Maddow massively jumps the shark!

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013

One of the most egregious reports we've ever seen on cable:
As we’ve told you in the past, Rachel Maddow isn’t what you’d call obsessively honest.

Her problem seems especially strong with respect to political figures of whom she disapproves. This seems to have led to the opening segment of last night’s program, one of the most egregious reports we’ve ever seen on cable.

The dishonesty was so extensive that we won’t try to detail it today. We will only say this:

If you want to see the way the world works, you should watch that 17-minute segment, the segment which opened last night’s program. To watch that segment, click this.

Then, you should compare what Maddow reported to the array of facts in this 1400-word news report in yesterday’s Washington Post, the source for Maddow’s presentation.

(Quite correctly, the Post didn’t seem to think that its report was that big a deal. The report appeared on page B4 of yesterday morning’s paper.)

Maddow’s subject was Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a long-time non-favorite of the multimillionaire cable star. That said, last night’s report was egregious to the point of virtual lunacy.

In our view, there are a few minor journalistic problems with the initial report in the Post. But Maddow took that report and journeyed around the moon.

To watch a truly egregious report, go ahead—click this. If you go on to read the piece in the Washington Post, you’ll see how thoroughly you got scammed by one of your own last night.

Do we liberals want to be played this way? Good lord, what a report!

Discourse on method: If you choose to fact-check Maddow’s report, be sure to look for the invented facts—and for the many facts which have been withheld.

The Post report is full of facts which Maddow and her staff discarded. This let them create a lengthy report which was just this side of nuts.

Final warning: Look out for the colonics!


  1. I heard Rachel's take on the dog-vitamin/energy drink snafu on the radio. Having no Wapo report to compare it with I simply thought here's a perfect example of the smallness of MSNBC's news judgment (or budget). Let's gripe and moan about the opposition, no matter how petty the peccadillos. It's a worthy way to pass our evenings.

    Meanwhile, I'm confused and long for more discourse about America's stakes in Syria, Has Obama become Dick Cheney, does the IRS scandal go farther than we thought, Will the growing economic inequality everybody now agrees is happening finish us?

    No, wait, did some idiot Republican just say something dumb about the female anatomy? Let's focus on how stupid and corrupt the other side is.

    Judging from an interview she did with him in late 2010, Rachel wants to be Jon Stewart. He scolded her a bit saying those in the legitimate news business had a much higher calling than a mere comedian. They say you have to be familiar with the day's news to appreciate "The Daily Show." It seems as well you have to be familiar with the day's news to appreciate how lame and unedifying these cable news programs have become.

    Plummeting ratings? Surprise, surprise, surprise.

  2. Man, 17 minutes on that? All that on dog vitamins and energy drinks (totaling less than $1,000), and 30 seconds on the bribery scandal? What producer green light that segment? Yeesh...

  3. Thankѕ for a marvelous posting! I сeгtainly enjoуed гeading it, you
    might be а great author. Ι will always booκmark уouг blog anԁ may come
    back in the foreseeable futuгe. I ωant to encourage one to сontіnue youг great poѕts, have a nіce holiday weеkеnԁ!

    my sitе;

  4. I saw the WaPo story yesterday and think it is a Repub doing dumb things that gives the Dems something to point to. Yeah, both sides do it and it is wrong. However, I can't listen to Maddow. 17 minutes would make my head explode! I'll take your word that she jumped the shark and misrepresented the facts. No surprise there.

  5. I have cringed for weeks, watching you beat up on our sweet Rachel. Several times I've damn near taken you off my RSS reader. Why must Bob be so harsh? I love Rachel. I see her forte as being able to femsplain the complicated issues of our day. She is magnificent. We need more femsplaining.

    But then I saw last night's performance and now I finally get it. I don't even have to go read the Post article. She was over the top, prima face. She was so far over the top I was forced to wonder:

    What brand of laxative does SHE use?

    Still, she is a magnificent entertainer.

  6. We need Eco and Eso. Read more on my blog (please click on my nickname).

  7. I agree completely that RM and her staff want to be and think they are Jon Stewart and the DS. To watch them do it is embarrassing enough let alone watch them fail at it.

  8. There is no question that Maddow is trying to fool her viewers by leaving out the exculpatory evidence. Some of the governor's transgressions are relatively trivial and, it seems from the WaPo article, common mistakes for a new first family trying to figure out what the public covers (general laundry) and what it does not (dry cleaning). In the cases of the energy drinks and sending out a staffer to pick up a wedding dress, the governor and his wife's point of view is completely understandable.

    That being said, government employees have to be very careful about how they use public money and there is no excuse for their continued carelessness even if the sums were paltry and (for the most part) repaid. Had a low-level government worker done the very same things, he or she would almost certainly have been fired.

  9. Maddow is hopeless, simply hopeless.

  10. I can't stand Maddow's logorrhea....a 17 minute segment, and it's 5:45 before she even gets to McDonnell? The first nearly six minutes are about Richard Nixon....who gives a shit about the Checkers speech... She is absolutely unbearable. I'm as liberal as they come and she is utterly unwatchable for me.