum, id in casu est. Qui bonum omne in virtute ponit, is potest dicere perfici beatam vitam perfectione virtutis; Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Illud mihi a te nimium festinanter dictum videtur, sapientis omnis esse semper beatos; Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. Nullis enim partitionibus, nullis definitionibus utuntur ipsique dicunt ea se modo probare, quibus natura tacita adsentiatur.
Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia; Causa autem fuit huc veniendi ut quosdam hinc libros promerem. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis. Et hanc quidem primam exigam a te operam, ut audias me quae a te dicta sunt refellentem. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Tum ille: Ain tandem? Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba.