Liberal Media! Run Away!
This is exactly the crap that drives liberals crazy about the "Very Serious People" over at TNR. Yes, Rachel Maddow getting her own show is indicative of the trend toward ideological cable news. But unless Sacha Zimmerman has some plan for ridding the world of Fox News and fundamentally changing the political DNA of our country and its media markets, denying her a show because of this would amount to (continued) liberal unilateral disarmament.
And more importantly, Rachel Maddow, while obviously liberal, is the person on cable least likely to further the actual problems that Zimmerman believes come with this increasing media polarization: "that we are more and more retreating to our comfortable trenches and refusing to acknowledge anything but spite, paranoia, and conspiracy theory when it comes to the other side" and "knee-jerk reactions" passing "for smart commentary."
She, unlike almost every other political pundit on television, is rigorously fact-based, refreshingly unhackish when it comes to defending or attacking the Democratic Party, and rarely goes with easy vilifying of those with whom she disagrees.
In short, then, Zimmerman is arguing that Rachel Maddow shouldn't have her own show because Sean Hannity is an asshole. Great.
After reading some of the approving comments appended to the short blurb on Maddow's ascension, I feel these folks are not superior and disinterested in their balance, but cowed. Why Jon Stewart's "sneering" is bad escapes me, since it is 1) always fact-based, 2) entirely deserved, and 3) somebody has to be less-than-awed by power.
And Rachel Maddow is liberal, but she never is reflexively so. She points out irrefutable failures or inconsistencies, on both sides. That the GOP garners the lion's share of criticism is simply that they are the major screwups these days, and I will not accept the argument that this is a partisan view.
When someone is shooting at you, you do have to shoot back, but you can either use more bullets or simply be accurate. The latter is Rachel Maddow.
August 21, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested in a comparative analysis of the intellectual credentials of the major cable news commentators. I've heard that Olberman and Maddow have distinguished academic backgrounds and that Hannity's formal education ended with high school. I'm not sure about O'Reilly and Mathews.
August 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow is a doctor (just not that kind of doctor).
August 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar.
Oh, that's right--I almost forgot, we're being populist today. :
In any case, if you care to, measure the would-be populist by what they stand and fight for, not what their educational, social, etc. background is.
August 21, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy O'Reilly graduated from harvard.
August 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And?
So, amazingly enough, did George W. Bush...
August 22, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. W attended Yale.
August 22, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harvard for his MBA.
August 22, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pew recently published a comparative analysis of the intellectual credentials of the audiences of the major cable news commentators and various news resources --
August 22, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Right calls CNN the Clinton News Network, yet a right wing radio talk show host, Glen Beck, has an hour show on CNN. Where is this on Fair and Balanced FOX?
CNN had been running part of a McCain speech to the VFW where he attacks Obama, its been on a few times and it runs uninterrupted for 2.75 minutes. I timed it. They didn't follow with an Obama piece. After they ran it last time, 2:50 pm, they went right to a Battle of the Sexes story.
Now they're running a clip of McCain bashing Obama from an oil rig in the Gulf
MSNBC once had Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and Clinton hating, McCain loving, Chris Matthews all on with their own programs. Tucker's ratings were so low they fired him from the show but keep him on as an advisor. Scarborough is on in the morning and between 6 and 7:00am its bash Obama hour.
David Shuster (he of "Hillary is pimping Chelsea" fame) and David Gregory are all Obama all the time and most of it is negative.
If Obama is the subject, and you bring up bad news for him, and show clips of McCain bashing him, as many on Cable do, then your pushing McCain.
Olbermann makes money for them.
Rachel Maddow gets a show? That's a man bites dog story.
August 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Greta Van Susteren started at Fox, she was a moderate voice and also had an interesting show, but in a short time started towing Rupert's line and lost all credibility with those who can actually think and chew gum at the same time. While I watch Olbermann and get some interesting analysis, his show is more commentary than news. Here's hoping that Rachel maintains her evenhandedness on MSNBC.
August 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bushie,
all Maddow ahs to do is follow Truman's words;
"I'm not going to give them hell, I'm going to give them truth and they're going to think its hell."
August 22, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's this kind of hysterical hyperbole over next to nothing that makes conservatives crazy.
Zimmerman didn't say Hannity is an asshole.
Zimmerman didn't say Maddow shouldn't have her own show.
