Left-wing blogger Bob Somerby makes a point about the Rachel Maddow show that I tried to make in an on-air interview last year.
In a recent column, Michael Kinsley imagined the possible future of news reporting. “Maybe the newspaper of the future will be more or less like the one of the past, only not on paper,” he wrote in the Post. “More likely it will be something more casual in tone, more opinionated.” Soon, the gentleman asked a good question: “Will you be able to get your news straight and not in an ideological fog?”
… We mainly thought of Rachel Maddow when we read his column on Monday. … Given the way the rest of the media work, it’s very important for progressive journalists to develop a content-rich culture.
[Last night, Maddow] was introducing a light segment—a bit of comic relief—about that old favorite, computer porn:
MADDOW (4/7/09): Now, a follow-up on a story that we covered when it first broke, because I have the sense of humor of a 12-year-old and I think scientists watching dirty stuff on the inner tubes is hilarious. The story’s about scientists at the National Science Foundation—an independent U.S. government agency responsibility for reporting science and engineering.
We were intrigued by the highlighted comment, in part because it recalled the way Maddow balked when David Frum assumed she’d prefer a more “grown-up” discourse.
In our view, Maddow’s style is remarkably heavy on hidden self-congratulation. (Sorry—her “styley,” to use last night’s lingo.) This particular statement struck us as another example. But mainly, we were struck by the comment because we’ve puzzled, for several decades, about the ongoing juvenilization of humor, a pattern which has been apparent among the kids. (Think Adam Sandler. Then keep thinking.) Maddow is going to be very important. In particular, she’ll be very important discussing the news which affects the world’s people. And this is a serious matter.
… Maddow … clowned and mugged and joked and snarked …. Except among people who really are twelve, what’s so great about having the sense of humor traditionally displayed by that class?
… Yes, there’s always a place for jokes. But the jokes have to take second place.
12 responses so far
1 JJWFromME // Apr 8, 2009 at 1:34 pm
OK, I watched Maddow last night and I didn’t like that one either. And I don’t get what’s so great about Ana Marie Cox. Maddow is not great 100% of the time. You’re not going to get that in broadcast journalism. You don’t get that online for that matter. I’ve occasionally read stuff that made me cringe. Somerby, for instance, was a pioneer, but the people who followed him passed him by leaps and bounds. I stopped reading him a couple years ago. He’s not worth reading to find the occasional gem here and there.
But at one point he was the only game in town. He was so bold and dared to say things when no one else would.
Same with Paul Krugman:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/15/73939/5046
But anyway, the point is that if you write/broadcast enough, you’re going to bomb sometime.
On the other hand humor and a sense of the absurd has an important place in a democracy. For instance, John Stewart was right on the mark last night:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Stewart_Fox_GOP_confuse_tyranny_with_0408.html
He makes an interesting point in the clip–nothing like the ‘ol right wing noise machine coupled with a Ceasarist administration to make Stewart’s career possible.
You might say that something like this is unpatriotic or unamerican, but Mark Twain would disagree:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1820144,00.html
I like Matthew Arnold, but I would say I’m definitely of Mark Twain’s party, which is more American and democratic. (I am not the Anglophile that conservative establishment people like Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb are.) A good sense of humor, a sense for the absurd, and the perspective that comes with it, can sometimes be quite patriotic in a democracy.
2 ktward // Apr 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Mr. Frum, you’re beginning to disappoint me. You’re one of only a handful of sane Republican voices anymore, so I genuinely hope you take this in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.
First, you oddly suggest that SNL is a legitimate bellwether for political policy, which seemed to me just silly:
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=913008b8-2055-4943-8606-f41fa224df77
And now this. This is just … painfully useless op-ed.
I watch and read news/blogs across the political spectrum (though I intentionally avoid Limbaugh and the other Fox looney tunes). I certainly do not always agree with Rachel’s analyses- she’s very left. Nevertheless, she is reliably factual in her reporting, her cred is impressive (Rhodes Scholar, Ph.D PoliSci.) and yes, her pleasant, low-key jokey style is EXACTLY why I watch her.
She is the epitome of a gracious host with all of her guests, even those she disagrees with. Even if they are, as you unquestionably were, rather off base: your comparison of her amusing rhetoric to the incendiary rhetoric of certain candidates and partisans during the campaign is absurd.
It is absolutely possible, in fact preferable IMHO, to engage in constructive discourse that is both intelligent and adult, yet loose enough to chuckle. What are you, a robot?
But more importantly, WHY is this even worthy of your mention? You don’t like her ‘jokey’ style? Big deal, don’t watch- there’s nothing even remotely controversial or offensive about her style.
Meantime, don’t you have WAY more substantive things to write about?
Seriously.
