She does this stuff all the time: Last night, Rachel Maddow had us rubes very upset with Senator Scott Brown.
After a long and deeply self-involved rant, Maddow began to clue us in to Brown’s latest offenses. Brown has been “very reluctant” to schedule debates with Elizabeth Warren, she said:
MADDOW (6/19/12): Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown, but Senator Brown has been very reluctant to agree to a debate schedule with her. The Boston Globe reporting that the senator and his staff have refused to meet with Elizabeth Warren or her campaign to discuss debate invitations or dates or terms for debating.From that, a person would surely think that Brown has refused to schedule any debates. That person would think that Brown had now tentatively agreed to one debate—although “he had conditions,” Maddow said, conditions which seemed rather odd.
This week, though, Scott Brown says he would agree to a televised debate with Elizabeth Warren, but he had conditions. And he said if his conditions weren`t met, he wouldn’t do it. His conditions are, first, that the widow of Senator Ted Kennedy not make an endorsement in the Senate race. Seriously, that was one of his demands. And two, his second demand, Scott Brown also demands that MSNBC not be the host of the debate.
It was at this point that we saw a familiar pattern emerging. Why would Brown make that “demand” about the widow of Senator Kennedy? Maddow’s story didn’t seem to make sense—unless she was leaving something out, as this rather dishonest person rather frequently does.
Before we explain Maddow's con game this time, let’s enjoy the rest of her rant about Brown’s weird behavior concerning The True Liberal Channel:
MADDOW (continuing directly): MSNBC is not the host of the debate. MSNBC was never going to be the host of the debate. MSNBC never even got asked about hosting the debate.Some of that is related to the first part of Maddow’s full-segment rant, in which she got to mention her own name many, many times. This seems to be Maddow’s favorite activity.
But Scott Brown demands that MSNBC be removed as the host of this debate! And please send him money for him to run against his Senate opponent, MSNBC-TV host Rachel Maddow!
What is going on with Senator Scott Brown? Are other senators like this? Is anybody else besides us at MSNBC having to deal with a sitting U.S. senator constantly making stuff up about their hosts running campaigns against him and saying we’re hosting debates that we're not hosting? Does this happen to other people?
We recommend that you watch the tape of this full segment, which runs six minutes. We’ve never seen anyone on TV who is quite so self-involved.
Back to Brown and Warren:
What did Maddow fail to tell you about Brown’s position on debates? First, Brown has already scheduled two televised debates with Warren. At issue is a proposed third debate—a debate Vicki Kennedy proposed, a debate which would have been held at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
How do we know these things? Because they’re explained right at the start of the news report Maddow used as her source. That news report also explains why Brown mentioned MSNBC, a point Maddow seemed to find mystifying.
The piece was written by Noah Bierman of the Boston Globe. Gaze on the basic facts—the facts Maddow chose to withhold:
BIERMAN (6/19/12): Senator Scott Brown said he will accept a debate at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute but only on the condition that Vicki Kennedy stay neutral in the election and that MSNBC not be included as a broadcast partner.Repeat: Those are the opening paragraphs of Maddow’s stated source. She decided you didn’t have to know that Brown had already scheduled two debates. (In our view, she worked hard to make you think different.) She also disappeared the role of the Kennedy Institute in the proposed third debate. And she failed to explain why Brown had balked at the possible role of MSNBC.
The Brown campaign said in a press release that it would agree to allow former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw to moderate.
Elizabeth Warren has already accepted the Sept. 27 debate, but Brown had previously not committed. The candidates are jointly committed to two other televised debates so far, one in the Boston market and a second one in Western Massachusetts.
Vicki Kennedy, Senator Kennedy’s widow, had proposed a third debate. But she has been an active Democrat, causing some to question whether Brown should accept the invitation. And MSNBC, home to many liberal talk show hosts, had been mentioned as a potential broadcast partner.
(This morning, the Globe reports that MSNBC “had been mentioned in Kennedy's initial invitation as a possible broadcast partner.” Last night, Maddow played viewers for fools concerning that basic fact.)
