MISTAKENLY TAKEN FOR SMART: Maddow analyzes Trump!

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015

Part 1—Sadly, we’re with Stupid:
Large chunks of our political journalism fit an unfortunate profile.

The coverage in question is deeply lunk-headed. But for reasons involving culture and marketing, it’s mistakenly taken for smart.

(And for honest, sincere!)

A great deal of this lunk-headed coverage occurs in the New York Times, a famous newspaper which markets itself to upper-end readers as high-toned, elite—and smart.

That said, did you hear the one about Candidate Rubio’s four (4!) traffic tickets? Did you read the Times’ recent report about his “oversized windows?”

The Times has played it this way for decades, both in its political reporting and on its opinion pages. We’ll review more of the paper’s dimwitted work before the week is done.

For today, let’s examine another source of lunk-headed work which is mistakenly taken for smart. Let’s discuss the way Rachel Maddow opened last night’s cable news program.

Maddow became a nightly host on MSNBC in September 2008. At that time, she was heavily marketed as a Stanford grad and as a former Rhodes Scholar.

Maddow has always been marketed as smart. That said, it would be hard to overstate the dumbness of her “campaign coverage” over the past month.

Last night was no exception. Let’s set the scene:

On Saturday morning, Candidate Clinton had made her most substantial speech as a White House candidate. Yesterday, Clinton conducted her longest press availability as a candidate—and Candidate Bush formally announced that he is running for president.

If you wanted to cover the White House campaign, you could have focused on those events. Instead, Maddow spent the first half hour of her program thinking about Donald Trump.

Why on earth would someone make so strange a selection? We don’t know how to answer that question. But Maddow began her program by indulging in one of her favorite activities—talking about herself.

Maddow constantly seeks out ways to talk about herself. It may be part of a marketing strategy designed to make us lunk-headed liberals think that “Rache” and her various staffers are really our TV friends.

Whatever the reason, Maddow was talking about herself again as she opened last evening’s program. She took the throw from Chris Hayes and began to muse, in humble fashion, about her own professional shortcomings.

“I I I I I I I!” Around here, that’s what the analysts chant when Maddow embarks on one of her pointless, deep-thinking fugues about her favorite subject:
MADDOW (6/15/15): Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend...And thanks for staying with us for the next hour.

Even for things that we are pretty good at, even for things that we are paid to do, all of us have our limits, right? Part of being an adult is recognizing the outer boundaries of what we are capable of as people.

So my job, for instance, is understanding and explaining the news. And in order to do that job, I do a lot of exposition in terms of just the raw, factual explanation of what’s going to in the world and in the news. I also do some analysis, a little analysis thrown in to explain about what’s important about going on in the news or at least what makes it interesting.
“A little analysis thrown in!” Already, the analysts were in tears, in some cases from laughter.

As if she was on the road to Damascus, Maddow continued her Waldenic search:
MADDOW (continuing directly): I don’t think I’m the best at my job. There are people in this building, for example, who are better than me at every aspect of my job.

I think I’m OK. Mostly, I’m really glad this is my job because I love doing it. I work hard to get better all the time.

But I have come to realize that there are limits. There are some things I can’t explain, or at least that I can’t analyze in any meaningful sense, because there is something that plainly is appealing about these things, or that seems important about these things, but I just can’t grasp it.

I know it means something to other people. I can see it in their faces. But I can’t get it. I can’t empathize.

And there aren’t a ton of these things, but there a few of them that come in a recurring way in politics, things that obviously really resonate with other people that honestly, I’ve figured out, I just don’t get.
If you have a way to watch the tape, you’ll see Maddow performing effusively as she offers these thoughts, presumably in ways she’s been trained to do.

By the time she’s saying that she “can’t empathize,” she’s staring stage left at her hand, not unlike tormented Hamlet addressing the skull of poor Yorick. Later in this ridiculous segment, you’ll see a lot of the toothy grinning that helps establish Rachel as our funnest friend.

That’s part of the performance factor in last night’s opening segment. That said, let’s return to the content as Maddow spends a ludicrous 23 minutes talking about Donald Trump.

According to Maddow, there are several things in politics that she isn’t able to get. As she continued, she shared three examples.

Maddow doesn’t get the appeal of term limits, she said. She also doesn’t get the appeal of “nepotism,” defined as the practice of “voting for somebody or feeling loyal to somebody as a politician because you liked a family member of theirs as a politician.”

“Obviously this has some resonance. But I don’t feel it, I don’t get it,” Maddow thoughtfully said.

She then moved on the third thing she doesn’t get—“purpose-built political clothing.”

As she discussed this third topic, she showed a photo of President Bush’s boots at an inaugural gala, followed by a photo of President Obama on Air Force One. Judged as political journalism, this is amazingly low-IQ stuff:
MADDOW: I also don’t get purpose-built political clothing. It’s fine for presidents to wear cowboy boots, for example. I think it’s weird for presidents to wear boots that are designed to remind them that they are president with the presidential seal on them.

Why do presidents need those jackets whenever they go on Air Force One? Those jackets that tell them they are president while they are on that airplane?
I mean, would they otherwise forget? They don’t have to wear a little uniform any other time when they`re president. Why do they have to wear the special purpose-built political clothing while they`re on that plane? It`s very strange.

So, things large and small! There are things that are beyond the outer limits of my capacity as somebody who has this job, somebody who explains the news and does political analysis. And I get that.
Already, Maddow had been discussing herself for almost five minutes. The IQ level of her discussion rivaled that of a dumpster fire.

That said, this is where the ultimate focus of her lengthy opening segment finally appeared. According to Maddow, the thing she really can’t understand is the political appeal of possible candidate Trump.

“The thing I don’t understand is how he is a political figure, or what kind of political figure he is, or what sort of political juice he’s got, because he’s got some,” the puzzled broadcaster said. “I just can’t figure it out. I can’t get there.”

She summarized Trump’s past feints at running for president, then copped again to the limits of her ability to understand:
MADDOW: And here, we get to the limits of my abilities as a person who has a job like this, because it is not at all that I dislike Mr. Trump and, therefore, don’t see the appeal because I don’t share the affection for him that his supporters have. It’s nothing like that. It’s not qualitative at all.

I do not recognize— What’s going on here is that I don’t recognize, I cannot see that what he is doing is something that might conceivably to anyone have any political appeal.
It isn’t that Maddow dislikes Mr. Trump! “It’s nothing like that. It’s not qualitative at all,” she oddly said.

It isn’t that Rachel dislikes Trump; she just doesn’t understand his political appeal. After playing some tape of the blustering Trump, the broadcaster who is often mistaken for smart decided to quantify his “political juice:”
MADDOW: I can’t see that kind of public persona, as being something that lays the foundation for a viable presidential run. But I also recognize that Mr. Trump does very well in the polling among Republican voters. There’s one new poll out today which he does lousy, comes in at 2 percent. But usually, and most of the national polls this year, he does pretty great. I mean, he is certainly on track to be included in the national debates, even as like the guy who came in second to Mitt Romney last time around and the governor of Ohio and the former governor of Texas, people who would seem to have a much more straightforward shot at the nomination, are coming in fairly consistently after him in the polling.
In most of the national polls this year, Trump “does pretty great,” Maddow weirdly said.

As she spoke, results of three polls of Republican voters appeared behind her on the screen. In those polls, Trump had been preferred for president by 5 percent, 4 percent, and 3.6 percent of Republican voters.

Adding in the most recent poll where he scored only two percent, this means that Trump is averaging 3.8 percent in Maddow’s four polls. For unknown reasons, this is Maddow’s idea of “doing pretty great.”

(According to Maddow’s analysis, two percent in a poll is lousy. Four percent? Pretty great!)

By this point, the nonsense had barely started. That said, Maddow’s performance last night was almost dumbfoundingly dumb.

Starting at 9 o’clock, she devoted 23 minutes to a discussion of Trump’s political appeal, which seems to be rather limited at this time. Eventually, she called in her friend, Chris Matthews, to explain that appeal.

Tomorrow, we’ll show you what Matthews said about Trump. But there’s only one term for the silly gong-shows Maddow has been presenting, night after night, over at least the last month. As has been the case for a month, Maddow’s “campaign coverage” last night was almost defiantly dumb.

In large part due to marketing, Maddow’s work is often mistakenly taken for smart. The same is true of the New York Times’ hopeless political coverage.

Last night, Maddow seemed to be talking down to kindergartners as she discussed herself and puzzled about Trump’s political juice.

She’s been staging these gong-shows for a month. It’s hard to believe that this work is being done in good faith. But plainly, her work is the farthest thing from smart—and the Times is just as bad.

What explains such low-IQ work? Tomorrow, let’s speculate!

Tomorrow: At 9:30, Maddow moved on to Bush

Next post: Salon fact-checks David Brooks

12 comments:

  1. Maddow's whole schtick is lifted from Jon Stewart. So much so that it's embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jonny Scrum-halfJune 16, 2015 at 1:20 PM

    Agreed that Maddow is trying to emulate Stewart, poorly.

    One thing that crosses my mind when reading about Maddow's show is to contrast it with Hannity's show, or with Mark Levin's radio show. Both Levin and Hannity are shoveling pure propaganda, but especially Levin makes it appear that he's intellectually grappling with issues. He regularly talks about Constitutional language and history in a manner that is biased, but nevertheless sounds very sober and serious. For some reason Maddow appears to want to come across as a lightweight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A new Jonny Scrum-half heard from.

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

      Delete
  3. In the comment box for the previous post, mm gave the best example of the Clinton Rules at work, a piece by Chris Cilizza in the WaPo dated June 11, 2015. Somerby has yet to mention it.

    Here, in this post, we have Ramblin Bob Somerby, five days later, starting with a Maddow headline, but opening with his own comedic effort to put down the New York Times lasting several sentences masquerading as paragraphs.

    And when he does get to Maddow, he begins by knocking her for talking about herself, but his actual criticism of the program in question begins with him talking about the fictional critters of his own imaginary world, his analysts.

    "Rache", as Somerby alleges, may want us to think she is our "TV friend." Bob, it might seem, wants us to think he has friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rache: "Fly my pretties!"

      Delete
    2. Shorter @2:23: Somerby is a poo-poo head.

      Delete
  4. I feel so bad for Donnie Combover.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am here to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for over 9 years and we had two kids. thing were going well with us and we where always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treated me and the kids. later that month he did not come back home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted traditional spell hospital for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he casted on him that make him come back to me. my family and i are now happy again. Thank you Dr. Aluta for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay. He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery
    Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could say that you complete me...but that would be a lie, because every morning when I wake I long for you more than the day before

    ReplyDelete