Skip to main content

View Diary: ** Petition to get CNN's Soledad O'Brien to Replace David Gregory on Meet the Press ** (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Define "fair." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    That's the problem.  "Fair" is a nebulous term.  People here think Maddow speaks "the truth" and talks about "facts," but often fail to realize that bias shows not only in WHICH facts you choose to report, but also in whether you treat the opposition's viewpoints as legitimate and worthy of consideration by your audience, even if they are different from yours.  

    Maddow starts from a premise that the core conservative views on the role of the federal government, for example, are not legitimate.  

    •  evidence of your assertion rachel believes (0+ / 0-)

      conservative views on the role of the federal govt aren't legitmate???

      she has stated, time & again, they aren't consistent, i.e. they profess to be in favor of less/smaller govt, yet demand the govt impose its will in insuring every pregnancy be brought to term -- which is not the same thing as claiming they're illegitimate.

      •  Of course it is. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Look, progressives are just as inconsistent, in claiming that the federal government should stay out of social issues, but in claiming that the federal government should "impose its will" (to use your words) in economic issues.  

        By saying that only conservatives are "inconsistent," without also recognizing the same thing on the left, that's a clear statement that only those views on the right are not legitimate, while those on the left-- which have the same "inconsistency," only in reverse -- are legitimate.  

        If consistency -- imposing the same test of government involvement in BOTH social issues and economic issues -- were paramount to Rachel Maddow, she would recognize Libertarians as the most legitimate political viewpoint, since they believe that the government should -- as much as possible -- stay out of BOTH areas, social areas and economic areas.  Instead, she approaches things from the view of supporting government imposition of more rules and regulations in economic areas, and less in social areas (like abortion).   She makes clear that she believes the progressive approach is intellectually honest and that the conservative approach is intellectually inconsistent.  

        Let me say it again -- that approach is ABSOLUTELY FNE for a show that wants to attract a partisan left-leaning audience.  But that's not what MTP is attempting to be.  

        •  you have chosen to assign your own (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VTelder

          interpretation to rachel's views & in so doing, claim it must be correct, b/c you said so.

          common sense & reason, according to you, have no place in rachel's argument about the role of govt -- it's either laissez-faire everything, or nothing -- black or white, with nothing in-between.  how fair & balanced of you.

          i submit for your consideration the following: "to be always firm must be to be often obstinate; when properly to relax is the trial of judgment"

          btw, don't know if it's flying under your radar or not, but conservatives have been waging a war against the govt for many decades now, especially so when they're not in power -- so, if, as you say, rachel characterizes conservative views as not legitimate, it seems to me she is only stating the obvious: conservatives are out to deligitimize the govt.  is it supposed to be a secret, or something?

          •  I understand that you agree with her (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            point of view.  And she does a very very very good job of articulating the progressive point of view.  My point is that some conservatives disagree with the basic, fundamental progressive position of what the federal government was set up to do.  That is a philosophical -- not a factual -- difference.   A show speaking to leftist partisans assumes that the conservative view of what role the federal government should play -- the scope of its powers and authority -- is not legitimate.  That's a philosophical -- not a factual -- conclusion.  That's completely fine and appropriate for a show aimed at partisan leftist viewers.  That's not completely fine and appropriate for a show that is attempting (even if sometimes less than successfully) to be non-partisan or not biased.   That show would ask conservatives whether a more expanded role for  the federal government in the economy would help workers at lower income levels, and would ask progressives whether the federal government's expanded role in the economy hurts the growth of private businesses.  You ask each side questions based on criticisms of that side from the opponents.  

            But I'll give you another example.  Progressives are generally followers of Keynes and Krugman in economic thought.  Conservatives generally follow Friedman and Hayek.  All are Nobel Prize winners; all are very very smart, very thoughtful, and support their theories with facts, logic, and top-notch analyses (or they wouldn't have won Nobel Prizes).  On Maddow's show, it is a given, however, that they Keynes/Krugman view of economics is the only legitimate view.  That's fine if you have an audience that agrees with that.  A non-biased host, however, would treat the theories of Friedman and Hayek as equally legitimate, question those on the left from a Friedman/Hayek point of view, and question those from the right from a Keynes/Krugman point of view.  On shows speaking only to the partisan left, however, the host's questions assume that the Keynes/Krugman views are the "correct" ones.  

            •  and your comment is an excellent example of (0+ / 0-)

              false-equivalency bs.

              rachel takes great care in building her case for progressive thought/policy based on common sense, not ideology.

              there comes a time in a discussion where truth & common sense take precedence over giving both sides equal consideration -- otherwise, how would a debating team in school, for instance, ever be declared a winner!

              history is on the side of progressives/liberals, not conservatives.  if you don't happen to agree, that's your perogative -- but it doesn't automatically mean you are correct.

              the problem with the sunday morning gasbag shows is the tiny brains of the very serious people who appear on them don't have a clue what the truth even is.

              •  NBC will never have MTP hosted by anyone (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep

                who is a self identified partisan and Rachel self identifies as a progressive.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  umm, that wasn't the point of the discussion (0+ / 0-)

                  between coffee talk & me.  it was whether ct's use of the term "legitimate" was accurate or not.  but thanks for your usual, meaningless blather.  

                  btw, i hear you've been playing the world's smallest violin lately, & you're very good at it.  8-D

    •  But she does do this, she just can not tolerate (0+ / 0-)

      "the crazy". I have seen her with consevative  guests on her show, and she does this all the time, allows them to state their views, and doesn't mock them for holding an opposing position. Please do not forget the show is called "the Rachel Maddow show". MTP would be a much different format, and I think she would do very well on it. I think the most important thing about hosting MTP, is to be informed, and not let people get away with just spouting talking points, which is what this show has evolved into with Gregory as host.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site