← Back to Library

From the old editor: "We care if it's true. We don't care why."

A Journalist's Rebellion Against the Take Culture

Matt Taibbi announces a structural reinvention of his publication, installing Emily Kopp as Editor-in-Chief while pledging to protect investigative journalism from the political pressures that have reshaped American newsrooms over the past decade. The move signals more than a personnel change — it's a deliberate rejection of the post-2016 journalism paradigm that prioritized ideological positioning over raw curiosity.

The Reporter DNA

Taibbi frames the hiring decision around what he calls "reporter DNA" — a personality type obsessed with story accuracy regardless of political convenience. He describes this instinct as non-negotiable for serious investigative work.

From the old editor: "We care if it's true. We don't care why."

Matt Taibbi writes, "This personality type may be nice or a raving lunatic in private, but is focused on stories, unable to relax if details feel wrong, and likely to become difficult with anyone who gets in their way."

Kopp's background at U.S. Right to Know demonstrates the tenacity Taibbi values. Her work tracing connections between Covid-19 and American gain-of-function research combined traditional source development with aggressive public records requests — the kind of methodical digging that produces uncomfortable truths rather than comfortable narratives.

As Matt Taibbi puts it, "Emily isn't a hot-taker and doesn't seem motivated by getting her face on TV. She just loves the job, and when she gets on a story she believes in, she'll challenge anyone, even her own sources."

The Lost Newsroom Ethos

The piece mourns a disappeared culture where editorial standards centered on verification rather than ideological alignment. Taibbi traces this shift to the political rupture of 2016, when neutrality became suspect and the injunction to hear multiple sides was reframed as platforming harmful voices.

Matt Taibbi writes, "Overnight, it was decided the ethos built up across a century of American journalism, in my case literally handed from one generation to the next, needed immediate dismantling."

The new slogan for Racket captures the counter-position: "We care if it's true. We don't care why." This framing treats truth-seeking as its own justification, independent of which political faction benefits or suffers from exposure.

"I've come to hate 'takes' so much, I'm willing to spend a small fortune to never give one again."

Taibbi's father wrote just two op-eds in fifty years while winning awards for factual delivery. That generational model — patient, curious, uncommitted to partisan outcomes — stands as the alternative to the current news cycle's demand for immediate political positioning.

The Curiosity Imperative

At the core of Taibbi's argument is a claim that raw curiosity is universal and apolitical. Reporters chase secret documents like children chase bees' nests — not for political reasons, but because the mystery itself demands resolution.

Matt Taibbi writes, "That thrilling moment where you realize you need to learn a whole new world to make sense of something, while a mess of information is sitting there waiting to be untangled, is why I fell in love with this job."

The new editorial team — Kopp, Ryan Lovelace on national security, and Caden Olson on Washington — will operate with freedom to follow their investigative instincts without adopting prescribed political stances. Epstein content will appear despite Taibbi's personal distaste for the story, demonstrating that editorial independence extends even to topics the founder dislikes.

Critics might note that "we care if it's true" functions as an elegant slogan but offers no mechanism for resolving disputes about what truth means when sources contradict or documents remain ambiguous. The claim of political neutrality also risks obscuring the fact that investigative choices — which stories to pursue, which institutions to scrutinize — carry political weight regardless of the reporter's intent.

Taibbi acknowledges his own limitations: "My weakness has always been that I don't do that, at least not enough. The list of effective laid-back investigative reporters is comically short." He recognizes that cultivating tough investigators requires hiring people who will challenge him and his friends — a willingness that has already generated controversy around Kopp's past reporting.

Bottom Line

Taibbi's restructuring represents a rare public rejection of the post-2016 journalism model that conflated verification with political positioning. The test will be whether Racket can sustain investigative independence without collapsing into the partisan tribalism it claims to reject.

Sources

From the old editor: "We care if it's true. We don't care why."

Today is a big day at Racket, a changing of the guard, with a reboot centered on investigative journalism.

First, to be clear: I’m neither leaving nor reducing my workload. If anything, subscribers will see more of my writing going forward. America This Week with the irreplaceable Walter Kirn is also staying, albeit on a different schedule. Another reason for change is to give me more time to work on long-form stories, the first of which drops this week. However, we’re also adding staff and new content, and the expanded operation needs to be run by someone younger, stronger, and less recently concussed than me.

Hiring Emily Kopp as Editor-in-Chief isn’t just about managerial energy. Probably best known for work into the origins of the Covid pandemic, when she mixed traditional source development with aggressive use of public records laws to draw out links between the virus and American gain-of-function research, Emily is full of what people in the business used to call “reporter DNA.” This personality type may be nice or a raving lunatic in private, but is focused on stories, unable to relax if details feel wrong, and likely to become difficult with anyone who gets in their way.

I started following Emily when I saw her byline at the U.S. Right to Know, a subject of this site’s “Meet the Censored” series years ago and a major factor in publicizing the existence of the aforementioned gain-of-function program. Her work at USRTK demonstrated tenacity and the ability to follow a complex, evolving story. Some of my older mentors pointed her out during this time. Since leaving USRTK to join the Daily Caller, she’s continued breaking stories but has also been at the center of controversies. Some of those involved close friends of mine, who’ll surely call in a rage this week, or maybe stop calling, who knows.

Those episodes, though, were the reason I started thinking in this direction. Emily isn’t a hot-taker and doesn’t seem motivated by getting her face on TV (an anti-Taylor Lorenz?). She just loves the job, and when she gets on a story she believes in, she’ll challenge anyone, even her own sources.

My weakness has always been that I don’t do that, at least not enough. The list of effective laid-back investigative reporters is comically short, like the famed Airplane! joke about great Jewish sports heroes. You either have that get-tough gene ...