18 votes

Matt Taibbi Quits Rolling Stone, Joins Scahill, Greenwald, et al at First Look Media

Matt Taibbi, via Rolling Stone:

Today is my last day at Rolling Stone. As of this week, I’m leaving to work for First Look Media, the new organization that’s already home to reporters like Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.

I’ll have plenty of time to talk about the new job elsewhere. But in this space, I just want to talk about Rolling Stone, and express my thanks. Today is a very bittersweet day for me. As excited as I am about the new opportunity, I’m sad to be leaving this company.

Continue at Rolling Stone

NYT Reports:

Matt Taibbi, who made a name as a fierce critic of Wall Street at Rolling Stone magazine, has joined First Look Media, the latest big-name journalist to leave an established brand to enter the thriving and well-financed world of news start-ups.

Mr. Taibbi will start his own publication focusing on financial and political corruption, he said in an interview on Wednesday. First Look is financed by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, who is worth $8.5 billion, according to Forbes. Mr. Omidyar has pledged $250 million to the project.

Full Story

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ben Swann

I agree w/ the below posts..
if you want to email them...
& ask they invite Ben Swann to write/investigate and report.
They need to broaden and avoid political 'bias' appearance.

Editors: Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Laura Poitras
Senior Editor: Liliana Segura

glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org
laura.poitras@firstlook.org
jeremy.scahill@firstlook.org
liliana.segura@firstlook.org

Where are the libertarians?

None? Fuck em.

This is awesome news.

This is awesome news. Also all these news magazines part of Firstlook the editors have editorial independence. No one is going to control them.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

All media is mainstream media

I always felt that distinction was total BS. Mainstream means mainstream, meaning it is the mainstream of information. Dailypaul is not mainstream media because it is not controlled. I often wondered what the hell became of the word mainstream once it got attached to media, the word mainstream became obsolete after it got rammed down my throat one thousand times, like it was supposed to mean something different. I liken it to the word fundamentally, I hate that word too, they use the word fundamentally like some kind of catastrophic adverb or maybe adjective, been out of school a bit so not sure what meaning fits. I am sick of the pundits using mainstream when they are mainstream, its not like they are some kind of out of the frill slapped together nonsense. If you can hear it on your radio or see it on TV it is mainstream for crying out loud. Mainstream means what it says, it is mainstream, it is blaring, blasting and spreading the lies.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

The seeds of

the kind of revolution we are not interested in.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Che_Guevara_June_2%2C_1959.jpg

He may not be your cup of tea...

But a lot of Latin people respect him for fighting against Facism. They just didn't know that his philosophy of the use of government force with all its good intentions is not even close to the quality of life one can enjoy in the presents of profound freedom.

Really?

I made my nephew take off an El Che T-shirt when he came to visit. Perhaps you should research the account of the child this violent fuck shot in the head for the deeds of his father. Drone strike by Obama come to mind?

Only the stupid "respect" this homicidal creep

So one authoritarian, murdering collectivist fought against another -- that's a reason to excuse those who admire him? It's beyond mere ignorance to support someone like this. It's being an accomplice to evil.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

yeah, what's up with that?

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_1.pdf

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Unadulterated News?

The real question is: How much media exposure will the rulers allow them to get? Don't forget who owns the airwaves. They are not about create their own demise. Truth & dissent are a no no. Just ask Barry. The IRS will be investigating Mr. Omidyar soon. The opposition has more money. After all, they print it.

I get my news via cable,

I get my news via cable, i.e.; internet. Online all the time, and devoid of nincompoop propaganda, using my discretion. This First Look Media would be available on internet, will not have to depend on the airways. Rulers can only suppress so much, and if all one has to avail oneself of news is a television, then be doomed to buy into their offerings of sport/sex/war/languid news. (lots of people already hooked - maybe some reading this as well - whatever)

So let's get and airwave...

If we support them, perhaps we can muster up enough folks to build our own cable station. A people owned, investment.

hope he sticks to what he knows best

he knows political / corporate corruption well.

but certainly no friend of liberty.

Thanks for the latest news of the Matrix

.

This really is an

This really is an anti-corruption dream team.

Ventura 2012

So here's my take on this new media outlet

They are stacking the staff with liberals who are unhappy with the current administration so that come next election they can steer the disenfranchised liberals to a particular candidate. Rand Paul is probably scaring the shit out of the left because he acknowledges a lot of civil rights issues that liberals pretend to care about. So, before the left looses a ton of voters to "libertarian" Paul, they will have this powerful liberal news "force" pushing democrat voters to ... Who? Still to be determined, but I don't like the way this Greenwald project is shaping up. They need to diversify the ideologies of their journalists to keep my interests.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

It is a possibility

But I would be more inclined to believe that when Hillary announces her official run, Glenn's going to attack her with a vicious onslaught of destroy-Hillary TS SCI documents from the Edward trove. You're wise to be cautious, but perhaps your caution's going to have been unwarranted.

Wow you are so wrong

You think they're forming a news org to affect an election that's three years away? In an electoral system that has been tweaked to cast out third party players since the Perot incident? That's incredibly naive. There's much good change that can be done without getting involved in the electoral system.

FYI many libs--at least the ones not addicted to cable TV--love Ron Paul. 1/3rd of those surveyed at early OWS intended to vote for Ron Paul.

Your post comes off as extremely naive.

All of them put

All of them put anti-corruption interests before partisanship. That has wide appeal and is more relevant to actual journalism. Free market economics is less relevant to journalism.

Ventura 2012

That's Right!

Why not invite Ben Swann into their team of journalists?!? Or/and some other libertarians or some people who are truly independent. Greenwald, Schahill, Taibbi are all either liberals, socialists, or something in-between. I don't have anything against that, but this new media project should have diversified voices as you point out. In his interview which was just on the front page of DP Schahill said that they will deal violations of the 1st and the 4th amendments. That's great of course, but why not include into their interest also the violations of the 2nd, the 10th, etc.?

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

I agree, selecting certain

I agree, selecting certain parts of the bill of rights to defend is a good start, but cherry-picking from the bill of rights is a partisan game. Just like the republicans cherry-picking the second amendment. Also, a more complete view of the bill of rights and Constitution would start positive debates, such as repealing, rewording, and instituting new amendments to increase the protections.

great idea

I'm going to email Greenwald, Scahill and Tiabbi and suggest that. Send a few links too.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I was thinking the same thing.

With Ben Swan it would be the four horsemen who could change the world.