A case for Elon Musk giving the Twitter Files a relaunch
Elon Musk could advance the story of Twitter's suppression of the Hunter Biden story by making the documents public to everyone and not just one journalist.
Summary: If Elon Musk were to release the Twitter Files as a package of emails in a single public document, it would go a long way to keep the story going and tamp down criticism on a single journalist for reporting out the information.
Elon Musk did a good thing by sharing the Twitter Files on the back story behind the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. It animated the long-simmering issue of top officials within social media companies placing their thumb on the scales of what information can be viewed online based on political biases under the guise of content moderation. The decision was consistent with Musk’s pledge to operate Twitter under free speech principles.
Musk needs to do it again, but the next time in a different way: Compile the behind-the-scenes discussion leading to the ban of the New York Post story in a PDF file for the public to have direct access. Handing over the material to Matt Taibbi was a good way to broadcast the material because of Taibbi's record of journalism, but that method has its limitations. As a result, the story may very well drop off from the news cycle without getting the scrutiny and justified follow up it deserves.
As a reporter, I have many times obtained emails from government officials as a result of requests I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (although in two situations it took a lawsuit to make those productions happen). The productions came in the format of a large PDF file compiling the emails with any personal sensitive information redacted. I can imagine a production of the Twitter Files along these lines as a way to maximize public engagement with those internal records
There's a few reasons why the Twitter Files needs a relaunch with the primary content available to everyone. For starters, Taibbi is getting buried and needs relief. Faux-journalists are objecting to Musk’s publication of the material and Taibbi’s role in that — because apparently they don't understand the fundamental tenet of journalism by holding powerful institutions with transparency on their inner deliberations. These critics will have a much harder time directing their anger at several journalists or anyone in the public who seeks to access the information as opposed to one person.
I wouldn't be the first person to point out these critics are using the exact same phrase to decry Taibbi, accusing of doing "PR work for the world’s richest man," as if they were relying on a singular talking point that was handed off to each of them. Apparently, the media is so eroded as an institution that instead of seeking to advance a relevant story based on credible information, journalists are using their powers to scold one of their own for doing the job. These critics won't be able to play Whack-a-Mole with everyone if the entire public had access to the primary material (at least not so easily).
Second, I have to say Taibbi’s reporting on the Twitter Files by using a Twitter thread wasn't the clearest way to communicate the findings. The reader has to sift through a lot of these tweets to find the central points, which another journalist might be able to do more effectively with a traditional narrative format. As Robby Soave at Reason points out, we don't get into the actual point about the suppression of the Hunter Biden story until the 18th tweet in the Twitter thread, and then we get more discussion within Twitter after the act of the ban as opposed to discussion of what led to the decision in the first place. We're also relying on one journalist's perspective on which emails are relevant and which are not. If the entire material was online, the public would be able to find the most relevant points and run with it in the information marketplace.
Keep in mind Taibbi’s tweets on the Twitter Files came out Friday at 5 pm Eastern Time, which is generally the time to issue news in an attempt to bury it and not allow it to have its full impact.
Finally, the nature of the Twitter Files, as least as they're presented by Taibbi, doesn’t really offer anything new because the internal discussion affirms what was already known about the Hunter Biden story. With the exception of a few internal objections — such as one communications staffer, Trenton Kennedy, being quoted as saying he was "struggling to understand policy basis for marking this unsafe" — the revelations basically consist of high-profile Twitter executives agreeing to continue the already instated ban. The publication of the Twitter Files writ-large would verify no stone is unturned while at the time continuing to animate the issue by simply publishing the material once more.
One more thing related to this point: Taibbi names in his thread one former Twitter executive, Vijaya Gadde, a senior attorney with Twitter with oversight on misinformation and harmful speech, as having a "key role" in the decision to ban the Hunter Biden story. Gadde has been in the news a lot recently. First, she was as one of the handful of executives initially fired by Musk upon his acquisition of Twitter. Second, as reported by the recent blockbuster story in The Intercept, Gadde had a key role as liaison between the Department of Homeland Security and social media companies in setting up a system allowing U.S. government officials to request the removal of content they deem is "misinformation," a complete affront to the First Amendment.
But Gadde, despite Taibbi concluding she had a key role in the Hunter Biden story, doesn't come up much in the Twitter thread and is only quoted once as far as I can see. If Gadde had a key role in the decision to suppress the story, we need to know the full context that made Taibbi reached that conclusion, which is something the full release of the Twitter Files could elucidate.
We may have more information on Gadde’s role whether or not Musk makes more of the information public. As reported by Jon Levine of The New York Post, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who will be in the majority in the next Congress, have signaled upon the release of the Twitter Files they intend to investigate Gadde's full role in the matter.
We still don't know a lot about the details that went into Twitter's decision under its old leadership to ban the Hunter Biden story. The Twitter thread by Matt Taibbi cracked open the window to let in a little sunlight, but the full release would help even more. If Elon Musk were to give us a second bite at the apple by making the entire contents public, the transparency could go a long way to help us get a full understanding of not just the way Twitter handled the Hunter Biden story, but the biases in the way social media companies censor information more generally.
Just a note at the end: Please sign up to subscribe if you like what you’re reading at the Weekly Dystopia. Subscriptions for a limited time are completely free and adding your name to the mailing list would really help us a lot in getting past our launch phase: