HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » There Has Been A Concerte...

Tue Mar 14, 2017, 11:46 PM

There Has Been A Concerted Effort To Discredit Progressive Figures Like Maddow

During the run-up to the general election, this message board was filled with posts consistently attacking progressives like Rachel Maddow from the left for being corporate shills by being supportive of Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump.

However, now that Trump is President, Rachel Maddow has been unmatched in connecting the dots with respect to Trump's Russian connections. Rather than be distracted by Trump's attention grabbing tweets, Maddow has steadily dived into Trump's conflicts of interests and Russian connections, which could be addressed through a full disclosure of his taxes. In response, Rachel Maddow has been receiving some of her highest ratings in the past few years despite the fact that she has not joined in the temptation to follow or rebut the latest Trump talking point. She has been setting her own agenda.

Many folks on this Board have been greatly appreciative of her journalism. Yet, in response to the disclosure of a few pages of Trump's tax returns, which did occur, there is a sudden concerted attack on Rachel Maddow from folks on the "left." Trust your gut and be leery of trolls or long threads with numerous kicks attacking well known Democrats or folks on the left. They are hardly the problem. Trump and his supporters are the problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html?_r=0

Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

HELSINKI, Finland — Seeking to shine some light into the dark world of Internet trolls, a journalist with Finland’s national broadcaster asked members of her audience to share their experience of encounters with Russia’s “troll army,” a raucous and often venomous force of online agitators.

The response was overwhelming, though not in the direction that the journalist, Jessikka Aro, had hoped.

As she expected, she received some feedback from people who had clashed with aggressively pro-Russian voices online. But she was taken aback, and shaken, by a vicious retaliatory campaign of harassment and insults against her and her work by those same pro-Russian voices.

“Everything in my life went to hell thanks to the trolls,” said Ms. Aro, a 35-year-old investigative reporter with the social media division of Finland’s state broadcaster, Yle Kioski.

84 replies, 6449 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply There Has Been A Concerted Effort To Discredit Progressive Figures Like Maddow (Original post)
TomCADem Mar 2017 OP
elleng Mar 2017 #1
Quixote1818 Mar 2017 #6
bettyellen Mar 2017 #20
elleng Mar 2017 #25
bettyellen Mar 2017 #31
BannonsLiver Mar 2017 #44
elleng Mar 2017 #46
bettyellen Mar 2017 #48
bettyellen Mar 2017 #47
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #65
SaschaHM Mar 2017 #51
Post removed Mar 2017 #55
SaschaHM Mar 2017 #69
elleng Mar 2017 #70
LanternWaste Mar 2017 #71
Azathoth Mar 2017 #2
scheming daemons Mar 2017 #5
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #10
scheming daemons Mar 2017 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #19
fleabiscuit Mar 2017 #22
scheming daemons Mar 2017 #26
fleabiscuit Mar 2017 #40
bettyellen Mar 2017 #32
oasis Mar 2017 #11
scheming daemons Mar 2017 #17
bettyellen Mar 2017 #77
Hekate Mar 2017 #8
Azathoth Mar 2017 #13
Hekate Mar 2017 #28
womanofthehills Mar 2017 #21
Azathoth Mar 2017 #29
JHan Mar 2017 #33
TomCADem Mar 2017 #34
Azathoth Mar 2017 #64
pnwmom Mar 2017 #54
Azathoth Mar 2017 #60
pnwmom Mar 2017 #61
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #66
Name removed Mar 2017 #72
DesertRat Mar 2017 #73
Leith Mar 2017 #75
Hekate Mar 2017 #3
BainsBane Mar 2017 #4
Azathoth Mar 2017 #9
BainsBane Mar 2017 #12
Azathoth Mar 2017 #16
greyl Mar 2017 #43
BainsBane Mar 2017 #45
Azathoth Mar 2017 #52
leftynyc Mar 2017 #74
womanofthehills Mar 2017 #24
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #7
Azathoth Mar 2017 #23
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #30
JHan Mar 2017 #35
Azathoth Mar 2017 #49
TomCADem Mar 2017 #37
bettyellen Mar 2017 #39
Azathoth Mar 2017 #50
bettyellen Mar 2017 #57
Azathoth Mar 2017 #58
vlyons Mar 2017 #15
grantcart Mar 2017 #18
RoadhogRidesAgain Mar 2017 #27
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #36
RoadhogRidesAgain Mar 2017 #62
TomCADem Mar 2017 #38
RoadhogRidesAgain Mar 2017 #63
TomCADem Mar 2017 #80
mcar Mar 2017 #81
RoadhogRidesAgain Mar 2017 #82
TomCADem Mar 2017 #83
RoadhogRidesAgain Mar 2017 #84
BannonsLiver Mar 2017 #41
ecstatic Mar 2017 #42
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #67
applegrove Mar 2017 #53
brettdale Mar 2017 #56
Thekaspervote Mar 2017 #59
AngryAmish Mar 2017 #68
lagomorph777 Mar 2017 #76
bettyellen Mar 2017 #78
heaven05 Mar 2017 #79

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Mar 14, 2017, 11:57 PM

1. UNFORTUNATELY prior to the election

and during the primaries, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the msnbc crew, who but for matthews I'd rather respected, spent an undue amount of time ignoring candidates other than HRC and trump. She and they lost my 'favor' at the time, and it's only recently, while she's returned to her previous highly intelligent journalistic role that I've appreciated her again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:03 AM

6. Agree on all points. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:28 AM

20. That's funny because I thought she was so giddy about Sanders for a long time-

 

And at some point it changed, and she was more open to HRC. I think she has a lot of enthusiasm at time she and it bothers other peop e much more than it does me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:33 AM

25. I have no recollection that she was 'giddy' about Senator Sanders at ANY time. Maybe respectful?

And of course she ignored Governor O'Malley entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:41 AM

31. Definitely in December and January, yeah I had the distinct impression she favored him.

 

talked a lot about how exciting his rallies were, that the DNC should pay attention to that, and was very warm to his policies.

It's funny how people's memories can be different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:59 AM

44. She favored the horse race, just like all the rest did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:04 AM

46. without Governor O'Malley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:09 AM

48. Agree no one gave O Malley enough coverage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:09 AM

47. You think? I thought too many liked when he bashed Dems and tried to make that the story...

 

And I think she did a little less of that than many others.
Bernie was getting a lot of time on al the shows until he started slipping. And then it seemed like the attacks on Dems were focused on more and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 03:31 AM

65. She was until Sanders history with gays became and issue, after that it I thought she lost interest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:24 AM

51. What? Not this meme again.

Both Democratic campaigns were given ample coverage on MSNBC. Heck, I remember episodes devoted to Sander's speeches and rallies. Not to mention daily drop ins from Weaver, Jane Sanders, Ben Jealous, and Nina Turner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Reply #51)


Response to Post removed (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 08:34 AM

69. Other candidates*. No, I remember O'Malley and his 1 delegate from Iowa.

This isn't about him though because he was out in January. He got as much coverage as short campaign warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 10:09 AM

70. He got as much coverage as the msm wanted to give him,

not 'sexy' in spite of his superior approaches to matters. He was out early BECAUSE of the lack of coverage, including of course DNC who allotted him short shrift at the 'debates.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 10:12 AM

71. Are there objective numbers on which candidates she spent more or less time on?

Are there objective numbers on which candidates she spent more or less time on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:00 AM

2. Rachel devoted an entire hour of primetime TV to what was literally a non-story

As in, there was nothing to report. Literally.

That's embarrassing from a journalistic point of view, but for progressives it was downright harmful because it vindicated Trump. His goal is to discredit demands for his taxes as desperate partisan witch hunting, and Rachel gave that narrative a huge boost with her performance. An average viewer would learn only two things from her show tonight: 1) Trump apparently does pay taxes and 2) liberals are apparently so desperate they will spend an entire hour spinning conspiracy theories around an entirely ordinary and unremarkable return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:02 AM

5. Bingo.

 

Our cause is the removal of Trump from office as soon as possible.

And she did harm to our cause tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:07 AM

10. Nonsense. She resurrected the once-dormant issue of Trump's tax returns

which, if released along with all the schedules, are likely to produce some important answers. Maybe Trump leaked those 2 pages himself, intending to create some kind of distraction; but if he did, it was a mistake. The tax return issue had pretty much died down but now it's back. Trump can't like that.

Don't treat Rachel as if she were stupid. She's anything but.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:11 AM

14. She allowed Trump to put this issue to bed with the vast majority of his voters

 

....and deflect 2.5 hours of MSNBC evening news time *AWAY* from AHCA, Russia, travel ban, and wiretapping.

From 9pm to 11:30pm tonight, MSNBC talked about nothing but these two unremarkable pages from a 12-year-old tax return that had absolutely zero negative information on them about Trump.

And to the rubes who still *WANT* to believe in him, they got the "tax release" that satisfies the little curiosity they had.

People like you and me will never approve of Trump, and he knows it.

This story worked out very favorable for him tonight. And goddammit that it did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:17 AM

19. No, it did not work out favorably for him.

The issue of what might be in his tax returns is front and center again. His supporters won't care, but don't forget that they comprise only about 35% of the population (and decreasing quickly). It's all part of putting the complete puzzle together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:34 AM

26. That's wishful thinking on Louise's part.

 

In reality, this was a good night for the orange prick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:51 AM

40. And I find the thread title ironic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:43 AM

32. Bullshit - half the show was about Russia. LOL

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:08 AM

11. Sorry she spoiled your dream of "instant impeachment".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:13 AM

17. She helped Trump win a news cycle

 

And all he wants to do is win more news cycles than he loses. Because if he does that, he'll manage to stay in office and enrich himself and his family.

Any news cycle that Trump wins is a step *AWAY* from removing him from office.

Tonight was a loss.

Hopefully Comey gives us a win tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:22 PM

77. All I'm seeing today is how DT is hiding his taxes because Russia , HA ...

 

Even Morning Joe is on him about it. So DT and you might call that "winning" but I think a lot of people have connected the taxes and Russia now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:04 AM

8. Uh- huh. If you watch her regularly, you will see she builds her case brick by brick...

...with some repetition each time for those who were not paying attention.

Pay attention. She does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:10 AM

13. She is annoyingly repetitive and melodramatic when she is doing solid reporting

Tonight she wasn't doing solid reporting, she wasn't building anything "brick by brick." She was spending an hour trying to create a story where there was none, which plays right into the Trump crowd's hands.

Take off the rose-colored celebrity worship glasses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:40 AM

28. Too old for rose colored glasses of any sort, but I recognize brains and doggedness when I see them

I can forgive Rachel her quirks because she's the one broadcast journalist pulling all the pieces together, directing us to the great print journalism when it appears, and connecting the dots of the decades long complicated Trump-Russia connections.

This will take time, and she's to be commended for her persistance.

Meantime, we can keep showing up for those townhalls and otherwise letting out congresscritters know how we feel in no uncertain terms. We are having an effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:32 AM

21. You call an entire hour on the Russian/Trump connection no story

the average viewer would gets lot of scary info they did not know before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:41 AM

29. See, that's the thing

The first fifteen minutes detailing the Russian connections and the justification for demanding the tax returns were good. But then all that got undermined once we got to the actual tax return and saw it supported the idea that Trump is a completely ordinary taxpayer. At that point, as far as the average viewer is concerned, the first fifteen minutes suddenly went from being reasonable journalistic suspicion to defensive rationalizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:43 AM

33. Tax returns from a president who has lied about being under audit ...

Is not newsworthy? Wut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:43 AM

34. So, You Want A Split Screen Screamfest?

Maddow has spent a lot programs focusing on the Russian ties, the ACA, and I think the sad thing is that even liberals have sort of accepted it as normal that Trump has refused to disclose his tax returns. The comments suggest that Trump's refusal to disclose is not a big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 02:13 AM

64. No, I'd like useful investigative reporting and evidence

Not half an hour of speculating for the upteenth time what Trump might be hiding followed by a planted-yet-still-hyped piece of evidence that makes it appear like he isn't hiding anything.

And I don't see anyone claiming his refusal to disclose isn't a big deal. Everyone knows it's a big deal, and everyone has known that for months. We're now at the point where new evidence is needed to advance the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:28 AM

54. That is only true if you ignore her very extended and thorough lead in to the returns,

where she provided an overview of DT's entanglements with Russians that many AVERAGE viewers probably never heard before.

