I’m starting to think that Rachel Maddow has an issue or professional discomfort with taking on publicly anti-gay figures on her show. It’s an oddity, given 1) she’s out and has a high-profile; and 2) her fellow MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, has been extremely forceful as an ally on the issue by comparison. She’s spoken at length about the debacle of Prop 8, so one would assume that if given the opportunity, Maddow would address the issue with well-known homophobes.
The reticence to take on agents of intolerance surfaced in a recent interview with former GOP clown car occupant, rapist/murderer-releasing Baptist minister-without-a-theology-degree Mike Huckabee. (Think Progress):
Maddow was notably silent on the issue of gay rights when interviewing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. On Tuesday, Huckabee had insisted that gay rights and civil rights were totally different because gay rights activists’ “skulls” weren’t getting “cracked.” On Wednesday morning, Huckabee claimed that Prop. 8 “did not prohibit” gay marriage; it “simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed,” he said.
During the seven-minute interview last night, however, Maddow never forced Huckabee to defend these claims. Instead, Maddow repeatedly asked him about his future presidential plans and speculated about the influence of the Christian Right in the GOP.
Huckabee has a long history of making statements that indicate an ignorant worldview when it comes to LGBTs—as Think Progress noted, Huckabee has equated homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia, said being gay is a choice, wants sodomy recriminalized, and would like to see gay couples banned from adopting, and prevent same-sex partners from receiving spousal survival benefits.
Now here comes the interesting part to discuss here in the coffeehouse. Maddow was contacted by ThinkProgress to ask why she avoided LGBT issues with Huck. Her response? See it after the jump.
Rachel Maddow:
I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don’t care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn’t bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her—it’s just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.
For me that is a problem. High profile figures like Huckabee and Palin too often get a pass for beliefs (ones held by too many Americans) that result in a measure like Prop 8 passing. IMHO, these views must be challenged as often as possible—and Rachel Maddow has a platform most of us do not have.
That she doesn’t find the views interesting is disturbing (a majority of voters in California just removed a civil right granted to a group of tax-paying citizens by the state of California!). Views articulated by Huckabee, a former governor and likely 2012 presidential candidate, on his belief that discrimination should be legal against any group of law-abiding citizens IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. The fact that the airwaves are bombarded with ignorance and outright lies by the likes of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Rachel’s buddy Pat Buchanan means the scales are seriously out of balance, and you’d think Maddow would recognize that the issue is “newsworthy” for a host of reasons; you obviously don’t have to be a lesbian to get the picture.
Perhaps Rachel needs some coaching from KO on the matter.
UPDATE: I found the reaction of some of my readers interesting and distressing in a way—they want to give a pass to Maddow for playing nice with Huckabee ("conservatives"). I didn’t say scream or yell at the man, simply ask him about comments he made on the record. She’s there to do commentary and reporting. Huckabee is there to SELL A BOOK—does that mean he gets to pick the question? Nope. A book tour doesn’t grant a political figure immunity from questions about his political views.
I guess if Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond toured with a self-serving book about politics and came on her show, these same people going soft on Maddow wouldn’t think it’s relevant to talk about those late senators’ bigoted worldviews that informed their political decisions? This is a big problem I have with a lot of the media talking heads who are more concerned about “the get” than journalism; mind you these are the same figures that poo-poo the blogosphere for lack of ethics. Huckabee’s public views on legislating civil rights at the ballot box is indeed a relevant issue if he intends to ask Americans for his vote in 2012, and particularly if he’s continuing to sell his brand of social conservatism as a viable political commodity.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Even though I don’t agree with her decision, I can kinda-sorta see where someone would come to it. It may not be so much that she doesn’t care, but that it would come across as her injecting her personal life into the interviews and give the right wing a talking point against her. As in, she’s spending all of her time talking about things that affect her personally and not discussing real issues.
Again, I don’t agree with her, but I think that’s the rationale. It is, unfortunately, a symptom of the way the right wing has made it impossible for people who are actually affected by a particular issue to discuss it because they’re not “objective.” Only a white man can discuss racism and sexism “objectively,” etc.
I think her point--and I’m not saying I defend it--is that no one is going to be surprised by or even informed by the knowledge that Huckabee or Palin or anyone like that is anti-gay. It’s pretty much common knowledge, so why belabor the point?
Now I say that we ought to belabor the point, because Huckabee and Palin in particular use religious belief as a shield from charges of bigotry--I wrote about that issue this morning, as a matter of fact, in the context of the Prop 8 argument. If a politician were trying to use religious belief as a screen for racist statements, religious people would call bullshit on him or her, but they give politicians a pass on anti-gay statements. That has to stop.
Seems to me that this is a result of the same misguided views that kept the words gay and lesbian out of the anti-prop 8 commercials.
“Everybody knows he’s anti-gay so I don’t need to talk to him about it” turns very rapidly into “Well, Rachel Maddow had him on her show, and she didn’t care, so it can’t really be that big a deal to gay people. The activists are just bleating again.”
I do think that this is not a universal thing. If she were the journalist tapped to ask, say Pailn, about her economic policy for Alaska or such, in the context of a specific news event, then no, it would be potentially unnecessary, or even unprofessional, to go off topic.
But in a world where the Hannities of the world turn everything into interest group spin, and in which she is at least in part a spokesperson for the community, then I agree completely, she should have at least raised the point.
Do we imagine if, say, Richard Dawkins, appeared on a Christian news show to hawk a book of his, that they would not bother to mention his views on religion?
What Maddow’s approach does it buy into the worldview where being gay or discussing gay issues politely or rationally is simply not done in polite society. I normally approve of Rachel. She blew this one badly.
I think that part of it is that while she is a pundit that is gay, she is afraid of her gayness defining her as a pundit. She doesn’t want to end up being the one they only call when there is a gay issue to discuss.
This isn’t new, she has always notably reticent to get involved with “gay” topics on MSNBC. Last week on Conan was the first time I have seen her discuss her lesbianism in front of a TV camera. I can’t say I blame her, it’s very easy to get ghetto-ised as a pundit into your subculture. Ask any african-american pundit.
Comment #4: Bruce from Missouri on 11/24 at 01:02 PM
I should add that my point is especially valid because Maddow is openly gay, but even if she weren’t, she is and has positioned herself as a voice for Democrats and for liberals (or at least those more liberal than the other shows like Hannity etc.), and goddamn it, gay rights are a valid and topical issue for our side. WTF?
I believe Rachel is attempting to do something KO can’t do anymore, and that is to maintain access to the opposition for interview purposes. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic about this. If she goes after Huck with a full-forced criticism of his views on gay rights issues, she jeopardizes future access to interviews of those on the right, which I think she doesn’t want to do.
I’m torn on this matter. While on one level, I do wish Maddow would have taken Huckabee to task on the matter, I somehwat understand her hesitation. She’s a new face on the tube, and she hasn’t yet carved out a strongly held public perception of her identity. If she goes the KO route of direct confrontationalism, she runs the risk of being compared to him, and then she ceases to have her own unique identity on the network. Which means she risks cancellation.
While I do love much of what Keith Olbermann does and the fact that he’s about the only one out there who will unabashedly go after the policies and ideals of the other side without pulling any punches, I also appreciate that to a large swath of moderates in America, he’s been reduced to left-leaning version of Bill O’Reilly. He’s as hated by the right as we on the left hate O’Reilly. And many in the middle have come to hate them both.
I think Maddow is trying to avoid falling into that pit. Whether that makes her too milquetoast or not, I don’t know. It’s tough maintaining a passion for your ideological perspective without letting that passion come out in ranting anger sometimes (even when the ranting anger is completely justified, as is the case with matters like Prop 8).
First off, I would not have the asshole on my show to promote his book. Let his book tour keep me on the wingnut stations.
Second, I don’t entirely disagree with Maddow. What should she have done, fucked her show by getting the huckster to say what everyone knows he would say, that jeebus made everyone straight except for those nasty gays? What’s the point?
I don’t know why you’d have someone like huckabee on your show unless you were going to engage him and shove his bigotry right back down his christianist throat but again, what’s the point?
I don’t know, the first mistake was giving the asshole airtime. Once you’ve done it’s hard to make something good of it.
What is most perplexing about this is that I have seen Ellen Degeneres, who is usually apolitical, bring up these issues with politicians like Sen Clinton and Sen McCain.
I also had some thoughts like Mnemosyne’s and DGT’s that it was probably a pragmatic image choice.
The problem is that even Rachel Maddow, someone who does have a dog in the hunt, avoids this relevant topic. It’s not a matter of boxing her in as a lesbian, it’s the fact that part of her “mainstreaming” is to become just like the other faux journalists and commentators on the air—coddle the politicians hawking a book regardless of their political beliefs.
It doesn’t mean “go activist” and shout at the man, it means posing the questions and raising the hypocrisy for all to see. That doesn’t make her the “lesbian host” it makes her a journalist.
Step back for a second - are people saying that the fact that Maddow is out of the closet means she has to closet this ONE aspect of her also very out progressive views)? She certainly doesn’t hold back on any other area. As I said, if KO can discuss the issue, surely she can, not as an activist, but as a journalist. I’m addressing the latter, not the former.
It’s feeding into the belief that merely asking about LGBT rights is activism, as opposed to a newsworthy topic. People in CA just went to the polls and rolled back civil rights—a position the former governor holds is legitimate. That renders it newsworthy, given Huckabee’s position on it as well as his support for an amendment that passed in his state that bans gays and lesbians from adopting.
There is a downside to challenging people who are well known homophobes: you become that GAY reporter or commentator and all the other things that make you a good newsperson can get swamped by that.
It almost seems as if Maddow gets tired of being that LESBIAN and triages out the most flaming batshit homophobes so she can ask other questions and not appear to be a one-issue commentator.
you become that GAY reporter or commentator and all the other things that make you a good newsperson can get swamped by that.
So are we saying that only known-to-be-straight (or professionally closeted) journalists can ask questions about LGBT rights? That’s the official Anderson Cooper reason for not clearing the air—are people really ok with that? It sounds to me like a double standard for journalists being advocated—by progressives, no less.
No one is asking her to turn her show into GAY TV, it’s about whether relevant topics related to LGBT rights will be avoided because the host in question is gay. I suppose Latino reporters shouldn’t cover Latino issues either—it might draw attention to their ethnic heritage and well…
I think it’s time for a healthy discussion about this because it does us no good to enable the obvious silence on LGBT issues when it appears.
It almost seems as if Maddow gets tired of being that LESBIAN and triages out the most flaming batshit homophobes so she can ask other questions and not appear to be a one-issue commentator.
Except that Huckabee IS a flaming batshit homophobe. And he’s expressed his batshittery in the past week, which kind of makes it count as news. Maybe not NYT-front-page news, but certainly evening pundit show news.
… maintain access to the opposition for interview purposes...jeopardizes future access to interviews of those on the right…
This is where the press rolled over and failed us with the Bush administration--access was key and don’t ask any hard questions, or they won’t let you in anymore. But what is the point of access if you never use it to do any journalism? Who cares if Huck and his ilk are willing to come on your show when you never ask them anything relevant? You might as well be hosting the Tonight Show, then. Jesus, we’ve gotten to the point when David Fucking Letterman provided the most in-depth, on-point interview of a presidential candidate this last election cycle.
Pam’s point is especially urgent for promoters of Huckabee’s book to note, because Huckabee seems - at least to me - to be touting his anti-tax anti-spending as keys to his conservatism. You could be fooled into thinking this guy is a libertarian who isn’t so dangerous for gays, especially if gay rights aren’t considered important or interesting to discuss, and especially if his views are considered ok just because they’re “heartfelt,” as Maddow characterizes them, or just because they’re personal.
