Rachel Maddow destroys Fox "blood on hands" News on Letterman

[BostonPirate]

The MadCow never hostile? Surely you jest.

That nasty sophomoronic sneer says it all.

The MadCow presenting actual facts? Well, only if they're heavily edited.

The MadCow respects people she interviews? That's a laugh - well, maybe if she's interviewing someone who agrees with her.

Rachel MadCow is a joke - compared to her, Glenn Beck almost looks almost sane.

lets look at what is considered her most confrontational moment in an interview with someone she's been harshly critical of for years...and pay special attention to when he thanks her for being civil and gracious....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGWvHKXSZ3M[/ame]

 

[rareboy]

Did I mention yet today that as Jesus pointed out in the sermon on the mount, it is useless to cast pearls.

I probably did mention that once Coolkid and Laika equated gay marriage with bestiality yesterday, I no longer respond to their posts although I don't have them on ignore. They have lost any chance that I would even bother with them. Instead, one thinks of them as akin to gnats. Engaging them will only give them the satisfaction of validating themselves through confrontational trolling.

 

[construct]

Did I mention yet today that as Jesus pointed out in the sermon on the mount, it is useless to cast pearls.

I probably did mention that once Coolkid and Laika equated gay marriage with bestiality yesterday, I no longer respond to their posts although I don't have them on ignore. They have lost any chance that I would even bother with them. Instead, one thinks of them as akin to gnats. Engaging them will only give them the satisfaction of validating themselves through confrontational trolling.

I think you're quoting Jesus out of context. He said not to cast your pearls before swine lest they turn on you.

Perhaps what you meant to say was

 

[rareboy]

lets look at what is considered her most confrontational moment in an interview with someone she's been harshly critical of for years...and pay special attention to when he thanks her for being civil and gracious....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGWvHKXSZ3M

Have you ever noticed that Jon Stewart has the same gift for treating almost every guest that he vehemently disagrees with in the same way? There are only a few times when he's just reached down their throats to grab them by the balls.

I don't watch Maddow regularly, but I have seen interviews like the Ridge piece where she was just pure class.

 

[laikaNYC]

I looked over the laika post about Maddow's unmasking of the racist methods of Fox news which used O'Reilly as an example. I found nothing there to indicate that she did anything more reprehensible than to clip the important parts of the argument to show how the rhetoric works. The final thoughts of the last paragraph were so vapid that they did practically nothing to defuse the vivid descriptions she clipped.

I think other posters have done a good job of asserting that the quotes were not out of context in the sense of misrepresenting the substance of the segment. I am merely pointing out the lame attempt to wash his hands at the end.

If it was so racist, then why didn't Maddow point out the Gallup survey that O'Reilly was actually talking about? O'Reilly was interpreting the Gallup survey - why Blacks still overwhemingly support Obama, while everyone else is jumping ship. In fact Maddow's clip literally begins with O'Reilly in the middle of a sentence. Does she tell you what he was talking about before that? Of course not. She presents you with only the facts she deems necessary, like a true hack journalist.

But of course none of you call Maddow out for heavily editing and cherry picking O'Reilly, she's one of your own.

You all are practically doing gymnastics here. Spin, spin, spin. A far-left progressive regurgitator like Maddow can do no wrong, right guys? She has now been exposed as a manipulator and a charlatan. She is no better than Breitbart. She's actually worse than Breitbart. Maddow knowingly edited the video and pasted pieces together, Breitbart didn't.

 

[BostonPirate]

Have you ever noticed that Jon Stewart has the same gift for treating almost every guest that he vehemently disagrees with in the same way? There are only a few times when he's just reached down their throats to grab them by the balls.

I don't watch Maddow regularly, but I have seen interviews like the Ridge piece where she was just pure class.

I think they realise it takes alot of guts to walk onto their show. I think they get respect from them for just showing up and being willing to talk.

 

[JB3]

Beck was unfortunately on at my gym while I was doing cardio the other day, and it took all my effort not to start laughing hysterically. Watching his show without the audio is sort of like watching a circus; all show, no substance.

 

[Knucklehead]

what planet do you live on. breitbart wouldn't make a good pimple on Rachel's ass. She's one of the most brilliant, well educated, articulated folks in the news business. News being a foreign concept to the foxnuts. She's thorough and drills deeper than anyone to expose the full truth - always objective and factual. Tune in sometimes and watch her show -- don't just listen to the foxnuts spin.

She sure is...I've always liked her from way back when she had a show on Air America.

I've always found her to be nothing less than polite and respectful to any guest she has ever had on her show.As long as I've been tuning her in,I've noticed she has always let her guests speak their piece and never shouts over them as is the norm on many other shows,especially on Fox.

From a viewer or listeners point of view,that is very refreshing.You can actually hear the point of view of the guest as well as her thoughful rebuttals.On top of that,I think she is smarter than just about anybody on T.V.-Left or right.I don't get the sense that she is a liar and I like her sense of humor too.

I hope she's on TV for a long time.Maybe when the Fox crowd gets sick of being lied to and manipulated they will tune her in too.

 

[White Eagle]

If it was so racist, then why didn't Maddow point out the Gallup survey that O'Reilly was actually talking about? O'Reilly was interpreting the Gallup survey - why Blacks still overwhemingly support Obama, while everyone else is jumping ship. In fact Maddow's clip literally begins with O'Reilly in the middle of a sentence. Does she tell you what he was talking about before that? Of course not. She presents you with only the facts she deems necessary, like a true hack journalist.

But of course none of you call Maddow out for heavily editing and cherry picking O'Reilly, she's one of your own.

You all are practically doing gymnastics here. Spin, spin, spin. A far-left progressive regurgitator like Maddow can do no wrong, right guys? She has now been exposed as a manipulator and a charlatan. She is no better than Breitbart. She's actually worse than Breitbart. Maddow knowingly edited the video and pasted pieces together, Breitbart didn't.

Did I miss a link? Wasn't LaikaNYC asked to cite a link to the interview? A written transcript that Rachel had supposedly cut so badly that it makes her worse than Breibart. How do we know that it was LaikaNYC that cut the piece.
LaikaNYC please supply us with a link to that interview.

 

[palemale]

You all are practically doing gymnastics here. Spin, spin, spin. A far-left progressive regurgitator like Maddow can do no wrong, right guys? She has now been exposed as a manipulator and a charlatan. She is no better than Breitbart. She's actually worse than Breitbart. Maddow knowingly edited the video and pasted pieces together, Breitbart didn't.

Really? You believe what Maddow did makes her worse than Breitbart? Let's revisit his Shirley Sherrod video and see if you agree. What follows is the introduction to the Sherrod video:

On July 25, 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed Shirley Sherrod as Georgia Director of Rural Development. USDA Rural Development spends over $1.2 Billion in the State of Georgia each year. On March 27, 2010, while speaking at the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet, Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars she discriminates against people due to their race.

I have put in bold face what is, in fact, a bold-faced lie. Surely you agree with that. Did Maddow, in your book, do anything even remotely as reprehensible as this? What Breitbart said had absolutely no relationship to the truth. So, I hope you will admit that, however much you dislike Rachel Maddow, Breitbart is in a scuzzy class all his own.

 

[CowboyBob]

It's funny you brought this up. I ran across this article today. It is about conservatives who go onto forums and just attempt to keep freedom of speech from happening.

http://www.alternet.org/story/14780...ffort_to_censor_progressive_media?page=entire

I suspect a couple of posters as being here just to do what the article says they are trying to do.

Thanks for this site. It's what's happening here in this forum. I have two of them on ignore and the forum is a much better place without them. The thing not to do is respond to them because that's what they want.

We talked about this before..... in the forum and VIA private messages... about conservatives and Fox pundits who enter political forums and become disruptive. So much that they attempt to get liberal members banned and so frustrated they stop posting political talk.

In the forum I'm admin at this happened also, and political discussion isn't allowed.

ON TOPIC: Rachel Maddow style of journalism is factual. She supports all her claims with facts and documentation. Anyone who refuses to believe that is in denial.

 

[HenryReardon]

lets look at what is considered her most confrontational moment in an interview with someone she's been harshly critical of for years
]

Considered by whom?

There isn't a civil or gracious bone in her body - unless, of course, she's interviewing someone to further a cause - ie., last night's interview with a member of the armed forces being discharged under DADT.

Maddow, Matthews, and the other clowns on MSNBC are in the same category as Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity and the other clowns on FOX - entertainers, all.

 

[laikaNYC]

Considered by whom?

