Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
rachel maddow

“For me it’s a question of whether you’re doing advocacy journalism or not. It’s not activism — you see a lot of that at Fox, using news coverage to inspire political participation”

SOUNDBITES — “I think of it more in the tradition of muckraking. A lot of the best reporting since time immemorial has been driven by outrage about things not being the way they should be, by the shock at shameless, lying hypocrisy. … For me it’s a question of whether you’re doing advocacy journalism or not. It’s not activism — you see a lot of that at Fox, using news coverage to inspire political participation. … I was an activist before I went into the media. It is useful for me to tell my opinion on some things I cover. But I’m not trying to get people to march in the streets or call their congressmen. I don’t believe that’s my role.” —Rachel Maddow, defending her MSNBC show against any notion of it being an activist’s soapbox (via)

On:           Feb 15, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,
    • bystander

      Rachel Maddow is just as biased and guilty of activist journalism as anyone on fox. Any attack by her on foxnews is pure hypocrisy.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 11:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter

      Except Rachel relies of facts; not innuendo and out right lies.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SFNative


      I respectfully disagree for the reason that she stated in her quote – Fox News has clearly actively participated in organizing protests against the government (that’s activistic journalism), which is different from what Rachel Maddow has done on her show. I have seen a lot of conservatives label others as activistic (such as judges who rule in favor of gay marriage) more as a response of outrage for not agreeing with them as opposed to being true to the definition of activism.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tip

      No. She doesn’t slander. She doesn’t create an alternate reality to suit her network’s goal of framing events. She doesn’t pander to people’s worst prejudices. She doesn’t use unrelated footage to make events seem more prominent than they are. She doesn’t insinuate and then take no responsibility for her words. She doesn’t under- or non-report events because they’re politically inconvenient.

      Yes, she does policy commentary, but that’s a world removed from Fox’s “Through The Looking Glass” play at make-believe.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Milkman

      Rachael Maddow may have a personal bias like anyone else in the world, but her reporting is factually sound. The world could use more like her.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      Bystander: Rachael Maddow actually uses something called “facts” in her reports, Unlike the dogma that appeals to the lunatics who take everything they hear on Faux News as facts. Like Faux News breathlessly reporting how Scarah Pallin was cleared of any misdeeds from the investigation into her manuvers while Gov. of Alaka. Except the report clearly indicated in plain black and white print that she indeed was guilty of improper actions………

      Feb 15, 2010 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexander

      Maddow proves that even though you have a pulpit on a major news channel, one must always be a journalist first, a commentator second, and and activist third. Maddow and her team do extensive research regarding anything they report on, and if they (or even one of their guests) gets a fact wrong, she makes sure to issue a correction immediately. If that’s not responsible journalism, I don’t know what is.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlwaysGay

      Rachel has the best news show on TV.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • V

      If you think her reporting is factually sound, you simply share her biases.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra

      Bystander, V,

      Unless you have evidence to support your claims, the two of you are simply voicing your own prejudices.

      Now, be good little sexually repressed homophobes and toddle off to look at the pictures of barely dressed men – which we all know is the real reason either of you are here.

      Feb 15, 2010 at 11:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dennis

      @ V

      Unless V stands for VERY misinformed, you are clearly delusional.

      The TRUTH is not a “bias”, it is a reality. Daily, right wing pundits and Faux News are called out on factual errors, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Rachel Maddow is one of the few television journalists with the courage and tenacity to call out the hypocritical bullshit that so many politicians and pundits spin. Additionally, she has been critical of the Obama administration over issues such as DADT, so charges that she is unfairly biased are plain wrong.

      If you believe otherwise, please remove your head from your ass and view the world anew.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 2:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • V

      Cassandra and Dennis:

      You are Psych 101 text book case studies, so much so that it is not really even that interesting: Whomever I don’t like is biased, but whomever I like…oh that person is totally clear-headed and objective–she must be, because she agrees with my narcissistic self!

      The giveaway is your hostility to anyone who sees things differently. I never actually said whether I disagreed with RM’s views; I merely acknowledged the fact that they are just that–views, not facts. But that was enough to send get you both apoplectic. I must be a self-hating repressed whacko, because the alternative would be that you two are walking examples of the cliche that we all privilege our own perspectives. But you are so weak-minded and insecure that you will do anything but deal with that basic fact of human psychology.

      So maybe you’re the assholes. Yes, that sounds about right.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 4:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anne

      @V: I agree that Rachel is mainly a commentator, not a reporter. But I also think that while she does give her opinions, she backs them up with facts, I find that she and her team do a great job of fact-checking and are usually very factually sound, unlike commentators on say, Fox News. I very much like her, and find her opinions interesting.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 7:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ

      She summarizes the difference between MSNBC and Fox. Fox is trying to hurt liberals, just for the sake of political scoring. I don’t think MSNBC does that. The always use reason, and I have never seen them censor or lie. It is reason on MSNBC, not gaming to help your party.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 10:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bystander

      The day she can do a show without smirking the entire hour, i’ll consider her to be a serious newscaster. I don’t dispute that she is well researched, or knowledgeable of facts. But it is entirely possible to present facts in a highly slanted fashion, and that is how her show works. I also haven’t defended foxnews. I do primarily watch foxnews, but i would never say it is entirely un-slanted. I don’t form cult-like followings to people i agree with, and try to avoid V’s meantion pysch 101 principal of:

      “Whomever I don’t like is biased, but whomever I like…oh that person is totally clear-headed and objective–she must be, because she agrees with my narcissistic self!”

      Feb 16, 2010 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon

      haha.it only took 3 comments for this thread to degenerate into a bitch-fest and 9 to send it off a cliff.

      Maddow Rocks.

      Feb 16, 2010 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sub

      “No. 2 · Peter
      Except Rachel relies of facts; not innuendo and out right lies.”

      Oh, that’s brilliant, chief. Because you agree with her viewpoint, her brand of “advocacy jourmalism” (make me puke) is the correct one, and Fox is the “biased” one? How dumb, how gullible are you, pal?

      Mar 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.