Why does Maddow keep pounding Fort Lee?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014

We offer the first of two theories: We sometimes find it depressing to discuss Rachel Maddow’s coverage of Fort Lee—to contemplate her hackneyed work, to contemplate the way such work has been accepted by liberals.

Still, we said we’d offer two theories about this phenomenon—two possible ideas concerning what makes Rachel run. Today, we offer one.

This morning’s theory follows an interesting night on the TV machine. Again last night, Maddow opened her program with two segments about Fort Lee. Her work had some interesting aspects.

Again last night, we saw the super-sized revulsion Maddow increasingly brings to this task. As she opened, she discussed a fuzzy bit of reporting from the front page of yesterday’s New York Times.

We refer to Kate Zernike’s fuzzy description of the way Bill Baroni allegedly gave pieces of 9/11 wreckage to various New Jersey mayors. As she has increasingly done, Maddow shared her supersized revulsion.

To watch this whole segment, click this:
MADDOW (3/11/14): If you feel the need to hit pause and go take a shower to rid yourself of the feeling you are having right now, I understand. I’m probably on DVR, so just hit pause.

[...]

In this same cringe-inducing article that makes you want to run into every social studies class in the country and tell the kids not to go into politics unless they’re emigrating to a country where it isn’t this disgusting, the New York Times makes clear they have seen this numbered list of 100, this numbered list of 100 mayors from whom Chris Christie’s re-election campaign was trying to get endorsements.
Shorter Maddow: Children, please emigrate!

Maddow continues to supersize her disgust with the vile Team Christie. That said, last night’s show was also intriguing because of Maddow’s reaction to that list of 100 mayors.

Some time back, Zernike referred to that list; we noted that she didn’t seem to have seen it. Was Sokolich even on the list? At the time, we noted that Zernike hadn’t made that explicit claim.

In yesterday’s front-page report, Zernike said she has seen the list. Sokolich was number 45 on the list, Zernike said—45 on the list of 100 mayors from whom Team Christie wanted endorsements.

Last night, we were intrigued by Maddow’s somewhat belated reaction:
MADDOW: That’s kind of interesting, right? I mean, the theory that has been posited over and over and over again, including in today’s front-page story in the New York Times, the theory that has been posited over and over again for why lanes onto the busiest lanes in the world were shut down by members of Governor Christie’s inner circle. The theory is that it was all about political retribution against that mayor, political retribution against Mayor Mark Sokolich in Fort Lee for him refusing to endorse Chris Christie for re-election.

Seriously, though? Think about that for a second. You close down access to the world’s busiest bridge for number 45 on your list? You gridlock a town for five days for a guy who’s only number 45 on your list of priorities?

Seriously?

What does that mean they did if number 35 failed to endorse them? I mean, I shudder to think what would happen if number five refused to endorse! Would that be nuclear?

[...]

According to the governor himself, why would anybody do something so dramatic and so risky, so outrageously punitive against a little town that just didn’t matter that much to this statewide campaign?

Governor Christie made that case publicly and emphatically back in January, saying basically, “I got bigger fish to fry than this Mark Sokolich guy. Shutting down the bridge to hurt him over the endorsement issue, it makes no sense.”

And we find out today that Mark Sokolich was, in fact, number 45 on the list of critical endorsements that was created by the campaign. OK, understood.

So then, why did one of Governor Christie’s top staffers order traffic problems for that town? Why did they apparently order those lanes closed? The unexplained nature of what happened on that bridge is still the most interesting question in this whole scandal and it’s the reason, frankly, why the scandal continues to be so fascinating, in addition to being the cause of ongoing investigations.

If it wasn’t worth it to rain down a week of traffic hell for one endorsement from number 45, Fort Lee, then why did they rain down a week of traffic hell on Fort Lee? Why did they do it?
Maddow simply seemed to assume that Zernike’s reporting was accurate. That said, she seemed to see, rather belatedly, how odd the standard premise of this story has always been. (“Odd” doesn’t necessarily mean “wrong.”)

Did Team Christie engage in these reckless acts to punish a rather insignificant mayor? That basic notion has always been strange, a fact Maddow seemed to acknowledge last night.

We were also struck by a fact Maddow largely blew past last night. Twelve minutes into her program, she played tape of the judge in yesterday’s hearing on Fifth Amendment claims by two former Christie aides. Speaking to the attorney for the legislative committee, the judge made a very surprising statement concerning Bridget Kelly:

“You could grant her immunity and then they have their right against self-incrimination goes away, and we don’t have the constitutional issue and you have the right to proceed with your investigation...Under the statute, the committee has the explicit right to grant immunity.”

Say what? “Under the statute,” the legislative committee has the explicit right to grant immunity to Kelly? What statute was the judge talking about? Her statement seemed to contradict everything said to this point about the possibility of immunity.

Unfortunately, Maddow largely failed to examine the judge’s statement. But then, her relentless work on Fort Lee has tended to be strong on repetition and revulsion, weak on information and fact. She has told the story about the $1 rent for the parking lot on three separate programs. She never included the basic background to her cartoonish tale.

Why does Maddow give so much air time to Fort Lee? Why is she willing to make so many accusations against so many people, often on an extremely flimsy basis?

Why is she willing to invent false facts to drive her accusations, one of the ugliest kinds of behavior in which a journalist can engage?

Today, we’ll imagine one possible motive. As we do, please understand—we are only searching for motive because her work has been so strange, so mistaken, so bad.

Today, we’ll imagine one possible motive for this peculiar performance: Maddow may be doing this for business reasons. She may be copying the highly successful methods of Fox.

If you review our Monday post,
you will see Gabriel Sherman, the biographer of Roger Ailes, describing the “propaganda” methods of Fox. Those methods involve the invention of good guys and bad guys, and a great deal of repetition.

As we watched Sherman on C-Span two weekends ago, he seemed to be describing the way Maddow has covered Fort Lee. Her repetition of simple stories has been striking. On several occasions, she has been willing to invent “bad guys” by simply inventing false facts.

As Sherman described the Fox “propaganda” techniques, he made it clear that he was discussing a partisan operation. But he also said that this sort of thing makes for very good television—and he said MSNBC doesn’t do this sort of thing as well as Fox News does.

Uh-oh! At that point, his interviewer, Jane Hall, recalled a recent event:
HALL (1/29/14): Ailes has been quoted, very amusingly, I saw recently he said, they asked—a reporter did an interview with him and he said he liked Rachel Maddow but he didn’t want to get her into trouble.
Ailes likes the cut of her jib! Below, you see the Q-and-A to which Hall referred. This was part of an interview with the Hollywood Reporter:
QUESTION (1/8/14): Among your competitors, is there any talent you particularly admire?

AILES: I think Rachel Maddow has been a surprise to a lot of people. She wouldn't really work at this network because she wouldn't even come in the door, but on a personal level, I like her. I don't want to hurt her career, so I won't say we get along, but I've had dialogue with her, and she's very smart. She has adapted well to the television medium.
Should progressives be concerned when Roger Ailes says that Maddow “has adapted well to the television medium?”

Not necessarily, no. Progressives should be concerned when Maddow invents false facts, engages in unfounded accusations, and smothers the liberal world in simple-minded repetition which seems to be soft on information development.

Make no mistake, though, Maddow seems to be rather ambitious. In various ways, she is now constantly telling her viewers to keep “watching this space.” She is also constantly boasting that her reports are exclusive.

At one time, such blandishments didn’t exist on her program. Now, they are quite frequent.

Maddow is ambitious, and she is paid $7 million per year. If you refuse to imagine the possibility that she could be working a ratings grab, you may be too much of a dittohead to perceive the world around you.

(We’re not asserting that she is. We don’t know why she has covered Fort Lee in the way she has.)

Why has Maddow engaged in so much simplistic repetition? Why is her revulsion increasingly supersized and dramatic? Why does she work to ratchet the sense that she is chasing cartoonish villains?

On Friday, we’ll offer a different possible theory concerning her work. But remember why motive is needed here:

Maddow’s work on Fort Lee has been quite bad in various ways. When very smart people do very bad work, sensible people ought to wonder why.

