home

Kinsley v. Maddow

Michael Kinsley beats Rachel Maddow in a 1 round KO (pun intended). Here's Kinsley:

MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann, which started out as “indefinite” and ended as two days, for making a few political campaign contributions is absurd in so many ways that it’s hard to keep track. If Olbermann had merely put these politicians on his show, representing a viewpoint he obviously shares, that would have been worth more than a campaign contribution of a few thousand dollars, but Olbermann would be considered blameless. Does anyone think that by suppressing the expression of his views (via these donations), Olbermann would have stopped having them? Does anyone doubt what Olbermann’s views are on politics in general and these races in particular? Most journalists try to suppress their biases — Olbermann gets paid to flaunt his biases. On a crude political scale, Olbermann is a left-wing liberal. MSNBC hired him to be a liberal and last week suspended him for the same thing. Or rather, not for being a liberal but for revealing it.

Maddow's position was that what makes MSNBC different than Fox is these absurd rules:

Keith is a liberal, so am I. There are other people on this network whose political views are shared openly with our viewers. We are not a political operation. FOX is. We are a news operation. The rules around here are part how you know. Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light FOX News' water-carrying role for the Bush administration," Rachel Maddow said in defense of her MSNBC colleague on her show Friday night.

(Emphasis supplied.) The "rule" tells us nothing, as Kinsley ably demonstrates. If MSNBC wants to be different than Fox, what it needs to do is what Fox does not - stick to the facts. Sure, MSNBC will stick to facts favorable to Democrats, but if they stick to the facts, that will make them better than Fox, which does not stick to the facts.

Kinsley recalls the philosophy of Charlie Peters and it is one well worth following for everybody who writes about politics and policy:

Charlie Peters, had firm views about the difference between fact and opinion. (As about most other matters. We called them, collectively, “the gospel.”) The gospel on fact versus opinion was that there is no such distinction. Our job was to seek the truth and publish it, and the truth included both facts and the conclusions you drew from them. Suppose you’d written about some wasteful government agency. And say a senator was saying it should be abolished. Either it should be abolished or it shouldn’t, and after a month of research and reporting, you should have some idea about the correct answer. You should state and defend your view. (And if you can’t make up your mind, you should find something else to write about. Or possibly go into another line of work.)

(Emphasis supplied.) This.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Late Afternoon Open Thread | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    When my team does it it's fine, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    but when your team does it it's cheating... that seems to be what Maddow is saying. Since neither has posted its 'rules,' it all comes down to whom you accept as your in-group and whom you castigate as your out group.

    So when was the last time anyone thought (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    of MSNBC as a real news organization? NBC already has a news organization - it is called NBC News. MSNBC was always a newsie-talk channel to me, blowing with the political winds to make the most profit, which is their right.

    Can't go with Maddow on this particular flight of fancy.

    Here's the difference: (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:14:13 PM EST
    While both networks are opinion purveyors,

    The "facts" on MSNBC are actually facts,

    while

    The "facts" on FOX are usually lies.

    Example:
       FOX....The Tea Party is a spontaneous, grass roots organization made up of angry citizens upset about the growing deficit.

       MSNBC....The Tea Party is an organization of angry citizens designed, organized, incubated,  and financed by very rich and powerful Washington insiders whose goals are exactly opposite of the refrain used to stir up the participants' passions.  If carried to their hoped for conclusion the cynical swine Leadership will have successfully demonstrated that:
    a. Jonestown was not a once-in-a-lifetime aberration,
    and
    b. You can fool all (almost) the people all of the time.

    p.s. the author of this post is solely responsible for the slight poetic license that may be implied in this piece.

    I agree (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    with your distinction.  I think on a scale of harmfulness FOX has MSNBC beat.  But I don't know if there's anything systematic behind why FOX is worse in my mind (besides my political beliefs).  Although of course I could provide 100 examples of racism on FOX against 1 on MSNBC.

    Parent
    if you've made the mistake (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    of paying attention to ms. maddow, since she got her own show, you'd have known this already. she's become a "villager" lite, and far less filling.

    kinsley gets something right, once in a very long while, don't get your hopes up.

    Oh, like when she interviewed (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    servicemembers who were hoping for a DADT repeal so they didn't have to lie about who they are, or when she covered the C street house run by "The Family"?

    Good point, that's just what all the 'other villagers' were covering as news as well.

    Parent

    i realize some of you aren't very bright, (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    Good point, that's just what all the 'other villagers' were covering as news as well.

    but displaying your ignorance and basic stupidity, in public, so easily sets you up for abuse.

    nowhere in my comments did i state that it was this one, specific issue that characterized ms. maddow, in my opinion, as "villager" lite, this merely happens to be the most recent example. once in a blue moon, she actually does her homework, asks pertinent questions, and calls her guests out, when they spew crap. once in a blue moon.

    the reason that a "blue moon" is special, is because it's a rarity. mostly, ms. maddow does a poor job of her job, and gets paid well for it. if this be the face of "progressive media", i'll pass.

    Parent

    As a matter of fact (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    yes, CNN has regularly interviewed and done long stories about gay servicepeople and it has also covered the C Street story.  I don't know where you get the idea that only Rachel Maddow has covered these things.

    Parent
    Did they devote as much time on CNN (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:23:47 PM EST
    as Maddow has on DADT or C-street?  

    Don't p** on my leg and tell me it's raining.

    Thanks for the obnoxious shot, observed, stay classy.

    Parent

    Oh, so this is about (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:13:01 AM EST
    the percentage of air time devoted to whatever subject is at hand?  Then maybe you should have said so and I would have no objection.  But that's not what you said.

    Let's see. Since CNN is a broad-based news network and has, oh, let's guess 16 hours of unrepeated coverage a day compared to Maddow's 1, how many hours should they have devoted to either one of these topics?  Just curiously.

    Parent

    I have thoroughly enjoyed (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    every single one of her hard-hitting pieces on Israeli murders of American civilians, and all her pieces on the brutal, boot-grinding treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.
    I can't think of any thing she's done on other topics which I can respect.

    Parent
    All you could say (none / 0) (#37)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:52:27 AM EST
    was that CNN covered the issues, and therefore, that would make her a Villager as in the initial accusation.

    Please find someone worthy of your anger and disdain because your present target is unaffected by it, and the spiritual corrosion it causes within you isn't pretty, to judge by the visible symptoms.

    Parent

    Your comment verges on word salad. (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    "Spiritual corrosion"?
    I didn't even say anything about Maddow being a villager or not.
    You are really far too sensitive about people criticizing Maddow.

    Parent
    I was addressing gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#45)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    and all I've heard in response to my specific responses are abstract insults about Ms Maddow without any citations of concrete journalistic sins she's committed while at MSNBC.

    Parent
    I find the whole thing confusing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    MSNBC is offering itself as a left version of Fox.

    Either commit to what you are trying to be or be a cable version of NBC news.

    Maddow is just being weird when she claims they're different then Fox.  Of course they're different in that they have liberal talking heads vs. conservative talking heads.   But to pretend that she, and Olberman etc... are "journalists" is just silly.  They are not.    

    You are a news/opinion channel like Fox that has chosen to fill a void in the cable landscape by going left so just do it all ready.

    I mean how is this worse then him calling certain right wing politicians "The worst people in the world"?  

    Am I supposed to think he's being neutral?

    Now (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    that he won't make political contributions, yes, you are supposed to think he is "a journalist."

    Or so says Maddow. Dumbest thing I ever read.

    By Maddow's thinking, the only problem with Fox is political donations it makes to the GOP.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TomStewart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    not sure how you rad that into this one statement. She thinks FOX is being run as a full out political organization with a cheery news 'veneer', MSNBC is a news organization with a liberal 'veneer'.

    Personally, I wish both would throw the veneer and just do it, full out, and let the public decide.

    And get rid of Morning Joe, it isn't even good TV.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:07:05 PM EST

    Maddow is just being weird when she claims they're different then Fox.  

    Fox allows Republican politicians to fund raise for their campaigns while being interviewed, like Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle from www.mediamatters(dot)org:

    September 10, 2010 4:45 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

    In an email sent this afternoon, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle wrote that she will appear on Fox News' Hannity as "part of our push" to raise $1 million online before the end of September. From her email:

        Today I am asking you to help me give Harry Reid a "September to Remember".  I am launching an unprecedented online push to raise $1 million dollars, reach 75,000 Facebook fans, and increase our Twitter followers to 6,000- all before the end of September.

        As part of our push, I will be on the Sean Hannity show this at 9pm (EST)/6pm (PST) to discuss why I am the right choice to replace Tax-and-Spend Harry Reid.

        While Sean Hannity's show tonight is a great way to reach voters, you can make just as much of an impact by participating in our "September to Remember" campaign.  



    Click Me

    I don't remember anything happening like that on MSNBC, perhaps you do, Slado?

    Parent

    Explicitly? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    No.Implicitly? Of course.

    This is silly "rules" nonsense.

    Parent

    Um, no (none / 0) (#7)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    not when someone like Freddy Barnes accepts money from Republicans and pontificate as a 'commentator' on Fox News at the same time.

    If MSNBC allowed Andrew Cuomo or another Democrat to explicitly do fundraising while supposedly being 'interviewed', you'd have everyone from Beck, Limbaugh, Malking, etc. howling like a pack of wolves over it, you know it, I know it, and anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together who hasn't mortgaged them to the Tea Partiers knows it.

    Parent

    And if he didn't? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    Fox would be a news organization? Preposterous.

    Parent
    It's like the Oscar Wilde reply to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    the indignant lady, isn't it?

    "We've settled that question, now we're just haggling over the price."

    Parent

    someone did (none / 0) (#22)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    youtube

    to be clear, I do not support the website that put that video together, or the comments on that page, which are disgusting. But I do not support MSNBC's ridiculous stance on this. You cant denounce what Fox is, and then attempt to do the same, just the opposing view.

    The problem with Fox isnt the viewpoint, it's them pushing one to begin with. MSNBC as a counterpoint to Fox is needed, just dont call it journalism.

    Parent

    But no one is like Beck (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    That is entirely different....

    Maddow (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    is hard to classify.

    She is being featured by NBC with appearances on Meet the Press.  And she had a long trip to Afghanistan.

    She is clearly opinionated.  But she also does  stories and bring up facts others don't.

    She gets interviews with some pretty big names. Nancy Pelosi and Obama.  And does get a Republican or two....

    She is pretty good on the facts....

    Rachel Maddow distorts (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    and selectively edits facts just as thoroughly and routinely as anybody on Fox.  Read Somerby once in a while for a periodic Maddow fact check.  He's a cranky son-of-a-***, but he regularly nails her on her fakery, when nobody else is because her distortions conform to a storyline we like.  Really.

    Parent
    I have and found Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    to be petty in that regard.

    Parent
    When the Maddow show first started (none / 0) (#25)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    and Sommersby was darkly hinting about 'reasons' the transcripts of her show wasn't available, on one of those occasions I researched his assertion and then I e-mailed him that, no, dude, the transcript is now up at the MSNBC website.

    Never got any kind of acknowledgment or reply about my  bringing reality to his attention.

    Sommersby?  That's really good for a laugh.

    Parent

    I just checked Somerby's site (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:07:43 PM EST
    One of his pet peeves (particularly with MSNBC, not just Maddow) is their late posting of transcripts - makes his job as a media watchdog more difficult.  Anyway, couldn't find any posts of him "darkly hinting about 'reasons' the transcripts of her show wasn't available", particularly back from the time when her show started (Sept., 2008).  Doesn't really sound like him.

    I'd love to read it, though.  Any suggestions on how to find it?

    Parent

    I think bringing up the lateness (none / 0) (#27)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    and then not responding to a correction that I sent him tells you all you need to know.

    I've used the MSNBC transcript site when I wanted to read a transcript of a show I hadn't watched even before Maddow came on the air.

    I haven't found lateness to be much of a problem beyond one or two days on rare occasions then or now, which is why I found his complaining a bit odd.

    Parent

    Depends, ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:40:51 PM EST
    ... on whether your correction was really a correction.  I've found several instances of Somerby complaining about transcripts not being posted in a timely manner, including maddow, Matthews, etc.  Somerby notes that MSNBC's policy is to post transcripts within 24 hours, so his definition of timely may not align with others' definition.  Plus, since (presumably) you were reading his complaint after he posted it, it's quite possible/likely that the transcript wasn't posted when he wrote the article, but was posted by the time you found it.  Or, in the alternative, it could have been posted more quickly at the MSNBC site, as compared to NEXIS.

    Either way, the fact that Somerby was complaining about some late transcripts and then didn't respond to your email is not the standard by which I'll judge his work.

    Parent

    Since I can't offer specifics (none / 0) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 09:46:18 PM EST
    two years or so after the event, I can only say that he stated that a transcript for Maddows' show wasn't available for date A, and I researched and found that it was, hence the correction.

    Either way, the fact that Somerby was complaining about some late transcripts and then didn't respond to your email is not the standard by which I'll judge his work.

    No, I would recommend his post about what happened a few weeks ago when the protester was stomped on by a Rand Paul volunteer for that purpose.

    Parent

    Sorry ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 10:00:39 PM EST
    ... you have a problem with it, but my answer still holds.

    BTW - I would disagree with Somerby's characterization of the incident as "unfortunate", but other than that, seems pretty much correct ... including his conclusions about Schultz and his use of 1930's Nazi film footage as a comparison.

    Parent

    I agree entirely (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:08:17 AM EST
    Somerby is a gloomy, angry, cranky cuss, but he's factually pretty impeccable.

    He nails Maddow's garbage point by point almost daily.  Don't even know why he keeps watching her.

    Parent

    Uh, I've already talked about (none / 0) (#36)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    Sommersby's failure to acknowledge my e-mail did happen, so he wasn't accurate when I called him on it.

    Tell you what, gyrfalcon:

    Use a resource like transcripts, YouTube, etc, so you can point to something specific about what Maddow said on the air that was so derned wrong, incorrect, horrible, etc., so the rest of us can see what your standards are in practice, instead of the abstract prating about her wickedness that you've treated us to here.

    Put up or....................

    Parent

    BTW, Yman (none / 0) (#38)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    You do realize that "unfortunat"e isn't the response of a human being, but a fanatic, don't you?

    Parent
    Who's the "fanatic"? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    Somerby used (as part of his description) the word "unfortunate" to describe the incident.  I disagreed with his characterization ... I would have used a much stronger word.  That being said, I'd hardly dismiss the entirety of his work because of this ... or because he didn't respond to your email, particularly when I have no way of knowing whether it was accurate or not.

    Not sure whether you're calling Somerby a "fanatic" for his use of the word "unfortunate", or Tim Profitt.  I'm not defending Profitt's actions (I think he should be prosecuted for assault) but I'm pretty sure "fanatics" (by definition) are "human beings".

    Parent

    "By ye fruits ye shall know them. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:10:15 AM EST
    That's an important criticism.  So glad you're able to really dig in and refute Somerby on matters of substance. <eyes rolling>

    Parent
    So glad you're here at all times (none / 0) (#39)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:55:05 AM EST
    to warn us against that good-for-nothing Maddow.  

    :-D

    Parent

    Yup, he can be petty (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:09:05 AM EST
    But the substance of most of his critique is right on the money.

    Parent
    The point is that you're not (none / 0) (#35)
    by observed on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:54:17 AM EST
    supposed to agree with a critic about EVERYTHIHNG

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    she does some stuff I really admire and some stuff I dont understand at all.

    like the business about Olby.  it was a bit silly.
    the whole thing.

    I am more and more inclined to think the whole thing was a stunt including her defense.

    Parent

    What really happened... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:18:38 PM EST
     IMHO -

    KO's boss found an excuse to show KO know who the boss is.  The rest is just canoodling.

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:51:00 PM EST
     
    Keith was also the one who brought to light FOX News' water-carrying role for the Bush administration," Rachel Maddow said in defense of her MSNBC colleague on her show Friday night.

    Now she's just talking crazy.