This week, Briahna interviewed Matt Taibbi about a narrow concern she's had with the Twitter files archive: Despite the obvious value that Matt and other twitter files reporters have created by exposing links between the intelligence agencies and online censorship, is it fair to characterize Twitter's bias as against the right and indifferent to the left given how little we know about which documents have been turned over by Elon Musk and why? Unlike Musk, most whistleblowers are not the heads of the organizations they're informing on. Does Musk's investment in and control over Twitter demand more journalistic scrutiny? Is it possible to characterize the files reviewed so far without making broader claims about about the total archive that, at this point, can't be substantiated? Has there been sufficient inquiry into bias against the left, and has their been sufficient disclosure about the limitations Musk has put on the journalists who've been given access to the archive? It's a difficult and nuanced discussion. Let's debrief tonight on Callin.