IOW she used the returns as bait to get many people listen to her summary of all the evidence that DT was susceptible to corruption, which is why we need the FULL returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:56 AM

60. The lead-in was good

But as I wrote here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028793481#post29

once the widely-hyped breaking news turned out to be completely innocuous, it made the intro look more like defensive rationalizing.
"Well, the evidence we have to show you is completely benign, but what about the evidence we don't have? Let's talk about what could be in there!"

And, let's be honest here, pretty much everyone knows all about Trump and Russia by now, at least in the broad sense. That lead-in didn't open anyone's eyes to his Russian connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:58 AM

61. I didn't view it that way. She made it clear that the 2 page summary didn't have the info

that was needed, and that he needs to provide full returns, and the more recent returns, and that -- by contrast -- HRC has released full tax returns all the way back to 1977.

And she also said that he might have sent it himself. She wasn't played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 03:32 AM

66. THIS IS FALSE ON ITS FACE !!!! I agree with MJ and the AMT issue Benedict Donald is pushing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)


Response to Name removed (Reply #72)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 10:24 AM

73. How was she putting her reputation in jeopardy?

Maddow is smart. She knows Trump leaked the tax summary and she is using it to ask the right questions. Stay tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:03 PM

75. Define "Ordinary" and "Unremarkable"

Most people would say that an income of $150 million in one year is extraordinary and remarkable. Same with a tax payment of $38 million.

Not really sure what to make of your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:01 AM

3. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:01 AM

4. David Cay Johnson gave the returns to Rachel

Someone left them in Johnson's mailbox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:05 AM

9. But it was Rachel's decision to hype them and devote an entire hour to them

This was click-bait which had the side effect of undermining a legitimate criticism of Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:09 AM

12. It undermines nothing

She presented the return. That's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:13 AM

16. She devoted an entire hour of primetime to a non-story that frankly vindicates Trump

Spin it any way you like, that's the bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:57 AM

43. "vindicates Trump" LMFAO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:59 AM

45. I addressed the issue here

and your post is a perfect example of what I was referring to. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028793530

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:25 AM

52. You're kidding yourself if you think Rachel isn't engaged in advocacy

And you're in downright denial if you think MSNBC prime time is purely dispassionate news gathering.

There are a whole lot of other true stories they could be hyping if they had a different agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 10:32 AM

74. LOL vindicates trump?

 

How? How does releasing two top line pages from a return over 10 years old in any way distract from his ties to russia NOW? Or that he hasn't paid income taxes in 10 years? Nope - anyone saying this vindicates the degenerate doesn't understand the story in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:32 AM

24. Disagree - Rachel put out tons of info and she was great

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:04 AM

7. I don't think that it's necessarily just those on "the left" who are griping

that the tax returns were only the two pages of the 2005 1040 and not the whole enchilada. I think it's people who are used to the detectives on Law and Order finding and convicting the bad guy in time for the evening news, and are impatient that we haven't been able to get the goods on Trump RIGHT NOW. There may be some trolling going on as well, but a lot of it is old-fashioned whining from people with short attention spans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:32 AM

23. Sigh. No, it has nothing to do with being "impatient"

One of the first things a trial lawyer learns is not just what questions to ask, but what questions not to ask. You don't attack a witness you want to impeach with questions they can easily answer believably because that actually convinces people the witness is telling the truth and you are desperate and flailing.

This tax return story did nothing but vindicate Trump. It should have been a mid-show segment at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:41 AM

30. Sigh, no.

I practiced trial and appellate law for 17 years so I kinda know about those things. But this isn't a trial; this isn't trial evidence; this isn't material to be used to impeach a witness. This is a journalist doing her job, collecting information, some of which might not seem important now. This 1040 form doesn't mean a whole lot by itself but its appearance, regardless where it might have come from, and the discussion surrounding it, resurrects the dormant issue of Trump's refusal to release his complete tax returns - which could contain information relevant to his connection with Russian businesses and God knows what else. It doesn't "vindicate" Trump in any way. Somebody, possibly Trump himself, gave David Cay Johnston that 1040, and he went to Rachel with it. Would you have expected them to just sit on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:45 AM

35. Yup+++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:16 AM

49. This is just dishonest

First, what exactly was the breaking news "information" being reported here? Trump earned some money and paid a 25% tax rate? Stop the f'ing presses. Maybe next week Rachel can do an entire hour reporting how Paul Ryan enjoys eating Chinese takeout and has a habit of giving his mom socks at Christmas.