There isn't a civil or gracious bone in her body - unless, of course, she's interviewing someone to further a cause - ie., last night's interview with a member of the armed forces being discharged under DADT.

Maddow, Matthews, and the other clowns on MSNBC are in the same category as Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity and the other clowns on FOX - entertainers, all.

at least the FOX guys actually have on people with different opinions. With Maddow, Olbermann, and Schultz, it's just a progressive echo chamber.

 

[HenryReardon]

at least the FOX guys actually have on people with different opinions. With Maddow, Olbermann, and Schultz, it's just a progressive echo chamber.

What's progressive about their views? I think the term 'regressive' is much more descriptive of their vision.

 

[palemale]

at least the FOX guys actually have on people with different opinions. With Maddow, Olbermann, and Schultz, it's just a progressive echo chamber.

Laika, you didn't answer my question in post #56. I take it that means that you agree you were wrong when you asserted Maddow was worse than Breitbart.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Laika, you didn't answer my question in post #56. I take it that means that you agree you were wrong when you asserted Maddow was worse than Breitbart.

Oh please, she won't even acknowledge any of her bullshit like "kicking gay people out of the military was Bill Clinton's idea."

 

[philusmc]

Wow, I understand it must be hard for you guys to admit that your beloved Maddow is a manipulator and a liar. Are you all dizzy from your spinning? No one in her audience cares that she cherry picks and edits videos out of context, just so long as she doesn't do it to a liberal. Some of you give a whole new meaning to the phrase kool-aid drinkers.

You can lead a horse to water, but can't force it to drink.

laika--- typical rhetoric, say a lie and keep repeating it, slightly differently but same lie, say it over and over and you foxnuts right wing extremist actually start to believe it's true. sadly though, the audience of foxnuts are not that sophisticated thinkers that they believe your lies because you keep repeating them. to them you just couldn't be liars and maniupulators, oh no not the foxnut idiots, liars, cheats. if foxnut could produce a show with one ounce the ethical and professional treatment of the facts and truth that Rachel's shows do, what a different and certainly a positivedynamic we'd have to our political debates.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow, I understand it must be hard for you guys to admit that your beloved Maddow is a manipulator and a liar. Are you all dizzy from your spinning? No one in her audience cares that she cherry picks and edits videos out of context, just so long as she doesn't do it to a liberal. Some of you give a whole new meaning to the phrase kool-aid drinkers.

You can lead a horse to water, but can't force it to drink.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Maddow is "a manipulator and a liar", or that she "cherry picks and edits videos out of context". You provided one where it's possible she slanted her use of a video, but failed to provide the full context.

A great deal of the time, I can't stand Maddow. To me she comes across as arrogant and condescending. But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim she messes with facts, when I can't find any real evidence she does so -- and in fact on points where I wanted to find she was out beyond left field, have found several times that she had all her ducks in a row, her research spotless.

If you want your claims to have any credibility, you need to come up with a lot more than one weak example.

 

[Kulindahr]

So it's okay to poke fun at Sarah Palin but not Rachel huh?

If it's compatible with the flow of the thread, no prob. If it's just out of the blue... not.

Did I miss a link? Wasn't LaikaNYC asked to cite a link to the interview? A written transcript that Rachel had supposedly cut so badly that it makes her worse than Breibart. How do we know that it was LaikaNYC that cut the piece.
LaikaNYC please supply us with a link to that interview.

Laika, you didn't answer my question in post #56. I take it that means that you agree you were wrong when you asserted Maddow was worse than Breitbart.

He hasn't provided much of anything except the original example of a bit of slanted editing. Indeed whether one thinks it was slanted depends on one's initial view of O'Reilly. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and from what I've seen O'Reilly hasn't shown himself to be the raving racist Limbaugh is, so I'm willing to grant Maddow messed with his meaning.

But -- until Laika man's up and provides the full documentation that I would expect of Maddow, his view isn't up to the standards of any of the journalists mentioned in this thread.

 

[construct]

But -- until Laika man's up and provides the full documentation that I would expect of Maddow, his view isn't up to the standards of any of the journalists mentioned in this thread.

Well, yaknow, he did provide a link above to a full transcript that he posted in a different thread. That was the transcript on the basis of which I posted about O'Reilly's closing remarks. Take a look. See what you think.