You know quite well that claiming Taibbi didn't write the hoax is an intellectually dishonest approach to this. I take you non-seriously, so don't try to be serious.
Dismissing someone's work based on the publication it appears in is not intelectually dishonest? Huh.
Opening your article by referencing that a friend said they hope they get born a Saudi women, which is to say, you hope they get raped, in an article written in a mag that faked a rape story is fucked up most highly.
And then to ramble on about how this person is the greatest cause for American divide, while talking down to the audience he recognized(which is done so commonly and well that it juiced Fox News up), in a mag that lied about a rape story because it didnt' feel it needed to verify claims against certain types of people (and that sort lie probably turning people away from the left) is fucked up.
The article is completely fucking out of touch. And Matt Taibbi didn't write the rape hoax has nothing to do with it unless Matt Taibbi had his work abducted and had no idea he'd be writing for Rolling Stone.
As Benji says, that's an interesting claim. How does Taibbi's relative wish Ailes was raped? Is every single Saudi woman being raped? That would be what you'd have to assume for your claim to make sense. Surely, you don't think that.
It's everyday hypocricy. I don't see why want to weigh their effect equally, given the enduring, endless stream of shit that constitutes Fox News.* They weigh a little heavier on society than Rolling Stone's one false rape story.
Taibbi not having written the rape story has very much to do with everything. Is it hypocritical? Slightly. Does it invalidate what he's saying? No.
I also have to wonder which publication (and thus writers) would be left standing, given these standards of purity. The older they are, the more likely they are to have a couple skeletons in the closet.
*Assuming that's what you're implying, anyway. If it's just about hypocricy (or the appearance thereof) then we don't disagree categorically.