For that matter Zimmerman isn't even arguing, but rather making an observation on the state of cable TV. The only one arguing here is you and your strawman. And you're still losing.
That is what Zimmerman ACTUALLY said, which turns out to be complimentary and gracious. You should take notes.
August 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he's saying that he's concerned because of the trend, which is most embodied by Hannity, and least embodied by Maddow.
See Glenn Greenwald today for more.
August 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Sh@@ter knows Greenwalds work well. He is one of the resident trolls there. He makes for great comedy.
August 21, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pathfinder is correct that I comment at Greenwald's and your post sounded similar. His favorite device is taking something out of context, erecting a strawman, denouncing said strawman in vitriolic terms, one or two sentences saying he doesn't really mean it, and then going ballistic anyway at the close.
This particular episode of his is a classic hit job exactly like the one's done to Klein, Peretz, O'Hanlon, and others deigned insufficiently militant. They are personally derogatory and hateful. While you haven't gone to the extreme, this is cautionary in the need to be accurate and measured.
August 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's the whole point. "Going tribal"?! Gone, past tense. Like, long ago.
This is just liberals flexing enough market power to start to have MSNBC have some sort of real liberal representation. Unless you have a plan to de-tribalize Fox, liberals in American need to suck it up and fight back, not pine for a world that will never be.
August 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The correct pronoun for Sacha Zimmerman is "she."
August 21, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Golis, dude, Greenwald calls you "normally mild-mannered."
haha.
You don't happen to be a super hero, do you?
August 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That cracked me up. I couldn't figure out if it was a good thing or a bad thing...
August 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bad thing. If you read the piece prior-- "Journalists and their good friends in the White House", you'll see that Greenwald thinks journalists should spend 24/7/365 snarling in people's faces, giving them the third degree.
August 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine why he'd think that in light of how well the whole press/WH thing has worked out these last 8 years.
August 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242,
After the likes of Jeff Gannon in the ranks of the White House press corps, it would have been a breath of fresh air. But as we may soon learn, once again, robust scrutiny is reserved for liberals and Democrats.
August 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess in the world Greenwald resides it isn't good etiquette to call crap what it actually is...
August 22, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God! MSNBC has become the Dyke News Network!
August 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! You kiss your mom with that mouth? Would you take offense to someone calling BET the "Nigger Network?" Just a thought.
August 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love it when humorless self-righteousness provides an opportunity to throw around the N-word.
August 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka,
you would have done well to go after Norman Kelley too.
August 22, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not throwing anything around. I asked him a question. Are you implying that I called him the "N" word? I did no such thing and would not. He chose to use a despicable description of gay women. My question was if he would mind the "N" word, another despicable description, being used to describe BET. Get a clue.
August 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must be a slow news day. Other than that, when will people get that the media are in the money-making business just like any other corporation. When it comes down to tell or sell, sell will win every time.
August 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if he likes Rachel so much and if "balance" is so much his thing, why isn't he ragging on FOX that they didn't try to hire her first?
August 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter says;
I never saw Greenwald say anything comparable to that. Greenwald thinks journalists should have a somewhat antagonistic relationship with government and be skeptical, not socialize with them on a regular basis. Helen Thomas isn't afraid to break some glass.
Greenwald's take on the Washington Post's White House reporter, Michael Abramowitz, is a classic example of what a White House reproter shouldn't be.
August 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
From today's Greenwald
I'd say that demonstrates my point about Greenwald's aggressiveness nicely.
August 22, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
naturally you omitted the examples Greenwald was referring to. (regarding what they said about Kerry/Heinz)
Here's what you said:
No straw men, no taking out of context, no denouncing said "strawmen". He named names and used quotes.
Here's a continuation of your Greenwald quote:
Just the way the right wing and the MSM shoved the Kerry/Heinz bullshit in the public's face.
You're hiding from the truth in what he posted.
August 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Rachel and wish her the best of luck on TV.
My advice to her, however, is don't limit the show to blaming America for everything. Viewers and listeners tire quickly of that format (ask any Air America investor...)
August 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would she blame America for everything when it's so much more accurate to blame Republicans for everything?
August 21, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would she blame America for everything when it's so much more accurate to blame Republicans for everything?
August 21, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maddow will have enough to do counterattacking Republican bullshit.
August 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a silly concern to me. I admit to not having seen her but liberal or not, from what I hear, Rachel Maddow is just really good and smart, period. Or are there too many such folks on the airwaves these days?
August 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink