Perhaps a bit less than comic relief!

SATURDAY, JULY 30, 2016

Perhaps a bit less than accurate:
Reluctantly, we wanted to show you something Rachel Maddow said on last night's Rachel Maddow Show.

We're going to have to wait! MSNBC hasn't posted a transcript yet, not even on Nexis. Having already burned our time transcribing remarks from Thursday evening's convention coverage, we'll be danged if we're going to burn more time transcribing last night's program.

We could do it. But it would be wrong.

MSNBC has a remarkably slacker corporate culture. At this, its official site, the channel has posted transcripts for exactly four Maddow shows in the whole month of July. According to the official site, the program aired on July 1, 5, 6 and 11, and on no other occasion.

Reluctantly, we wanted to show you something that was said on the program last night. That said, we're going to wait for a transcript to appear at Nexis. Then, with real reluctance, we'll compare what was said last night with an actual transcript of some actual remarks from the actual night before.

There's no "point" to any of this, of course. That said, we still think it's instructive, the way our culture works-wise.

That said:

On Monday morning, we expect to start with this semi-humorous essay from today's hard-copy Washington Post. Our question for the week will be this:

Is current criticism of Candidate Clinton primarily sexist and misogynist? Or is it primarily part of a longer, three-part story, a three-part story your "journalists" are sworn not to tell?

We'll ponder those questions next week. We can already tell you this:

Whatever the current situation may be, the misogyny was much more overt in 2007 and 2008. But since it was coming from big press corps stars, the rest of the guild largely agreed that they mustn't notice or tell.

In search of Hardball script: The slacker channel is doing better with Hardball. At this, its official site for that, it has posted Hardball transcripts all the way through Wednesday, July 13!

12 comments:

  1. Yesterday, Matthews and a pundit whose name I didn't catch were discussing why Hillary didn't have her speechwriters create a more poetic and flowery speech, like Obama's speech. They decided that it was because she was trying to be the work horse instead of the show horse.

    All of this was fabricated out of thin air, speculation that Matthews confidently presented as if it were true simply because the idea passed through his brain.

    These serial speculations start out somewhat innocuous and anchored in truth but quickly become flights of fantasy. They start out sort of neutral but quickly become negative toward Clinton.

    In this case, they wound up presenting her again as someone who is never genuine but always trying to manipulate the way people see her by controlling every aspect of her self-presentation. They never entertained the thought that maybe she wrote the speech herself and it reflects the way she is because of that.

    So I had to turn him off. So far, my record is listening to him for about 2 minutes. That's typically all I can take. Maddow, even less.

    When I asked yesterday who I should listen to in order to hear some Trump bashing, it was because I spend a lot of time in the car and actually wanted a suggestion for a radio station (XM-Sirius). Yes, I can turn off the radio, but it makes the time go faster to have it on during my commute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen to Jimi Hendrix, or Bob Dylan. Or Van Morrison. Or the Ronettes. Or Mozart.

      Delete
    2. Or Fela Kuti. Or Gang of Four. Or Stereolab. Or Au Pairs. Or Minutemen!

      Delete
  2. I know I've been monotonous about how Hillary (and Bill) aren't held to normal standards. Here's another example:

    She hasn't had a press conference in over 200 days. That's remarkable for our probable next President.

    Clinton campaign pollster Joel Benenson excused her behavior, saying, “She has answered hundreds, if not thousands, of questions from reporters,” while touting all the interviews she has done. “We’ll have a press conference,” he concluded, “when we want to have a press conference, there’s no problem with that, but the American people hear from her directly every day.”

    Of course, in a real press conference, she'd have to face reporters' questions on topics selected by reporters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She hasn't held a press conference for the national press following her campaign. She has meet with local press in each of the places she has been visiting. She has been interviewed also by major press. So this idea that she MUST hold a press conference or she is hiding something is ridiculous. So her campaign staff is correct.

      Delete
    2. "She hasn't had a press conference in over 200 days."

      From the Washington Examiner, truthvolt, Breitbart, Fox Cable News Online, MRC Online, and God knows who else, to TDH courtesy of that original thinker, David in Cal.

      Delete
    3. Since when was a candidate running for office expected to hold press conferences?

      On the other hand, the GOP nominee literally bans newspapers and reporters from his events, and attacks the media non-stop at every single one of his events, and has literally promised to change libel laws when he becomes president.

      **************
      "One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.



      "We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
      ***********************

      You are supporting a maniac, David. A mentally unstable, ignorant overgrown narcissistic psychopath, who promises to mess with America's most primary 1st Amendment press freedom's.

      I'm fine waiting until she is actually Madame President, in less than 100 days now.

      Delete
    4. mm -- yes, there's no legal requirement that a candidate hold press conferences. But, I'd say press conferences are "expected", because all the other candidates hold them.

      Simlilarly, there's no legal requirement that a candidate release income tax returns, but such releases are "expected". It's a mark against Trump that he hasn't released his income tax returns, just as it's a mark against Clinton that she doesn't hold press conferences.

      Delete
    5. So, just to be clear, you have no comment, no problem with your candidate explicitly threatening the press with "opening up those libel laws", attacking them viciously and immaturely at virtually every one of his Nurenberg Rallies, banning newspapers and singling out individual journalists for ugly comments, but you're kvetching over the fact that Secretary Clinton has not had a press conference recently. Do I got that about straight?

      If I remember right, the last time she did a press conference, Ed Henry of Fox News kept yelling at her and accusing her of "wiping" or "scrubbed" the server with absolutely no basis for making the accusation. As we ultimately found out, the accusation was false.

      David, you need to check out a blog, named The Daily Howler, where the writer document the horrible incompetence and gross unfairness to the Clintons almost daily. You might find it interesting.

      Apples and hand grenades David. She makes herself available to the press all the time, just this morning on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, not exactly a soft interview.

      On the other hand, all presidential candidates have released their tax returns in some form. And with growing evidence of Trump's Russian oligarch connections, I would say he has good reason to hide them.

      Delete
  3. Is criticism of Hillary sexist/misogynist or the result of a dark conspiracy? No possibility any of it is fair, I guess, Hillary being such a paragon of virtue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on the criticism. She is a paragon of virtue -- that's why you should vote for her.

      Delete
  4. Poor BS, MSNBC is not enabling his Maddow Derangement Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete