Why the Times goes unchallenged: On April 24, 2015, before Donald J. Trump even entered the race, the New York Times issued its latest peculiar attack on Candidate Hillary Clinton.
The report began on the Times' front page, then consumed two full pages inside the paper. The scary report ran more than 4400 words. It discussed a scary uranium deal—a scary deal it seemed to blame on Hillary Clinton.
The strange report had resulted from an extremely strange business partnership between the Times and Peter Schweizer, a rather unreliable conservative propaganda maven. The extremely strange business deal led to a very strange "news report" which ate 4400 words.
By now, many liberals have heard that the Times' disgraceful "news report" was just extremely strange and bogus. That said, almost none of our liberal heroes said so at the time.
On MSNBC, one gigantic cable star said absolutely nothing at all about the very strange and highly bogus New York Times report. Last Thursday night, this same cable star may have helped us understand why this general pattern has obtained over the past thirty years.
In this general pattern, the Times engages in weird attacks on major figures like President Clinton, Candidate Gore and Candidate Hillary Clinton. In response, the career liberal world averts its gaze—sees and says nothing at all. Our favorite "career liberal" stars pretend the attacks haven't occurred. In this way, they keep us barefoot and clueless.
Last Thursday night, the unnamed star of whom we speak teased her program's closing segment. More precisely, she teased it in this manner, just before going to break:
MADDOW (3/1/18): All right. One last very important thing to get to tonight, slightly embarrassing on my part, but we're going to do it.The cable star had one last thing shehad to do; it would be "slightly embarrassing." Given the way she performed the tease, we thought she might be about to perform one of her phony and faux DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS reports.
That's next. Stay with us.
In fact, that wasn't it. When the massive star returned from break, she began performing hard. You can watch the inanity here. Here's how her segment began:
MADDOW: O.K.Say what? In fact, the massive star was "bursting with pride" about the matter she planned to discuss.
[PAUSES, SLAPS HANDS ON DESK]
It's a little weird. I have to take a point of personal privilege here. Ummm—
This is embarrassing. It's embarrassing, but I can't not do it!
One last thing to let you know about, and I'm going to hand you off to the good graces of Lawrence O'Donnell. I want you to forgive me for doing this on the show, but I am bursting with pride and I have to say something.
Indeed, in the roughly three minutes which followed, she said "I," "me" or "my" some 45 different times, according to one actual count.
("I I I I I I I." the analysts were already wailing.)
Why was this major unnamed star bursting with pride this night? Taking a point of personal privilege, she began to engage in her favorite pastime, talking about herself:
MADDOW (continuing directly): Tomorrow—or maybe even late tonight, you should check now—the New York Times is going to publish something by me.Advising us to check right now, the major star said the New York Times was going to publish something she'd done. The task had almost killed her, she said, but she got it done!
I've never had a thing published in the New York Times before. I sometimes do columns in the Washington Post. I haven't done one in a long time, but I never had a thing in the New York Times before.
And this thing I just did for the New York Times, it almost killed me putting it together. But I finally got it done, it is about to come out. I was going to say I hope you like it, but honestly, I'm so excited about it, I don't care.
Even if everybody hates it, I am still so excited.
It almost sounded like the star had written an oped column. In fact, the achievement was greater than that. As you can see if you watch the tape, she banged a drum roll on her desk while sycophantic aides played a fanfare for her.
After the fanfare, she copped:
MADDOW (continuing directly): So drum roll, please:The monster bullshit proceeds along from there. When Lawrence comes on for his pretend-to-be-friendly nightly chat with the unnamed star, it almost seemed to us that he came close to openly mocking the cable star for the repetitive self-adoration to which she'd surrendered again:
[BANGS DRUM ROLL ON DESK]
Tomorrow, it is, it will be—
[SIGNALS FOR, AND RECEIVES, FANFARE]
My first-ever New York Times crossword!
By which I do not mean that I am a clue in The New York Times crossword tomorrow, although that is a huge enough deal. I mean, I actually did, I made, a New York Times crossword, I made one, with a genius guy named Joe DiPietro, who is so freaking smart about this stuff, and who was so nails with me about how terrible I was at the start of the process, that I'm scarred for life. But he was amazing.
LAWRENCE: Good evening, Rachel, and the word "congratulations" doesn't sound big enough. It's just—for this moment, this is just extraordinary. This is history-making. I couldn't be more thrilled for you.As he spoke with the "childless, pot-bellied lesbian," we thought Lawrence might be coming close to dropping the mask he dons each night.
MADDOW: Thank you very much. I actually—you know, I'm a childless, middle-aged, pot-bellied lesbian and I don`t have much to be excited about in my life other than having a great job. This is kind of it, like there will never be a baby, but there's this freaking crossword puzzle. And I am very, very excited about it.
O`DONNELL: I am—I'm so glad to know that you have all the time in the world to do something like that, a little extracurricular.
MADDOW: It's really all I want. It's the only thing I wanted and I got it. I'm very happy.
The inanity here is plain to see. In fact, this performance wasn't "embarrassing." In even a slightly more rational world, it would be seen as "disqualifying," as a moral disgrace.
We're amazed to think that liberal viewers are apparently charmed by this. But our point today is different.
Repeatedly, we've told you about the role played by the New York Times in the careers, and the social lives, of these cultural criminals.
Why didn't Michelle Goldberg savage the Times on the Chris Hayes show when the Times ran that open con about the scary uranium deal? We don't know, but she ended up landing a job as a regular New York Times columnist. That giant score could never have happened had she opened her mouth that night, breaking the code of silence.
Why did Jonathan Chait write that utterly ludicrous, whitewashed account of the New York Times' role in the history-changing War Against Candidate Gore? We don't know, but he has occasionally had op-ed columns published by the career-making paper.
Why would an unnamed cable star jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she'd dream of challenging the work of the New York Times? We don't know, but we strongly suggest you click this link to watch her mugging and clowning last Thursday, teaching us to adore her more fully and kissing the *ss of the Times.
These are terrible people. Children are dead all over the world because they're so deeply committed to the three words they love to say on TV:
I, me and my.
Don't fail to watch that embarrassing three-minute tape. We hope you cringe when you consider the things wealth and fame can lead us prehumans to do.