I have read many of Taibbi's past articles with enthusiasm and he makes some interesting arguments in the present article, but to be clear, he has an axe to gri

I have read many of Taibbi's past articles with enthusiasm and he makes some interesting arguments in the present article, but to be clear, he has an axe to grind on this very issue. He himself was essentially cancelled for some pretty indefensible and egregious "journalism" early in his career. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who-terrorized-women-correspondents-in-moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-wh... Furthermore, hes engaged here in some light cherry-picking. For instance, Taibbi references a called-out UCLA professor, who is white, and whose primary offense seems to not be reading MLK's treatise but using the n-word in the process- that seems like a detail worth mentioning?