RACHEL PUSHES BACK! When Rachel Maddow chose to fight back, the ditto-heads swung into action: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011
A remarkable news report: In the February 20 New York Post, Susan Edelman wrote this long report about New Yorks school testing conthe recent statewide testing scandal which all polite journalists have agreed to ignore. (As best we can tell, the Washington Post has never even reported that this massive scandal occurred.)
Edelmans report is much more direct than the mush-piece the New York Times published last fall. Just a guess: In such precinctsall through the liberal worldmost good people know they must cover for Gothams billionaire mayor.
In the future, we plan to review Edelmans report in detail. For today, just click here.
Novelizing Christie and Ryan/And a critique disappears: Again and again, the news is a novela novelized story journalistic elites agree to tell.
In Saturdays Washington Post, Matt Miller described the rise of a hot new noveland he advanced a novella himself.
The hot new novel Miller described involves Republican truth-tellers. The Washington press has agreed to pretend that Governor Christie is such a person, Miller noted. Miller described the way the corps swooned over Christies speech in DC last week. In that speech, Christie made blatantly obvious observations, like many others before him:
Huh! Durbin and Warner have said the same thing! (Along with a wide range of other pols.) But when Christie says it, hes a truth-teller. Or so the Group Novel goes.
(As Miller notes, Christie didnt say that higher taxes will be needed to bring future deficits under controlso where was his truth-telling there?)
According to Miller, a second novel is being crafted about Rep. Ryan. (Paul Krugman has often described this tale.) In this novel, Ryan is cast as a bold budget hawk. Miller said thats nonsense too:
Weird! Accepted Group Novels are being written about these well-known public figures. Theyre being lionized as truth-tellers, budget hawks, even though theyre telling half-truths, at besteven though theyre involved in a fraud. But then, this is a very familiar process within the Washington press. Indeed: Back in December 1997, Miller loudly complained when his colleagues began to fashion a novel about Vice President Gorea novel in which Gore was cast as a feckless liar, just like Bill Clinton. Miller noted how foolish this nascent claim wasbut his colleagues kicked him down the stairs. (Click here, then search on Miller.)
They kept typing their novel for three more years. George Bush ended up in the White House.
(In March 2000, Post ombudsman E. R. Shipp devoted a column to this novel; she noted the dishonest way the Post was typecasting Gore. Her criticism was right on pointand her observation was thrown in the trash, just like Millers before it.)
In 1997, Miller noted the start of a punishing novel. Fourteen years later, he marvels at the rise of a new set of Standard Group Tales. But wouldnt you know it! Even as Miller rolls his eyes at the new novel, he seems to contribute to a reigning novella!
Within the guild, its Hard Pundit Law; you must be kind to other made men. Heres how Miller treated the one major journalist he felt forced to criticize:
Does Miller really believe that Charles is normally unblinkered? Forgive us if we wonder. But then too, Miller seemed to feel that guild regulations required him to say something nice about half-truth-telling Christie:
Christie is telling a half-truthat best. As Miller knows, this is the major way Big Pols deceive us rubes. Beyond that, Miller even seems to say that Christies involved in political flimflamin a fraud. Yet Miller somehow found himself saying that he finds Christie's brash style refreshing.
Is that what Miller really thinks? Forgive us if were puzzled.
Shouldnt a serious person be angry at someone whos telling a half-truth at best? Whos involved in political flimflama fraud? It isnt permitted within the club! And just in case you doubt these things:
Go aheadscan Millers column on line. The part about Charles has been wiped away. Somehow, the heresy got into print. On-line, it has been disappeared.
PART 1RACHEL PUSHES BACK (permalink): Last Thursday evening, February 24, Rachel Maddow began fighting backfighting back against the cretins who had slandered her and her staff. (Maddow said these cretins had called her a liar, though no such thing had occurred.)
These cretins lurk beneath a bridge at the Politifact web site. Six days earlier, on February 18, the nervy site had dared to critique a bungled report by Maddow.
Things got ugly when Rachel pushed back. But first, a bit of background:
On Thursday evening, February 17, Maddow had opened her eponymous program with a report about the Wisconsin budget. (For the full transcript, click here.) As she spoke, the budget fight was in its third day; the protests by Wisconsin state workers were gaining the nations attention. But alas! Maddows report was deeply flawedconfusing and self-contradictory. As a courtesy, well assume the bungled report was prepared by a Maddow Show staffer. But the ginormous bungling in the report should have left Maddow embarrassed.
No such luckthis is cable TV! Back to our basic narrative:
One day later, on February 18, Politifact posted its review of Maddows bungled report. In its headline, Politifact featured the following statement by Maddow:
Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsins finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year.
Say what? Maddow had led her report with a rather puzzling statement. Indeed, the fuller opening of her report made Wisconsins budget problems sound like a day in the park:
Things were rosy in Wisconsinor at least, so it seemed. There is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin, the millionaire broadcaster said. In her usual self-assured way, Maddow assured her viewers that Wisconsin is greatand that she wasnt kidding.
The next day, Politifact featured that one statement in its headline, though its full report treated various aspects of Maddows presentation. Politifact scored that key statement false. At the end of its piece, the site gave the same rating to Maddows full take on the subject.
Time for a second bit of background, this time concerning Politifact:
Politifact is a fact-checking site operated by the St. Petersburg Times. It launched in the summer of 2007. In 2009, it received a Pulitzer Prize, though you cant always go by that.
Politifact isnt always right in its judgments; the last time we checked, no one is. In our view, the site labors under a bit of a conceptual strait-jacket. Politifact scores all statements on a scale defined by true and false. (Its standard categories include these: Barely true, half true, mostly true, false.) But in the real world, the most problematic public statements are almost never technically false; instead, they are grossly misleading. Professionals can thoroughly mislead the public without ever making any false statements. Indeed, Maddow would try to prove this point before this battle was done.
Politifact isnt always right. That said, wed give the site a grade of A-minus for its review of Maddows report. If we were grading both parties in this first exchange, these are the grades theyd receive:
There were some flaws in Politifacts work, but the flaws were minor. By way of contrast, Maddows report had been heavily bungled, as Politifact pretty much said.
Maddow had offered a bungled report. But as we noted in real time, this wasnt hugely surprising (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/21/11). In the days before her report, a great deal of misinformation was floating around the liberal web concerning the Wisconsin budget. One day after Maddows report, several major liberal analysts began correcting their own mistakes; this included the Washington Posts Ezra Klein, a frequent guest on, and source for, MSNBC programs. (To review Kleins second self-correction, click here.) To the extent that Maddows report ever made any sense, it seemed to follow the bungled narratives which had been widespread on the web. Those errors would soon start getting correctedexcept on the Maddow program.
Maddow had fumbledand Politifact challenged. So these wheels are supposed to turn. But last Thursday, February 24, Maddow aired a lengthy segment in which she rejected Politifacts critique, while discussing a kitchen sinks worth of unrelated, irrelevant issues.
This second, distraction-larded report was an utter embarrassment. The progressive world should be alarmed.
The progressive world should be concerned with work like this from Maddow. Her initial report was very weak; last Thursdays attack on Politifact was an ungodly, semi-comical mess. Liberals and progressives should be disturbed when we get such work from our millionaire hostsfrom the intellectual leaders the folks at GE have been nice enough to pick for us.
We should be concerned by the lack of competenceand, in last Thursdays second report, by the apparent dishonesty.
Alas! No such concern was expressed in the wake of Maddows second report. Instead, the usual suspects began to swear that Rachel had gotten it wonderfully rightthat Politifact had been defeated! So heres a question for liberal history buffs: Remember when we used to laugh at the self-proclaimed ditto-heads found on the right? Alas! Now that our side has emerged from the woods, we seem to be breeding our own sorry gang of sycophantic hacks.
Maddow bungled her first report. Her second report was a good deal worse. But so what? The ditto-heads fell into line!
Well unpack this unfortunate nonsense in a four-part report.
Tomorrowpart 2: Maddows initial report