Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Dec 23, 2010.
She's too smug for my liking but this was just winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Link with video
Newt Gingrich is relevant because ...?
Wow. Interesting what happens when we do a little digging, isn't it?
Maddow is just too smug. I can't stand her. Even if I generally agree with her.
The best way to deal with Gingrich is to ignore him and expose his irrelevancy.
Yeah- she's a bit much, I agree. And yes, ol' Newt has been irrelevant for quite some time.
I'm a bit confused. How is Maddow smug? She's very quirky and energetic, but she's more than willing to use self deprecating humor at every turn (often calls attention to her "looking like a boy").
She even makes a point of showing when she was wrong on something.
What exactly is smug in all this? She's extremely sarcastic, but I've never seen anything I've considered smugness, not that I watch every show.
Her style is too much in the vein of Rush or Beck or Michael Moore. Generally obnoxious.
Well, I'll have to disagree on my end. I don't find her obnoxious at all, though I am (probably) much younger than you are and it she seems to be more aimed at the college crowd.
She's basically an Anti-Rush Limbaugh/Anti-Glenn Beck. It's just better to be above the fray. Her and Olbermann (and to a lesser extent Chris Matthews and his painful voice) have decided to go toe-to-toe with the Faux News clowns and so have essentially lowered themselves to the worst "infotainment" level of "journalism".
She's very rude, sarcastic, and cheers (literaly) when she gets her guests in a rut. She's just way too full of herself and way to sarcastic and unprofessional
I knew not of this person, until this post.
But after looking at some pictures of her, via Google, I find her without any warmth at all.
Superficial, yes, but
Care to point me to an example? As "rude" and "obnoxious" as her demeanor may be, during interviews I've never seen anything short of professional (and often hard hitting) journalism from her. It's almost like she's a different person when interviewing people. Of course, I haven't seen every interview she's done on the show, but I've seen quite a few and they often make me wish the media as a whole would ask the tough questions she does.
While many decry Maddow and Olbermann as little better than fox level pundity, I think their shows are generally better researched and more factual than what fox has to offer. It's also enjoyable to see liberals with some spine and conviction.
I've always felt the best way to counter mis-information is by debunking those untruths.
Allowing Glenn, Newt etc. to spew their poison un-challenged will not make it go away.
I think he's considering running for president. Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
Dammit- all of a sudden, I like her. She may be smug, but damn if the bitch is right on. Or all we "librools" supposed to be polite? Why are we "librools" so so nice?
For anyone that has 10 minutes, THIS is why I am a fan of Rachel Maddow:
I have no problem with the substance of her show, I just don't like the delivery. Call me a snob, but I like my liberalism with a little irony.
Do we all have to fit into a narrow little category? Some like nice like NPR, some like humor like The Daily Show and some like in your faceness like Maddow. I didn't join the librool partei in order to be force fed.
How is liking one delivery method over others being force fed?
I actually love all three of those you mentioned.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly but being able to choose is a good thing.
Mostly I like to read my news because I have a substantial hearing loss. Rapid fire delivery means subtitles are useless and it often means the volume goes up and down so much that headphones can be painful when someone's shouting.
NPR suits me because the delivery is generally consistent and there aren't people shouting at one another. Plus, I'm getting older and confrontational journalism on a daily basis seems pointless.
Hearing loss? You can't be that old can you?
It's a war injury from 1812.
I agree with this. I don't like their delivery, but they don't lie or spin things the way Fox often does.
Here's the thing; I don't want my journalism to be intensely personal, confrontational and "hard-hitting". I just want facts and germane discussion where policies are being explained - not a shouting match where people are trying to "win".
Yes, NPR is quite good, but if you lack egghead-ish tendencies it might seem boring, anti-visceral, not enough pictures. Oh, and the dreaded "liberal bias". I like how GK puts it: with TV, it is all there inside that little box, radio flows outward, bounded only by your imagination. And no commercials to speak of.
I personally like that internet thingy, at least when I can get text. Text you can skim and jump to the important parts, no annoying presenter's cadence, squirming graphics (well
) or manipulative inflections. Reading really does make you smarter, I think.
The video is here...http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1027203&highlight=maddow
She pesters this guy about silly things and then finally makes him jumble his words and she jumps up and down in her seat near the end of the clip. It is truly unprofessional.