45 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Somerby has provided extensive evidence in support of his contention that Maddow's work is very bad. Where is your evidence?

      Delete
    2. Somerby's critics in the comments box have pretty much documented that Somerby has done eveything he has accused Maddow of doing in his series on her coverage of Ft.Lee, and that in the instances in which he has been correct it does nothing to alter the basic accuracy of her presentation of the story.

      Where is your refutation?

      Delete
    3. I'm not the one calling Somerby's work bad. You are. That requires some evidence. You have provided none except name-calling. Somerby's critics are largely trolls. Their comments aren't compelling, even if noisy.

      It isn't Somerby's job to be a journalist -- that is Maddow's job. When Somerby is correct it does a great deal to "alter the basic accuracy" of Maddow's presentation. In fact it calls that accuracy into serious question and makes her a "very bad" journalist. That you are willing to settle for "basic" accuracy suggests you are buying her overall bad guys vs good guys approach and don't mind if a few details are flubbed as long as the bad guys get called out. If so, you are proving Somerby's point.

      Delete
    4. "Where is your refutation?"

      The blogger's bald assertion that this is nothing more than a ginned-up controversy?

      Delete
    5. Anon @ 2:51

      "It isn't Somerby's job to be a journalist."

      OK. So what is BOB's job?

      "When Somerby is correct it does a great deal to "alter the basic accuracy" of Maddow's presentation."

      State when BOB has been correct and thus altered the basic accuracy of Maddow's presentation.

      "Somerby's critics are largely trolls."

      Point out when you have ever factually refuted one of them.

      KZ

      Delete
    6. Funny, but I thought Anonymous at 1:21 asked a simple question. The title of this piece is "Why does Maddow keep pounding Fort Lee?" I would take 1:21's question to mean why if TDH doing the same thing.

      It seems his or her question demands an answer, not a comment requesting evidence of a fact or opinion not stated.

      Delete
    7. The question in the comment could also have been referring to the statement at the end of the article, rather than its title.

      Somerby has explained repeatedly why he focuses on Maddow's wrongdoing as a journalist. That should be very clear to anyone who reads this blog regularly, including trolls, whether you agree with him or not.

      Delete
    8. "Somerby has provided extensive evidence in support of his contention that Maddow's work is very bad."

      Yes, it was utterly brilliant of Somerby to dig up media profiles of Maddow written several years ago to "prove" how "very bad" her work, and her self, really is.

      And I am sure that Bob fans were enthralled to be privileged to see such genius at work.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous at 4:12 there are two ways to interpret your comment.

      You say the question could have been related to the statement at the end of the article. Here's the statement.

      "Maddow’s work on Fort Lee has been quite bad in various ways. When very smart people do very bad work, sensible people ought to wonder why."

      In that case the question "why do you?" asks why Somerby wonders why, an implication that the commenter does not find Somerby to be a sensible person.

      The second interpretation is that it applies to the questions posed by Somerby at the end.

      "Why has Maddow engaged in so much simplistic repetition? Why is her revulsion increasingly supersized and dramatic? Why does she work to ratchet the sense that she is chasing cartoonish villains?"

      In this case the commenter is asking why BOB does those things, which several commenters state has been documented already.

      Those two possibilities, along with the first posed in my original comment all suggest answers are the appropriate reply, not a demand for documentation from the person asking the original question.

      Delete
    10. "Somerby has explained repeatedly why he focuses on Maddow's wrongdoing as a journalist. That should be very clear to anyone who reads this blog regularly, including trolls, whether you agree with him or not."

      Yes he has. Day after day after day, going on for six years now.

      Which makes the question "Why?" quite sensible.

      I get it. Bob thinks Rachel Maddow is a horrible journalist as well as a horrible person. I got that a long time ago.

      The question, however, remains: "Why does Bob Somerby keep pounding Rachel Maddow?"

      My guess? He learned a long time ago that researching and writing a blog about issues that really matter is too much hard work. He tried once years ago and failed miserably to turn his blog into an "education blog", realizing that after the first week or so, he ran out of things to say.

      So he went back to pounding on a few choice targets and calling that "media criticism."


      Delete
    11. It is pretty obvious the fan of Somerby offering the first response to the very first comment can neither state what Somerby has been right about nor what his critics have been wrong about.

      Delete
    12. That would be a fair observation Anon. @ 10:14. We would have used "terribly" instead of "pretty" to modify obvious.

      What we wonder is why he/she cannot define what it is BOB's job is.

      Delete
    13. We also wonder, in addition to the question we posed above, if anyone can tell us which aspect of Maddow makes her the least credible:

      1) Repeated comparsions of her to Salem witch hunters.

      2) Comparisons of her to Joe McCarthy, or

      3) A revelation that Roger Ailes likes her personally and may not share BOB's opinion that she is a clown.

      KZ

      Delete
    14. You're actually wondering why someone doesn't want to waste time with trolls?

      Delete
    15. We'll put you at 4) all of the above.

      But it does beg another question. We wonder why people, such as yourself, feel it necessary to, in your words, waste the time it takes to call a name instead of offering an intelligent response. Perhaps that is a lesson you have taken at the right hand of the OTB, master of the vernacular.

      KZ

      Delete
  2. "Maddow’s work on Fort Lee has been quite bad in various ways."

    She stuck with the story that has now led to former Christie staff pleading the fifth.

    I'd take that over one who characterized this story as a "ginned up controversy" pushed for partisan reasons (and hasn't retracted to this day).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kelly has been taking the fifth since she was first asked to testify. This is nothing new -- just the hearing is new. Maddow has in no way affected her plea. So your phrase "now led to..." is wrong, as is the implication that Maddow's work has had anything to do with progress in any investigation of this matter.

      Delete
    2. I'd say the implications of Anonymous 1:51 are far more accurate than the implications of any work Somerby has done on this topic.

      Delete
    3. Glad to know Maddow will always have an audience for her nonsense.

      Delete
    4. "Glad to know Maddow will always have an audience for her nonsense."

      Both on TV and here at TDH.

      Delete
    5. Be still my heart.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 2:47 I said Anonymous 1:51's work had more accurate implications than Somerby's. I said nothing about Maddow.

      Delete
    7. The 1:51pm Anon says:

      >>>>>...She stuck with the story that has now led to former Christie staff pleading the fifth.

      I'd take that over one who characterized this story as a "ginned up controversy" pushed for partisan reasons (and hasn't retracted to this day).
      <<<<<

      In other news, Rep. Issa (R-CA), who has been sticking with his this is a scandal!!! take on that IRS story, must be enjoying 1:51pm Anonymous' renewed support in that matter these days as Lois Lerner again has taken the Fifth..

      Delete
    8. Until this whole situation is linked back to Christie, this is a ginned up controversy being pursued for partisan reasons. Several people have now commented here that they don't care about traffic inconvenience in New Jersey and don't understand the fuss about it on a national show.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 3:50

      "Until this whole situation is linked back to Christie, this is a ginned up controversy being pursued for partisan reasons." Yes. There were no lane closures lasting four days backing up traffic serving 1/4 of the lanes to the GWB. There were no attendant problems for the people in the town of Ft. Lee as a result. Just something partisans ginned up. Along with the lies to explain it leading to two resignations and two firings involving people close to the Governor who called it just a study.

      "Several people have now commented here that they don't care about traffic inconvenience in New Jersey"

      Several people commented to the Star Ledger they were directed by the Port Authority Police, the only one's who, according to Somerby, were consulted in advance that the event was simply a study, to call the Mayor and city of Ft. Lee with their complaints about the traffic jam.

      (They)... "don't understand the fuss about it on a national show."

      Many don't understand one bloggers obsession with a single opinion show host.

      Delete
    10. " . . . is wrong, as is the implication that Maddow's work has had anything to do with progress in any investigation of this matter."

      So if you don't think Maddow has anything to do with the progress of this investigation, then why is Somerby so obsessed with her?

      Delete
    11. Why was Roger Ebert so obsessed with movies?

      Delete
    12. So that is why he kept panning Bette Davis day in and day out.

