Debbie Wasserman Schultz Trashes Matt Taibbi as Profiteering Tool Of Elon Musk in Explosive Twitter Hearing

Former DNC chair and current Florida congresswoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Thursday blasted journalist Matt Taibbi’s integrity in a House hearing on the Twitter Files, saying he crossed a line in reporting on the Twitter files and allowed himself to be used by Twitter CEO Elon Musk out of base self-interest.

The House Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government this week is holding a second hearing on Twitter’s past moderation policies, as they relate to censorship of topics or individuals at the behest or urging of government officials and politicians, most frequently Democrats.

Matt Taibbi is one of the journalists to whom Elon Musk granted access to the Twitter Files, a collection of internal and external communications on a variety of subjects. He has faced enormous criticism from government officials and politicians, most frequently Democrats, as well as the mainstream media.

Taibbi criticized that media on Wednesday as “spineless, corrupt, amoral fuckwits.”

Wasserman Schultz adopted a similar tone at Thursday’s hearing, accusing Taibbi of cross an ethical line, being “spoon-fed” information, being addicted to attention, and “being a Republican witness.” She also argued that increased ratings — or as she put it, followers and readership — as a result of his reporting are inherently a mark against his integrity.

As a visual aid, the congresswoman had behind her large images of Joe Rogan featuring a quote from Taibbi about being “spoon-fed” information.

At the end of the exchange, which consistently mostly of Wasserman Schultz making assertions as Taibbi listened but was still told not to interrupt, the congresswoman argued that the real point is Twitter was never biased against conservatives, and in fact should have done even more to stop “MAGA extremists.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Mr. Taibbi, I want to ask about journalistic ethics and information sources. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics asserts that journalists should avoid political activities that can compromise integrity or credibility. Being a Republican witness today certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity. But a deeper concern that I have relates to the ethics of how journalists receive and present certain information. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with that?

Matt Taibbi: I think it’s — I think it depends.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Really? You wouldn’t agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it’s likely to be slanted, incomplete or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion?

Matt Taibbi: Congresswoman, I’ve done probably a dozen stories involving whistleblowers. Every reported story that I’ve ever done across three decades involves sources who have motives. Every time you do a story, you’re making a balancing test between the public interest –.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Reclaiming my time. Thank you very much.

Matt Taibbi: Okay.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: I ask you this because before you became Elon Musk’s hand-picked journalists and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan’s podcast about being spoon-fed information. And I quote: ‘I think that’s true of any kind of journalism–‘. And you’ll see it behind me here. ‘I think that’s true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you’ve lost. They have you at that point and you got to get out of that habit. You just can’t cross that line.’

Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan? Yes or no? Yes or no?

Matt Taibbi: Yes.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Good. Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter Files. Elon Musk.

Matt Taibbi: No.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: It’s my time. Please do not interrupt me. Elon Musk spoon-fed — Elon Musk spoon-fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint, or at the very least, generates another right-wing conspiracy theory. You violated your own standard and you appear to have benefited from it.

Before the release of emails, of the emails in August of last year, you had 661,000 Twitter followers. After the Twitter Files, your followers doubled. And now it’s three times what it was last August. I imagine your Substack readership, which is a subscription, increased significantly because of the work that you did for Elon Musk.

Now, I’m not asking you to put a dollar figure on it, but it’s quite obvious that you’ve profited from the Twitter Files. You hit the jackpot on that Vegas slot machine to which you referred. That’s true, isn’t it?

Matt Taibbi: I’ve also reinvested–

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Some. No, no, no, no. Is it true that you have profited since you were you were this recipient of the Twitter Files? You’ve made money? Yes or no?

Matt Taibbi: I think it’s probably a wash, honestly.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You have made money that you did not have before. Correct?

Matt Taibbi: But I’ve also spent money that I didn’t know. I just hired a group of people to—

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Patently obvious answer. Reclaiming my time. Attention is a powerful drug. Eyeballs, money, prominence, attention. All of it points to problems with accuracy and credibility. And the larger point, which is social media companies are not biased against conservatives, and if anything, they ignored their own policies by allowing Trump and other MAGA extremists to post incessant lies, endangering public safety and even our democracy.

Hypocrisy is the hangover of an addiction to attention.

Watch the clip above, via C-SPAN.