You know what the problem is regarding Rachel and DUers?

[BainsBane]

You all expect MSNBC and certain other media outlets to cater to you rather than getting to the truth of the matter. Her job is not to take down Donald Trump. It is to provide the public with information. She did that. If y'all quit expecting them to be your voice, to tell you what you want to hear, you won't be so upset when they do their job.

The RWers view media the same way. They just have different favorites. That general tendency is bad for us and bad for America. People need to grapple with news they find unsatisfying, uncomfortable, and that contradicts how they see the world. It is the public's refusal to do that contributes to our dysfunctional political culture and government.


(And yes, I think it highly likely Trump leaked the return. No, I do not think Rachel got played.)

[radical noodle]

1. X 1000

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I agree 100%. The purpose of journalism, if done right,

is to present facts. Rachel did that. The ultimate effect of the disclosure of that document remains to be seen, but she made the very good point that Trump's complete returns must be disclosed. The fact that he never did has almost been forgotten but now we've all been reminded. Whatever is in those returns could be important evidence of matters that could bring him down - but, as you stated correctly, that's not her job. Her job is to uncover and present whatever she finds; a good journalist chases the facts, wherever they might lead. Maybe she'll be the next Woodward/Bernstein. (And another reminder: it took a long time to put the intricate puzzle of Watergate together. This won't be figured out tomorrow, either.)

[chillfactor]

3. THANK YOU!

I am so upset about some of the things I have read here by readers who have no idea what INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM is all about. I lived through the Watergate years...it was not a story that broke overnight like some DUers seem to think should happen with the orange one.......this may break in weeks, in months, in years..but it will eventually destroy the orange one. I thought Rachel's show tonight was excellent and well as the follow-up on Lawrence's show

[Kimchijeon]

48. I hope that what she does helps. I really do.

However, I have to keep in mind, as should anyone feeling disappointed about the normalizing and sucking up that cable news outlets are still doing... they are profit-driven. It's not the same as the old days of journalism, although the impression is still there.

It feels like it's a big story, gonna "break it wide open" etc, but the bottom line isn't just delivery of an impartial story.

The bottom line for them is what the corporate ownership wants, which is profit. If the Fascist Regime still helps their bottom line, then there we go. There will be some tantalizing "whoo look at this thing, how dare they! We should pursue this!" It's really insulting to one's intelligence.

Again, don't misunderstand me, I do honestly hope that anything can help take out this entrenched, supported fascist regime.
For all of our sakes.

[bettyellen]

4. I think she framed the story the best way possible - it doesn't matter if he leaked it or someone

Else did- she stressed over and over again WHY and WHAT INFO from the taxes is needed. She took a piece of info and used it as a teaching moment. Internet dudes love being assholes, it's tiresome.

[canetoad]

5. Well said

thank you.

[sheshe2]

6. KnR

[Phoenix61]

7. Yes!

The Russia story is important, very important but it's not the only story. There are other things happening in the world. Some of them don't even involve Trump at all. I enjoy every show Rachel does. I think some are more interesting than others but they are all good.

[BainsBane]

8. and the taxes do connect to the Russia story

Or they would if we could see the relevant years.

[meadowlander]

9. I appreciate the job she is doing, I just don't like the hype.

I think it takes away from the gravitas of what she is doing.

I feel the same way about all the meaningless "exclusive to MSNBC" polls she is forced to pimp to death on her show. It makes her look less like a serious journalist and more like a used car saleswoman.

She needs to be allowed to do her job - reporting the facts - and stop being pressured to sell the MSNBC brand.

[scheming daemons]

10. If she just wanted to provide info... she shouldn't have sent tweet at 7:36 hinting at bombshell

That's where she went wrong.

[JHan]

12. hype is not a new concept in cable news media

[KittyWampus]

38. you are a master of understatement.

[BainsBane]

13. She's on a cable network

She wanted to drive up the ratings. You had to have noticed you were turning the TV to a for-profit station and not public broadcasting.

The tweet wasn't the problem. It's that people decided it was that so many got carried away imagining it would be a smoking gun.

[Kimchijeon]

43. Well, that is true.

We all keep hoping there will finally be a great big break that the fascists can't squirm out of.

[TDale313]

11. I have no problem with Rachel

Or how she handled this story. But let's be clear. Rachel, Chris, Lawrence... they are commentators who have a particular slant. I am proud that, in general, "our side" attempts to be fact based. But MSNBC is not pure news, leave the biases at the door in the sense I think you mean. There's value in what they do, but for just the facts news... you almost have to go for International sources (BBC News or CNN International, just for example)

[BainsBane]

14. That's obvious

but that slant isn't enough for a lot of people.

[Hekate]

15. Pls a brazillion, BB

[Guilded Lilly]

16. There are multiple reasons the Cretin can be taken down. Rachel knows

How to build a solid story with solid sources.
Not everything she finds is going to instantly blow it all wide open for liberals and progressives. (The Cretin conservatives won't give much of a crap) But piece by piece the puzzle will be completed.

Time will tell.

My guess is this was a Cretin leak.
Just toooooo convenient otherwise.

[Greywing]

17. I agree ... way too convenient. If the Cretin leaked this old tax return then the question becomes

Why doesn't he leak the others? This is a connect the dots, people. Rachel didn't take any bait ... she is too good of a journalist. Who leaked these tax returns? As the dots continue to be connected you will recall this evening's show.

[BainsBane]

22. Probably leaked one of the few years he actually paid taxes

He will probably use it to beat back demands for his 2016 returns.

[Firebrand Gary]

18. Agree. Completely.

[brettdale]

19. THE PROBLEM ISNT SO MUCH ON WHAT SHE IS REPORTING ON

It's before hand with social media, falsely leading people to beleive that she something
huge, that is the ISSUE people have with her.

All this BREAKING NEWS, GAME CHANGER, CRAP.

Hell she is our version of Alex Jones.

[BainsBane]

21. How was it false?

She said she was going to produce tax returns. She did. She's not responsible that you all got exciting thinking it was going to take Trump down.

[onyxw]

25. Returns as in multiple.

She promised tax returns. Plural. She produced a partial return...so not even one complete return.

It's basically like me saying "oh man I just read this incredible book series, want to borrow them?" You get excited, say "yes" and drive 20 miles to my house, and then I hand you just the first 2 pages of the first book. You'd rightfully feel frustrated that I gave you less than promised and that I essentially wasted your time.

Also MSNBC running a countdown clock conveys there's going to be something more substantial than "guy earned income, paid tax, filed return. Story at 11" That's more a critique of MSNBC than Rachel, but they basically set her up to fail by doing it.

[Loki Liesmith]

26. Returns is not plural here

These are Trump's 2005 tax _returns_,

[chillfactor]

27. oh good god....

how old are you.....I lived through Watergate and the news came out a drip at a time. VERY good journalists like Rachel and Lawrence have solid facts to back them up....this story will evolve with time...grow up and develop some patience and understand first what investigative journalism is all about.

[ooky]

46. If you don't like how she reports

then watch "Fair and Balanced". They are hyper-ventilating over her show this morning.

[longship]

23. That's rubbish.

She said right at the top what she had. In fact, she tweeted it before the broadcast.

Sheesh!

Regardless, my best to you.

[Thekaspervote]

20. She's doing a great job! STOP with the negative comments

[Doreen]

24. I agree.

Rachel did a good job as always. Yeah, so it was not as exciting as some of us thought it would be but give her a fucking break! She maybe might have messed this one up a little but she is human and she needs to be allowed that. I have never seen her screw anything up and I would not call her last show a screw up just maybe not as exciting as we thought it was going to be. We got spoiled with her two breaking nights about Russia so give her a break. If you have not flippin noticed she has been doing some overtime by being at other broadcasts on MSNBC other than just hers and maybe she is getting to a point where she needs a break. Remember she is a human just like us.

[OnDoutside]

28. Some of you need to get over yourselves, Rachel HAD to go with the story, in the same way

David Cay Johnston had to go with the story. How they presented what was leaked, put an entirely different context on what was clearly designed to give a good news story for Trump and distract people away from his lack of evidence of an Obama wiretap. Clear as day.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I think she overhyped it as a tactical move to get more eyeballs on the topic in general

but it may turn out to have been counterproductive if people feel manipulated.

I mean, I'm not going to change how I feel about the larger story, regardless. But the question is how it plays with the millions of people who might have tuned in expecting a 'bombshell'.

[DonCoquixote]

30. I will see your truth and raise you

That was exactly the same problem many had with Obama, they expected him to come in and magic ally change the world in four years, without any of them doing the work and research it took to make change.

[BainsBane]

33. Excellent point

It is reflective of a more pervasive trend, and I expect it goes beyond politics. People want instant gratification.

[oberliner]

31. Her job is not to provide the public with information

Her job is to get people to watch her show so they can sell more advertising.

[LanternWaste]

44. The one does not deny the other...

The one does not deny the other... regardless of whether we pretend to know her employment obligations. I admire your determined bias, though.

[oberliner]

45. I appreciate your admiration

Although it seems an odd thing to admire (a person's determined bias?) - perhaps you were being sarcastic.

In any case, it is important to remember that she is a television personality and not a public servant of any kind.

[GliderGuider]

32. One of the hardest things to do in life

One of the hardest things to do in life is accepting reality. Most people (yours truly included) want at least some aspects of reality to match our beliefs, rather than the other way around. This leads to all sorts of psychological complications, as we twist ourselves into mental pretzels in the face of contradictory information.

Good post.

[EffieBlack]

34. Hear hear!

[Progressive dog]

35. Rachel mentioned several times that Trump himself

might have leaked the return. She was very clear that the data on the 1040 is only a summary and does not provide specifics about income sources and expenditures. She didn't get played.
She discussed some of Trump's known suspicious connections to foreign money and governments. The 1040 was used as a reason to reopen those discussions.

[MineralMan]

36. Exactly. The Attacks on Rachel Maddow

are ridiculous. Some people are far too fickle and expect far too much from journalists.

[Paladin]

37. K&R. DU'ers, quit making common cause with the right wing about Rachel.

Check out any right-wing site this morning---they are scared shitless over those tax returns. Rachel is doing phenomenal work is revealing the very dark side of the trump machine. She deserves our thanks and support---nobody in the media is doing a better job than she is.

[JTFrog]

39. Some of those bashing Rachel sure pushed a lot of RT here last year.

Just sayin.....

[BainsBane]

49. Interesting observation. nt

[randr]

40. Rachel is an important resource in times like these

No one rises to the investigative level of journalism that she has established.
The one and major problem I have is that she could convey her message in half the time without all the redundancy.
Please Rachel, just the facts.

[LAS14]

41. Remember how mad we were when the MSM spinned...

...stuff against Hillary? Now that we're on the side that might want to promote the MSM spin (against Trump) is an opportunity to continue calling for pure reporting, not entertainment. So I agree with the OP.

[LanternWaste]

42. She's a wee bit more saavy and intelligent than the unsupported conclusions of her critics.

She's a wee bit more saavy and intelligent than the unsupported conclusions of her impatient critics over the past eighteen hours who seem dangerously unaware that ratings drive most newsrooms.

[randome]

47. And when she is at the top of the ratings pile, why would she disappoint her viewers?

That doesn't seem to make any sense even from a bare-bones ratings standpoint.

She hyped something she should not have. That's not 'dissing' her, that's stating a fact.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]