      Delete
    13. How old are you?

      Delete
    14. And who can forget Ebert's classic takedown when he looked up everything written about Davis early in her career to prove what a liar she was?

      Delete
    15. "Until this whole situation is linked back to Christie, this is a ginned up controversy being pursued for partisan reasons."

      1973: "Until this whole Watergate situation is linked backed to Nixon, this is a ginned up controversy being pursued for partisan reasons."

      Thank God we still have investigative reporters who can smell something rotten in the state of New Jersey and will follow the trail where it leads without regard for the Nervous Nellies who think everything must be proven and nailed down before they are allowed to write a word.


      Delete
  3. The coverage does seem to be lacking regarding some important points.

    For instance, Kelly was fired, correct? Normally, most places I've worked, when people are fired they leave the work product at their desks and are escorted out. Why, pray tell, does Kelly have possession of this type of work material? Why do they need her permission to obtain it? Presumably, her emails are preserved and backed up at the governor's office in Trenton as most modern companies with IT departments would have. Can't they just ask Christie to have his IT guys get on it right away, since Christie is kind of investigating himself anyway? Probably a dumb question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If she was e-mailing from her personal computer or phone, she
      may have possession of material which the Governor's office does not have. If she was e-mailing from the Governor's office equipment the material would be covered by a subpoena to that office.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, but that's my point. What were they arguing about yesterday, and has at least all of the material from the Governor's office been produced or subpoenaed even?

      Delete
    3. These were emails from personal equipment.

      Delete
    4. mm I can't answer your second question.

      I can tell you they were arguing whether Kelly must surrender documents and other items subpoenaed by the committee that she possesses. Presumably she no longer possesses anything she had which is state property and did not possess it at the time of the subpoena since she had already been fired.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's see what's contended to be (1) a false fact, and (2) an accusation.

    Or is the operating principle here that if they're not buying your argument, say it again and again, and louder each time?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If you refuse to imagine the possibility that she could be working a ratings grab, you may be too much of a dittohead to perceive the world around you."

    So who is refusing to imagine that possibility, Bob? People you imagine in your head?

    OF COURSE, this story has been good for her ratings. So what?

    I'm sure pounding on Maddow every day has been good for your Web traffic as well. At least it pleases the choir you preach to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOB has never gotten his head around the concept that TV, newspapers and Web-only zines like Salon must make a profit for their corporate overlords. If you want your cable news channel to stay in business, especially if it trails its competitors badly, you do what you can to bump up the ratings.

      If your ratings tank, you don't get a pay cut, you lose your position.

      Delete
    2. For Bob to get his head around something doesn't he first have to pull it from its current location?

      Delete
  7. OMB

    "Should progressives be concerned when Roger Ailes says that Maddow “has adapted well to the television medium?”

    Not necessarily, no."

    We just thought we'd mention it. Guilt by association followed by semi-denial is a good change of pace from repeatedly calling someone a clown.

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ailes and Maddow aren't associates. Let's put it this way: if George W Bush praises you for your keen grasp of military strategy and tactics, don't get take it too seriously.

      Delete
  8. What I don't quite understand about Bob is that he created this blog because of the near criminal negligence of the mainstream media in covering of Al Gore campaign. That is why as an old Gore supporter going back to 1988, I started reading Bob because it was the only place you could get any factual info about Gore anywhere.

    Part of the problem was that there was no liberal media, just a lazy venal MSM and the right-wing media.

    What I don't understand is that there finally is a liberal media that can stick it to the right and the msm, Bob treats Maddow like the msm treated Gore.

    I watch Maddow, I get tired of the New Jersey coverage but I fast forward through it if I don't want to see it. You may have some arguement as to whether NJ is covered too much, but almost everything I have seen on the story is factual. If a mistake is made it is corrected.

    The nitpickiness of Bob on Maddow and other hosts on MSNBC, looks strangely similar to the msm's abysmal treatment of Gore.

    It would be really great to stop of beating our own folks up who are doing the great job of embarrassing the msm and refuting the lies of the right-wing media.


    ReplyDelete