Second, Rachel is not an objective journalist. You can have a fit over that if you want, but as far as the general public -- the folks outside her choir -- are concerned, she isn't. They see her as anything from a pundit to a policy advocate to a political propagandist. But they don't see her as disinterested and unbiased. In other words, they see her the same way they see an attorney: adversarial and dedicated to advancing a specific theory of the case rather than impartially chronicling the facts. And when when she goes on-air with a hyped piece that ends up supporting her opponent's talking points, it affects them the same way a trial lawyer bungling his attempt to impeach a witness affects the jury.

Third, no one said Johnson or Rachel had to "sit" on the return. They could have done a mid-show segment on it, briefly describing what it contains and then using that to kick off a discussion about what it doesn't contain. Instead, they devoted hours of breathless network coverage to it, which was completely counterproductive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:46 AM

37. It Was One Show of How Many?

This is Maddow. She is going to spend shows focusing on one particular topic. Sometimes it is not going to be a smoking gun. Sometimes the focus might be on Trump's failure to disclose tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:48 AM

39. It showed he lied about not being able to release them-but he won't release where the income comes

 

From or who has loaned him money - and that's the missing piece and got people to think about how important that is.
She took a story someone was going to run with and chose to take it and put it in context of why FULL
Tax returns are crucial to know. The story was dead already and would have been deader without her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:20 AM

50. "It showed he lied about not being able to release them"

How did it show that? If you are referring to Johnston's speculation that Trump himself may have leaked the return... it was just that, speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #50)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:36 AM

57. They leaked the taxes in response because they knew they were coming out...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:44 AM

58. No, they put out a press statement

that spent most of its breath attacking Rachel and that confirmed one or two bottom-line figures from the leaked return. They didn't reveal anything that wasn't already leaked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:11 AM

15. I love Rachel

I've always loved her. Great journalist. Brilliant mind. Delightful personality. Some shows are better than others. Some stuff she does is not interesting to me, but most of it is. So I don't care what anyone says. Other people can like her or not. Their opinions don't determine my viewing preferences. If people don't like her show, they can change the channel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:15 AM

18. Pointing out that she was on the wrong track and that she over hyped the returns before she

had a chance to digest them is not an attack, it is part of the discussion.

I got the impression that the more she got into the details the more she regretted rushing them on air.

Maddow has had the greatest effect on cable, more than any other person she derailed Christie by pursuing Bridgegate but not every hit is a grand slam.

She can succumb to over hyping which she clearly did when she repeatedly pimped Van Sustern.

Just because she is the best doesn't mean that discussion about a particular report is not an attack and to draw a parallel to something that happened in Finland is ludicrous.

What was most interesting is that Perez was able to get a good perspective and nailed it so quickly. He may be a stronger leader than earlier thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:38 AM

27. No boo.

 

She discredited herself by getting baited. Just stupidity on her part. I'm not part of any conspiracy to help that orangutan I assure you. I hate him and his voters more than anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoadhogRidesAgain (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:45 AM

36. Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest people in broadcast journalism.

Do you seriously think she was fooled? She knew very well that the 1040 might have come from Trump himself or someone associated with him - the second page of the form was stamped "client copy." She was doing her job as a journalist of reporting information that came to her; do you really expect her to have just sat on it and not reported it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 02:08 AM

62. Yes she should have sat on it.

 

Rather than build up the hype in twitter then spend the whole show reporting on the one decent year of Trumps tax returns. She took the bait hook line and stinker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoadhogRidesAgain (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:47 AM

38. Yet, You Respond to Post the Talking Point That She Got Baited...

...and that it. What was your favorite recent episode of Maddow? Do you even watch her show?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 02:09 AM

63. No I don't.

 

Frankly I don't watch any of the major news networks. The media in this country is garbage. All they care about is getting headlines. No actual reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoadhogRidesAgain (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:04 PM

80. So, You Are Attacking a Segment You Did Not Watch...

...I think that says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:24 PM

81. It does, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:58 PM

82. No smart guy.

 

I'm attacking idiots taking the bait and giving him the ability to dominate and distract media coverage.

