Support NeoGAF

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I can tell who regularly reads the Intercept and others around that range just by the response. And how similar they sound to right wing talking points.

Rachel's ok. Her style may turn off some, but it has captured the attention of many others. My parents included.

And honestly, I don't mind that. Especially in comparison to some of y'all with Fox News stans as parents.

 

[captive]

I disagree, she is just another partisan cable news personality among many others. She could be replaced relatively easily and you'd still get the same thing you are getting now. This goes for all of them to be honest, Look how easily Fox went from Greta, Megyn Kelly, and O'Reilly to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity without skipping a beat.

without skipping a beat? Oreilly was once the top rated news show, that timeslot is not the top rated anymore for FOX.

 

[Eidan]

She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents since there's miles between conservatives and liberals. She's not a liar but boy she's a bullshitter. And she's not a journalist, she's an anchor.
She's less I.F. Stone and more this

False equivalency at its fucking finest. Bravo.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

without skipping a beat? Oreilly was once the top rated news show, that timeslot is not the top rated anymore for FOX.

I wasn't talking about ratings though. I'm talking about the content.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

False equivalency at its fucking finest. Bravo.

They're not equivalents

What?

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Rachel Maddow was on bridge gate years before anyone else was. Her work made sure the story didn't just disappear too.

 

[Con_Smith]

The fact people say she blew her credibility when the narrative of the show actually was an acknowledgement and talk about how "the source" for the information wanted it out. Her build up was like a primer to all the connections that took place, and then when she droped she didn't present as a smoking gun gotcha, she and the reported talked about how this may have been an attempt by the admin to placate tax demamnders due to how little info or substance was available.

I mean I get it, some people don't want a nice informed session of tv that informs their viewer. I'm sure you guys enjoy CNN having both sides arguments for the umpteenth time. No waiting for the point there even when they end up just missing it!

 

[CrisKre]

Because the two can't coexist without each other?

So the comment you couldn't agree more with meant it's an echo chamber of facts being reported? I can agree with that.

 

[Gattsu25]

What?

That's not the "What?" worthy part of that exchange. This is:
"She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents"

 

[Messofanego]

What?

Explain how Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones are equivalent.

 

[Hitman]

Lots of people in here saying things like "... well shes good news for TV...." trying to be some sort of internet news elitists. Well I don't know about you guys, but spending a lot of time on the net reading about Trump I don't remember much articles about Trump's plane meeting with an oligarch 3 times during the election that Maddow covered. Also, the whole Trump-Turkey thing that connects with terrorist group funding was also illuminated and reported on by Maddow in a way the 30 page New Yorker article on the same subject really couldn't do to reach the masses. Plus she's had exclusive breaks and insights into the Trump-Russia thing. So no GAF, Maddow is not just good for old dumb TV folk who don't know how to use the internet.

 

[Hitman]

I disagree, she is just another partisan cable news personality among many others. She could be replaced relatively easily and you'd still get the same thing you are getting now. This goes for all of them to be honest, Look how easily Fox went from Greta, Megyn Kelly, and O'Reilly to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity without skipping a beat.

Wrong.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

So the comment you couldn't agree more with meant it's an echo chamber of facts being reported? I can agree with that.

I agree that, "The people who love her are people who are deep in the echo chamber and just hear what they want to hear."

Explain how Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones are equivalent.

I'm not agreeing they are. The first poster accused Boney of false equivalency. The first poster posted "they are not equivalent". I don't understand the claim of false equivalency, hence my question.

 

[Hitman]

The fact people say she blew her credibility when the narrative of the show actually was an acknowledgement and talk about how "the source" for the information wanted it out. Her build up was like a primer to all the connections that took place, and then when she droped she didn't present as a smoking gun gotcha, she and the reported talked about how this may have been an attempt by the admin to placate tax demamnders due to how little info or substance was available.

I mean I get it, some people don't want a nice informed session of tv that informs their viewer. I'm sure you guys enjoy CNN having both sides arguments for the umpteenth time. No waiting for the point there even when they end up just missing it!

100% agree. Here's how the 2005 Tax "Fiasco" went down:

Maddow tweeted: "I have Trump's tax return"

Internet went crazy with unwarranted expectation and speculation that NOW we can NAIL Trump.

An Hour Later Maddow Tweets: "I have Trump's 2005 Tax Returns"

Internet feels like they are lied to or mislead, despite Maddow not lying and clarifying and specifying an hour after the original announcement.

Show airs, and Trump's 2005 Tax Returns are PROPERLY REPORTED with context, insights, and educational value to the viewers.

Internet overreacts and thinks Maddow got played and creates a "fiasco" out of thin fuckin air and overblown expectations.

And somehow this affects Maddow's credibility? HOW?!

 

[Maiden Voyage]

100% agree. Here's how the 2005 Tax "Fiasco" went down:

Maddow tweeted: "I have Trump's tax return"

Internet went crazy with unwarranted expectation and speculation that NOW we can NAIL Trump.

An Hour Later Maddow Tweets: "I have Trump's 2005 Tax Returns"

Internet feels like they are lied to or mislead, despite Maddow not lying and clarifying and specifying an hour after the original announcement.

Show airs, and Trump's 2005 Tax Returns are PROPERLY REPORTED with context, insights, and educational value to the viewers.

Internet overreacts and thinks Maddow got played and creates a "fiasco" out of thin fuckin air and overblown expectations.

And somehow this affects Maddow's credibility? HOW?!

She didn't have his tax return. She had the first page of his tax return. Tax return implies that we know what his deductions are.

 

[Hitman]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07...ke-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

It's about Maddow hyping an obviously fake and forged "leaked NSA document," that other news organizations (including goddamn Buzzfeed) realized almost immediately was fake and didn't report on.

And I have to say GAF, I'm a little disappointed in those of you who can't see that Rachel Maddow is just another cable news pundit out for ratings in the 24 hour news cycle. Like she's not as bad as someone like Bill O'Reilly, but like him, she's just telling her audience what they want to hear day in and day out, over-hyping almost every little thing.

Gleen Greenwald ffs. Stooge to Russian stooge Edward Snowden. Yah... we should be listening to this guy, not Maddow.

 

[TTG]

She's the anchor on the only news show I watch, so obviously I like her a lot, but I wish:

1. She would have some perspective. The thing that happened today is the most important thing to ever have happened and it will change politics as we see it... for the 233rd day in a row. I don't care if it's because of Trump or ratings, it's damaging to her credibility.

2. Assumed her audience weren't kindergartners. She must think we all have 30 second attention spans as well and so whatever she has to say will be repeated, chewed for you, and repeated again and again.

3. She talked about the news more broadly at least once in a while. At this point the title should be changed to The Rachel Maddow Trump and Russia Show.

tldr: Stephen Pulls A 'Rachel Maddow' Forget the tax thing and watch his impression of her.

 

[Hitman]

She didn't have his tax return. She had the first page of his tax return. Tax return implies that we know what his deductions are.

I have Trump's Tax Return in a Tweet ! The show goes on a couple hours later explaining it' s Trump's 2005 Tax Returns (2 pages, not 1), where's the controversy. The Tax Returns were properly reported on (quite well I might add) during the show. Internet overreacts to a simple tweet, gets burned, blames Maddow and vilifies her over a fuckin nothing burger.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

I have Trump's Tax Return in a Tweet ! The show goes on a couple hours later explaining it' s Trump's 2005 Tax Returns (2 pages, not 1), where's the controversy. The Tax Returns were properly reported on (quite well I might add) during the show. Internet overreacts to a simple tweet, gets burned, blames Maddow and vilifies her over a fuckin nothing burger.

 

[Damaniel]

I definitely like her ability to tell a compelling story, and to generally back things up with sources from legitimate news media. Her overstating of the importance of those Trump returns she announced have definitely clouded my view of her though. I was a regular viewer (well, listener - I usually picked up the daily podcast of the show's audio) throughout Trump's campaign and into the first couple months of his presidency, but since the tax return thing I've only watched or listened to the show a couple times. I know that I shouldn't hold something like that over her head, but it really did affect her credibility in my eyes.

 

[Gattsu25]

You mean like this?

https://twitter.com/maddow/status/841807273513107456

 

[Hitman]

Lack of specificity in a Tweet, that was specified an hour later, and fully explained 4 hours later kills all her credibility? Logical for overreacting internet folk I guess.

 

[Betty]

That was written later.

People were pissed because she made out that she had his tax returns in full or at least enough to have a story on her hands.

There's no rewriting it, she fucked up, we didn't misinterpret anything she sensationalised it for views.

As pissed as we all were at her for that though I'm personally over it and we should value our allies wherever we can find them.

 

[Hitman]

People were pissed because she made out that she had his tax returns in full or at least enough to have a story on her hands.

There's no rewriting it, she fucked up, we didn't misinterpret anything she sensationalised it for views.

People's own problem if they over-expected and got pissed over something based on 1 tweet, then didn't read the follow up tweet an hour later clarifying, then not watching the show which reported accurately, in context, with insight, and with education on the Tax Returns. Maddow did nothing wrong, unless you want to vilify 1 hour of lack of specificity in a TWEET and not her show and destroy all the other great work she's done based on this one nothing burger of a situation.

 

[remist]

Gleen Greenwald ffs. Stooge to Russian stooge Edward Snowden. Yah... we should be listening to this guy, not Maddow.

You dont need to like or trust Glenn Greenwald to see she mishandled and overhyped that story. You can verify every claim in that article for yourself if you cared for the the truth. The fact of the matter is she heavily implied that it was likely that the document they recieved was edited before the intercepts publication when even cursory fact checking should have made it obvious that that was not true.

 

[ErasureAcer]

100% agree. Here's how the 2005 Tax "Fiasco" went down:

Maddow tweeted: "I have Trump's tax return"

Internet went crazy with unwarranted expectation and speculation that NOW we can NAIL Trump.

An Hour Later Maddow Tweets: "I have Trump's 2005 Tax Returns"

Internet feels like they are lied to or mislead, despite Maddow not lying and clarifying and specifying an hour after the original announcement.

Show airs, and Trump's 2005 Tax Returns are PROPERLY REPORTED with context, insights, and educational value to the viewers.

Internet overreacts and thinks Maddow got played and creates a "fiasco" out of thin fuckin air and overblown expectations.

And somehow this affects Maddow's credibility? HOW?!

I watched that episode as it aired and it took her 20 minutes to get to the big reveal. She deserved all the flack she got for it. Maddow is pretty good though, she was just horrible that day.

 

[Betty]

People's own problem if they over-expected and got pissed over something based on 1 tweet, then didn't read the follow up tweet an hour later clarifying, then not watching the show which reported accurately, in context, with insight, and with education on the Tax Returns. Maddow did nothing wrong, unless you want to vilify 1 hour of lack of specificity in a TWEET and not her show and destroy all the other great work she's done based on this one nothing burger of a situation.

Or it's her fault for being so vague in the first place and letting people get the wrong impression.

Even the most uneducated person could've seen the shit storm that would follow if they hyped something like she did.

She made a mistake, enough time has passed that we can all move on, it's over.

 

[SummitAve]

I watched that episode as it aired and it took her 20 minutes to get to the big reveal. She deserved all the flack she got for it. Maddow is pretty good though, she was just horrible that day.

She literally recapped an entire weeks worth of shows in that 20 minutes because she knew there would be a lot of new viewers after her tweets. It was intentional, reasonable, and inline with her usual format. As much as I like Maddow I don't think it's fair to remove the context that she works for a cable news station where shit like breaking news countdown clocks are fair game to get eyes on something.

 

[Gattsu25]

I watched that episode as it aired and it took her 20 minutes to get to the big reveal. She deserved all the flack she got for it. Maddow is pretty good though, she was just horrible that day.

I think that's what people who watch her show are trying to tell you: that isn't unique to that one episode. Hell, just watch the videos in the OP (the first video is even 21 minutes long). She's known for her "long walks" where she brings up oodles of context and draws parallels to previous historical events. It's her house style.

If you read her twitter, you knew she was going to reveal the Trump's 1040 form for 2005 and when you watched the episode she did it in her style.

For the people who didn't like it because they like their shows intercut with frequent commercial breaks it might be unusual. But her style is pretty well established, she's been doing it for a decade+, and her viewers appear to appreciate it.

 

[Hitman]

I watched that episode as it aired and it took her 20 minutes to get to the big reveal. She deserved all the flack she got for it. Maddow is pretty good though, she was just horrible that day.

I watched that whole situation unfold the day of. Wow, 20 whole minutes to reveal what she already revealed in a tweet 4 hours earlier as Trump's 2005 Tax Returns (just the 1040 portion of it) must have been really excruciating for you. 20 whole minutes WOW! Were you able to get anything else done that day? Maddow should send you a cheque for your time. What a MONSTER! Let's all attack her now and destroy all her credibility.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I think that's what people who watch her show are trying to tell you: that isn't unique to that one episode. Hell, just watch the videos in the OP. She's known for her "long walks" where she brings up oodles of context and draws parallels to previous historical events. It's her house style.

If you read her twitter, you knew she was going to reveal the Trump's 1040 form for 2015 and when you watched the episode she did it in her style.

For the people who didn't like it because they like their shows intercut with frequent commercial breaks it might be unusual. But her style is pretty well established, she's been doing it for a decade+, and her viewers appear to appreciate it.

I've watched her show plenty of times. I get the starting with some obscure thing and tying it in, creative, interesting, different.

This however droned on and on with Colbert even taking her to task the next day for hyping up something that is essentially and specifically nothing. It adds a few new wrinkles to Trump's taxes but there is no smoking gun, which it was hyped as.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I watched that whole situation unfold the day of. Wow, 20 whole minutes to reveal what she already revealed in a tweet 4 hours earlier as Trump's 2005 Tax Returns (just the 1040 portion of it) must have been really excruciating for you. 20 whole minutes WOW! Were you able to get anything else done that day? Maddow should send you a cheque for your time. What a MONSTER! Let's all attack her now and destroy all her credibility.

Yes, cuz that is what I did. How do you function in the real world dude?

 

[Hitman]

I've watched her show plenty of times. I get the starting with some obscure thing and tying it in, creative, interesting, different.

This however droned on and on with Colbert even taking her to task the next day for hyping up something that is essentially and specifically nothing. It adds a few new wrinkles to Trump's taxes but there is no smoking gun, which it was hyped as.

Maddow tweeted what she had (Trump Tax Return), then specified EXACTLY what she had an hour later (1040 portion of 2005 Trump Tax Return), where was her "hype" that she had a smoking gun? Not from Maddow, that came from the INTERNET and over-blown personal expectations.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

That was written later.

People were pissed because she made out that she had his tax returns in full or at least enough to have a story on her hands.

There's no rewriting it, she fucked up, we didn't misinterpret anything she sensationalised it for views.

As pissed as we all were at her for that though I'm personally over it and we should value our allies wherever we can find them.

Sensationalized?

Give me me a break!

 

[Betty]

Sensationalized?

Give me me a break!

His tax returns at the time were one of the hottest and most sought after things, they still are but not as much back then since they were still talked about frequently at the time.

I know if I was in Maddow's shoes and I sent out a tweet saying I had his tax returns that people would sit up and pay attention.

She knew what she was doing.

 

[Hitman]

Yes, cuz that is what I did. How do you function in the real world dude?

Well you implied she should receive flack, making you wait 20 minutes for a reveal of something that was already revealed (4 hours earlier) seemed to be one of your reasonings. I disagree. I apologize for the snootiness of my comments though. But I dislike when actual good reporters like Maddow (which are rare these days) get vilified over nothing. She's fighting the good fight and is 100 times more effective in this fight than any random GAFFER or internet user or other liberal pundit, and all we can do is find nothing burgers to attack those on our own fuckin side. It's no wonder the Dems lost in the first place, how does the line go again? "The right falls in line, while the left sits and rationalizes"

 

[ErasureAcer]

His tax returns at the time were one of the hottest and most sought after things, they still are but not as much back then since they were still talked about frequently at the time.

I know if I was in Maddow's shoes and I sent out a tweet saying I had his tax returns that people would sit up and pay attention.

She knew what she was doing.

And she deserves all the flack she got for it. She is still a good cable news(opinion) host. Why some people can't equate the two...I dunno.

 

[SummitAve]

His tax returns at the time were one of the hottest and most sought after things, they still are but not as much back then since they were still talked about frequently at the time.

I know if I was in Maddow's shoes and I sent out a tweet saying I had his tax returns that people would sit up and pay attention.

She knew what she was doing.

Exactly. She knew what she was doing to get attention. You think if she or any reporter or journalist had a smoking gun they would bury the lead? That doesn't make sense at all.

 

[ResidentWeevil13]

Gleen Greenwald ffs. Stooge to Russian stooge Edward Snowden. Yah... we should be listening to this guy, not Maddow.

Louise Mensch, is that you? Is it true Jill Stein and Bernie are Russian agents too?!

Snowden was stranded in Russia by the Obama admin while he was trying to get to Latin America. When you cross the strongest country in the world, there's very few places you can hide.

Snowden is an American hero, and he performed a public service. Gtfo

 

[Hitman]

His tax returns at the time were one of the hottest and most sought after things, they still are but not as much back then since they were still talked about frequently at the time.

I know if I was in Maddow's shoes and I sent out a tweet saying I had his tax returns that people would sit up and pay attention.

She knew what she was doing.

Your probably right. She knew that, that first unspecified but still mostly accurate tweet would have drawn hype for a her very informative and very well thought out show that educates Americans on Trump-Russia. Good for her I say, for being not only a phenomenal and credible journalist but good at marketing too.

Kudos to Maddow. Glad she's the number 1 rated pundit, she deserves it.

 

[Hitman]

Louise Mensch, is that you? Is it true Jill Stein and Bernie are Russian agents too?!

Snowden was stranded in Russia by the Obama admin while he was trying to get to Latin America. When you cross the strongest country in the world, there's very few places you can hide.

Snowden is an American hero, and he performed a public service. Gtfo

Stranded in Russia? Snowden was forced out of the US by his own doing, and was helped by Russian Stooge Assange to be delivered into the waiting and friendly arms of the Russian FSB, where he continues to reside and continues to be a stooge for Russian interests.

If Snowden is such a hero of privacy and human rights, I'm sure he would have no problems of outlining his issues with the notoriously corrupt and intrusive Russian government. Oh, he's not going to because they shield his ass and party with him?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

:lol She's not a news reporter and it's pretty sad that so many people conflate these things. She's literally NBC's version of fox news, she's as biased and a pat on the back that Hannity and fox news is for the right. You can argue about which has better viewpoints but they serve the same function and very much give their opinion and not all the facts to help push forward whatever agenda she has.

It's fine if you like her she is not a news source and should be viewed mostly as entertainment, same as Olbermann when he was still there.

 

[Betty]

Your probably right. She knew that, that first unspecified but still mostly accurate tweet would have drawn hype for a her very informative and very well thought out show that educates Americans on Trump-Russia. Good for her I say, for being not only a phenomenal and credible journalist but good at marketing too.

Kudos to Maddow. Glad she's the number 1 rated pundit, she deserves it.

I think most people agree we'd rather have her on our side than against us so the vitriol has mostly subsided by now thankfully.

 

[Hitman]

:lol She's not a news reporter and it's pretty sad that so many people conflate these things. She's literally NBC's version of fox news, she's as biased and a pat on the back that Hannity and fox news is for the right. You can argue about which has better viewpoints but they serve the same function and very much give their opinion and not all the facts to help push forward whatever agenda she has.

It's fine if you like her she is not a news source and should be viewed mostly as entertainment, same as Olbermann when he was still there.

Except that she is a journalist and is a reporter. Because her team does extensive research, illuminating issues and stories other outlets haven't touched on or expanded on. And she's NOT NBC's version of FOX news, because FOX doesn't use research and journalism to push their views they use lies and biases. In fact, she's not a version of anything else on TV really. Find me a show that will spend an hour illuminating the FACTUAL connections between Trump, Turkey, and funding of a US-banned terrorist organization.

 

[3rdman]

Rachel Maddow was on bridge gate years before anyone else was. Her work made sure the story didn't just disappear too.

Her show was also one of the first and most consistent voices on Flint's water crisis.

 

[Father_Brain]

Where in the bloody hell did she even begin to imply that this was by anyone within the Trump Administration? God..people who don't watch a show shouldn't pretend to have watched it.

What else was she trying to imply by baselessly suggesting that the forged document was created before The Intercept published the real one?

 

[boiled goose]

There is no Alex Jones or Fox News of liberals.

It's not even close

 

[Con_Smith]

We are right to be disappointed, it was over hyped by the internet.

But if you think she completely sensationalized the issue, I have a problem there. She presented again evidence like she has done throughout the year, some which has only started picking up steam in recent weeks officially, and context to why this russia stuff is an issue. Then interviewed the reporter who flat out says, I believe this was sent by trump, while people watching with better insight than eye saw that the copies looked like it would have came from the person themselves.

Rachel unlike many other news people on TV is really good about leaving information without putting to muc of her opinion on them. Open ended questions she calls perculiar are ways she engages her viewership to form their own conclusiions while she makes a typically non declaritive statement about said issue. How she gets to and delivers the message can be frustrating if you want your Hannity style constant attack allegations but feeding information, and providing connections to said info and allowing the story to stick is one place where she server a liberal counter to the fuckery on the right without devolving into partisan craziness and it's pretty fucking refreshing.

 

[Nekofrog]

100% agree. Here's how the 2005 Tax "Fiasco" went down:

Maddow tweeted: "I have Trump's tax return"

Internet went crazy with unwarranted expectation and speculation that NOW we can NAIL Trump.

An Hour Later Maddow Tweets: "I have Trump's 2005 Tax Returns"

Internet feels like they are lied to or mislead, despite Maddow not lying and clarifying and specifying an hour after the original announcement.

Show airs, and Trump's 2005 Tax Returns are PROPERLY REPORTED with context, insights, and educational value to the viewers.

Internet overreacts and thinks Maddow got played and creates a "fiasco" out of thin fuckin air and overblown expectations.

And somehow this affects Maddow's credibility? HOW?!

Frighteningly reductionist take on what actually happened. Most of us are good liberals here but to hand wave what happened is to abdicate responsibility. That's exactly what fox news would do in their sensationalist FOX NEWS ALERT OBAMA SNEEZED ON A COFFEE CAKE AND WALKED AWAY level of irresponsible news journalism that people should be held accountable for.

 

[Gattsu25]

What else was she trying to imply by baselessly suggesting that the forged document was created before The Intercept published the real one?

Trump's admin isn't even in the chain of those events, dude. And she mentioned how easy it was to fake that metadata.