Rachel Maddow Turning Into Wolf Blitzer?
This may be difficult to
remember because it was so long ago, but Wolf Blitzer was once a serious
reporter. Even when he started
reporting for CNN from Israel, his spots tended to provide actual information.
Then he saw his star rising.
Rachel Maddow's star has recently been rising. Her new show has garnered very good ratings. While she started with a focus on issues ("What is McCain's health plan"), she appears, sadly, to be in the process of re-branding herself. The other night, there must have been 10 times when she repeated the theme that "the problem with the McCain campaign" has been the way it has been run or the way it hasn't had "message coherence." When the process discussions take over like this, the downward slope is very slippery indeed.
How do you know that the ailment is getting worse? A surefire sign is the appearance of "signature segments." Maddow, for example, needs to pretend each night that she is in a panic...so that she can proceed with her "Talk Me Down" feature. Presumably, one's panic level varies from night to night, and it would not be a tragedy to let one's show vary from night to night, taking actual developments in the news as one's guide.
Final awful thought: even Adam Nagourney of The New York Times once actually functioned as a reporter, and regularly decried the undue focus on process and polls. Then he was sucked in.
Going through "TV star training" actually shares many similarities with going through law school training: the only way that you can emerge with your personhood, intelligence, and integrity intact is to try very conscientiously to ignore the assumptions that your teachers try to embed within you.
Maybe it's not too late for Rachel to turn things around.
Umm she is not a reporter and has never presented herself as one.
She is a commentator, pundit what ever you want to call it. So to my mind her opinion on the process is as valid as her opinion on healthcare plans of the candidates.
October 29, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
But do we care about process as much as substance?
October 29, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are aware that Josh Marshall has stated tha covering process is "What We Do" and that he believes covering issues coverage is like forcefeeding spinach? That this site proudly and unashamedly traffics in process coverage, no excuses needed? He even gives the meta reasons at the link, why he thinks that that kind of coverage taking over is good for society.
BTW, I don't agree with his argument there, and not only don't I agree with it, reading it was a real depressing thing for me, a realization that I was spending a lot of time on a site which had a raison d'etre that I didn't think was a good thing for journalism. I was being willfully obtuse, thinking that some day they would get back to the "issues" I enjoyed for perhaps a few months at the start of TPMCafe sub-website. Not that I don't enjoy partaking of process coverage, but I like it tied in with a balanced menu of issues.
But I must add taht there is a line crossing with process coverage that really turns me off. It's when the supposed analysts start participating in the actual process.
I saw lots of examples of TPM mothership page during the primary that merely suggested they were falling into that from time to time. But on the day that people started talking about how many houses the McCain's own, is when it really looked very blatant to me, when it hit hard. Ambinder reported that the Obama camp talking points were instructing people to hit on the story, and lo and behold at about the same exact time those talking points came out, Josh Marshall dropped everything else he was covering and did a slew of posts "investigating" how many houses the McCain's had, with liberal doses of snarky commentary included.
I pointed that out on a thread here on a related topic, stated how disappointed I was by that focus, and said "Josh Marshall has really truly finally lost me," meaning I don't trust his coverage integrity anymore. And, heh, I promptly got a reply from some do-or-die Marshall/Obama fan/drone saying "artappraiser finally uncovers as a Republican."
Looking that reality in the face means accepting that people want this shitty prejudiced process coverage, they like that game. Josh Marshall both loves playing the game and has profited from his realization that many others love reading about it. More power to him, I guess, that's the way I take it now. I use the site to look at the minority of participants who don't like 24/7 process coverage and the fighting talking points game. You know, "Election Central" started as a small section, was once even hosted on TPMCafe, now it seems it gets more traffic than the site home page. One has to be realistic.
I used to wonder what the focus would be here after the election. I now suspect it's going to be more process. It's just going to be about the process of right wingers attacking a President Obama, and "fighting back" with talking points "exposing" that process. New game, but same old same old. Issues still will be treated like spinach. You are allowed to eat them here, but don't go around pushing them on people that want to play the politics game. I think as long as there's a big audience for the game, it will rule here, for both personal fun and profit and political goals, just like with the MSM. Talking Points Memo is not an ironic title for this site, it's for putting out sophisticated versions of talking points, masquerading as "investigative journalism." The one on staff who doesn't seem to naturally fall in with that program is Greg Sargent; his old "Horse's Mouth" blog showed a predilection for wanting to debunk such spin coverage, not perpetuate it as political activism.
You can't fight it Donal. The majority likes it. Blogs or TV or radio, it's the way it is. As long as a site/station relies on advertising for income, there will also always be that added incentive to do it. You don't unfortunately get a big audience for "spinach."
October 29, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great post, and pretty much the way I've been feeling. Thanks for it.
October 29, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great post, and pretty much the way I've been feeling. Thanks for it.
October 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment artappraiser. I would recommend it if I could.
October 29, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. There is a falling-in-line requirement that one not criticize issues which are sacred cows among "liberals"/"progressives". Opposing discrimination against women on the basis of sex/sexism is a good thing. Opposing discrimination based upon sex and sexism, without regard for genital configuration of the source of those bigotries, is verboten.
As example, anyone and everyone can disparage by body parts "dick" and "prick" and "balls" -- and illiterate sexist mockings concerning any of those -- but dare not use the equivalent term "c*nt" else one's criticism is sidestepped into use of allegations of "mysoginy" against the critic.
Criticize a male for actual or apparent "sexist" comment and one is justified in doing so by one's situation as a member of the oppressed majority. But criticize a sexist comment by a woman and one is attacked as a woman-hater.
At the same time, this is a partisan website, and no one should pretend -- it is a deceit -- to be offended by that fact. So efforts at "balance" which are actually diatribes against Democrats in favor of Republicans; or which "refute" a diatribe, or even flattery, of a Democrat by dragging in another "worse" Democrat, are also not suitable. Want to praise a Republican in contrast to a Democrat as a means to attack the latter? Take it to freerepubic or the equivalent.
Then there are the better-not-criticize the continued spoiled-brat entitled whinings against Obama simply because Hillary lost -- the implicit allegation being that Hillary lost because of "sexism," when in fact she lost on her own merits. Because only women can understand women's issues, ya see. But don't anyone dare identify that for the rancid sexism it is.
As for Rachel: I'll give her time; she's still developing her show. And she really does have to respond to the wants of viewers, regardless whether those viewers are sophisticated in their wants.
October 29, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could save a lot of reading time on this site if the writer's name appeared above the comment instead of below.
October 29, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, Professor Gurian, you did not catch the episode of The Rachel Maddow Show from not more than a couple of weeks ago, where Rachel interviewed former Bush speechwriter and Movement Conservative Pundit David Frum.
Unbeknownst to Rachel, Frum and his associates had apparently decided before his appearance that they were going to reprise, in this election year, the 1988 ambush of the "liberal media" by then-Vice President George Herbert Walker "Poppy" Bush on The CBS Evening News With Dan Rather.
Frum waited patiently for her first question (something involving the McCain-Obama race), and then proceded to take three good sucker punches at Rachel, her show and her network, for the crime of being Unserious (in the Beltway, a Capital offense).
Rachel quietly asked Frum what he was talking about, so he reiterated his point in a slightly less-confrontational way, before attempting to dance away onto loftier rhetorical material. But Rachel was not about to allow that to happen.
This was a situation where the viewer probably would have preferred that the talking heads not drag out the conflict any further into a level of embarassment... at first. But slowly and methodically, she laid-out all the components of his accusation, as Frum repeatedly tried to move on. Every facet of his little diatribe, she repeated and then proceded to eviscerate factually. By the time Rachel was through with Frum (it seemed like years), it was clear that the embarrassment was solely Frum’s.
He had made the grave and fatal tactical error of attempting to use Professor Rachel Maddow as his media dunk-tank bimbo. Instead, as fate would have it, and as I'm sure she had not even intended to do when she walked onto the set that evening, Rachel made Serious Republican Icon David Frum her whimpering bitch (I distinctly smelled the odor of peed pants).
Now, Professor Gurian... that episode would have been a landmark in TV news, had it only contained the above-mentioned blockbuster interview. But there was more.
In another segment, Rachel also chose to level a heretofore-unseen broadcast broadside at what was to become a trademark in the speeches of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Rachel repeated some homey-folksy Palin attack or statement from the day's campaigning. And then, she did something that would have been considered the ultimate firing offense, in the kind of TV Equivalence Journalism that critics such as yourself allegedly disdain: she called Sarah Palin a "LIAR".
Not a person with whom she disagrees; not an O’Reilly/Fox News smear; but a well-documented claim that Palin's statements were "LIES", premeditated falsehoods by a major national candidate, meant to deceive the citizenry at large with malice aforethought.
And THAT didn’t end it, either. Rachel then proceded to scold her own industry, mildly but across the board, for not having the cojones to call a liar a "liar", when the liar in question was an important or well-known figure.
(In another era, Bob Wright would have invaded the studio personally, and strangled her with her own mic cord.)
Professor Gurian, I counted three watershed events in television journalism during that one broadcast; no less historical and devastating than Edward R. Murrow’s takedown of Senator McCarthy, or Walter Cronkite’s revelation that Viet Nam was a bright, shining lie… IN ONE EPISODE of The Rachel Maddow Show.
So, tell us again, please: how the hell does her "process", whatever it might be, get in the way of Rachel Maddow’s being the single most revolutionary figure in modern mass media, for forcing the truth onto a venue where its corporate sentinels have succeeded for 30 years in keeping it off?
And I doubt sincerely that your little Resume Salad, off to the right of your post, would help you very much if you ever decided to pit all your academic Seriousness against the professor in question. I'll be waiting with baited breath for your own appearance, to debate her over the propriety of what she's doing, on The Rachel Maddow Show.
October 30, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. You said exactly what I was thinking, in every respect. Rachel Maddow is the only person in the media, in any capacity, who has the honesty to call it like she sees it and play it as it lays. She has the courage of her convictions and the intelligence to cogently and, in most cases respectfully, back them up. She hung Frum out to dry and he really really really had it coming.
October 30, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel's show is probably still a work-in-progress. I believe her role at MSNBC has been the good-natured liberal counterweight to the gasbags on the right. Her chemistry with Pat Buchanan is the model for the whole show I think.
October 29, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I note no unwelcome changes to her stance while listening to her radio show. The tone shifts in the second hour, when we get the recording of the previous night's MSNBC show.
Still it is a not comparable to most wretched TV programming, but considerably better.
October 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that her new television show is not her best work. It's not so much the "signature segments" that bother me--I think they were just trying to translate the "underbelly" and "Ask Dr. Maddow"-type features into television, and they've chosen features that steer the entire show in a certain direction, as you rightly point out.
For me, it's the TV news commentator genre that turns me off. I love the radio show. I discovered it online this summer while abroad, alone, and starved of the English language. In that situation, Maddow appealed to some of my most basic needs:
- someone who cares about the issues
- someone who is horrified by the news behind the media's news narrative, and, most of all,
- (my favorite!) someone who epitomizes my kind of patriotism, the kind that makes you furious at Dick Cheney, chuckle at McCain's flaccid public speaking, and get goosebumps watching segments of the Democratic National Convention that would bore everyone else I know.
On television, this is negated by the format itself. Maddow becomes a big head that bobs around the center of the screen, from behind a desk, dressed in a suit, etc. No longer just a voice in the darkness, Maddow becomes physical. She leans forward to emphasize the heaviest parts of her sentences. I could drone on and on about this, but in short, the format wraps her wit, her intellegence, and her gut response to current events into the same visual, physical package we know from Bill O'Reilly's show (and the very package Stephen Colbert has won awards for mocking).
Solutions? I don't know. Maybe they could keep her on the side of the screen? Put her in jeans? Honestly, I don't know.
October 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get rid of the desk, put her in jeans sitting in a comfy chair with her feet up on the coffee table with a beer in hand. Give all her guests a beer too. It might loosen up some of the those points talers.
I love her but I agree her show seems to be dumbing down a little more every night.
I could do without the "Talk Me Down" segment, or maybe save it for an occasional piece on serious issues that really should make people panic. I wish they'd skip the "Just Enough" segment at the end too. The media is saturated with pop culture - we don't need any more.
October 29, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are lamenting here is really the translation of a radio personality into a TV personality, and Rachel's not the problem, the mediums are just different.
The best way to understand what I am trying to explain? Stop and ponder the kind of female pundits and talking heads we know from the past, (or just watch one of Fox's foxes for an intolerable minute) and it is hard to fault Rachel Maddow for being so refreshing.
Actually, I would like to see that "Ask Dr. Maddow" segment translated to the little screen from her radio format, her expertise applied to our online questins would surely add to our whole understanding of some important and complex subjects.
And as for her TV personae, I think she's both fun and dignified,(that's a hard juggling act, but she does it gracefully) and unashamedly intelligent, so please, lets give her some time before we start picking apart the minutia of her transition from radio to TV.
October 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "Ask Dr. Maddow" segment would have to be a little different, I imagine, than it is on the radio show. The TV show seems much more politically geared, the exception sometimes being the Kent Jones "Just Enough" segment at the end of the hour. On the radio, "Ask Dr. Maddow" serves a similar function, serving lighter fare that usually has nothing to do with politics. (A recent segment, for example, was on why fingers get wrinkled in the bath.) I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that would fly on her MSNBC show.
October 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still like the idea of Dr. Maddow answering serious (and maybe some not-so-serious) email questions every evening, the interactivity would be even better than Jack Cafferty's, because instead of just taking comments from viewers, she would actually be answering their questions, with the help of selected and qualified experts.
October 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the most refreshing and intelligent voice on cable news, I'm not so concerned that she's towing the line of cable TV conventions.
However, Rachel's more intelligent than either her radio or TV straightjackets allow. I'd love to see her work in the format that Bill Moyers developed for PBS. A shot at hosting "Meet the Press" wouldn't hurt either. She managed to parry with David Frum successfully with zero prep time. Keith Olbermann would turn into as much of a sputtering gasbag as O'Reilly under similar circumstances. What sets Rachel Maddow apart from all other cable news talking heads is a civility of tone otherwise absent from the airwaves.
October 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just noticing that I'm tired of her show already. Not sure the cause, but I agree that it's not the fresh thing it was. After the election, I probably won't watch for a good long while. I will try to watch the Obama interview.
October 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
At very least, the civility is refreshing -- and that for which we are all starved.
October 29, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel's show is still a work in progress. But it is WAY premature to be passing judgement on it, or comparing her to Blitzer, which I do not percieve as a compliment. After all, tomorrow night Barack Obama will appear on her show. What commentator wouldn't kill for that interview right now. And you need only to have seen the way she dissmantled David Frum to know she is well worth the gig!
October 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why you're bringing up Frum in this context. Obama's appearance on Maddow says that he trusts her to play paddy cake with him. If he thought she'd challenge him in any way he wouldn't be there.
October 29, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the either or?
Ever hear of a cooperative, critical discussion of issues without the "challenges" and such to the PERSON?
October 29, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could have just stopped at "I don't know."
We get it troll.
October 30, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
a lot of good points here about Rachel's show. I think we understate the amount of time it takes for any commentator to find their voice on television--much different than on radio, as it has been suggested.
Let's see what happens. Some things she might want to consider in the meantime:
--at times, it seems identical to countdown, I'm not interested in seeing her do her version of Keith.
-it is a bit one-dimensional, singular, like she's the only one there. I know she has guests and live feeds, I'm just talking about the feel of her show.
I don't know what will happen with shows like Rachel's because they've lost a sense of physical presence--it's down to one host and video satellite feeds. Did you ever think you'd turn your own tv on to watch someone else watching their tv?
October 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the truth is much more obvious: She's turning into Keith Olberman. She's even picking up his signature tics.
October 29, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that it is a work in progress, and I think it will get to where she wants it.
I REALLY wish she'd dump the pop-culture segment with what's-his-name. What a waste of broadcast minutes.
October 29, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed... the pop culture segment is kind of lame.
I think she brings another good discerning mind to what is going on. I am hoping that she will watch her own shows and focus and refine things.
October 29, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's the bomb! And a smart cookie at that.
October 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, find the pop culture segment lame, and the forced "talk me down" isn't worthy of what she has to offer.
That said, we never miss the show at our house, and we trust that as she brings all that intelligence to bear and finds a little more comfort in front of the camera, it will only get better.
October 29, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send her an email. I sent one a couple of week ago asking her to consider getting a smarter and less predictable voice for the right than Pat Buchanan. I also mentioned that his obviously prejudiced views against black people are a major turn-off. I told her that I thought she could find a more thoughtful and less objectionable person than Pat; someone who wouldn't simply spout the same, predictable phrases over and over again, sounding like a grumpy old man rather than a person who really has something to say.
I haven't seen him on her program since, although I expect to because I have heard her say that she thinks he is all the things I said he isn't in my email. Anyway, it feels good to make your point, and I have a feeling that Rachel might at least read it.
October 29, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel is a breath of fresh air. I never listened to her radio show so I have no comparison but it is nice to have a really smart, informed and articulate person hosting a show like hers.
My feeling would be "let Rachel be Rachel" and let it evolve.
She is interviewing Barack tomorrow nite which is a great get for her...
I like her ability to go toe to toe with anyone on the show and not back down in any discussion/argument.
I am offended when I see her sexuality referenced in the media as that is irrelevant to any discussion of her show and performance.
October 29, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like her ability to go toe to toe with anyone on the show and not back down in any discussion/argument.
_____
While being -- and modelling -- both backbone AND CIVILITY.
How many people have been taught by FOX that lack of manners -- interrupting, talking over, shouting down -- is "debate," and need to be reeducated to the fact that stupidity -- preventing other than one-way communication -- is not a way to be intelligent.
October 29, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what I love the most about her too.
October 30, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel provides a view from the left and always has. She's not trying to be a neutral journalist. Personally I love her show and never miss it. As her ratings grow so does the voice from the left. It's starting to be heard louder than the voice from the right. This can only be a good thing.
October 29, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The civility is a new rediscovery for those on the "right" who've been duped by FOX into "believing" that bullying and shutting up all opposition is "debate" and "winning the argument". Ever try to discuss a fact with a FOX-viewer who reduces everything to "opinion"?
October 29, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the big problem here is that most of us on the left don't want an echo chamber as much as your typical Wal-Mart shopper who watches Hannity.
I enjoy Keith's rants, and Rachel's intellect. But generally, I watch them and I don't learn anything. They just reinforce what I already know and believe. Most of us don't need that kind of reinforcement, even when executed well. Not that I want to watch Billo to be challenged or anything. I'd just rather read a book or bang my wife.
October 29, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just about to concur with you and then I heard Rachel say " Are you ready for some STUMP SPEECH EVERYBODY!!!" and now I am officially in love all over again.
October 29, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
things change
Rachel Maddow is perfect to refute the repuglitard hissy fits to come
October 29, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
most people forget that what caused wolf blizer's "star" to "rise" in the first place.
his star didnt rise, it was granted from on high after he ratted out his fellow journalists in iraq (the first bush's iraq war) for trying to smuggle out news footage that hadn't been cleared by the pentagon. they got shipped back to the states, he became a star. so gerald rivers became "geraldo rivera" and michael weiner became "michael savage" and wolf blitzer got to keep his name while becoming every bit as much a real reporter as they. i wonder if cheney even gave wolf a reach-around? ah, probably not.
your characterization of rachel maddow is off the mark, and comparing her to wolf blitzer is just ridiculous on its face. one of them tries to root out the truth among the lies and nonsense, the other fears that some inappropriate truth may come out on his show, and scrambles to block whenever he senses it may happen. sorry if she doesn't stay "on message" for you enough, but actually i find that most refreshing.
congratulations and good luck to rachel!
October 29, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel kills 'em with kindness. Great show, and frankly, having worked with Wolf Blitzer, you couldn't be further off.
October 29, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel is obviously intelligent and talented. But in my opinion hers is just another biased "news" show. The same goes for Olbermann. As someone pointed out above, such shows function primarily to reinforce our existing emotions and beliefs. I would like to be challenged, intellectually, something that never happens on either of these shows. They are humorous and that's about it. I wonder what these shows, along with TPM, are going to talk about after the election.
October 30, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel and Keith are biased toward dems, but that's OK because they don't pretend to be anything else. They balance out Bill O and Hannity. Alter was on the Daily show the other night and John Stewart was saying some of the things being said here about Keith. Alter said that Keith was doing us a great service because he got the word out on things that other shows won't cover. I thought about that and I think he's right. Neither show is portrayed as balanced coverage. Other shows on the network can do the balancing routine. But it's good that someone is doing what they do. They debunk a lot of the smears that have been thrown at Obama this season and the catch the lies. Rachel has a tremendous rating and Keith gets lots of looks too. That means that lots of people are hearing the other side of things and that's a good thing. Would we really rather that no one told the other side of things? We don't have to watch them ourselves if we don't want to, but they provide a valuable service. Tonight, Rachel did something quite subtle. She let it sound like maybe McCain was a little right about his phony polls that say he's close. I think that was a total act to keep our side from getting complacent and blowing it. Turn the channel if you must, but say thank you as you do it.
October 30, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably right in that these shows provide a valuable service. However, admitting they are biased does not alter the fact that they are biased, it just means they are not hypocritical. Also, Olbermann and Maddow really don't balance out the Fox shows because they are not nearly as extreme or numerous. My personal view is that there aren't any objective or "balanced" news shows, and that virtually all are biased to the right.
By biased I mean that the reporting uses selectivity and distortion to promote its ideology. These "liberal" shows could be so much better if they limited these techniques, and cut the fun and games so that more could actually be covered. It's discouraging to see liberal positions presented in such a superficial and at times childish way.
Still, I admit that for some people they serve a valuable service in "presenting the other side". It's just that the "other side" is already available, presented in much more breadth, detail, and accuracy on the many liberal websites. Also, there is the danger of closed-mindedness resulting from the constant reinforcement viewers get from the biased shows.
October 30, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Fuckin Rules. (as far as T.V goes)
October 30, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No...! It's more like the assumptions that your teachers, fellow students, next door neighbors and Joe The Plumbers of this world try to instill in you. THAT'S why Tricky named his key group of guys as The Plumbers Unit. As Mary McCarthy said, you'd best be part of the group. At either extreme or exactly at center, do not decide things for yourself.
October 30, 2008 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink