Maddow vs. Stewart

[UteStar]

I know many hate Rachel Maddow and that is fine. But she had a fabulous interview with John Stewart. The interview focused on Stewart going after her (and MSNBC) and FoxNews and the right for both sides creating a negative environment in politics. It is actually really interesting to hear how he thinks that the Left and the Right commentators are not helping politics in understanding things but hurting the process. I really liked it and it is interesting to see Maddow not agreeing with Stewart and Stewart not agreeing with her but having a good discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_782538.html

[RobinFinderson]

Maddow is definitely the Best in Show when it comes to these editorial-type shows. She has a decent sense of humor, an encyclopedic memory for facts and figures, and she is an excellent debater. She is, by far, the smartest of her breed.

[venkman]

I was really impressed with Stewart during that interview. Maddow wasn't that impressive beyond just letting him talk, which actually might be impressive. Can you imagine Stewart being interviewed by Olbermann or O'Reilly?

[il Padrino Ute]

Maddow is a biased left-wing hack. If MSNBC didn't exist, she and the others there would not have a job.

[Coach McGuirk]

That was worth the time. Thanks utestar.

[woot]

That was a really good interview. It was interesting to see Maddow trying to defend herself against what should be the default journalistic philosophy, but she didn't protest too much. I like that Stewart is staying out of the game, as it allows him to be a watchdog. It's a shame that the major news network refuse to realize that their job is to do the same.

[woot]

Maddow is a biased left-wing hack. If MSNBC didn't exist, she and the others there would not have a job.

I hope you realize that your opinions in these threads are consistently interchangeable with those of anyone on CB, or any member of the Palin-fringe of the republican party.

Maybe that's what you're going for.

[CardiacCoug]

That was a really good interview. It was interesting to see Maddow trying to defend herself against what should be the default journalistic philosophy, but she didn't protest too much. I like that Stewart is staying out of the game, as it allows him to be a watchdog. It's a shame that the major news network refuse to realize that their job is to do the same.

Their job is to make money.

For whatever reason, "opinion news" like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Olbermann/Maddow stuff gets better ratings than the traditional unbiased news.

[il Padrino Ute]

I hope you realize that your opinions in these threads are consistently interchangeable with those of anyone on CB, or any member of the Palin-fringe of the republican party.

Maybe that's what you're going for.

I hope you realize that I don't care what you think my opinions are.

[UteStar]

Maddow is a biased left-wing hack. If MSNBC didn't exist, she and the others there would not have a job.

You should watch the interview. It is pretty insightful both ways.

[woot]

Their job is to make money.

For whatever reason, "opinion news" like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Olbermann/Maddow stuff gets better ratings than the traditional unbiased news.

Of course. Perhaps I should have phrased it in allusion to the traditional role of journalism, or the fundamental responsibility of journalists in keeping the country healthy. The fourth estate and that.

Perhaps the better strategy would be to stop thinking of them as news networks at all, and lamenting the dearth of televised journalism. Clearly, the American people do consider them to be news networks, however, which partially explains the ills of our nation.

[Moliere]

Maddow is definitely the Best in Show when it comes to these editorial-type shows. She has a decent sense of humor, an encyclopedic memory for facts and figures, and she is an excellent debater. She is, by far, the smartest of her breed.

Maddow is very good, but she still leans liberal in her analysis and topics. I prefer her show over the others, or at least I did because I no longer watch either MSNBC or Fox.

However, Maddow has no sense of humor.

[SoonerCoug]

However, Maddow has no sense of humor.

Evidence to the contrary:

"Michael Steele has been rejected. Is he not considered a true tea bagger by the movement?"

"Well you know, he said in that GQ interview that he thought teabagging wasn't a choice, that you couldn't change whether or not you would be a teabagger. I think the teabaggers really believe it is something they have chosen to do--that they could change if they wanted to, but they won't."

I also enjoyed the line: "You could say there is a big split between the tea bags."

[YOUTUBE]OLsKt4O4Yw8[/YOUTUBE]

[pellegrino]

Maddow is definitely the Best in Show when it comes to these editorial-type shows. She has a decent sense of humor, an encyclopedic memory for facts and figures, and she is an excellent debater. She is, by far, the smartest of her breed.

Maddow may be smart, but she didn't get what Stewart was talking about with regards to the aggregate and the conflict between left and right as narrated by the news networks.

Edit: She also didn't get the distinction between who is "in the game" and who isn't. She didn't understand that Stewart's position was not to report news but to criticize/satirize the way news is reported. If she doesn't understand that distinction then she's useless as a reporter.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maddow may be smart, but she didn't get what Stewart was talking about with regards to the aggregate and the conflict between left and right as narrated by the news networks.

Edit: She also didn't get the distinction between who is "in the game" and who isn't. She didn't understand that Stewart's position was not to report news but to criticize/satirize the way news is reported. If she doesn't understand that distinction then she's useless as a reporter.

Jon Stewart also plays that to his favor. He wears two hats, simultaneously being 'News Commentator' and 'Commedian'. When he is bested in an argument, he falls back to be the smirking commedian. When backed by his staff of writers and editors, he is very entertaining. His show is enjoyable to watch.

And Rachel Maddow often spends so much time being smug and sarcastic and being caught up in her own persona that she fails to see the argument and discussion before her. She borrowed much of that schtick from Olberman.

As far as I am concerned much of the Dems vs Reps posturing (at the national level anyhow) comes down to little more than Yankees vs Red Sox discussions. The choice boils down to which marketing scheme with which we choose to affiliate. Both teams are share a goal of taking their fans to the same place (The World Series, as it were), and despite all the parades and fireworks and 'fan appreciation days' truly only benefit those highly connected within their own organizations.