Does Rachel belong on the Horse?

[hfojvt]

For those who are younger, there once was a site called "Media Whores Online" affectionately known as "the Horse" which was dedicated to calling out those in the media who had sold their soul to the corporate world.

Somerby, who of course is 'just jealous of Rachel's fame and income' ends another Rachel-bashing post with

"Assess this host’s motives however you will. But watching her sell this week’s sexy-time tales, it was hard not to think of that famous old web site: Media Horsies On-Line."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml

That Somerby might be jealous sorta proves his point though, doesn't it. Rachel has something to be jealous of. Has she sold some of her soul to M$NBC to get it? Or to keep it?

Somerby makes two points

1) IF progressives are to succeed, then the public needs information on issues as well as a progressive way of framing those issues.

"We can’t explain how the group dynamic works. But until the public understands the sheer absurdity of current arrangements, the public will never get really angry. Your country will never develop the type of progressive horizon which could lead to actual reform—let alone to an actual “overhaul.”"

2. People like Maddow and Olbermann are not providing the above, instead they are providing distractions. Corporate desired 'bread and circuses' to distract people from information and agitation.

On yesterday's show, for example, Rachel spent the first 28 minutes discussing Senator Ensign's affair, and then ten minutes on Senator Roland Burris before finally getting to Clarke.

"Long story short: Clarke finally appeared at 9:40, after a bit of wasted time concerning the pointless Roland Burris. Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of “a few minutes” is, one of the analysts said.

Clarke was smart and informative, as always. But he got five minutes.

In such ways, corporate interests have eaten your lunch—and your shorts—over the past several decades."


So, valid critique or just "trenchant comments from a jealous lesser intellect" (to quote Calvin)?

I know most of us love Rachel here, she is cute, sweet, smart and funny. I certainly loved her show back when I had cable. Of course, I remember her discussing more substantive things like the stimulus bill and infrastructure. Although one thing that sorta bugged me even then was the string of useless regular guests like Gene Robinson, Margaret Carlson, and Wonkette (Anna Marie Cox). Then again, part of my negative view of them comes from reading Somerby.

[WeDidIt]

1. So where is Somerby's television show?

Oh, yeah, he's just a jealous son of a bitch who jumped the shark with ihis piece of shit web site long ago.

He could never do what Rachel does, so all he has is tearing down those who are better than he.

And yes, Somerby was a piece of shit long before this piece.

[hfojvt]

5. you provide lots of name calling, but not much substance

Rachel is better because she has a TV show? Then both BillO and Hannity must be better than you because they have TV shows and all you do is try to tear them down.

Not to mention Rush, a massive success who makes more money in one month then I will in my whole life.

Perhaps you could include a little more detail about why Somerby is wrong in your opinion.

What makes Rachel and Beethoven great?

[lamp_shade]

2. ... her "string of useless regular guests"? Really?

[hfojvt]

4. actually I think Robinson and Carlson were on KeithO's show

Not two of my favorite people. Carlson was featured in a Somerby series called "Margaret's choice" back in 2004 or so, telling how she ignored issues like health care in favor of attacking Gore's character on silly made up crap, because it was more fun.

Somerby wrote about Robinson's behaviour in the 2000 campaign just a few days ago. I can look it up if you are interested.


edit: it was seemingly much further back, but Robinson was the editor of the style section of WaPo according to Somerby

"(Ten years ago, as editor of Style, Robinson was one of Starr’s ambulance-chasers. As his cohort’s disapproval was transferred from Clinton to Gore, he published three mocking profiles of Gore in a two-week period, just as Gore was announcing his candidacy. Gore “even giggled like a girl at one point,” Ceci Connolly sweetly said in hers, the last of the Three Mocking Profiles. Bowing to the will of the clan, this big hack put that crap into print. Starr was on the Post’s front page at that time, sadly announcing that his great work would have to continue from there.)

The intellectual and moral standards of your nation’s elites are just astoundingly low. Your nation is dying from this affliction, as you may have seen in the last eight years. (Years that were brought to you, in part, by Robinson.) "

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062509.shtml

[spiritual_gunfighter]

3. No

Rachel is hands down the best interviewer on cable television. If you had watched the John Ensign segment the last two nights you might have discerned that the real story in all of this, and what Rachel was stressing and quite well I might add, is the story of the secretive Christian group The Family in which 5 or 6 sitting US senators are a part of. The almost too radical to even be called radical form of Christianity and their ability to dictate policy through the said senators is the story. She stressed that quite well, so I am not sure you watched the segment. Like I said before she is the best interviewer on cable news, she asks smart questions of her guests and a couple of times have gotten the subjects to admit things they may not have wanted to or had no plans on doing so e.g. Rod Blagoviech and Nancy Pelosi. You stated that you no longer have cable so obviously from your statement you no longer watch Keith and Rachel so I am not sure the point of this post, before you throw them both under the bus make sure you at least have cable to watch them night after night so you can come to a more reasonable conclusion.

[hfojvt]

6. sounds a little bit like a kooky conspiracy theory

With 6 senators they dictate policy? Which policies? When?

That story does not seem to advance an issue, like health care or taxation, merely to hit the meme that 'the other side is a bunch of kooky, scary freaks'.

Then again, I cannot say that much, not having seen it.

The point of my post? Sheesh. Perhaps just to share and discuss the latest Somerby post I read. Perhaps to call out our liberals in the M$M to do better by us.

Thanks for providing a more substantive response though.

One mention on her interviews, Somerby has hit her on some of those too. For the things she does not ask of Colin Powell's former aide.

[optimal-tomato]

8. If you're really interested.

C Street is a real thing. It is a "church" where GOP Senators and Congressmen stay in D.C. It is very out of the mainstream, believing that earthly power (money/influence) is a sign of grace from God, and that only the rich and strong have the right to lead the country/world. As to the actual effect, I doubt C Street really does much more than the other entrenched interests, but their ideals coincide. C Street has become news because of the connections between Ensign (who stayed there) and Sanford.

In fact, I would argue that exposing C Street and the various other insidious goings-on of the GOP are far more powerful political tools than purely advancing policy objectives. When people find out that the Republicans are having a ceremony in the basement of the Congress to crown Moon as the Messiah, maybe they'll think twice about voting for them again.

In general, I'd say you are FAR FAR too trusting of a single other person's opinion. Rather than just trust him, why not actually watch the segments yourself? They are all available at rachel.msnbc.com. The full show.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

16. Your posts smack of someone that has an agenda

You admit that you don't have cable and dont watch either show, again you didn't watch the two segments on the Family so in context you have no idea what I am talking about. I nor the segment in questions said that these six senators dictate all policy in Washington but if you read the Harpers article by Jeff Shallet and eventually the book he wrote about the group you will see how influencial they are not only in Washington with the hyper religious right but with foreign dictators like Suharto. I am not sure why someone writes an OP throwing Rachel and Keith under the bus and admits in said post that they don't have cable and doesn't watch them, but takes the word of a website that no longer exists. Once again I am not surprised that a progressive feels the need to throw two of the only progressives on cable news under the bus. Who needs enemies when you have your "friends" doing all the dirty work for you.

[optimal-tomato]

7. Valid Criticisms, but Overblown.

Both Rachel and Keith rely too heavily on a stable of frequent guests. Keith is worse about this, having Richard Wolffe, Howard Fineman, or Eugene Robinson as his lead guest just about every night, and very rarely seeks opinions outside a group of around twenty regulars. Rachel has a fairly good balance of regular guests and topical ones.

Up until this week, Rachel has been great on covering Iran, but dropped the ball. Her coverage of actual news vs. politics is about 50/50, which is a little less news than I would like. Her interviews are usually too short, but that's true of all cable news. 6 minutes is simply not much time to talk to a smart, informed guest about a delicate topic. I would agree that Rolland Burris is a 30 second headline, not a full segment, but it's nitpicking to criticize how individual stories are covered.

If I were to complain about anything, it would be the lack of dissent within both programs. There is little disagreement between host and guest. I'm not saying they should have O'Reilly/Frank shouting matches, but some occasional respectful debate would be refreshing.

As for framing the issues, I just don't know if cable news is where that's going to happen.

If Rachel had 2 hours, with less constraints on segment and interview length, then I don't think there would be anything to criticize. In condensing the days events down to an hour, though, inevitably there are things that get lost in translation.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Maddow still annoys me at least once a day. I'm guessing she hasn't sold out.

This is a silly discussion. Successful people move up.

I always laugh at my kids when they claim some band has sold out because one of their songs made it on the charts. I guess my kids want their favorite artists to be so unsuccessful that they eventually have to give up their music to survive. :crazy:

Maddow is really, really good. Her soul still belongs to her.

[mucifer]

10. Rachel's radio show ALWAYS started with " Life During Wartime" , a segment

in which she discussed what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. She felt a need to remind everyone we are at war. I don't think she has
the freedom to do that anymore. Ed Shultz did state on his radio show that they do not have complete control of the content of their tv shows. It's too bad.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Sorry I am not following; who is Clarke?

[ThomWV]

13. Richard Clarke was on the program.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Thanks!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Hmmmmm... some of Rachel's Ensign story was letting The C Street House out of the

media closet. This is one of the most important stories that has not seen the light of day. Kudos to Rachel!

[ThomWV]

15. I don't know where all these hit pieces on Rachel are coming from, I think she is the best TV has.

Her's is the only program on television that I regularly watch and she is the only commentator who I trust to not slant her coverage of an issue.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Agree fully

Rachel is the best thing on television, I watch Keith every now and then but make sure to watch Rachel every night. She is far and away the best interviewer on cable news. She gets inside stories in a way no one else does and her show is intelligent and funny at the same time. The OP is worthless on so many levels and yet another example of a progressive throwing an important progressive voice in the media under the bus.