Actually, that part of what he said I disagreed with the most vehemently. His logic in that paragraph is very hard to follow - it goes:
1. "Experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent." Okay, absolutely agree with the premise.
2. "Both of the above examples point out a central problem with trying to automate the fact-checking process". Hm, okay, I agree that "automated fact checking" is a chimera, at least in the journalistic sense, but these examples are about opinions based on models, not "checking of facts." So already I am losing Taibbi in what his thread is about
3. "“Authorities” by their nature are untrustworthy." Is this a new premise? It sounds somewhat axiomatic - are we supposed to believe it follows from the flaw of "expert innocence"? Or should we believe it because Taibbi says so? Now I am starting to feel like I've been bait-and-switched. We have gone from innocent experts, to untrustworthy ones, a real escalation of rhetoric.
4. And then the conclusion: "“Elevating authoritative content” over independent or less well-known sources is an algorithmic take on the journalistic obsession with credentialing that has been slowly destroying our business for decades." -> Again, this sounds like a brand new premise that drags in the state of the journalism industry into the picture, plus a specific announcement by some large tech companies. What in the previous paragraphs prepared me to believe this? Who are these "independent, less-well known sources" that have entered the picture, and why are they implicitly being cast as the "good guys" in this picture?
Do I put this together and try to believe that innocent experts, who became untrustworthy, decided to shut out more trustworthy people by erecting credentialing barriers in the profession to disguise their untrustworthiness, having made a devil's bargain with large digital media companies? That meanwhile the truth is to be found among others whose chief qualification is that they are not as well known, and/or are "independent"?
And his poster child for this angel of democracy is two doctors with suspect motives, running a clinic somewhere in the middle of California?
This really feels like a post facto conspiracy theory that works as a Michael Crichton plot. I love Taibbi, thoroughly enjoyed Insane Clown President, loathe the Clinton machine as much as he does, and yet, what he does with this essay totally feels like he went off the rails somehow.