I literally don’t know the answer to this before I ask it, but what is her position on MFA? Let me guess, she is worried it will cost too much and that quality of care will suffer?
Remember when she had Trump’s tax returns?
1 Like
Maddow has a Doctoral in Political Science from Oxford University. She is not dumb at all.
2 Likes
Of course you don’t want to get into a debate, you use stupid ass arguments like an appeal to nonexistent authority. You are disconnected from reality and wonder why everything sucks. Sorry to break the news but you are part of the problem too. Stick that lemon where the sun doesn’t shine.
I’m not sure she’s ever stated it, which is more appropriate than some other news people, I’d say.
Point to me a reputable media analyst who equates her with fox?
Anderson Cooper is literally an heir to the Vanderbilt fortune.
1 Like
My last post tried to explain what I meant. She is a super smart and effective broadcaster. But MSNBC determines what is aired on that network unless I am missing something.
We actually may be talking about different things to be fair. I agree she is similar to fox in the sense her audience uses her for catharsis and to reinforce their self identity the same way trumpkins use fox. Both are a mix of entertainment and news.
The difference is fox has virtually no actual journalism whereas Maddow is still a reputable journalist.
I apologize if I disparaged Maddow. She is good at what she does.
My only point was expecting the media to save us in 2020 is a fools errand.
4 Likes
She isn’t. She is great at making smart points while missing what is obvious in front of everyone’s eyes. She is great at attacking the enemy but terrible at pointing out what the ‘good guys’ should be doing. Everything she does is handwaving to distract from the point at hand.
Please don’t move the goal posts and state that I should find a reputable journalist that equates her with fox news. That is not what this discussion is about. Even if I were to provide a reputable journalist that did show she was a paid media actor then you would just hand ring about how they don’t count as reputable. It would be a waste of everyone’s time.
1 Like
Technically, she’s a political scientists, so…you’re right?
Not sure your point Diver, but if its that I’m right that she is an actor paid to distract you from what the Democrats aren’t doing, then I agree.
that she’s not a journalist.
I don’t have cable, and really only ever watch some of her interviews on youtube after the fact. I’ve literally never once seen her entire show.
3 Likes
I’d consider her a political commentator, not a journalist. The difference between her and Rush Limbaugh isn’t that she’s a journalist and he’s not, it’s that he’s an evil completely full of shit windbag asshole and she’s not.
But she’s definitely more of an eDem than a progressive in my opinion.
5 Likes
yeah equating the two is ridiculous.
and you’re right, I just looked at her wikipeda page and she says it herself:
“I’m undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I’m in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform.”
Time for half this forum to completely cancel her OMGNEOLIBERALSHILLWTFBBQ!!!11!1!!
‘MSNBC is fox news for democrats.’ The democrats (defined as just Eisenhower era republicans) are the slightly less shitty republicans. Seems the analysis sticks pretty well.
1 Like
I won’t say I agreed with him on everything, but I enjoyed Ed Schultz more than Rachel Maddow back when I used to watch MSNBC regularly. At the time, she felt like hour two of Countdown and Schultz had a different tone and POV that I thought added variety.
Oof