At the center of the escalating Twitter bonfire this week is the issue of “brand safety.” Musk and Republican leaders are now complaining that “woke” activists are breaking Twitter and pushing it toward financial collapse with calls for boycotts. That’s not what’s happening. Not even close. Are there various activists groups pushing for advertisers to pause or drop Twitter advertising? Yes. But they’re not the real problem. The issue is “brand safety,” which I thought I would dig into because it has implications far beyond the Twitter train wreck. It’s at the heart of many issues in political media.

First, how do I know anything about this? Why am I an expert? Before TPM moved to a subscription model, brand and influencer advertising were at the heart of our business. Because of that, for upwards of fifteen years I had to deeply immerse myself not only in the advertising business generally but in the niche of advertising in political media. It was a huge part of my work for years and I had to understand it really, really well — because the existence of TPM depended on it.

If you have been watching the on-going bonfire of Twitter, you may have noticed a couple new things at the end of this week. The exodus of advertisers continues. This morning Twitter began firing what most reports suggest will be roughly half the company’s workforce. The also faced a new round of lawsuits over the company’s allegedly beginning layoffs with no notice. Most notable today though was the shift in Musk’s own tone as expressed in his tweets and an impromptu appearance at a business conference. He’s shifted from swagger to panicked complaining that Twitter is imploding as a business because of a campaign by “activists” to make advertisers abandon the site.

No doubt it will come as a great surprise to you. But Marco Rubio’s story of a Rubio canvasser (who turned out to be a notorious white supremacist) who was viciously beaten over his political beliefs continues to fall apart. Cell phone videos of the incident have now emerged (seemingly from the assailants’ defense attorneys) which undermine the political attack storyline and actually show one of the assailants (just before the attack) telling Christopher Monzon to go about his business and keep canvassing.

Before we head into a chaotic midterms election next week, Josh Marshall sat down with journalist Steve Clemons and political strategist Adam Jentleson to unpack a few theories about what Democrats did right and wrong ahead of this crucial election, and what we can expect to see unfold in Congress over the next several months. Josh digs deep into one layer of the conversation here, but you can access the full discussion below.

⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️

Dark times call for great journalism. That’s why we’ve decided to beef up and expand our original reporting team going into 2023. Building on the great work of our rising star reporters Josh Kovensky and Kate Riga we’ve just added Hunter Walker and Emine Yücel to our team. This comes on top of the recent hire of Kaila Philo who joined us in August.

We believe in a battalion approach to journalism. See where the important, kinetic stories are and run toward them. Our goal is to break a lot of stories in 2023, make a lot of light and heat around our work. In the tradition of our organization we will also be the narrators of the key stories, not only publishing new facts and revelations but helping you piece together the whole story as it is emerging and evolving through the whole political news ecosystem.

Thanks to our subscribers and our TPM Journalism Fund contributors for making this possible. There’s a lot to do going into next year. So keep your eyes open for more.

One question that comes up a lot when we talk about the debt ceiling is whether there might be some extraordinary executive branch action to get around the problem. These range from outlandish theories about minting trillion dollar platinum coins to much more reasonable things like simply declaring that under the 14th amendment the whole debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. On the merits, I think this latter argument is valid, indeed almost unquestionably valid. But I think this is largely besides the point. The point of the “full faith and credit” is that United States debt obligations are beyond any question. That is why the US is able to borrow money freely and at very low rates of interest. Indeed, the whole global monetary system is significantly underpinned by that commitment.