No extent of heart or personal conviction can change that this guy has public policy views dangerous to a vulnerable minority. And given that that aspect of Huckabee is not prominent in his promotions thus far, people should know before supporting him by buying his book.
There is a downside to challenging people who are well known homophobes: you become that GAY reporter or commentator and all the other things that make you a good newsperson can get swamped by that.
Yup. I think it was a purely pragmatic choice. It’s very similar to what Obama had to do with regards to racial civil rights issues, which was to more or less avoid the topic altogether.
It’s terribly unfortunate, but it is what it is. If Maddow did take the approach of challenging Huck’s views on gay rights, she wouldn’t be characterized as a progressive journalist challenging anti-progressive views. She would be characterized as a gay journalist challenging anti-gay views. Similarly, if Obama had focused heavily on the racial inequities that still plague this nation, he wouldn’t characterized as the liberal Democratic POTUS nominee focusing on a genuinely relevant topic, he’d be the new Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson. And he probably wouldn’t be the POTUS right now.
A book tour doesn’t grant a political figure immunity from questions about his political views.
In the world of the MSM, it generally does. I’ve seen it happen first-hand, and it’s one of the many reasons I left journalism.
The rules aren’t as bad as what you see with film industry junkets or the late-night talk shows, but a book tour is still more about info-tainment than hard news. MSNBC’s bookers want continued access to a publisher or agent’s clients, so they agree in advance what’s off-limits and what must to be discussed. And the minute a journalist accedes to that corporate agenda, he’s compromised. Maddow isn’t unique in that regard—she’s not the worst by a long stretch, but she has to play the access journalism corporate game just like Anderson Cooper does.
Olbermann used to be a sports guy, and sports is one of the last mainstream journalism sub-cultures where those restrictions aren’t in place. He also has the power to tell the bookers not to make deals on what can and can’t be discussed, at which point they hand these kinds of interviews to the other talent. The amazing thing about K-O is that he’s a no-BS guy who’s managed to make the transition to non-sports journalism and thrive in an industry that runs on the stuff.
Who cares if Huck and his ilk are willing to come on your show when you never ask them anything relevant? You might as well be hosting the Tonight Show, then. Jesus, we’ve gotten to the point when David Fucking Letterman provided the most in-depth, on-point interview of a presidential candidate this last election cycle.
Thank you. Lapdog journalism and focusing on “the get” is why the media deserves a bad rap. Don’t get all high and mighty about the profession when it’s clear that access to Mike Huckabee selling his book means more than getting at the truth of the contradiction of his positions.
So are we saying that only known-to-be-straight (or professionally closeted) journalists can ask questions about LGBT rights?
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of supporting or agreeing with that position as it is a matter of seeing that position as being the present reality. Journalist who belong to an “other” class are always faced with a double-standard in that their motives are always questioned when they challenge opposition viewpoints about matters that affect them personally.
She would be characterized as a gay journalist challenging anti-gay views.
Well, she is a gay journalist and seems completely up-front about it.
But still, if she’s trying to maintain the focus on the “journalist” part of that identity I think it makes a lot of sense to try to get Huckabee to say something new, or interesting, or *something*. There are things that would surprise me a lot less than learning that Maddow has heard nearly every stupid homophobic argument in the book and is bored by them. I expect that Huckabee has heard nearly every anti-homophobic argument (stupid and otherwise) and hasn’t been swayed, either, and the whole thing has gotten just completely rote and by-the-numbers. Huckabee does do a great interview and he’s a pretty engaging guy for someone so completely batshit, and I don’t blame Maddow for wanting to do good TV.
As a doddering old lesbian I’m not interested in a rehash of the same old crap I’ve been hearing for decades, myself.
I agree with mothworm - what’s the point of journalism if there’s no intent to inform the public or probe into the views of our politicians.
You saw this with Sarah “Why should I grant interviews?” Palin - she wasn’t a politician, she was a celebrity. Many, many, MANY of the people who wanted to elect her wanted to do so because she was pretty, or a mom, or because Alaska poops rainbows, or some such crap.
American politics is becoming the new American Idol, and it’s ridiculous. The “media” should NOT be helping this trend along.
Olbermann used to be a sports guy, and sports is one of the last mainstream journalism sub-cultures where those restrictions aren’t in place. He also has the power to tell the bookers not to make deals on what can and can’t be discussed, at which point they hand these kinds of interviews to the other talent. The amazing thing about K-O is that he’s a no-BS guy who’s managed to make the transition to non-sports journalism and thrive in an industry that runs on the stuff.
Agreed, though I think Olbermann’s rise was largely paved by Murdoch, very unintentionally.
Fox News was groundbreaking in that it was the first mainstream “news” (HAHA) network to approach the news from a clearly ideological perspective. Conservatives flocked to it in droves because they had built up years of an unwarranted persecution complex against the supposedly “liberal” mainstream media. Progressives and other left-leaners felt left out in the cold, and so a niche was opened up. Voila, and in March 2003, at the start of the Iraq War, we get Keith Olbermann as the first mainstream news analyst to advocate unrelentingly for progressive ideology.
Well, doesn’t the fact that a journalist is affected personally by an issue make her more qualified to raise provocative questions about it, given that a human face can then be put on the point that discrimination has victims.
Well, doesn’t the fact that a journalist is affected personally by an issue make her more qualified to raise provocative questions about it
Absolutely - but we need to understand her reasons for her choices, even when they would not be our choices, make no sense to us, etc. She is navigating in a rarified strata of national media and she knows that world better than those who watch from the armchair do. I’m inclined to cut her slack as a professional and as a human who might get tired of carrying the mantle and being expected to push in areas where she knows it will do no good, or, worse, give Huckabubble a bully pulpit for his hate.
I bet she’s shielding herself from being marginalized. If you are female, gay, or black, and you talk about feminism, GLBT rights, or racism, suddenly that becomes your sole defining trait to people. I look at how often Pandagon is described as a feminist blog, when I think it’s more accurate to describe it as a liberal political blog, with feminism being one aspect of what goes on here. Maddow wants her position in the media to be that of the friendly, commonsensical liberal whose opinions are based around research, facts, and science. Now she knows, and you know, and I know that the research, facts, and science incline towards the pro-same-sex marriage side. But if she gets aggressive on gay rights, she’ll move from the “funny policy wonk” category to the “lesbian feminist” category, and that’s considered a special interest and her position will not be secure.
It’s not just hosts---pundits are cagey about it, too. If your main interest is feminism, anti-racism, or GLBT activism, then it’s not a problem to be marginalized that way as a pundit. You’ll get called when those are the topic. But say you’re black and you’re interested in being put on TV as a pundit on various topics: foreign policy, economics, horse race stuff. You’re going to avoid the topic of race, or you’re risking marginalization.
The Obama campaign was acutely aware of this problem, and until it became unavoidable, they did everything in their power to avoid the topic of race.
Agreed, though I think Olbermann’s rise was largely paved by Murdoch, very unintentionally.
Yeah, that’s an observation worth making. MSNBC decided to position itself as a (somewhat) liberal partisan counterpart to Faux News, and (since no-BS reality has a liberal bias) they made an excellent choice using Olbermann to host their answer to Falafel.
I don’t think because she is out she is under any special obligation to inquire about Huckabee’s views on homosexuality. I think her say it isn’t interesting is right - given a few minutes to spend with a guest, I guess I don’t see the need to go over well-known views (even if repugnant) that most if not all of the audience is aware of, nor do I see the need to give a few minutes more time on cable news to airing subtle (or not-so-subtle) gay bashing.