3 JJWFromME // Apr 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Franco: Your point was what was discussed in the Maddow interview with Frum. There is no equivalence Maddow and Limbaugh.
Here is a list of Rush Limbaugh’s recent statements that were off color, factually incorrect, over the top and inflammatory, bigoted, etc.:
http://tinyurl.com/d7jf5e
Even late night talk show hosts at this point know how awful Rush Limbaugh looks:
http://blogs.mspmag.com/brianlambert/2009/03/el-rushbo-and-the-self-knottin.html
If Rachel Maddow were to not change tone one iota and continued to defend a president who launched a lethal war with no clear justification, surpressed scientific findings, did nothing while a US city drowned, stood by while the world financial system swirled down the toilet, etc etc… and in fact shouted down dissent, if Maddow regularly said things that were untrue, bigoted, plainly over the top and inflammatory, defended torture as frat house pranking, fomented conspiracy theories…
Then you’d have a point.
But she doesn’t do any of these things.
In fact, she raises the level of generally gossipy discussion that usually goes on on cable news. And she just does it with a touch of absurdist humor:
http://www.cjr.org/essay/the_sarcastic_times.php?page=all
So what? The past 8 years have been absurd times.
If you don’t respond to that kind of absurdity in some way, then you don’t have a healthy democracy.
BTW, she also has a radio show, so it’s a bit more than 5 hours per week:
http://airamerica.com/maddow
4 ottovbvs // Apr 9, 2009 at 5:23 am
I’ve never watched the entire Maddow show but have seen a few interview clips. I have to say she seems a refreshing change from most of these cable show hosts. No screamiing at guests(O’Reilly), no talking over them (Matthews), no extreme pandering(Van Susteren), no impoliteness (several), no utterly silly kite flying (Matthews again), no distortions (Hannity), no hobby horses (Dobbs), no obvious lunacy (Beck). What is there to complain about. Sure her shtick is a bit jokey and gossipy but it’s not particularly offensive and she’s obviously very bright and sharp as a tack. She also, I have to say, worsted you David as I suspect you know really. Having said all this what are you wasting time on this for.
5 JJWFromME // Apr 9, 2009 at 7:12 am
I thought Maddow herself explained her self well about the jokey stuff in this clip last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/30117559#30117559
6 sinz54 // Apr 9, 2009 at 9:47 am
David: To get back to the main issue–without newspapers, how can we get the news straight?–there is a simple solution:
Just go to the websites of the various wire services and browse them directly.
Here is the news page of the Associated Press:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME?SITE=AP
There it is. No commentary, no editorials, just news.
It will always be impossible to eliminate all bias from news reporting. But at least it’s news reporting without commentators.
For myself: I don’t listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Maddow, Olbermann, etc. And I haven’t purchased a broadsheet newspaper in ages.
7 A.B. // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm
No distortions? Really, Otto? I managed to sit through a segment done on the canard about “90%” of the “drug guns” in Mexico being American-sold (Really? Automatic weapons? Where are those sold, here? Or are the “90%” just mostly handguns found in glove-boxes at the border?). Her schtick prevents discussion. All she has to do is go into her styley twelve-year-old mode, and that ends it…I do agree with you in one sense: she is earnest, and in that sense vastly different from her “colleagues.” So, there is that.
8 ditka // Apr 9, 2009 at 1:29 pm
That interivew with Maddow was great. She is so self-righteous and annoying. Great to see you put her in her place.
9 ktward // Apr 9, 2009 at 2:35 pm
ditka: (as in Mike? Just wonderin’)
You seem to be one of those who confuse ’self-righteous’ with ‘well-informed’.
Limbaugh is a much better example of self-righteous, where fact takes a back seat to demonstrably uninformed opinion.
10 cb55 // Apr 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm
David, a lot of the people who post on here is why I have trouble taking you seriously. I see what I assume are mostly left leaning people commentiing on how you are one of the only “reasonable” republicans out there. But then you go and have something negative to say about a very left commentator, Maddow, and they become surprised with you.
They are reading you, because they think you want to reinvent conservatism into the way they would like to see it, but when you take time away from telling conservatives how wrong they are about things, and blasting some of the movements voices and people, and actually take a shot at a liberal, or express your conservative take on some issues, they will not like you.
11 JJWFromME // Apr 11, 2009 at 8:40 am
cb55, I’m not surprised at David Frum. I’m just explaining where I’m coming from.
You see, that’s what people like me do. We actually like to explain our differences, instead of just sneering, throwing out red meat and pretending that that’s discourse.
12 Realist // Apr 12, 2009 at 11:02 am
ditka said: “That interivew with Maddow was great. She is so self-righteous and annoying. Great to see you put her in her place.”
I am glad commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity aren’t “self-righteous and annoying”. That would be terrible.
You must log in to post a comment.