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.)