I was looking forward to The Racket, and when I saw this headline, I was looking forward to an explanation for its stillbirth. I'm still looking forward to that

I was looking forward to The Racket, and when I saw this headline, I was looking forward to an explanation for its stillbirth. I'm still looking forward to that explanation. This piece wraps up abruptly, but that's not the real issue. The real issue is that the piece seems to force itself into a conclusion at the precise point where it's starting to get interesting. It's getting good, setting the stage, and then...it stops. That's a real shame. Also, this is neither here nor there, but I feel we're getting half of the story. Ok, so Taibbi ran into the typical frustrations with "responsibility matrices" and other corporate-process bullshit. But what else happened? How much money was spent building this thing out? Were there crucial turning points along the way, places where things could have gone north or south, based on choices people made? And what does Omidyar have to say, for that matter? I have no personal insight into the inner workings of First Look generally, or The Racket specifically. But I can't shake the feeling that there must have been more to the story than what we get here. Finally, is it really fair to say that something that never launched "almost upended journalism?" By that same logic, the never-produced Halo movie was "almost" the biggest blockbuster of all time. We're presuming the success of the project, if only it had launched. Thing is, we can't make that presumption. As much as I would have liked this project to succeed, as much as I admire Matt Taibbi, and as much as I believe journalism could use a good upending, I can't say whether the market would have borne this out. We just don't know.