Rachel Maddow Corrects The Record On Pat Buchanan's Racist And Sexist Rants But She Fails To Understand The Real Problem
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I have to give Rachel Maddow a lot of credit for correcting the outrageous lies and exposing the racism, sexism, and hypocrisy of Pat Buchanan. Clearly enough dust was kicked up by her viewers and she responded. That has to be commended and acknowledged.
With that said, Maddow clearly missed the point about much of the anger and disappointment that her viewers were feeling after Buchanan's sideshow performance. You didn't need a college degree to know that Pat Buchanan was telling some wild-ass whoppers and making some XXL-sized, KKK-endorsed, racist ravings. Once that crap has been tossed out into the air, it's out there forever, correcting the lies doesn't change that fact.
The real problem is that a dude like Pat Buchanan is getting paid six figures plus to spew his white supremacist ideology on national television. The real problem is that Rachel Maddow felt that she needed this dude on her show in the first damn place. And I really didn't get the impression from Maddow's segment this evening that she will not avoid having Buchanan on her show in the future and that's a real damn problem for me.
With that said, Maddow clearly missed the point about much of the anger and disappointment that her viewers were feeling after Buchanan's sideshow performance. You didn't need a college degree to know that Pat Buchanan was telling some wild-ass whoppers and making some XXL-sized, KKK-endorsed, racist ravings. Once that crap has been tossed out into the air, it's out there forever, correcting the lies doesn't change that fact.
The real problem is that a dude like Pat Buchanan is getting paid six figures plus to spew his white supremacist ideology on national television. The real problem is that Rachel Maddow felt that she needed this dude on her show in the first damn place. And I really didn't get the impression from Maddow's segment this evening that she will not avoid having Buchanan on her show in the future and that's a real damn problem for me.
8 comments:
So am I to believe that all "errors" and "mis-truths" are cleared up on this show on a daily basis?
Yes, it's a problem for me too. So much so that I've complained about it and decided that I will never watch the show again. As much as I like her show, I feel that to watch it, Chris Mathews and other shows that have him on gives license for them to continue this hear two sides nonsense they use to rationalize having people argue without getting the listener closer to the truth. Blessings. Thank God for Bill Moyers, Gwen Ifill, PBS in general, and BBC...I got you linked!
i hear you, but on the other hand, i think we need to hear voices like pat's. i'm fearful that totally shutting out people like him from mainstream discourse allows the illusion that he is an endangered species, when he's not as rare as we'd like to think he is.
even during the presidential race we saw mccain & palin tap into an undercurrent of white supremacist thought and emotion that is still very alive and well in this nation.
that said, if rachel's going to have him on, that's ok--as long as she continues to follow up in this manner. it's when people like pat get to spew their b.s. with NO real follow-up that's an issue, imo.
There are no ethics and morals in journalism these days, especially on the cable networks. Its about making money, its is no longer seen as serving the public with information. Just watch the news on PBS if you want information
What do we want? Do we want pundits and spin doctors to face off and argue from talking points or do we want to bring on the best and the brightest to hold high-level discussions that provide the truth or at least bring us a little closer to it, as opposed to see who can talk the loudest and the longest?
Do we want journalism or political theater? Do we want an intellectual debate or discussion or do we MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to have a higher rating?
When I saw that segment, I couldn't put my finger on what made me less than comfortable. I think you have it right, though. In fact, much of her intro was spent making sure the audience (and future guests as well as, presumable, Buchanan himself) understood that she was "playing fair" with her guest.
Was she aware at the time that much of what he was saying was pure baloney? If so, then why not address the inaccuracies then? ANd if not, then why not prepare in advance, including having someone on more knowledgeable to refute his nonsense?
Still, this was not enough to make me stop watching Maddow. She does enough right, IMO, that I will keep tuning in.
I too have had strong misgivings about Brotha Pat. At one point (briefly) I viewed him as the harmless crazy but semi-kind on an individual basis white man who spouted racist crap but would help the individual family member who needed a break from the man. No mas! Until we get our own crazy pats on with a 6 figure income I think MSNBC and even a favorite of mine Rachel M. are dancing with some pretty culturally/politically dangerous folk. They want a little crack so they can feel firmly in control of America as it was back in the day. Viewing their statements as simply crackpot but harmless I think will come back to haunt this nation. I worry increasingly about such venues that treat them with faux respect vs. making it plain that other than being a old Richard Nixon cronie in 2009 does not equal a nice cushy living where people still suggest you have something useful to say and that others need to recognize you. Like others have suggested I won't automatically stop watching RM but I probably SOON need to put pen in hand and tell RM producers that increasingly in pursuit of ratings they are making a creepy deal with the right wing/nut job devil.
Respinning the current faux-spin?
Post a Comment