Comment Archives: stories: A&E
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
So the fact that she is attractive by butch lesbian standards and throws out zingers against conservatives makes her a good newscaster? (or perhaps I missed the gist of the articles about her).
I have to agree with those who think most if not all mainstream news is pretty much fluff.
Ask yourself if she was a not so attractive graying white male reporting with no bias would you think as highly of her show? Video killed the radio star...and didn't treat journalism too well either.
If I had to pick a news source pre-internet it probably would have been these guys: http://cronkite.asu.edu/news/lehrermacneil-042508.php
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
Super smarty-pants? What, am I back in first grade again?
What people are saying is that she isn't a journalist and these fake news shows undermine real journalism(and they do this on purpose). She is a partisan hack who hosts an opinion show on the news. Personally I find her just as obnoxious as Sean Hannity. You don't need a degree to do what she does, I think Hannity was a college dropout, IIRC.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
What exactly are her qualifications again? Besides being a super-smarty pants?
1. Undergraduate degree in Public Policy from Stanford University
2. Rhodes Scholarship Recipient
3. John Gardner Fellowship Recipient
4. Doctor of Philosophy in Politics from Oxford University
5. 8 years or so in radio
6. Correspondent on various television news shows for a few years
7. Leading her own show for the past 5 years
A super-smarty pants would possibly achieve one or two items on the list but a hard-working, driven, well-informed and educated woman achieved the rest. Don't discount her numerous qualifications because you disagree with her politics. It's a sloppy argument.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"when you're consuming media you should always keep in the back of your mind "how are they manipulating me with this message" which is much more direct and overt in a multimedium with a political emphasis"
Wow...I have no argument with this. In fact, it's dead on and a needed lesson for the hipster CL reading class. The lib media, which is nearly all of it, is SO much better at this.
"also CNN is the best comedy show but i love cynical absurdism"
Someone put a truth drug in your Cheerios. This also is spot on. I really like the shows with the Ewok hosting and any of the ones with giant floating things.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
also CNN is the best comedy show but i love cynical absurdism
http://i.imgur.com/FI86Ifq.png
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"as a rule, Maddow never has more than one guest on her show at a time in order to avoid the holler-for-ratings matches. and i find her monologues — or as she likes to call them "a blizzard of words, me explaining this big long thing" [see Howard Stern interview, link above] — much more analytical than editorial."
she may rise to the top but she's still in the game of keeping a demographically selective set of eyes glued to the screen through a commercial break
when you're consuming media you should always keep in the back of your mind "how are they manipulating me with this message" which is much more direct and overt in a multimedium with a political emphasis. maddow might be cool but she's not cooler than the profit motive.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"i don't think you understand my post"
I don't think you understand my post.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"the very business model of cable news undermines journalism. there's a massive incentive to editorialize and scream and holler, chained to a perverse incentive to avoid real analysis"
@eric_pfeifer: as a rule, Maddow never has more than one guest on her show at a time in order to avoid the holler-for-ratings matches. and i find her monologues — or as she likes to call them "a blizzard of words, me explaining this big long thing" [see Howard Stern interview, link above] — much more analytical than editorial.
she definitely has more in common with The Daily Show than Hannity et. al. — and not just in terms of politics but in style and substance
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"The best news show is The Daily Show?
No...one of the best comedy shows is The Daily Show."
i don't think you understand my post
also try to avoid the word sheeple unless you want to sound like a crackpot
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
The best news show is The Daily Show?
No...one of the best comedy shows is The Daily Show. When you take the spin coming out of one of the political parties as gospel, instead of the spin that it is, then you are not presenting news in any sense of the word. Sadly, many sheeple actually believe what Brother John Stewart throws out there is news, leading to the show showing up as a primary news source in polls.
That's fucked up. Read newspapers people! They're not perfect and they all have a slant but their sins are usually of omission, they leave out stories that don't fit their template. If it's written up in an actual paper, then it's factual in at least some sense of the word.
That said, I'm a dedicated Daily Show viewer since Kilborn. I really like it when Stewart just can't take it any more and zings the Dems, although it's usually for not being lefty enough. And just look at the alumni! Love it....
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
cable news is garbage no matter how much you want to fuck the star
"While it might take another half century to undo the dumbed-down mess we've gotten ourselves into, she's turning us all into better-informed citizens one day at a time."
bull. nobody's well informed by watching this crap
the very business model of cable news undermines journalism. there's a massive incentive to editorialize and scream and holler, chained to a perverse incentive to avoid real analysis (because this diminishes market share in favor of flashier, more entertaining "news") which inevitably leads towards a death spiral of ratings-chasing nonsense.
this is why the daily show is the best cable news program - because it's the only one that respects the intelligence of its audience enough to be honest and label itself as entertainment
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
Oh please. They're all hacks. Portraying Maddow as somehow more reasonable is just proof of your liberal cognitive-bias. Sure she may be less of hack than Hannity, but that's not saying much. I'll never understand the desire to have your world-view force-fed to yourself every night. What exactly are her qualifications again? Besides being a super-smarty pants? Every single talking head is a waste of time. If you care about current events, go read the Economist or something intellectually stimulating. She is not turning us into "better informed viewers", she is showing people how to view the world from one particular, partisan vantage point. While she may be good at that (this article is proof), she is nothing but another useless partisan hack. The desire to pseudo-intellectualize the affection for Maddow is just proof that liberals watching MSNBC, just like Conservatives watching Fox, don't "get it". If the people who watch these channels nightly would stop voting I think we could get a lot of good stuff done.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
"maybe one day she'll come close to beating (rabid) Hannity in her time slot."
Maybe the moon will fall out of the sky.
She's pretty good. Full of it but good at what she does. I like watching PMSNBC way more than Foxy News. I'm waiting to see Chris Matthews head actually explode on camera.
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
Um yeah maybe one day she'll come close to beating (rabid) Hannity in her time slot. Or for that matter even more viewers than (thew up in my mouth a little) Nancy Grace. Well at least she's dominating Piers Morgan, as if that's a big consolation.
Once again the 'progressive' news media shows itself to be out of sync with the true zeitgiest.
Btw doing a google search for "bugs bunny" + "sexy" brings up over 1.5 million hits. So either it is a truly meaningless stat, or she's around 1/3rd as sexy as a rascally cartoon rabbit.
Re: “Design with the Other 90% hits home”
Thanks for the review, I will be checking it out.
Re: “Speakeasy with ... IronE Singleton”
[This comment has been removed because it violates CL's comment policies.]
Re: “City seeks to transform troubled downtown through art”
[This comment has been removed because it violates CL's comment policies.]
Re: “Segregation Portfolio revisits Gordon Parks photographs”
[This comment has been removed because it violates CL's comment policies.]
Re: “Miya Bailey and City of Ink continue to 'Color Outside the Lines'”
[This comment has been removed because it violates CL's comment policies.]
Re: “Mad over Rachel Maddow”
" 1. Undergraduate degree in Public Policy from Stanford University
2. Rhodes Scholarship Recipient
3. John Gardner Fellowship Recipient
4. Doctor of Philosophy in Politics from Oxford University"
______________________________________________
Sounds like a Super Duper Smarty Pants to me.