Part 1—Two ways to spend time at the office: We were struck by something Rachel said on Friday evening’s program.
Somewhat surprisingly, Maddow did an actual news segment midway through the program. It concerned the Louisiana shootings, which had occurred the night before.
Maddow hurried through the basics in her short news segment. In effect, she was clearing time for her weekly “Friday Night News Dump,” an ersatz quiz show where everybody gets to be silly and have lots of fun.
Maddow hurried through the basics about the latest mass shooting. Along the way, she said she didn’t understand how the killer had been able to obtain his gun legally, as had been reported:
MADDOW (7/24/15): The other thing, the other important thing we learned today about the shooter, concerns his apparent history of mental illness and how he was able to obtain the gun he used to kill those people last night.“What’s done is done,” Maddow said, hurrying ahead toward her weekly quiz show. To watch the brief news segment (four minutes), you can just click here.
We learned from court records today that in 2008, his family obtained a protective order against him. As part of that process, a probate judge in Georgia had this man involuntarily committed. He had him sent against his will to a hospital in Columbus, Georgia.
One thing about our country’s very, very loose gun laws is that federal background checks are supposed to prevent you from being able to purchase a gun if you’ve been adjudicated mentally ill by a court of law. This man was.
In addition today, authorities in Russell County, Alabama, said that this man was A, treated there for mental illness and they knew about it. And B, he was turned down for a concealed carry permit in that county a couple of years prior to treatment for mental illness because of other arrests.
I mean, nevertheless, though, after all that, after the protective order against him, after being treated for mental illness, after being involuntarily committed at a judge’s order for mental illness—nevertheless, this past year, he was somehow able to buy a gun. He bought that .40 caliber high point semiautomatic handgun at a pawnshop in Alabama early last year.
And this is the part that’s very troubling, and that I don’t understand. Police say when he bought that handgun early last year in Alabama, it was a legal purchase. How can that be a legal purchase?
But what’s done is done. And as of tonight, two people are dead. One’s in critical condition, four others still being treated in a hospital. The shooter himself is dead.
All we have as we try to figure out how and why this happened are thus far unanswered questions about how he could have had access to the gun, whether there was anything that could have been done to stop this from happening in the first place.
Maddow said she didn’t understand how the purchase of the gun could have been legal. She called it an “important thing”—and she said she didn’t understand.
Can we talk? During her segment, Maddow didn’t interview anyone with expertise—someone who might have understood how the purchase could have happened. There was no indication that she or her staff had done so during their arduous work day.
One hour earlier, on CNN, Drew Griffin had explained the legality of the purchase, speaking to Anderson Cooper. We’re not gigantic fans of Griffin, and we would guess that his explanation was wrong.
That said, at least he had an explanation! Maddow said she didn’t understand, then hurried along.
Why couldn’t Maddow explain the legality of the purchase? After a long day at the office, why didn’t she understand the way that gun got purchased?
We can’t answer that question. But we can show you how she had spent at least part of her work day.
After a commercial break, the Maddow Show proceeded to a regular weekly segment. The program went to a videotaped segment in which Maddow and a devoted staff member engaged in a weekly event.
In this videotaped segment, the staff member knocked on Maddow’s office door and was granted admittance. From there, the pair pretended to debate what sort of campy “swag gifts” they might give to some lucky contestant during that evening’s “Friday Night News Dump.”
It was senior producer Tricia McKinney who was shown knocking on Maddow’s door. After she was granted admittance, the garbage recorded below occurred as we the viewers looked on.
In part, this is what “news” looks like in 2015, corporate liberal version. The videotaped selection of the swag gifts is now a weekly ritual on this disintegrating “news program:”
OPENING GRAPHIC (7/24/15): Cartoon of a panel truck screeching up to the curb. The truck is marked thusly: FRIDAY NIGHT NEWS DUMP/THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW PRIZE PATROLThat was the end of the segment. We can’t link you to videotape of the segment, unless you can make the “Full Episodes” feature work at the Maddow site.
MCKINNEY: (Knocks on office door)
MADDOW (as heard inside): Come.
MCKINNEY (entering office): Hello.
MCKINNEY: It’s time to discuss the swag gifts for the Friday Night News Dump?
MADDOW (seated behind desk): You were wearing that earlier today, weren’t you?
MCKINNEY (modeling jacket): What do you mean?
MADDOW (doing Groucho with her hands): I have an item that can be a swag possibility here too.
MCKINNEY: Oh, really?
MADDOW: Tell me yours first.
MCKINNEY: This awesome jacket?
MADDOW: You want that?
MCKINNEY: No idea. We just—I literally found it in a drawer. Nobody has any memory of its playing any role in our show.
MCKINNEY (modeling jacket): I might keep this, if you don’t give it away.
MADDOW (examining jacket): Is it ripped? A little. It’s a little racy. OK.
MCKINNEY: Definitely. And I also found another random item, a Texas Longhorns—
MADDOW AND MCKINNEY (in unison): A teeny, teeny, teeny-tiny—
MADDOW: Like a Texas Longhorn beer stein slash espresso cup!
MCKINNEY: I would think, yes.
MADDOW: Do we know where this came from?
MCKINNEY: No. No idea. Things are appearing in that drawer.
MADDOW: You remember we had Anthony Terrell on last week from Iowa? He came on with Iowa-themed things?
MCKINNEY (claps hands excitedly, almost jumps): Yes! Yes!
MADDOW (holding package of corn nuts): He brought us Iowa corn nuts, which are salted corn nuts covered in milk chocolate, which I’m steadily making my way through. We could have given these away, except I’m eating them.
But this one is “all-natural” Bacon Rub, which gives you “bacon-wrapped flavor.” You add it to anything. “All-natural bacon flavor rub.”
No bacon. The ingredients are brown sugar, dehydrated garlic, mustard powder, natural smooth flavors, yeast abstract—yeast extract. But it tastes like bacon! From Iowa.
MCKINNEY: OK. So do I get to choose?
MADDOW: Yes. So your jacket, Bacon Rub, Texas Longhorns.
MCKINNEY: Bacon Rub!
MADDOW: We can do the Texas Longhorns sometime soon.
MADDOW: Congratulation on your new jacket.
LAUGHTER, CLOSING GRAPHIC
In fairness, this videotaped segment wasn’t especially long. On the other hand, we’re now condemned to see some iteration of this nonsense every week.
This weekly segment serves as a prelude to the actual “News Dump” itself, in which Maddow quizzes a lucky contestant about the week’s news events while playing tape or herself from the week’s earlier shows.
Before the week is done, we’ll briefly visit on last Friday’s News Dump. For today, let’s discuss another segment from Friday night’s program—a segment we were condemned to watch before the News Dump occurred.
Maddow had teased the segment several times that night. This was one of the teases:
MADDOW (7/24/15): We’ve got a bit of unfinished business coming up with my interview this week with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum made quite a bit of news in that interview he did with me here. We’re very happy to have him here.Maddow had interviewed Candidate Santorum on her Wednesday night program. We wondered what the important, unresolved matter might be.
But there is one important matter that was unresolved in that interview that we will hopefully be finishing up tonight. That’s still ahead.
On the one hand, Santorum had said some things about a famous old event which seem a bit hard to credit. We wondered if Maddow planned to address Santorum’s puzzling remarks.
On the other hand, Santorum had said he wasn’t hugely concerned about his possible exclusion from the August 6 Republican debate. In the process, he gave a candidate’s-eye-view account of the way the Iowa caucuses work.
Santorum’s account was worth examining, if you want to waste your time on such piddle at this point. Unfortunately, Maddow does waste her time in that way at great length, night after night after night, and has done so for several months now.
Was Maddow planning to address Santorum’s peculiar statements about that 2003 event? Was she planning to discuss his account of the Iowa caucuses?
No such luck! Maddow had a different “important matter” she wanted to clear up! As it turned out, she had forgotten, on Wednesday night, to make a gift to Santorum—a gift of “dogpeecantstopsantorum.com,” a URL she owns.
That’s right! Rachel Maddow owns the rights to the "Dog pee can’t stop Santorum” site. On Wednesday, she had forgotten to gift him with the URL to the site.
That was the “important matter” she wanted to clear up.
Tomorrow, we’ll show you the transcript of Maddow’s treatment, on Friday night’s show, of this “important matter.” We’ll even present her vastly longer treatment of this important matter from her Wednesday night program, on which her interview occurred.
Maddow did only three shows last week. On Monday and Tuesday, she had been fishing, a fact she later shared.
Those three shows were crammed with the nonsense which now define the terrain of this increasingly ludicrous “news show.” All week long, we’re going to show you highlights from those three days in the life.
Maddow’s show was reinvented months ago. It’s now a nightly, low-IQ disgrace.
She insults the national interest nightly, both in the topics she pretends to cover and in the topics she ignores. She insults the intelligence of her liberal viewers—and we the liberals don’t seem to mind!
Alas! As Maddow has staged this rolling clown show, her ratings have steadily grown. We can stop mocking the ditto-heads now. Thanks to Maddow, it seems to us that our liberal mockery can stay much closer to home.
Tomorrow: “Dog pee can’t stop Santorum”
Maddow thinks she's Jon Stewart. It's pathetic.ReplyDelete
What a silly article. Maddow didn't go. Research, experts .... To what end? We all know the research. We've all seen the experts. As Americans, we deal with senseless gun deaths on a daily basis. As long as we tolerate gun deaths as we do, as long as we have shameless and potent lobbyists stashing Representatives and Senators in their pockets, these gun deaths cease to be news. More like living out our lives in a Coney Island shooting gallery.Delete
Maddow is as capable of fawning over Obama the way Stewart did in his last interview with the POTUS. Their idea of talking truth to power is to provide a forum for Obama to run a political advertisement for his Iran nuke deal.Delete
Everyone who appears on the Daily Show is promoting a book or movie or charity. The same with most other talk show formats.Delete
They also have commercials.Delete
When O'Reilly appears on The Daily Show to promote a book, Stewart isn't shy about challenging O'Reilly on every conceivable issue. When the Democratic Party POTUS shows up, Stewart retreats into a quivering mass of aspic. Obama is still declaring the IRS scandal is a right wing invention long after IRS Commissioner John Koskinen admitted in sworn testimony that Lois Lerner did target conservative groups for special scrutiny and delayed their applications for 501 (C)3. Stewart is well aware of Koskinen's admission and still allows Obama's utterly false statements to go unchallenged. Fortunately for Obama, there are still many media outlets where he can appear without fear of being confronted by hosts who have the integrity to call him out on blatant lies.
@ 1:43 & 2:43 - cranky & needs a nap.Delete
I disagree @ 10:15. Maddow is happy in her own skin.Delete
If Gore had been he'd be ex-President by now instead of waiting for Hillary to collapse so he can save us from flinty Vermont Socialism with a Brooklyn accent.
Maddow doesn't come across as "comfortable" to me. She comes across as manic and a bit desperate, and not the least bit genuine.
If people want to complain that Hillary is out of touch because she thought she was broke and in debt, Bernie's problem is that the people and problems of New England do not reflect the nation much at all, and he has nothing on his resume to suggest he knows about people from elsewhere.
That's why Digby and HuffPo were expressing such amazement at the flock of 11,000 people attending his speech in Arizona. They are trying to show Bernie has more than local appeal. Unfortunately, those 11,000 people were mostly attendees of Netroots Nation (no matter what room the speech was given in or who paid for it), not everyday Arizonans, so they don't represent any widening of his base. It is a real problem for him that doing well in NH is not going to solve, since people in NH are pretty similar to those in VT.
Your guess about Maddow may be better than mine. The quality of everyone's television varies, so what you view may differ.Delete
I am not sure I follow your point about Sanders. I know everyday Arizonans elect people like Sheriff Joe and still elect John McCain because they thought being caught makes you a war hero until a brilliant billionaire told them to look at it another way.
Why do you think Netroots Nation broke the Arizona boycott? Do you think DailyKos boycotting the conference that once bore his name hurt attendance at Sanders's speech? And all those Texans the next day in Dallas and Houston. Are they desperate or what?
Why don't you try saying something with declarative sentences, if you disagree? Stringing together phrases from other people's comments isn't communicating. If you think Sanders is doing better than I proposed, just say so. That "Are they desperate or what?", a phrase applied to Maddow, makes no sense the way you tacked it onto the end of your paragraph. From what you wrote, you followed my point just fine but you seem to think Bernie is appealing to people in Texas and Arizona. Just say so without the cutsie crap.Delete
I think @ 4:43 asked you some questions you did not answer. Two were in very simple sentences. The third was asked following a phrase that was an incomplete sentence, so it was very complex but I think I can figure it out. He/she said:Delete
"And all those Texans the next day in Dallas and Houston. Are they desperate or what?
This seems to imply Sanders spoke to a large number of people in Texas and it must have been right after talking to those non everyday people in Arizona. The question suggests they might not be everyday Texans either and thus have something like desperation motivating their attendance rather than attending a progressive convention. @ 4:43 appears to want your take on the matter.
I am not sure there was disagreement expressed which warranted a grammatical critique.
From Policy.Mic, which wrote an article about Sanders showing in Dallas and Houston:Delete
"Crowd size is an imperfect science, but we're drawing upon news stories at the time citing event and campaign officials' best estimates...[chart omitted]...What it means: While Sanders ability to attract huge crowds is a key narrative of the campaign so far, crowd size is a notoriously imperfect indicator of a candidate's prospects in a coming election. In the days leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney played to roaring crowds in a number of states, including Ohio. On Election Day, he would lose there by more than 100,000 votes.
Some campaigns are purposefully eschewing large venues, hoping to connect to voters in smaller, more intimate settings. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a point of hosting relatively small events and roundtables with voters — her largest rally to date was her campaign launch on Roosevelt Island in New York, after weeks of small get-togethers with caucus-goers and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
For Sanders, though, the calculus is much different. He is seeking to build a national movement. Large turnout has a number of pragmatic values, like juicing up his email lists and forcing the Clinton-obsessed pundit class to keep an eye on where he goes — and what he is saying there."
Just as Cruz managed to put himself on the bestseller list by having his campaign buy large quantities of his book (to give out to donors or supporters), who knows what Bernie is doing to attract his crowds. There was some suggestion that Trump (for example) was paying people to attend his. It may also be that people are curious about him. It remains to be seen whether he can translate those crowds into votes. Personally, I doubt it.
Note that Clinton has been deliberately limiting herself to small venues on purpose. That makes a direct comparison of their crowd sizes specious.
It is a low bar for a presidential candidate to be saying "Look, I can fill up a room." That should be a given for anyone seriously running for the highest office. That he thinks it means something is odd.
Today's Huffington Post headline: "NYT Public Editor Explains Clinton Mess" coupled with a picture of Hillary with messy hair with her mouth open in mid-comment.ReplyDelete
Implication is that Clinton caused the mess, not that the NYTimes created a mess concerning Clinton. The messy hair and sideways glance in the photo of course make HIllary look shifty-eyed and evasive.
These things are subtle but relentless at HuffPo. Like Maddow, they pretend to present the news and attract a wide audience of lazy readers because their items are sound-bites mixed in with puppies doing cute things and scare headlines about how mayonnaise is bad for you. So people can read without thinking, and that is how the damage is done.
You had to stretch to connect this to the all important issue of Rachel. Please stay on topic.Delete
You left out another implication from the photo: With her finger tips touching together it looks like Clinton is closely clutching a "secret."Delete
@ 10:42 mayonnaise is bad for you. It does almost as much damage as a photo with messy hair. No wonder Clinton does not want the press close enough to see what her hair might look like in real time.Delete
What about the heroic picture of Bernie Sanders on the same page? Under the headline saying "anger makes the world better." The whole thing screams to liberals to get in line and "Feel the Bern."Delete
Yesterday it said Bernie was surging in popularity. The Bernie sound bites are generally positive.Delete
The bullhorn gave him the same "take charge" air of confidence POTUS Bush inspired after the 9-11 tragedy.Delete
I see what Bob means about Rachael Maddow's dumbing down of the issues. I wish she would spend more time on subjects like ISIS's horrifying destruction and corporate malfeasance and such. I don't need to be entertained so much as I like to be aware and informed in a smart way. And when I do feel like be entertained I let entertainers do the entertaining not news people.ReplyDelete
I see what Bob means too. I couldn't figure it out watching her alone. I spent all weekend walking alone in the park watching dogs lift their legs and thanking Maddow for putting Santorum's futility in perspective. How dumb of me. And her.Delete
Thanks, Bob! My week is back on track and I look forward to seeing even more.
The libs at MSNBC do not want to cover ISIS because it reflects badly on their pals the POTUS and his first lady SOS.Delete
When you are sarcastic, you deepen your inner pain.
"The wingnut commenters here at TDH only cover MRC bullet points because they and their handlers at MRC have the intellectual depth of tissue paper."Delete
FTFY - adios.
@11:36 Merely noticing that something is wrong but never saying anything about it means it will never get fixed. If you walk down the street and notice how awful the litter makes the experience but never pick up a piece of trash, you are part of the problem. Similarly with Maddow's show. If everyone stays silent, she will think she's doing what people want.Delete
@11:57 I doubt Kerry likes being called First Lady.Delete
Just because others around here use the lower case for no good reason doesn't mean I do. I was referring to first lady as in first female. You are clueless.Delete
@ 11:07 what Bob really means is he could use a new jacket.Delete
Remember that the next time he has a fundraising drive.
Appending "lady" to some term to refer to a woman doing it is antiquated usage and has taken on a sexist tinge. Examples: lady basketball player, lady author, lady circus performer. Preferred are "female" or "woman." Worse would be "girl": girl author, girl circus performance (spoken of an adult). Your capitalization doesn't save you from this mistake. In any case, I doubt Kerry self-identifies as female.
I see your point about Kerry. Technically, of course, there is still time for a second lady SOS for this POTUS in this term, even if unlikely.Delete
You know, calling Kerry JFK always confused me. If he had won in 2004 do you think they would have called him that in headlines?
I could have called Clinton the POTUS's "First Lady/SOS" but that would have confused her with the current FLOTUS.
I could have said ExFLOTUS/Sen/SOS. Or maybe "the lady POTUS first had as SOS." I guess I am clueless too, like Lady Collins and so many others Somerby discusses in the course of dissecting our discourse.
Refer to her as Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and former Secretary of State, the first woman to hold both positions. Referring to a woman as a lady anything is offensive, unless she is British and that is her title. You may think you are being cute but you are behaving like an oaf.Delete
I never knew Gail Collins was a Brit. Or did she marry one with a title? So what do you now call the President's spouse?Delete
Hey @ 11:07 did you catch Maddow tonight? She covered ISIS and Shell's arctic drilling woes.Delete
You get results!
What is there to "cover" about ISIS?Delete
There's a lot to cover about ISIS (Daesh is the real name). I was surprised the 25 teenage executioners in Palmyra was barely covered. Maddow is cable news so you can't expect much but the NYT did only an ambiguous AP report.Delete
12:18 That's funny you should say that because it wasn't just Maddow that covered ISIS yesterday. Clearly, all her content is pegged from print and other sources. ALL the media covered ISIS last night because "U.S. and Turkish officials" released a press report. In other words, the State Media told them they could cover it and how. I guess my complaint is that they should cover it when we lose battles too. Not just when "U.S. and Turkish officials" announce an offensive. But I don't specifically fault Maddow here. Her work speaks for itself. The entire media is to blame for this one and we all miss out of a real story that has real implications. Not dog pee which feels good but isn't important as we all know.
What are the real implications of ISIS victories or defeats for the US? I just don't see the connection. This is of great importance to Europe and the Middle East, and certainly important to Muslims, but why does it matter here, to the point that our news should be covering the day-to-day changes in the battles for political control in Syria or Turkey or anywhere else over there?Delete
11:24 Wow. That's a very American response. Wow.Delete
I'll let you figure it out for yourself or just see the results as they happen. Meanwhile you can laugh about dog pee.
11:24 - It matters here if it is of great importance to Europe. You think Europistan is going to be our ally?Delete
Europistan may go easier on the Greeks than the Krauts.Delete
Over concern with Europistan is a conservative trope. If certain Middle East countries want to remain in the 3rd world, let them. I don't see the major developed countries of Europe going fundamentalist Muslim, so no Europistan. France has made headscarves illegal, for example. I cannot see ISIS gaining a foothold there. They are welcome to flourish in whatever Muslim nations have tolerated their brand of Islam and we will try to help their refugees, but I don't see why any of this is NEWS to the point that Maddow or anyone else needs to "cover" it. News for us should be why major candidates are not interested in saying anything about how to address global warming (Clinton excepted). It is why major candidates are funning around instead of proposing ways to increase jobs (and prevent robots from stealing them). These are not just domestic issues but issues with far more relevance to us than what city in Iraq ISIS is currently occupying. Kudos to Maddow for finding a new source of irrelevance to babble about. I'd be more interested if she had a serious discussion about why a Muslim terrorist in the US is different than a White Supremacist terrorist, and the differences in coverage of the two home-grown terrorists in the news lately. For example.Delete
Thanks for responding 1:36. I don't agree exactly but it's too much to go into and I take your point. Best regards,Delete
THREE DAYS OF THE CLOWN SHOW: Somerby Just Can't Let Go!ReplyDelete
We were struck by something Bob did in Friday's postings. Not surprisingly, Bob covered things found in the New York Times.
The first concerned what he called "a fairly lazy assessment of an important topic" - race relations. We'll skip the quality of his critique but observe that he put some thought into it. He closed with an often expressed view and a promise.
"So-called race lies at the heart of our nation’s brutal history. Thanks to the legacy we’ve been handed, it lies at the heart of endless interactions, policies and decisions today."
"There’s more to say about all these topics. That includes those statistics in the Washington Post about fatal shootings by police.
What can we learn from those very large numbers? We’ll continue such topics next week."
Later Friday Somerby did a supplemental on breaking news: a New York Times article on the Hillary Clinton Email saga. He hurried through the basics in his short post, relying primarily on a link from Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Somerby finished by restating an old, but deeply important theme for him:
"The New York Times defies belief. This has long been the case.
That said, a general code of silence has long surrounded this newspaper’s deeply peculiar workings. Within the guild, one doesn’t discuss the things the mighty New York Times does."
Over the remainder of the day other media outlets did discuss the mighty Times and even debunk it in detail. Events which shape race relations, like the autopsy in the Bland case, were also being covered to shape perceptions on "the poisoned gift" of race.
Why did Bob hurry through this critical news? Why is race nowhere to be found? We don't know.
In effect, was he was clearing time for his favorite blog topic "Rachel the Clown," an ersatz series where a silly TV infotainer has lots of fun but enrages Somerby with her salary and general continued existence on cable?
Somerby's blog was reinvented years ago. It’s now a daily rant about "liberal" personalities Bob thinks are a disgrace.
Alas! As Somerby slinks away from real discussion of major media coverage his critics among his own readers have steadily grown. We can't stop mocking the one time night club clown now.
Tomorrow: Dog Pee keeps Bob focused. It is a real "dick grabber" to use a Howler term.
Will it work for Bob like it works for Rachel?
It's only Monday. Didn't they teach patience in the school you attended?Delete
Yeah. So the so-called race thing has been with us since before anyone alive here was born and it is way too early to worry about the War on Hillary being really effective. And Bob had not touched on what Maddow did late Friday evening so it was important to start there. So he can show us all week long.Delete
If you want to set the agenda for what a blog discusses, start your own.Delete
Your comment is "worth examining, if you want to waste your time on such piddle at this point. Unfortunately," you waste our "time in that way at great length," comment after comment, and have ""done so for several months now."
You talking to me or to Bob?
In my opinion, this was a total waste of your time.ReplyDelete
It is Somerby's blog and he is free to concentrate on whatever he wants. You can leave.Delete
I think Somerby has gone overboard on Maddow one time too many again also. It is obvious she won't quit. And neither will he. They should agree to call a truce. Both would be better people for it.Delete
The problem here lays with Bob. Maddow isn't supposed to be real news. It's a light take on events like one would find on Comedy Central. It's Bob who lies, acts phoney and doesn't follow up on his ridiculous claims..ReplyDelete
The problem here is not that mayonnaise is bad for you. It is the scary headlines and bad photos.Delete
The Obama White House prefers "Miracle Whip." It is the perfect condiment for a POTUS who can walk on water.Delete
Now MSNBC is Comedy Central? Must be why they are featuring Brian Williams.Delete
"The perfect cicero mode of payment is cash since MRC's checks bounce so frequently."Delete
FTFY - $$$$
If Maddow isn't the real news why doesn't she act like it?Delete
The central problem with the critics of Maddow is that they do not understand the historical time period we live in and the real-world choices that actually exist now. Yes, she plays the fool, even according to herself. However, all her depressing anti-intellectualism combined is small compared with the lives she changes through the fun and informative 20 minute segments that begin her show.ReplyDelete
If only we all fully understood the historical time period of the gatekeepers. That is why, for example, she trots out Dan Rather from time to time. He is a living connection to fossil age television where this nonsense was not tolerated. He shames his predecessors by appearing.Delete
Gunga Dan's "fossil age" journalism was to use forged documents to further his liberal politics.Delete
"MRC's "anti-fact" use of paid trolling is used to further its patently-obvious failed attempt to convey itself as a 'conservative antidote to Media Matters.'"Delete
@ 12:36 Is the problem that lays here with Bob as noted by @ 12:25 bigger than the central problem with Maddow critics? Don't answer if it increases your inner pain.ReplyDelete
The problem I think has been well laid out by the Canadian.Delete
If they made Maddow nougat my if I wouldn't have myself a big belly full right now.Delete
I am shocked, shocked to find Canadians are going on in here.Delete
I have a terrific memory. Remind me to negotiate the Canadians paying for a moderator to patrol our northern internet border. They respect me. Some are nice people but the ones the Canadian government sends us say please and thank you too much. Losers. I'll have the Canadian vote. They know I mean business.
Maddow is just chewing up scenery is what she is doing.ReplyDelete
Beavers used to do that all across the wilderness. Until the hat craze.Delete
Does the MLB still devote their off field time to beaver-shooting*?Delete
*See Jim Bouton
OK. I looked up Jim Bouton. I had never heard of him. He is a baseball player even older than Bob Somerby. He wrote a book that seems to have broken guild rules. According to the Encyclopedia Somerby:Delete
"Ball Four named names and described a side of baseball that was previously unseen. Bouton did this by writing about the way a professional baseball team actually interacts; not only the heroic game-winning home runs, but also the petty jealousies, the obscene jokes, the drunken tomcatting of the players, and the routine drug use, including by Bouton himself.
Upon its publication, baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn called Ball Four "detrimental to baseball," and tried to force Bouton to sign a statement saying that the book was completely fictional. Bouton, however, refused to deny any of Ball Four's revelations. Many of Bouton's teammates never forgave him for publicly airing what he had learned in private about their flaws and foibles. The book made Bouton unpopular with many players, coaches, and officials on other teams as well, as they felt he had betrayed the long-standing rule: "What you see here, what you say here, what you do here, let it stay here."
Naming names, it seems "provoked Bouton's eventual blacklisting from baseball."
Your comment was apparently a lame effort at a crude vaginal reference but you have inadvertently shown something about Somerby's point about the press.
To use a theme from this post, people who pee where they work are not popular in any profession. Which may be why no bloggers link or even mention Somerby anymore.
He was in The Long Goodbye.Delete
And Beaver had his own TV series.Delete
If cicero was on Leave It to Beaver, who would he be, Eddie Haskell, Fred Rutherford, of just Whitey?Delete
Golly gee, Mr. Anonymous. I don't think so.Delete
John Amato, another entertainer who became a blogger, continues to beat the Howler on a story far more important that the lady in clown shoes.ReplyDelete
Cicero is a racist. DinC is a bigot.
Your biggest fans.
Libs have single-handedly made the labels racist and bigot meaningless. Congratulations!
You wish. As the SCOTUS famously said: I know it when I see it.
Keep on lying to yourself.
You can't admit it. Just another (gutless worm) republican.
Have to defer to your familiarity of all things porn.
I agree with Maddow that snarky, partisan put downs are the best way to represent liberal ideas to the world.ReplyDelete
Next to man on dog sex, yes, they are the best.Delete
outlet moncler moncler shop moncler down jackets men moncler jackets canada goose sale canada goose jackets canada goose outlet canada goose down canada goose online goose down jackets canada goose outlet online canada goose toronto doudoune canada goose parka canada goose canada goose jakke winter jackets canada canada goose outlet stores moncler men moncler jackets moncler women moncler outlet moncler sale moncler jackets mens moncler jackets sale moncler jackets outlet moncler online moncler jackets women moncler doudoune moncler femmeReplyDelete