Posted on 06/18/2019 11:34:16 AM PDT by jazusamo
MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" appears desperate to get back in the good graces of The New York Times, constantly touting its headlines and praising its reporters on the heels of her far-left show being shunned by the paper.
Maddow -- and occasional fill-in hosts -- have mentioned the New York Times at least a whopping 41 times on her show since May 30, when Vanity Fair reported that the paper wanted its reporters to stay far away from far-left and far-right programs. That included Maddow's, because it was too liberal, even for the paper that is often considered left-leaning itself. The staggering 41 mentions over only 13 episodes does not include guests, who have also evoked the Times on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
Maddow’s obsession to make nice with the Gray Lady reached new heights on Monday night, when she mentioned the paper 18 times in one hour. While Maddow has promoted the paper at every turn, her boss, MSNBC president Phil Griffin, has reportedly been busy trying to rekindle the relationship himself.
Griffin spent a prolonged lunch with New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet following the Vanity Fair bombshell, attempting to hash things out, to no avail. Times reporters have not yet returned to “Maddow.”
MSNBC and the New York Times did not immediately respond to separate requests for comment.
Meanwhile, Maddow hasn’t simply touted the Times’ current staff, but has also dug deep into the archives to plug the paper.
On June 5, Maddow mentioned the Times six times, including admiring a report from June 1970. Maddow read the 49-year-old story to her viewers in an attempt to compare the actions of President Nixon to current news regarding President Trump, as both presidents planned to honor America with July 4 celebrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Thanks jazusamo. She's just kissing ass because she knows she'll soon need a new job. If MSNBC weren't run behind the scenes by shills in the same boat as the Mad Cow, pretty much the whole org would have been replaced by journalists by now.
Exactly.
These people will say anything for pay whopping check. That is their job: to be rich and famous. They are mostly shallow entertainers who will smile into the camera and tell you lies that will make your hair curl. The crazier the lines and the more your hair curls, the smarter and creative they think they are. But take away the money and camera and they wither up as dried prunes or old shoes. They serve a measly and dishonest function, but with their money and fame to remind them how important they are, they can brow beat you till the cows come home. Such is modern entertainment.
Birds of a feather...
She went all in with the Russian hoax, and now even her low IQ followers have abandoned her as a biased liar.
She went all in with the Russian hoax, and now even her low IQ followers have abandoned her as a biased liar.
Some people believe Rosie O'Donnell could stand to lose 5 or 6 pounds.
Just a guess, but clearly Rachel has outlived his usefulness to the NYT and is now considered a liability. Makes me wonder what the NYT thinks is coming.
I agree and believe MSNBC and CNN have to know whatever that is that’s coming also with the way they’re losing viewership but being that they’re idiots they are, maybe not.
Maddow is TMZ for politics. qualifying idiotic statements with the word “if” doesn’t add any credibility, like “we’ve never had to contend with the possibility that the President is an agent of a foreign power”. So stupid. “If my grandma had balls she’d be my grandpa”. And if she really had any principle, she would know you don’t have to be this extreme to find a lot of problems. People in power don’t have to be an foreign agent to make decisions that are bad for the country - they just have to be greedy or corrupt. Like selling off our Uranium, or flying to China to get $3 billion, or sending planeloads of cash and gold into Iran instead of wire-transfer (especially after we had re-established the banking relationship!). And, this one really is curious: Why did the USA pay its debts to Iran in Euro notes? None of this is of interest to anyone in the MSM.
The whole Russia thing was so stupid but she took stupid to the extreme. We’ve all known Trump as a pop icon for more than 40 years. He had a 10 year run on a network TV show. He owns all kinds of properties, had all kinds of government contracts and permits. Exactly when, why, how would he suddenly become a Russian agent? The entire thing was manufactured and any person with a lick of sense would know it. Sure, nobody has to like him but the complete derangement she displays is baffling. But, she got ratings and $10 million a year for it. NYT would be wise to steer clear of her. But sadly the “middle of the road” news isn’t all that much more reasonable either.
I’m speaking to the choir here but the NYT and MSM made a concerted effort to minimize the many bad decisions made by Obama, by Clinton, by the federal branches over the years. The principle of a media being a watchdog against government abuse is a serious calling. It’s not an excuse for partisanship but that’s what it as become. They all just report what their “anonymous government sources” tell them.. and it’s very convenient that these sources as “anonymous” because it allows the media to pick and choose the narrative they want to sell without any consequence. It doesn’t benefit the source to be anonymous - it benefits the media’s efforts at propagandizing.
Times Clamps Down on Reporters Going on MSNBC
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-times-gives-maddow-the-cold-shoulder
The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow. The producer, who was informed that the Times asks members of the newsroom not to appear on opinionated shows to discuss political subjects, was miffed about the cancellation, sources said.
a Times spokeswoman pointed me to the section of the Times’s “Ethical Journalism” handbook that covers broadcast media appearances: “In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.” Without question, this is not how MSNBC’s anchors see their shows (or CNN’s for that matter). And these guidelines were crafted back in the mid-aughts, a media moment that seems downright quaint compared to today. (What forum is more “strident and theatrical” than Twitter, where many a Times reporter spends hours of their day? Of course Twitter has been its own minefield for the Times.)
For CNN, why should they care? They are owned by ATT now after the Comcast merger. 40 years after we broke ATT up, they are nearly a monopoly again.
ATT is the largest of the cable oligopoly, and they operate in a monopoly fashion in the many cable districts in which they have the concession. They have the near absolute power to prevent competitive news networks from getting on the air. Even those few news channels that they do allow, those networks have to pay ATT for the privilege - while we ALSO pay ATT for the signal.
ATT should be broken up into 3 companies. One for content (news movies tv networks etc), one that sells phone, cable and internet packages to consumers on a competitive basis, and one that owns the cable/internet infrastructure and leases access in a competitive fashion to companies that want to compete in the market for selling cable and internet packages to consumers.
FWIW, about 100 years ago (the Supreme Court ruling was in 1948 but the case started as a Sherman Anti-Trust claim around 1920) we forced the movie studios to divest their ownership of movie theaters. It was anti-competitive because those movie houses would not show independent or 3rd party films. Breaking them up was great for the entertainment industry on whole, and great for consumers. The precedent exists.
All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t.
They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington.
The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.
That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.
I'm not even sure how many people the NYT actually has on payroll, vs who gets paid per article or per word. Journalism online has definitely made a shift to pay per viewers and that certainly means sensationalism. Car chases on TV news gets viewers, ergo if you want followers/readers you write the political equivalent of car chases, train wrecks, "bombshells!".
Twitter is definitely geared towards the sensational - but it isn't by design. It's just that the sensational gets more followers quicker. And at least it is just one person's opinion at a time, and they usually have their name on it. So the economics is somewhat fair if people didn't like the person or the content they don't follow the person. FWIW, I don't do any social media at all. Newspapers on the other hand provide a sort of blanket credibility that covers everyone and everything published. Maybe retweeting other quotes or engaging in back and forth with the more deranged elements might fall inside that quaint policy manual.
FWIW, I don’t do any social media at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.