This may be just a personal thing. It may not translate to others, but I think Rachel Maddow is one of the best television news personalities in the last 20 years. Personally, I love smart women. I especially love smart women who don’t mind letting you know that they are smart. Rachel is a geek. She knows she’s a geek and she’ll happily tell you that she is a geek. She is extremely well-educated in political science. It was her major in college.
On Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow had an extremely thoughtful piece on the Shirley Sherrod ordeal. She connected the right wing propaganda machine to several phony stories, including the ACORN story, the new Black Panther story and the smear campaign on Van Jones. Bill O’Reilly, in his typically bombastic way, could not let some minor, inconsequential journalist point out that Fox News does not really deliver the news. So, he took the time to point out that his ratings are bigger.
(Watch the clip)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel correctly points out that this fact, that Fox news gets bigger ratings, does not change the fact that Fox news has an agenda. The agenda is to make people afraid. This is why Rachel Maddow is great. She calmly and thoughtfully points out that Bill O’Reilly does in fact have bigger ratings. She also points out that he did not address her accusation. Instead of addressing the substance, that Fox news pushed the acorn story which destroyed an organization that did not have a shred of truth in it, Bill O’Reilly asks, “What planet are you from?” Anyone who’s taken a course in debate knows how to avoid a question or issue. By posing this rhetorical question Bill O’Reilly is telling his audience that the answer is obvious when in fact the answer to his Fox audience was not obvious.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love the fact that Rachel approaches the news from an intellectual standpoint. This does not mean that she doesn’t get some things wrong. She does. As far as I know, she is gone out of her way to correct her mistakes on the air. To me, this reinforces the fact that she is thoughtful and different than 99% of the TV personalities, journalists that are out there.
Congratulations Rachel. Keep up the great work.
Can you simply admit that Rachel has an agenda as well?
She is no different than OReilly, except that OReilly is welcomed into far more homes on a regular basis than Rachel.
We can discuss ACORN if you wish, or Planned Parenthood, or any one of the numerous leftist organizations who seem to think they have a God-given right to US taxpayer money.
Let ACORN raise as much private money as they wish and continue to operate.
And let's be honest about Rachel; she has her bias just like you and me and Bill O.
As usual, you miss the point. Or you have changed the subject. Notice that I didn't say that she is a news reporter. She isn't. Yep, she is bias. She is also thoughtful. She also admits her mistakes. O'Reilly … or I just can't attack O'Reilly now. I don't have the energy.
As far as groups and government money that's a completely separate conversation that is worth having.
Thanks for your thoughts.
[QUOTE]Rachel correctly points out that this fact, that Fox news gets bigger ratings, does not change the fact that Fox news has an agenda. The agenda is to make people afraid. [/QUOTE]
Stunning!!!
AGENDA she says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You probably believe that the “Ed Show” is good journalism as well.
Errington:
Here is how I view Rachael Maddow after monitoring her show for an extended period of time. She (of course) has an agenda. It falls apart once someone comes in and applies what is IMPORTANT TO THEM and thus sees that she is but a “bit player” in the entire scheme of things.
Please note, for example, how Maddow was aggressively on the “Right Wing may have lynched a Federal IRS Agent”. Recall when the IRS agent was found hanging in the woods with a sign upon him that read “Feds”. Maddow was chomping at the bit to break a story that the RIGHT-WING ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA had committed murder. She was forced to back off when the official investigation ruled it a suicide.
Here is where I expose Ms Maddow. I pile up her spot interests and then apply them to a larger domain of noted problems in America and then NOTE HER SILENCE on these larger points.
Please note that despite the far more proficient murderous rampage of the “Street Pirate Gangs” in America – killing Blacks in particular, Ms Maddow and no other MSNBC operative has any interest in doggedly tracking the flow of blood. Even though these groups stock pile weapons just as do their White militia counterparts – they are hands off to Maddow.
WHY bother reporting on these people and offending her Black base when, people like YOU don't hold it against her for inferiorizing Black gangs in comparison to the more interesting White Militia groups?
If I were to ever debate Ms Maddow I would demand that we first both enumerate our “Permanent Interests” and then make sure that she never “up ends me” by KEEPING ME ON TRIAL. Instead she needs to explain her selectiveness in her antics. Silence upon the issues that are not in her interest or forte.
Yes, Rachel is pretty awesome. I like the way she destroyed Dick Armey on Meet the Press using logic and facts (like garlic to a vampire) but with no hostility, just an earnest enthusiasm and charm. The difference between liberal and conservative commentators, generally, is that liberals tend to use more facts and reason mixed with compassionate humanity. Conservatives are more driven by paranoia and fear playing the blame game to the lowest of lows.
You are exactly right. I appreciate your comments.