Should Brown have agreed to a debate at the Kennedy Institute? This morning, the Globe reports that the proposal has fallen through. Sensibly enough, Kennedy refused to say that she would stay neutral in the race. Brown said he wouldn’t debate under sponsorship which was endorsing his rival.
But last night, on the Maddow Show, we liberals got treated like fools, as is often the case on this program. Rachel Maddow just isn’t especially honest. As we’ve told you many times, you have to fact-check every word she says—especially when the story she tells you doesn’t seem to make sense.
Go ahead—reread her presentation. Would anyone think, from what she said, that Brown had already scheduled two debates? Would anyone understand the reference to Vicki Kennedy? And wasn’t Maddow basically lying about Brown’s reason for mentioning MSNBC?
Maddow does this all the time. She tends to play the way Hannity does. We’re surprised other liberals accept this.
Our suggestion: Go ahead—watch the full segment. Maddow’s degree of self-involvement seems to grow by the night.
Rachel Maddow always lies in this way, she knows but she distorts what she knows which is lying, but Maddow has an audience that wants to be lied to in just this way and part of that audience will pass on the lying just as told as we can tell on the Internet from TMP or Brad DeLong....
ReplyDeleteWow, Maddow's conduct has been bad before, but I think this latest report is by far her most blatantly dishonest.
ReplyDelete"Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown, but Senator Brown has been very reluctant to agree to a debate schedule with her. The Boston Globe reporting that the senator and his staff have refused to meet with Elizabeth Warren or her campaign to discuss debate invitations or dates or terms for debating."
The above is just a blatant, out and out lie. Brown has agreed to two debates, which Maddow surely knows. I am no Sean Hannity fan, but I can't imagine even he lies this brazenly very often. (And surely when he does, Media Matters is on it).
MSNBC is truly a joke.
It would be nice if Media Matters would also go after MSNBC, but then they won't be invited on any liberal programs anymore.
DeleteYeah, Brown has agreed to two debates -- one sponsored and moderated by a right-wing talk radio station, and one sponsored and moderated by a right-leaning newspaper.
DeleteWhen he won Ted Kennedy's seat, he also agreed to and participated in the Kennedy Institute debate with no pre-conditions. This year, he said he would only agree to the Kennedy Institute debate if Vicki Kennedy promised NOT to endorse Warren.
Congratulations to Mrs. Kennedy for not surrendering her First Amendment rights.
Michal Janavel, Media Matters is at least honest enough to claim it is a Web site devoted to correcting CONSERVATIVE misinformation in the mainstream media. You want them to branch out into liberal misinformation, take it up with them.
DeleteThe Daily Howler, on the other hand, claims it provides "musings on the mainstream 'press corps' and the american discourse" yet has been obsessively fixated on MSNBC and the New York Times, and only on a select handful of gab show hosts and op-ed columnists within those two media.
And his obsession has run so deep that it even leads him to defend both Mitt Romney and even Rush Limbaugh any time that someone on either MSNBC or the New York Times dares to criticize either one.
Bullsh!t.
DeleteUm, Bob was obsessive about the NYT a long time ago--it started as best I can tell when he noticed the NYT spreading lies about Al Gore. He then noticed that the NYT is often pretty silly on a whole host of topics. And btw, in case you didn't know, the NYT is the most respected media outlet in the US , at least by other media outlets (aside from Fox of course.)
DeleteI think maybe Bob does spend a little bit too much time on MSNBC, but only a little bit too much. His point is that we liberals aren't nearly as reality-based sometimes as we like to think, and this should matter.
Donald
Well, I also agree that at this point in history, when the massive wealth that the nation's economy is producing is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, when one of the two major political parties has seen fit to nominate for president the absolute perfect plutocrat, that yes, Bob may be spending "a little bit too much time" combing through MSNBC transcripts and obsessing about what Rachel Maddow said last night
DeleteThe best defense that can be offered for Maddow in this situation and other similar situations is that she assumes her audience is already familiar with the source she's taking off from and that she therefore doesn't have to provide any context. I don't think she actually assumes that, but is it possible? Otherwise, either she's purposely misleading her audience or she doesn't bother to prepare at all and her staff is purposely misleading her. Every "media watchdog" should be holding her to account.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap. Gary just made an entire series of intelligent remarks. Am I dead but don't realize it yet? And if so, where are the BJ zombies I was expecting?