The segment was a result of that. He sent his one good year of tax returns and Rachel Maddow, like all the other scum in the media who are addicted like crack to ratings hyped it up to her liberal base because she knew they would tune in and give her the ratings she and her bosses crave.

I don't have to watch it. I don't give corporate media ratings. All I know is the end result, which is Rachael maddow essentially hyping it up as a silver bullet only to spend the entire show talking about one good year in trumps tax returns and giving him positive media coverage as a result while making it seem like those questioning his tax returns are overplaying their hands and taking time away from the god awful health care repeal plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoadhogRidesAgain (Reply #82)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 05:41 PM

83. Meh, Sounds Like Trolling With...

...with populist sounding talking points. The fact that some folks are so invested in taking down Democrats and progressives is suspect.

Personally, I think the real problem is Trump and the GOP, but please feel free to continue to focus your attacks on Maddow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #83)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 06:22 PM

84. Incompetence should not be tolerated.

 

If people "our" side are screwing up, I sure as hell will call it out. And I doubt ultimately that any of the major news networks are on our side. They all want money at the end of the day, and Rachel maddow only exists as a means to draw viewers and ad revenue from the left. The entire media is in on this joke. Just look at how fast CNN was on his nuts when he read a prepared speech to congress. Van jones was screaming like a crazed fan girl. MSNBC and CNN were busy hiring his campaign managers making false equivalency's and showing live shots of Trumps empty podium for hours at times during the election and you bet your ass they will do the same thing in the next election. Because they just want the money at the end of the day. Trump would have never gotten as far as he did without the media, and he knows it. He feeds on sensationalist garbage like this. That's why he will continue trashing them at every point and they will keep giving him air time and Bowing down to his feet. He figures out their addiction to money.

The only outlets I get my news from these days is Reuters, New York Times and Washington post. Everything else is just sensationalist garbage meant to make money and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:55 AM

41. Yep. A half dozen threads in the last half hour

The midnight oil is burning in Moldovia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:56 AM

42. They are FLOODING this forum.

It's unreal! I came on here tonight, not aware of what had taken place, although I usually watch Rachel (it was on the DVR). The numerous frantic posts are over the top. Yeah, Trump probably leaked his own shit. That's almost trivial compared to everything else he's done. The entire situation withTrump is frustrating but the urgency of certain posts re: Rachel doesn't match the situation. Rachel isn't the enemy or the villain here. And now that it's confirmed that the White House/Trump-spawn is watching her, we need to have her back more than ever.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 03:33 AM

67. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:27 AM

53. Plus her ratings have outdone Fox of late. GOP on the Discussionist

are tripping over themselves to insult her. This could be the tipping point (Russia, the AHCA, etc.) that separates the GOP from their base. And Rachel is leading it along with CNN, WP, NYTIMES and the political comedians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:30 AM

56. Maybe people wouldnt be so pissed off at Maddow if

She did do these "BREAKING NEWS PROMOS" and lead the public to believe she
actually has something damaging about Trump, and in the end its either something
that makes him look good or a non event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:53 AM

59. I'm beginning to think there are a lot of TROLLS here!!

Can ya wait a day to see what the next step is??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:15 AM

68. If one trusts COMCAST then one is a mark.

 

A buffoon. A maroon.

COMCAST is the scummiest corporation in America and MSNBC is their propogandist arm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:05 PM

76. I've forgiven her Bernie attacks.

In the long run (though it is a huge gamble) it may be better to massively damage the entire GOP and bring down a sitting turd, in exchange for the easy electoral victory we would have had with Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:22 PM

78. Oh so THAT is what this is really about. Oh jeeze. It's been over almost a year and yet....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Mar 15, 2017, 12:24 PM

79. that was then

 

this is now...she is coming through as a real journalist picking away at all the lies, distractions, diversions to get at the truth of this corrupt leadership triumvirate in the WH now and russia. I wish her all the luck in the world. Leave the past, concerning her real and perceived mistakes right there in the past. THIS IS NOW!!!!!! That's what I am thinking and saying to those in my circles. Many watch and believe her and Joy Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread