Maddow's political commentary and analysis helps viewers make sense of complex issues. Her show doesn't distract from what matters; her show enhances what matters.

Modern conservatives don't like the public to have a clear idea of what the issues are; if people understood exactly where Republicans were going, they would never vote for them. A dumb, disinterested electorate is what is needed to keep them in power and Rachel Maddow is a threat to that, hence their hatred and fear of her, the Daily Show and a new, enlivened group of young voters.

I'd *love* to be watching Maddow every day -- but my cable company moved MSNBC to the next tier of channels for which we'd have to pay another $55/month!!

I've been downloading Countdown as a podcast -- I'd love to do the same with Rachel's show but it's not available. Any chance this readership (or this journal!?) could nudge MSNBC into podcasting Rachel too?? I've already sent my letter...

I hope Frum learned something from the experience.

Frum...learned...something....

Maybe it...Do you mean...? Um. No. Sorry. I've seen these words before, but in that particular order they just don't make any sense.

I'll give David "Axis of Evil" Frum credit for really trying to change the tone after he's gone on several Fox News programs and right-wing radio shows to tell the hosts that they are contributing to an unserious tone in political discourse.

"I hope Frum learned something from the experience."

Oh, Steve. They are not capable of learning. Remember, true conservatism cannot fail. It can only be failed.

Maddow decimated him. Frum walked in, acted like an ass, and Maddow, genius that she was, invited him to continue acting like an ass. It was beautiful. I kept thinking of things I would say, and on reflection, I was an idiot. Maddow knew exactly what to do, and by keeping him on a topic he wanted to run from, she destroyed him.

Frum = self-important ass.

Maddow handed him his head last night, and the poor bastard was so wrapped up in the sound of his own voice, he probably didn't even notice.

Frum complained about Maddow's use of satire and sarcasm ( she knew all the tricks ... dramatic irony, pathos, puns, hyperbole ... she was viscious!) as belittling political discourse.

I kept wanting her to ask him: "And how do you feel your own National Review Online measures up to that standard? How would you rate the most popular conservative commentators -- Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly -- according to that standard?"

The Republican Party and its media courtiers act in sync like a digestive tract and its attendant bacteria. Frum's scold of Maddow wasn't at all surprising considering in the paste couple days the McCain campaign has accused Obama supporters of being as hatefull as those we've seen at McCain/Palin rallies. Cokie roberts has knitted her brow and wrung her withered hands over the negativity of BOTH campaigns. In interview on NPR with the McCain campaign does nothing to challenge the notion that both campaigns are equally noxious. See the trend? The Republicans and their media croniies are reimagining the story. "Terrorist!" "Kill him!" Oh that's nothing compared to Obama supporters.

Frum went after Maddow because she's a pretty soft target. She's the new kid on the block. Bill Maher would have torn his head off and shoved it up his ass. Maddow handled herself exceptionally well, but was obviously rattled for the rest of the show.

Frum looked like an ass, but that's not tthe point. He threw the gauntlent down. In the final weeks we will see an effort by the Republicans and their media sycophants to paint the Obama campaign as the reall pit of hate and negativity, and paint any media outlet supporting Obama as rediculous, shallow and mean-spirited.

One part of that interview that bothered me was when Frum pointed an earlier segment about Wolfowicz. Maddow had pointed out the irony of putting the former Defense Dept deputy in charge of a committee that then suggested the US needs to build up its nuclear arsenal. Frum felt it would be much more helpful to actually argue the pros and cons of arming or disarming. Maddow then said she would try to get Wolfowicz to come on her show to do just that.

The problem is that Maddow's argument was that Wolfowicz not a particularly good expert on the subject. Of course, neither Frum nor Maddow would fit the category either. So what would be the value of a "substantive discussion" between them? Wouldn't that be like discussing the best way to handle emergency relief with Michael Brown?

Frum is getting some grief from Steyn and K-Lo over at "The Corner":

I receive emails from readers every day who tell me that the only possible motive I could have for expressing doubts about the McCain ticket is my desire to attend cocktail parties, appear on TV, apply for a job in the Obama administration etc. Now I see this line of accusation appearing in the Corner too.

Let's develop this thought a little. Suppose it were true? Suppose I were indeed a venal, light-minded chaser after television appearances and social invitations. What difference would it make?

Do my correspondents (and now my Corner colleagues) truly believe that - but for my pitiful media and social ambitions - nobody in America would have noticed that Sarah Palin cannot speak three coherent consecutive words about finance or economics?

...

Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise.

I begin to think that a kind of reverse Bradley Effect—a Palin Effect, if you will—may come into play in this election, with some notional conservatives, once inside the polling place, unable to make themselves complicit in McCain's malpractice.

"This show is itself an example of this problem," Frum said.

Yeah -- there isn't supposed to be any dissent from the conservative propaganda the media carries!

In that interview, David Frum literally looks like a concern troll.

Frum, as a died in the wool true believer, is a poor messenger, and picking on Rachel's show was a poor choice, but he has a point that deserves to be considered. Frankly, I enjoyed the exchange. I would like to see him as a Maddow foil again.

On the first point, Frum is unpersuasive to the point of comedy.

That's just it -- Frum not only wants to draw an equivalence between Republican thuggery and, well, whatever he doesn't like about Democrats, but he also wants to create a false equivalence between the hopelessly failed Republican faith and Democratic ideas.

He presumes that Republican positions deserve a response other than dismissive mockery, but that's an assertion not in evidence.

"I hope Frum learned something from the experience."

Yes, I am sure he did. "We ain't in Kansas (Faux News, CNN or ABC) anymore, Toto." rachel was polite, firm and effective. Frum said his talking points, and Rachel took them all deep and "outta the park" (Sorta like the Rays did to Jon Lester last night....Excuse me while I cry!!)

There.... Frum said ask Wolfie on the show rather than just criticize him. Rachel's response was perfect, "I will ask him, but based upon the McCain Campaign's previous responses, I am not hopeful".

Did anyone notice Frum literally foaming at the mouth?
____________________________________________

Call it "false equivalence," the "symmetry of sin" or just the sort of distraction used in sleight-of-hand, the right is despicable for using it and the media contemptible for going along. Missed this (I leave home occasionally), but can't imagine Maddow had much trouble disposing of him.

E.J. Dionne talks today of the mainstreaming of the far right -- seems to me it was mainstreamed in the Reagan years and now, I hope, is the time to force it back to the margins of acceptable conduct where it belongs. Dionne's colleague Eugene Robinson makes this point regarding the entire Republican Party. Either Republicans are embracing the nutballs, as Frum attempted, fleeing the party or simply standing there embarrassed.

I'm wondering what the political landscape will look like a few months from now. I'm guessing the Repos will be left to the Palinites, with her Alaskan Highness fighting Steve King for control. The Democrats will be in ascendance, and likely we'll see a new conservative mainstream party. Whatever happens, it won't be good for the legacy of John McCain.

Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true.

Well, duh.

FINE I'LL SAY IT.

David Frum got his ass handed to him.

Anyone who could work for giuliani's campaign hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to wanting to have intellectual discourse within the political arena. Frum is a narcissist who thinks he thinks but as any run of the mill narcissist knows, he can never be wrong, at any level so thinking he'd learn anything from her is surreal daydreaming. Too bad his intellect (what there is of it) is being placed into forwarding a Conservative agenda that died as Reagan left office leaving the "bill" for his tenure on the desk of Bill Clinton. Maddow is more than a match for this ego saturated neocon.

I kind of got the feeling that he wanted to get in a few jabs at Rachel (like 3 during his first response), and hope that she didn't respond.

But more important to the substance of the discussion was the way she handled it. She didn't back down, she clearly got all of his digs at her and the show, and she defended the format and herself.

Humor has an interesting effect of making the facts distinct from the person telling the story, and even from the persons in the story. Unfortunately, most of Frum's crowd tends to personalize every set of facts because they might face the same facts with a different person in the future, and need to respond differently. But hey, lying is funny no matter who does it. That is the true equivalence. What Frum wants is the false equivalence of different facts so that he can mix those in with different people and get the same amount of outrage:

Violent Words + Holy Republican = 1
Humorous Joke + Liberal Pundit = 1

It all evens out.

the conservatives believe the media is liberal through and through

Which reflects much more poorly on the rank dishonesty of conservative leaders and the poor critical thinking skills of their followers than the media.

the show is in the Dem's pockets

'Nuff said.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing people he doesn't exist." -- Verbal, The Usual Suspects.

I can actually respect Frum for not wanting to be the MSNBC version of a "Fox News Democrat". However, instead of declining to be on her show or making a more substantive point by comparing the McCain campaign to Congressman Lewis' invocation of George Wallace (which is very incendiary, even if you think it's justified), he decided to get his right-wing street cred back among the mouthbreathers at The Corner by verbally smacking Rachel around on her own show.

But while he wanted to take some shots at Rachel and then act like he was the responsible grown up who just wants a serious discussion of the issues, she kept bringing him back to the BS equivalence he drew between her show and the McCain campaign and every time Frum had to defend that point, he looked like a bigger dick.

That was a great job handling something she clearly didn't expect, though I suspect the way she effectively dealt with Frum may make it even harder for Rachel to get more conservatives on her show.

Mike

the extraordinary irony of Frum's nonsense is that his ambush may have made sense -- on Olberman. the beauty of Rachel's show, and why it really is one of my favorite on TV, is how calm she is, the fact that it isn't all bluster and splashy graphics like most Repub shows or even Countdown (or harder-to-categorize shouters like Tweety). Frum couldn't have picked a less appropriate target; it left his argument completely without cred.

What he learned, I imagine, is that there is a good reason why his fellow AEIers and Cornerites and their associated neocons don't go on Maddow's show.

Seriously, they are not interested in a serious discourse. It's why they don't have comment threads on their sites. It's why they almost never go into environments where there is actual discourse.

Maddow was terrific. But i do have one quibble with what goalkeeper said about asking Wolfowitz on the show.

Frum was suggesting that Maddow bring Wolfie on the show for a "substantive" debate over Wolfowitz's suggestions that the US adopt a more belligerent approach to China--the centerpiece of which approach would be stocking up on "new weapons" (i.e. nukes). I would have liked Maddow to point out to Frum that she was mocking Wolfowitz's recommendation for the simple fact that Wolfowitz has been wrong about absolutely everything on which he's ever expressed an opinion. She could have then pointed out that, as her conversation with Frum was demonstrating, it's really quite difficult to have a "substantive" debate with someone who has not yet adequately demonstrated that he can tell his anus from a hole in the ground.

I think Frum made some good points. Sorry!

Yeah -- there isn't supposed to be any dissent from the conservative propaganda the media carries!

That is a good sign, since the conservatives believe the media is liberal through and through.
Posted by: SJRSM on October 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK
*************************

Not true. They KNOW the MSM is in their back pocket, far right, and slanted as hell. But they also know that as long as they keep shouting 'liberal bias!!!' to anything that does not support their agenda, the MSM can be intimidated and controlled, while supporting the illusion that the media has a liberal bias. If the only indicators on the MSM Measurement Dial are "right", "far right", and 'FAR, far, right", and the news reports something neutral or marginally left of neutral, then the screams of 'LIBERAL BIAS!!!" begin again. Great strategy, got to give them credit. But, we have to change the MSM Dial back to a fair playing field.

Obviously the false equivalency is nonsense, but I'm not sure we should totally dismiss what Frum is pushing for here.

He's pushing for a focus on substantive issues. We should welcome that, because on the merits, the right has been wrong about a whole host of things. I understand that there are different ways to discuss important issues and I love Rachel's show, but if conservatives want to seriously engage the issues, let's not completely overlook that. For what it's worth, Frum is one of the few at NRO who hasn't jumped on the Palin bandwagon.

I've been downloading Countdown as a podcast -- I'd love to do the same with Rachel's show but it's not available. Any chance this readership (or this journal!?) could nudge MSNBC into podcasting Rachel too?? I've already sent my letter...

Hey Tall Guy, if you download Rachel Maddow's radio show podcast off of Itunes, the 2nd hour of it is a simulcast of her MSNBC show. So you can the show and her radio hour, which I highly recommend.

Seriously, they are not interested in a serious discourse. It's why they don't have comment threads on their sites. It's why they almost never go into environments where there is actual discourse.

Maddow's show has the potential to really unmask the bullshit that is Republican propaganda, not the least of which is the myth of the "liberal media.

Conservatives avoid discourse -- or at least, insist on arguing in bad faith, like our dear friend Red State Mike -- because modern movement conservatism simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all. Conservative ideas can survive in the he-said, she-said, "Shape of the Earth: Views Differ" environment of the so-called "liberal media" and, of course, to the susceptible through sheer repetition.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, as our true-believer trolls demonstrate, but it isn't all-powerful. John Cole is one example of a conservative who recognized the scam that is the modern Republican Party and washed his hands of it. It's interesting that Kevin's few conservative commentors with any shred of integrity stopped posting here long ago.

I've often noted that, while there's no honest way to defend the mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrrany of the modern Republican Party, that's no excuse for the true believers to adopt dishonest methods -- especially with some bullshit excuse about an "echo chamber" for parroting their useless propaganda.

Frum is an irredeemable tool. He spent years on Left, Right, and Center with Robert Scheer and Arianna Huffington, so he's learnt a thing or two about spewing bald face lies in front of informed, intelligent sparring partners.

Frum is correct about media discourse being a continuation of polarization...Maddox, like her counterparts on the other side of the aisle, is only witty and incisive to her base. To wit: she turned this "interview" into all about her.

Frum is correct about media discourse being a continuation of polarization...Maddox, like her counterparts on the other side of the aisle, is only witty and incisive to her base. To wit: she turned this "interview" into all about the point about her.

Frum's comments are a joke. They won't engage in a straight debate on the facts. The White House declared it's going to create its own reality and does so on every issue imaginable by declaring up is down. And through the Bush administration, the right just shouted everyone down and called them traitors and that was the end of discussion. McCain smears Obama, says he isn't and then keeps doing it. Palin is rebuked for abuse of power in the very first finding of the investigation and then brazenly claims she was cleared of abuse of power. The list is endless. You cannot have a serious discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge simple objective facts. We've all seen this movie before.

"Hello, you are a serious conservative fellow. Let's talk about Iraq policy."
"OK."
"How long do YOU think we can sustain current troop levels and $10 billion a month in funding."
"We stay until we have victory."
"But how long can we fight? The military brass itself is worried the strain will damage our military capabilities for a generation."
"We cannot cut and run. It will embolden the terrorists."
"But experts say our presence is creating the very terrorist recruiting we are fighting."
"We are winning. Violence is down."
"OK. Define victory. Even Petraus has said victory isn't a word he would use to describe the Iraq outcome."
"The surge worked."
"OK, I would dispute that but if I cede your point. Isn't this the time to get out?"
"If we leave it will fall apart."
"So we cannot leave when it is calm and we cannot leave when it is violent. How long can we sustain current troop levels and $10 billion a month in funding?"
"We stay until we have victory."

Yeah, Frum is right. We need serious people talking in serious forums about these issues....

He's pushing for a focus on substantive issues.

I disagree -- he's pretending to, with the aforementioned false equivalences, to distract from the present discussion of Republican thuggery.

That is a good sign, since the conservatives believe the media is liberal through and through.

I know conservatives like to pretend that, but I'm not so sure they really do:

"We have the media now." - Ann Coulter 7/25/05

"Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact." -- Bill O'Reilly 7/26/05

Rachel, I love you!! :) (for your mind and heart especially)

Mike, you poor dope, as usual you score an own goal. You just succeeded in proving how thoroughly conservatives have swallowed the Repubicans' decades of propaganda about the so-called "liberal media."

As Stefan pointed out, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the conservative leaders who dispense this swill don't actually believe the media is liberal.

The recurrent theme of responses to every Republican scandal seems to have been "Everybody does it."

Thus, the favor shown to false equivalency.
Perhaps this discredited meme should be foldeed in? False equivalency is merely leftovers served lukewarm and needs to be exposed as the tired McSame old McSame old.

No, that wasn't an age joke.

But McCain IS old.
And cancer riddled.
And his VP pick is an airhead that we'll be pitting against Vladimir Putin in mindgames with the fate of the world in the balance.

Why, oh why, is McCain behind by ONLY 6 points?

We tried tax cuts for 8 years. How ya doin' America? Even if McSame's claims are all true, are we YET ready to admit tax cuts do NOT make strong economies in and of themselves?

I think Frum made some good points. Sorry!

I don't know why you feel you need to apologize for having an opinion, but if you actually mean to contribute to the conversation in any kind of substantive way it would help if you expressed what exactly you think those good points were. Frum's point seems to be that our political discourse, as represented by television news, newspapers, blogs etc, does not engage issues seriously. He accuses Maddow of helping to drag that discourse down. I don't see it and I think the example of Wolfowitz is particularly poorly chosen but you seem to agree with him. Maybe you could give us some examples of why you think that is.

@Jon Parker (and TallGuy): thanks! I've been podcasting KO so that I don't have to deal with the commercials and teasers (HATE those, Keith!) and was really wishing that I could get Rachel's show also. Didn't think to check iTunes--duh!

WOW SJRSM, you found a poll. Good job!! I thought you wingnuts didn't believe in polls, and weren't swayed by them. What does this poll prove? The point that "Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media". Thanks for proving the point that the public has been sold a bill of goods. Now, please, crawl back under your rock.

Frum was inarticulate, so I'll make his legitimate point for him: In what usually passes for political "discourse" on the cable news networks, there is little acknowledgment that there is ever room for intelligent, good faith differences of opinion. There is a place for sarcasm and bombast, but it is unhealthy when that it is the predominant form of expression. (To be sure, reflexive equivalence is worse than reflexive derision, but neither is healthy). It is unfair to single out Rachel Maddow; she is only doing in Rome.... However, she is smart enough and new enough to break out of the mold. I hope she does.

Actually, the data mike cites is interesting in light of the fact of the conservatvies' decades-long branding effort to label the media as "liberal." Despite that, there's a surprisingly large percetption of the opposite.

Still, I'm simply astounded at how thoroughly conservatives have swallowed the myth. How embarrassing.

He reminded me of those poor sensitive Republican congress members who refused to vote for the bailout bill because Nancy Pelosi made a speech that hurt their feelings.

I saw the exchange as I'm a regular viewer of her show. I was impressed by Rachel's ability to engage Frum in a serious conversation.

That being said, I wonder what her show and Countdown will be like after the election? What purpose will they serve? Will these shows still have an audience a year from now? If so, the shows will need to make substantial changes.

It proves that even some liberals recognize the liberal bias.

Wrong. It indicated that some liberals perceive a liberal bias.

The existence of an actual liberal bias in the media is an assertion not in evidence. Noting that "Any poll done of media personalities show that they lean heavily to the left by percentage, and that they vote the same way." does not prove bias in the media, let alone that it ignores, as usual, the perceived interests of the corporations that own the media.

Just because you can't avoid letting your own biases move you to post dishonestly doesn't demonstrate that reporters do the same, Mike. Shame on you.

it always amazes me to hear one of the stalwart neocons invoke the necessity for competent governance in the face of the global threats... after having had 8 years to completely fuck things up. and to bring forward the name of one of the main antagonists of fuckedness (wolfowitz) as tho he were a heralding voice of reason?

really, simply, unbelievable.

What purpose will they serve? Will these shows still have an audience a year from now? If so, the shows will need to make substantial changes.

Counteracting the never-ending stream of lies by a right-wing movement intent on delegitimizing the election of President Obama.

SATSQ

"Frum had some good points"

Good point: the media should focus on substantive issues.

Stupidity: substantive issues should only be disseminated by stuffy sounding ignoramuses like myself.

thattallguy, forget about podcasts! unless, of course, you like that kind of thing.

i don't have any cable or satellite at all and watch the rachel maddow show, countdown with keith, the daily show and the colbert report on the internet.

keith's viewer is better than rachel's in that it is clear what day's show you are cranking up. rachel just has a list of video icons and you can't tell (or at least i can't -- am i missing something?) where the latest show begins.

to see the rachel maddow show via the intertubes, use this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

to see countdown with keith, use this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

go to comedy central to get the links to daily show and colbert report, and happy viewing!

as to my view on the above video clip:

yes, frum got his butt handed to him by rachel, if you're keeping score, but i was encouraged that there appeared to be at least the beginnings of a conversation. let's face it, the republican party is a complete disaster and has broken out in a truly ugly case of multiple personality disorder. what's frum, as a republican, to do?

i have to applaud him for not only appearing on rachel's show but actually engaging, to a point, in an actual discussion about real issues. but rachel gets the standing ovation for making her case rationally.

I watched expecting no surprises, and true to his disingenuous self, Frum didn't disappoint. O'Reilly's self-ascribed body language specialist would have had a field day with Frum's twists and facial turns. He wants a debate on the substance, yet can't define just what that would be.

In the meantime, Maddow is up-ticking the political discourse in this media-satuated America. Her composure was gratifying to see when Frum couldn't drive his wreck of an ideology out of the ditch. -Kevo

Any poll done of media personalities show that they lean heavily to the left by percentage, and that they vote the same way. Fact. Feel free to cite a poll that shows otherwise.

How about examining the people whose opinions, in the end, are all that matters, the media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch, say, and Sumner Redstone of Viacom (parent of CBS). Back in September 2004 Redstone gave a revealing speech in which he said:

"I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom. I don't want to denigrate Kerry, but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Now if you work at CBS News and your boss has just told you that it's in your job's interest to elect a Republican administration, how aggressive are you really going to be in going after Bush?

Frum just parroted Steve Schmidt talking to Renee Montagne on NPR yesterday, when Schmidt claimed (unchallenged) that the same sort of things come out of Obama supporters. Hasn't Hannity said something similar? I'm still waiting for one -- ONE -- example of a McCain/Palin death threat coming from an Obama rally. Is evidence backing an accusation too much to ask?

The point is it's pretty clear they had their Monday morning meeting, and everyone got on message: Any democratic or media criticism of any sort is equal to their own raving supporters calling for the death of the opposition. Spin, wash, repeat. You have to wonder who the conservative chattering classes took their cues from; its as if they looked to how the campaign would spin the situation, and snapped right in line.

I wonder what the republican base must be thinking at this point. They were led to believe, by their leaders, that Obama is a Muslim terrorist just waiting to enact his sleeper cell, and then those same leaders turn around and say no, but still allow the rhetoric to persist. At least the semi-conscious must be thinking at this point that they're being taken for rubes (and if they fall for that kind of campaigning, well...). But there must be a growing swell of republicans who are under the opinion that their party is more interested in campaign-winning rhetoric than any real positions the voters are interested in, even when it devolves to base violence.

Still curious why the factually false NRA anti-Obama banner ads are running at the top of this page. They're being served by adgardener.com

The bottom line, Stefan, is that if the media really was liberally biased, it's even more incompetent at going about it than Republicans are at governing (or in Mike's case, carrying GOP water).

In regards to humor being used to "make sense of complex issues," I agree wholeheartedly and then some.
It is important to note that all journalists have some sort of bias, although their comments are portrayed as fact. I find the use of humor and satire allow a person to form their own opinion of the facts more easily. Instead of taking the "facts" at face value, viewers and readers are more inclined to form their own opinions or do more research.
I would even take a leap of faith and argue that, in some instances, shows like The Daily Show can be more constructive than other news outlets for that exact reason; it prompts viewers to form their own opinions.

I've seen a few comments here saying that the problem is media bias. That there is a GOP channel and a Dem channel is the heart of the problem, and that a good program would draw equal ire from either side. That's the fallacy of middle ground.

The truth isn't always in between two points. Sometimes something is black or white and calling it gray is a distortion. What the media ought to do is present facts, in whatever tone is most accessible to their viewers (satire, sarcasm, or the lectures that David Frum seems to believe would connotate the seriousness of the issue). Then, they ought to present analysis of those facts in a manner that relies on the facts themselves, not ideology. However, reality has a well known liberal bias.

That's the fallacy of middle ground.

Fallacy, thy name is Red State Mike.

I'm so glad you wrote about this Steve.

I was fuming when I saw that piece last night, but rooting for Rachel as she took him on.

He clearly had an agenda to put both Rachel and her fantastically powerful show down--how apropos that earlier in the show the journalist form Ohio made mention that folks like she (namenly bright women who call it like it is) tend to get a lot of hate mail whenever you've got a woman with an opinion.

I'd add that that hate mail and commentary clearly magnifies when you've got an unbelievably gifted, intelligent, cogent woman like Rachel Maddow, whose passion for educating and empowering to think critically about the issues before us is moving beyond compare.

I look forward to it every night now. She never hits below the belt. Her candor is so refreshing and detailed as she carefully outlines the lunacies that are happening.
-----------------

How ironic and what nerve that he called her 'negative'--

It was he who came on as a guest of her show and then did nothing but trash her style and indicate she is part of the problem. It was he had the gall to imply she is being childish and silly and then he came in with that dreaded 'NEGATIVE' word--

God forbid, you should be negative! Ha!

So telling the truth in a cogent and witty fashion is now unbecoming and just negative?

It's so clear he and his right wing fellows are threatened because of her uncanny ablitiy to get the truth out in an important way, to call it like it is, to name an atrocity an atrocity and to refuse to stick our heads in the sand.

He also did that whole rant which attempts to demonize the left--how destructive policies will ensue...

Yeah, that was real positive Mr. Frum.

You done darn good, Ms. Maddow. The entire show is so awesome--keep up the good work. You are an inspiration to us all.

If Frum had wanted to engage in a substantive debate, he wouldn't have opened with such asinine and condescending statements. He threw the gauntlet down, she picked it up and beat him senseless with it.

When you open a conversation making baseless accusations of false equivalency and end it by making bumbling excuses for the McCain campaign, you just got your ass handed to you.

A perfect example of a constant in current American political identities.

Accuse an American partisan of a fault, the Democrat cries, "That's not true!" the Republican declares, "Well you're just as bad!"

Yes, but when is Steve going to be on again!?

I've gotta be honest. I miss the fake books. :)

Frum, learn? Are you kidding me? He thinks he's the smartest kid in the room, always.

Frums learns nothing and forgets nothing.

The concept of a business's or organization's owners or bosses setting the tone and agenda for the business never entered your slow-churning consciousness, Jingo?

Is that why you got kicked out -- you gravely informed your CO you couldn't subvert your own opinions "for a buck"?

I've gotta be honest. I miss the fake books. :)

Hee. I love the fake books. See if you can get some DFH literature onto that fake shelf next time, Steve.

The Republicans these days remind me of the father hosting the wedding feast in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Spattered in blood, he tells his horrified party guests "Now, now, now...let's not concentrate on who killed who..." They've enjoyed 16 years of abusing Democrats - calling a sitting President a "scumbag" during House testimony, telling a Senator to "go f*ck yourself" on the floor of the Senate, calling John Edwards a "f*ggot", making fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks at a black-tie fundraising event...the list goes on and on. Now they want to be reasonable. Now they want to elevate the discourse. Sorry, it's not going to be that easy. Admit what you've done and apologize, then we can move forward.

This motherf***er wrote the Axis of Evil schtick and is now demanding a serious tone?

He allowed bs language to dictate bs policy.

Why give him airtime? Ever?

Frum's behavior is just another tiresome example of the Right trying to avoid accountability for their bad behavior (even when they are critical of it themselves) by applying the blame equally. As long as the Right can get voters to say "A plague on both your houses" they win. The imagined "Angry Left" of Bill O'Reilly's preposterous morality plays is a necessary invention that absolves the Right of the semi-fascist supporters who are threatening the Republic with their hatefullness.

Yeah, last night the electoral map that had the Repugs slated campaign stops also had Illinois highlighted as Rachel called the state Indiana. Sure, everybody makes mistakes but it was pretty easy to notice when Indiana is inbetween OH and IL. Big Ooooops!

Jingo: The existence of January negates the reality of February-December!

For someone constantly embracing the fallacy of the middle ground in a Jingoistically hamhanded attempt to fake evenhandedness (and avoid acknowledging culpability for any of your myriad errors), you sure spend a lot of time at the very margins, hanging on by your fingertips. This is your entire argument for "liberal media bias"? Seriously?

Yeah, last night the electoral map that had the Repugs slated campaign stops...

Speaking of McPalin campaign stops, WTF? Why are they in Pennsylvania today (and last week) when Obama's consistently been 10-15 points up there since Oct. 1? Pennsylvania is Obama's and it's staying that way. Why did McCain go to Iowa and Wisconsin, both of which are firmly in Obama's column?

Why aren't they spending almost all of their time in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana? Can anyone working on that campaign feed and dress themselves without help?

Frum has a sore ass, when humor is put into the mix, his ilk looses.

I think you need to pay attention to where Frum is coming from. He was one of the clearest Republican voices to reject the Palin pick. He was invited to Rachel's show because he had made a strong point against the Ayers' line of attack. And (this is the key point): the response from his crowd has been to argue that he's taking these lines so he can be invited onto shows like Rachel's as an example of an apostate Republican. While his Republican critics are wrong about his motivations (I think he's genuinely concerned about the direction the Republicans are going in), they are right that the only reason he's getting the invitation is so that Democrats like Rachel can hold him up as an example of how the Republicans are losing their own.

He handled the situation clumsily, by trying to draw attention to the way Rachel's show plays into the polarization in our country. I don't think he was trying to establish equivalence. As he repeatedly said, it's not about which is worse, it's about what we as individuals can do to make it better. Rachel refused to argue on his turf, just as he refused to argue on hers.

But his basic aim was clear: he wants to continue to criticize the Republicans. But he is still a Republican and his long-run aim is to maintain his standing as a Republican so he can have a useful voice in the conversation about how to rebuild the Republican party after its epic defeat this fall.

Since I'm one of those Independents that actually wants a civil conversation, I thought last night was unfortunate. Both Rachel and David are relatively sane voices. To see their conversation fall apart so quickly; and then to have it get picked up for more partisan bashing is unfortunate. We really do need to grow up and start re-learning the art of civil conversation. I mean, if the state of the nation isn't alarming enough to get us to knock it off, what would it take?

The earlier comment about The National Review points out the problem with Frum's points. The National Review crowd have been cheerleading the kind of attacks that Frum was bemoaning. Frum needs to clean up his own nest.

No. Read all of my posts in the thread

I do not think this suggestion is going to reap the result you think it will. Your total contributions here:

--Earnest repetition of banal belief that a news organization that gets criticism from both sides is "doing its job"
--Insistence that because reporters are largely liberal, news slant is liberal
--When notified of radical concept of media owners setting direction for news, production of one example of network story attacking Republican using bad sources. Repetition of single example when challenged.

Not much of a body of work there, Jing.

I was watching when this happened, and was really taken aback. At first, I was not sure he had actually asserted that Maddow was somehow part of the problem, until he repeated it. What was truly instructive, and inspiring, is that Maddow responded not by shouting at him or cutting off his mic, but by actually examining the assertion. She is good.

Wouldn't Frum have been far more comfortable on Limbaugh or Hannity? Now there is where substantive ideas get shared and valued.

Challenge claims of equivalence -- that is the meme of the hour...

Well spoken, Maggie!

Here is what David Frum wrote today:

Just before I traveled to Afghanistan, I accepted an invitation to appear on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC when I returned. This was not something I'd normally agree to do: I don't watch the show, but I had (or thought I had) a rough idea of what it was like.

But I write a column for The Week, the appearance was booked through them, so I agreed to do my bit.

Big mistake. I watched the show in horror in the MSNBC green room. Maybe I was a bit crankier than usual: I'm still jet-lagged enough that I have been going to bed by 8:30 most nights this week ... Anyway I was unprepared for the sarcasm and anger of what I saw.

So when it was my time to go on air - and instead of being asked about Afghanistan I was asked about how awful and hateful the John McCain campaign was - I got a little grouchy. I dont know if there's a tape visible anywhere.

(My closest relatives insist it was OK. Then again, my wife is a big believer in Judith Martin's quip that the key to a happy marriage is the ability to say with a perfectly straight face, "I don't know what you are worrying about darling. I thought you were very amusing last night, and I'm sure everyone else did as well.")

If I find it, I'll link.

Now after receiving more than 100 emails from NRO readers (mostly) scolding me for selling out the team by criticizing the McCain campaign on CBS in the morning, I am now sifting through more than 300 emails from (mostly) enraged viewers accusing me of rudeness to Ms Maddow (sorry - her fans call her "Dr Maddow") for declining to criticize the McCain campaign on MSNBC in the evening ...

Oh, and if conservatives were reluctant to appear on the Rachel Maddow show before, I'm guessing that most of them will be literally reduced to a puddle of sweat at the thought now. That's too bad, because I suppose it means that we will be stuck hearing Pat Buchanan over and over again. He may be a racist gadfly, so lost in his own spin that he doesn't know which way is up, but you have to admire, in a truly perverse way, his pure guts at going on tv and repeating his incredibly absurd talking points.

You missed the poll results, but nice try!

Um, that was part of bullet point #2, Einstein.

If an individual falls in a forest of comments from the weight of his own stupidity, but he isn't even smart enough to be aware of how unintelligent he is, does the mocking laughter of onlookers still make a sound?

I hope EVERYONE learns from Maddow. She is a wonderful exemplar for how civil discourse is conducted. And you know what? Her tactics - using reason, evidence, logic and critical thinking - forced Frum to engage in it, too. It exposed how hollow aqnd impotent were his own arguments, and it forced him to face his own limitations.

That's the power of reason over ad hominem attacks and evidence over slander.

It requires facile thinking, generosity, kindness and razor wit and intellect.

That's what we model and foster and inculcate in students.

It's a winning strategy.

Read all of my posts in the thread and then try to respond intelligently.

Mike, as shortstop pointed out above, you aren't arguing intelligently -- or you're arguing dishonestly, or both. I don't much care which it is.

It's baffling that you keep citing arguments that have already been rebutted. It's small wonder shortstop missed the poll you're referring to, as it doesn't come close to proving the existence of a liberal media, merely the perception of same.

As I pointed out already, given that it's a matter of record that conservatives have waged a media campaign to portray the media as liberal, the existence of this perception, even among some liberals, is hardly surprising. But given the existence of this decades-long branding effort, it is surprising that so many people perceive a conservative bias, which lends weight to the suggestion that one exists.

As for Rather, you might be able to make a convincing argument that bias led Rather to misjudge yet more -- not the only, mind you -- yet more evidence that Bush shirked his National Guard duty, but that you extrapolate this as evidence against the media in general is fallacious again.

Aspersions against your intelligence really get under your skin, Mike, but you leave us no choice. And they're giving you the benefit of the doubt -- that you simply lack the criticial thinking skills to recognize Republican bullshit before you embarrass yourself by peddling it. The alternative is that you're a filthy liar like Frum. As I said, I don't care which -- the bottom line it, you'd sooner find a trout stream in the desert than a good faith argument from you.

Shame on you, Mike.

I'd like to read Frum's emails on his appearance on Maddow. Who would on earth would accuse him of being rude for not being critical of McCain when there was a cornucopia of real rudeness to fault.

Maddow is partisan, sure, but her sarcasm rarely rises above the silly-boy level. Frum faulted her, essentially, for not being perfect. Frum's self-forgiving rhetoric shows that he's not serious about turning down the culture of nasty politics, that his hand-wringing about it on Maddow's show was just an act. He writes for The National Review for heavens sake. Bogosity, thy name is Frum.

Not so long ago David Frum realized that instead of being the Brendan Bracken of the decades-long Republican Ascendancy, he's scrambling for airtime with the rest of the old Bush speechwriters. His parents can pull a few strings, but they only work in Canada; he's already imagining the second-rate sets of a CBC talk show that runs at 7pm, (7.30 Newfoundland) and not all in the States.

And so he's properly pissed off at this arriviste, this child, with a primetime show who dares to unsettle his smug.

(Yes, David, she is a PhD. That what you need to get when your parents are nobodies. When you get your honorary doctorate from Pepperdine or Taft, we'll call you Doctor too.)

Maddow keeps outdoing herself. She has raised the bar for all of us.

I loved the end of the show last evening when she illustrated just what an audacious lier Palin is--Palin didn't even bother to refute the findings of the Troopergate scandal--she actually re-invented them entirely, insisting how glad she is to have been exonerated of no legal or ethical wrongdoing!

I liked that Maddow emphasized this is not a matter of Palin's opinion--it's stated fact/finding that she did indeed abuse her power.

Yet as Maddow said, Palin lives in a world where she truly believes she can say whatever she wants where she can say horrific things about Obama, where up is down and down is up and she is ready, willing and eager to lie blatantly about such a serious issue--directly to the camera. With a wink and smile. This is yet another case where her response to such a serious finding is perhaps worse than the crime itself.

She truly doesn't give a damn. This morning she told Limbaugh "I've got nothing to lose". I think she really feels that way.

Oh rly?

Yes, really. As shortstop said, repeatedly pointing to your own weak, already-debunked arguments doesn't have the effect you'd like it to.

I proved the majority of Americans think the media is biased to the liberal

Well, no; you cited a poll that indicated such a perception -- overwhelmingly among conservatives, though shared by independents and liberals. You also claimed that this poll proved the media was liberally biased.

By way of retort, I pointed out the fact that the conservatvies' decades-long project of portraying the media as liberal makes such a perception totally unsurprising; indeed, what's surprising is how many see through that lie.

that the majority of reporters are themselves liberal

So what?

Even granting that, as I said, just because you aren't able to avoid your bias affecting your postings to their detriment doesn't mean that reporters' political beliefs inherently means bias. One might even surmise that -- especially as the conservatives "work the refs" as I noted -- reporters might give the conservative point of view too much benefit of the doubt.

And, of course, you doesn't address the subset of personalities in the national media, whose bias, if any and in whatever form, can affect so many more people.

Pop quiz, Mike: Did, or did not, the so-called "liberal media" adopt the made-up and highly loaded term "partial birth abortion" to describe the procedure "intact dialation and extraction"?

and in response to the claim that the corporate overlords' conservative leanings bias the reporters against their better nature to slant conservative, presented as Exhibit A DocumentGate.

Which single data point can't possibly establish a trend, as already noted. your Exchibit A doesn't do what you think it does; Dan Rather accepting questionable documents does absolutely nothing to counter the argument that the corporate owners of media companies have their own biases and put them into practice.

In addition, "bias the reporters against their better nature to slant conservative" is far too narrow a suggestion. Owners of media properties decide the agenda -- decide what is and is not reported. Any hypothetical bias on the reporter's part is irrelevant if a story isn't covered at all.

Pop quiz, Mike: How many newspapers have a "busienss" section, and how many have a "labor" section?

As you can see, I've already debunked everything you've cited as evidence to justify your belief -- even your dishonest pretending you didn't claim the opinion poll proved the existence of media bias.

You have not come close to proving the existence of liberal media bias, Mike. I really can't make it any plainer than that. The counterarguments don't even matter; you failed to prove your affirmative case. But let's see how you handled your rebuttals:

In the meantime, counterarguments have consisted of quotes from a few media personalities, and rabid expressions of personal belief.

Well, no, Mike; see above. And the "quotes from a few media personalities" -- itself already much more pervasive and convincing than you'd like to pretend -- included a media executive being quite candid about his own bias. I continue to be delighted that our respective comments remain for all to see and am happy to let our respective arguments speak for themselves.

But your misstating your opposition's arguments definitely adds weight to the "dishonest" explanation. Thanks for showing you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, no matter how stupidly you seem to argue. Shame on you, Mike.

I see Mike is off his meds again today:

I proved the majority of Americans think the media is biased to the [sic] liberal,

The fact that people perceive the majority of media to be liberal isn't in dispute -- in fact, it's the core assumption at the basis of this discussion. Congratulations in "proving", then, what everyone else already admits upfront. The key question, though, is if what people perceive to be true actually is true in fact.

that the majority of reporters are themselves liberal,

This has been proven? Where?

and in response to the claim that the corporate overlords' conservative leanings bias the reporters against their better nature to slant conservative, presented as Exhibit A DocumentGate.

I.e. you haven't disproved this third point at all. One example to the contrary does nothing to disprove the fact that it is clearly in the media owners' interests to advance a Republican agenda; and you well know that if I had the time today I could provide dozens of counter-examples.

The real evidence of conservative bias, though, isn't even in the stories that get written -- it's in the ones that don't, the multiple stories about Republican corruption, mismanagement and crime that either don't get investigated, or if investigated not reported, or if reported not followed up on. Conservative media owners set the tone for their organizations and ultimately decide what does and does not get covered.

Frum is hard core, he doesn't learn or grow from within so to speak. He came on Maddow's show prepared with his plan of attack and its purpose. He conveyed an appearance of a beaten man. His every word sound calculated and frankly like self serving lies. It was a poor delivery that was half hearted. It was if there was a bit of soul left in that darkness; doubtful though. He must have just been tired.
Maddow's on the other hand, that's two for two.

Any poll done of media personalities show that they lean heavily to the left by percentage, and that they vote the same way.

Polls of workers in most industries show the same thing. The ideology of workers does not demonstrate the ideology of the industries, since industries are directed by their managers and owners, not their workers.

Now, media personalities may be elite workers, to be sure, but they remain workers, not owners or executive management, and they can be, and are, reassigned or fired if their actions don't meet what the owners and executives want, ideologically or otherwise.

And exactly how do you measure that?

Well, one thing not to do is to claim that because people perceive the media is liberally biased, it must be so, ignoring all the while a decades-long propaganda effort claiming just that. if one did, one would look like a total jackass....oops, too late.

Mike gives away the game here with his repeated references to "opinion." He repeats his opinion -- or rather, the opinion given to him by repetition from conservative sources, in which he places fervent if unjustified faith -- that the media is biased, and considers all counterargument not a matter of fact or logic, but just a differing opinion.

Mine's just as good as yours, Mike insists, sitting among the ashes of his arguments and in the shadow of the towering rebuttals. And the proof for him that his opinion is just as good is that he still holds it!

(Which brings us neatly to the topic of false equivalences that started this thread. Ta-da!)

Now we see the root of the conservative inability to admit when they're wrong. Cognitive dissonance wins in a catastrophic failure of critical thinking and logic! Stupid moves into the lead!

I proved the majority of Americans think the media is biased to the liberal, that the majority of reporters are themselves liberal,

No, you didn't, on the second, you presented an unsupported claim and asked others to provide counter-evidence, which isn't the same thing as proving it. And the attempt to argue that liberal bias exists from the perception of liberal bias is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

The success of the concerted Republican effort to paint the media as biased to the left over the last several decades does not mean that the media has, in fact, become biased to the left.

The key question, though, is if what people perceive to be true actually is true in fact.

And exactly how do you measure that?

Well, by giving reporters and news consumers the same set of questions about their political leanings and then comparing the results:

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.

The findings include:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

Also see the study showing Fox News viewers having a predictably high level of ignorance and incorrect facts regarding the Iraq War whereas (gasp! liberal!) NPR viewers were the best informed, et al -- "al" being a fond reminder of the Bush administration secretly paying syndicated journalists to promote its politics.

Good times, good times.

Also telling is Mike's use of the term "potential news stories that shoot darts at either side" (emphasis added).

Notice the false equivalence here -- the Bush administration approving torture, indefinite detention and wiretapping American citizens -- abrogating the Constitution, in other words -- is a news story that "shoots darts" at the Republicans, the same as a Florida Democratic Congresscritter sex scandal.

Even so, Mike can's help but get it wrong. He says "verified that in fact Democrat's corruption and malfeasance gets reported a greater percentage of time than Republican's," when Stefan's point is not that Democratic corruption gets reported more relative to Republicans, but the Republican corruption and malfeasance gets reported less relative to the rate at it occurs.

But anyway, Mike insists, what "should be reported" is just a matter of "opinion," sothere you go!

Bravo, Mike. I'd say shame on you, but I have too much pity.

The success of the concerted Republican effort to paint the media as biased to the left over the last several decades does not mean that the media has, in fact, become biased to the left.

Indeed. And as I said, the fact that a significant percentage perceive a conservative bias in spite of this concerted Republican effort -- which goes back at least to the Nixon Administration -- could well be suggestive.

Gregory, prove to me that the media is biased conservative.

See, Mike, that's the whole problem with you not arguing in good faith -- any attempt to do prove it to you would be a mug's game, because there's no reason at all to believe you'd accept any amount of proof.

But anyway, even if you were a good faith commentatort, I don't have to. You failed to prove your affirmative case ("The media is liberally biased!") in the first place.

On top of that, there's been plenty of evidence presented to rebut your assertion. And now, predictably, you adopt the ploy of many a losing argument; Demanding that the negative prove its case.

Your gambit would be considered feeble in a high school debate, and that dog certainly won't hunt here. The burden of proof is not on me, and my silence does nothing at all to bolster your false claims of a liberal media. (One wonders, of course, if you'll be dishonest enough to claim victory anyway.)

The fact that you resort to such shabby tactics is proof enough that you don't argue in good faith. QED.

Points to Stefan and Trex for actually making an argument (Trex has the best), while Gregory and shortstop act like poo-flinging monkeys.

I stand corrected -- Mike's failure to recognize an argument is even more pathetic than his demand the negative prove its case, and that'll get you laughed off the stage in a high school debate.

Your claim of what is and is not an argument has no more credibility than any of your other claims. You don't arguie in good faith; you're in no position to give "points."

My definition of an argument? Something Mike can't rebut, and we all fall under that broad category.

Regarding proof the media is conservative, I have not so much an argument but a rhetorical question Mike, of course, ignored before: How many newspapers have business sections, and how many have labor sections?

Dishonest wins by a head!

Frum might have had the serious, substantive discussion of the issues he claimed to want if he hadn't gratuitously (and condescendingly) insulted Maddow 5 seconds into his first response.

As it is, I agree with Frum that more substantive political discourse is needed, but disagree with his contention that humor (in the form of sarcasm, irony, satire, or what have you) is absolutely antithetical to it.

Points to Stefan and Trex for actually making an argument (Trex has the best), while Gregory and shortstop act like poo-flinging monkeys.

By the way, you gotta love -- well, no, you don't, really -- the dishonesty inherent in the hackneyed right-wing tactic of pretending that Mike's failure to rebut shortstop and myself should reflect badly on us rather than him.