DeleteI think you're thinking of Greg.
DeleteI notice of passive tense to the reference that MNBC had been mentioned as a possible sponsor. In any event Brown agreed to Tom Brokow as moderator with the stipulation that local media sponsors rather than politically active national cable networks be used. That seems to be a request that could be easily negotiated. The demand that Vicki Kennedy remain neutral is absurdly unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteThe writer of this blog seems obsessed that Rachel Maddow didn't mention that Brown and Warren agreed on two debates already; a fair poibt as far as it goes, though I'm not sure I see the significance of it in relationship to the issue at hand. The writer of this blog also didn't comment on Brown's previous contentation that Maddow would be his opponent when he first floated this propaganda ploy in 2010.
Finally, I may have missed somnething, but I don't recall the blog writer provising a critical review of Maddow's new book, Drift.
Just wondering what's up with the obsession about Maddow from our "liberal" blogger.
George Demetrion
"The writer of this blog seems obsessed that Rachel Maddow didn't mention that Brown and Warren agreed on two debates already; a fair point as far as it goes, though I'm not sure I see the significance of it in relationship to the issue at hand."
DeleteYou can't be serious. Once again I quote from Maddow:
"Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown, but Senator Brown has been very reluctant to agree to a debate schedule with her. The Boston Globe reporting that the senator and his staff have refused to meet with Elizabeth Warren or her campaign to discuss debate invitations or dates or terms for debating."
Maddow out and out lied to her audience, telling them in effect that Scott Brown was unwilling to debate at all. In fact he had already agreed to two debates.
She then intentionally left out highly relevant information (that the proposed third debate would occur at the Kennedy Institute) in order to imply that Brown was making a bizarre demand (that Vicki Kennedy not endorse).
Truly this is conduct that, were it to come from Limbaugh or Hannity, and be directed against a respected democrat, we would rightly rail against.
George, please know that the writer of this blog is also a stand-up comic, a would-be social satirist. And like stand-ups that experience a certain modicum of success, their material was quite topical and original at one time, but once they taste that success, they begin to repeat themselves with topics and material that their fans will quickly recognize and it turns into schtick. The same old schtick show after show, until the only person they are parodying is themselves.
DeleteBut the money spends well.
"the money spends well"
DeleteThis blog is worth every cent you paid, isn't it, douchebag?
My goodness, what nonsense this blog, these comments, have become.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Howler was once upon a time a serious attempt to find fault, find good even, in what were the media who sucked and succeeded, often in the same day.
ReplyDeleteNow? It's obsessed with Maddow. Dowd, Collins and what's her name, the up and coming Dowd. Oh and a couple guys who don't measure up on a given day. And Al Gore. And Al Gore. And Al Gore.
And the comments? If anything, worse. The one Anonymous guy gets it right, over and over, but even he gets tiresome.
I arrived at this blog a few years ago as a high school teacher of 20+ years because it had something to say about education.
I've had enough. Bye.
The blog was always about Al Gore, since the abysmal coverage given to Gore's campaign and the lies told about him were what showed Bob S that the press can't be trusted to get anything right. And it wasn't just the conservative press--it was the so-called liberal press that was doing these things. You can't possibly be serious in complaining about "Al Gore, Al Gore" if you've been reading this blog for that long. As for education, he still posts on that. NYT coverage of the campaign is extremely important because it helps set the agenda for the rest of the "liberal" media, so how their reporters do their job is worth noticing. And MSNBC (especially Maddow) is watched by many liberals, so it matters if their heroes are making things up.
DeleteI'm not always interested in every post Bob puts up and I sorta get the point and don't need to know every detail of how Rachel lied on the latest show, but all the same, it's good that someone on the liberal side has the integrity to care and the patience to keep track of these things. I often thought Bob's posts about how dishonest the press was in covering Democrats (like Gore) could get tedious, but I never thought it was unimportant--again, someone should be documenting these things. It is interesting that now that he criticizes liberals more generally for accepting Fox News-like dishonesty that some of his former fans are turning on him. I don't know if that includes you.
So anyway, go read some blogger that covers your interests but don't pretend your interests are the only valid ones. There's no law that says you should care if the liberal press continues to assume their audience is composed of idiots.
Ad hominem attacks are something we learn about here, come join us!
ReplyDelete*snort!*
DeleteBut why? How can I insult someone who calls himself Anonymous when almost everyone else does too? And why would I want to?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the invitation though. I'll pass.
Bob makes a point about the left's position on honesty. We tend to accuse right of dishonesty and exaggeration, of citing things out of context, of adopting rigid ideaology, etc, and claim that we are the party of honest discourse and fair treatment. And then we put people like Rachel Maddow on the air.
ReplyDeleteMaddow would be less obnoxious, and Somerby would have less of a point to make, if the left did less back patting about how thoughtful and reasonable it is. Once the left admits that it has adopted the practices of the right and is fighting the right on its own terms, that the voters increasingly have two sides who are equally noxious, Somerby can put his blog to rest.
So a left party "of dishonesty and exaggeration, of citing things out of context, of adopting rigid ideology" -- is that actually your recommendation?
DeleteThe fools that not infrequently recommended this usually caricature insistence on not doing so as "being forced to abide by Marquess de Queensbury" rules.
Of course, reducing the Somerby's point in this way, to "honesty," eliminates what seems to be his significant co-concern, "information."
Will we also be freed at last from having to know or pretend to know anything about anything, "once the left admits that it has adopted the practices of the right?"
Where did I recommend that? What part of my statement said that I thought the left should do that? I was saying that Maddow is doing it, along with others, and that Somerby is pointing out the hypocrisy of a party which claims one thing and does another.
DeleteIn fact, the lack of integrity within the present left is precisely why I no longer consider myself part of that obnoxious group.
Bob hits the nail on the head with this criticism of RM. I saw the segment in question and came away with the impression that the Rep Senator from MA was fleeing debates altogether, and that he was trying to run against that phantom candidate booger-lady for Republicans, RM herself.
ReplyDeleteNothing new here. Rachel loves-loves-loves being an object of hatred for the enemy. This is not going to be changed by Howler's darts. Anyone who's seen her on booktv.org knows she's bigger-than-Elvis to her fans. That's who she's talking to when does those things Howler hates.
Rachel maddow tells the truth--all the time--and you goddamn fucking idiot child molester dicksuckers cannot stand it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo paraphrase Sarah Silverman, is it really molestation if the infant makes the first move?
DeleteBob's obsessions are common sense itself.
ReplyDeleteA democracy depends on a well-informed public otherwise the voters are going to act like idiots and make really bad decisions. Liberals often complain with great justice that millions of voters, especially white males, vote against their own self interest. Part of that is the result of the tons of mis-and-disinformation spread by what are supposed to be our nation's most reliable and august news sources.
As George Orwell, a socialist, famously and repeatedly noted, the problem of group think is anything but a specifically right-wing problem, however, neither side ever seems to see it in themselves. Facts that don't fit preferred narratives are discounted or denied. And those of the group who insist on noting reality find themselves ostracized. This also leads to incredibly bad decision making. Worse, the disinformation campaign that results is essentially self inflicted.
Credibility matters. Also, politics matters. When our side makes a huge deal out of calling mainstream Americans (who still constitute a plurality) racists upon us making a huge deal about stuff like George Zimmerman/Trayvon Marin or Duke lacrosse and then we turn out to be wrong wrong wrong on the basic facts we are accurately informing them that we can't be trusted and don't like white guys. Most people are not political junkies and don't have the time or interest to wade through facts and basically vote for who they think they can trust. If you have to choose between somebody who's a jerk but keeps telling you how much they're on your side and a jerk who treats you like a jerk, chances are you're going to vote for the jerk who at least has the decency to kiss your bottom.
Regrettably, our side is frequently far too sophisticated and nuanced to notice this.
Maddow is a circus barker, for sure. But don't we think we should inform our readers that Scott Brown wants to have Warren debate him at WBZ's Dan Rea's show, where Rea describes himself as a libertarian conservative? How does that square with Brown's professing to want someone "objective" or relatively objective?
ReplyDelete