What’s the topic of Huckabee’s book? If it has anything to do with gay rights, the questions should have been asked. If that didn’t figure prominently in the book, then Maddow should have stuck to the issues discussed in the book and grilled him on those. Clearly Prop 8 and conservative Xtian anti-gay activism are the elephants in the room on a Maddow-Huckabee interview, but if those issues weren’t relevant to the topic of the book, Maddow could look like she was going after Huck in a non-objective way, and that could scare off other conservatives from appearing on her show.
Pam, I’m not totally disagreeing with you ... but I think that Maddow wants to be the best damn newsperson out there, not the best damn lesbian issues newswoman, and she is saying as much under cover of “won’t do any good so why bother”.
While you may see it as a chance to call Huckabubble on his shit, she might also see it as yet another soapbox for him, providing footage of him “doing battle against the Gay satan” by going down that road, even if he gets the worst of it from any objective point of view.
I suppose Latino reporters shouldn’t cover Latino issues either—it might draw attention to their ethnic heritage and well…
That’s what I was saying—like it or not, Latino/a reporters are steered away from covering issues like immigration because they can be dismissed as “not objective.” After all, they’re covering an issue that directly affects them or people like them, so you can’t actually take anything they say on the subject seriously, because they’re just trying to get what they want. The only minorities who can be taken seriously in the media are the ones who go against the mainstream, like Ward Connerly and his anti-affirmative action crusade. Since he’s doing something that adversely affects “his” people, that makes him a serious person, because he’s willing to throw them under the bus.
I’m not saying it doesn’t suck that the right wing has rolled the media to the extent that they actually believe that a person directly affected by a story is the worst person to report that story, but that’s what we’ve come to.
But say you’re black and you’re interested in being put on TV as a pundit on various topics: foreign policy, economics, horse race stuff. You’re going to avoid the topic of race, or you’re risking marginalization.
I don’t think that’s the case anymore. You see black pundits (liberal and conservative ones) cropping up everywhere and they aren’t only discussing race—they are discussing policy. That’s one of the liberating things that has occurred in the wake of the Obama campaign. It’s like “a ha—they can speak about more than race matters”, as if we (blacks) don’t care about health care, the economy or anything else the dominant culture does.
Same in this instance—it isn’t as if LGBT issues are some underground movement. Civil rights issues affecting gays and lesbians were on the ballot in 4 states and civil rights got trounced by majority vote. We have a pol on a book tour talking about repackaging conservatism for the next election cycle. Any journalist worth his/her salt would question the ludicrous batshit views of Huckabee, including Maddow.
We have to come to grips with the squidginess the left has about dealing with this topic and holding talented frauds like Huckabee under the microscope. If not, we’ll see his framing of social conservatism rule the day, unchallenged by progressives like Maddow.
Any journalist worth his/her salt would question the ludicrous batshit views of Huckabee, including Maddow.
Back up Pam, just back up, and ask yourself one question:
What the hell good would it do?
Oh, I’m sure we all would find that kind of flaying more than a little satisfying ... and so would the Huckabubblites. Their Martyr is being picked on! By a big, bad Lesbian MSM news womyn! Not only would he have a soap box for his hatemongering and dogwhistling, they would have an “example” about how we’re so meaaaann with all our evile thinking!
It isn’t news ... so much better to tackle some of the other FAIL that characterized Huckabubble’s work as governor ... like, releasing a child rapist to do shit that makes Willy Horton seem tame.
What good does it do not to? By not addressing it, you’re enabling it. You’re allowing the people who believed the lies about Prop 8 to continue believing them. You’re allowing christofascists to continue hiding behind a facade of public virtue. We’re not aiming at changing Huck’s mind, we’re aiming at exposing the lies and hypocrisy to those that have never seen it challenged.
It’s like asking “what good does it do to come out of the closet?”. Visibility is key.
I think you just reach a loggerheads with a known commodity like Huckabee; you could ask him about abortion, and it’s “we have to protect life,” and then you’re down the rabbit hole. Ask him about gay marriage, and it’s “traditional definition, etc.” and then you’re off. You could puncture his illogic 100 different ways, and all you’ve done is floundered in the finger trap for 5-10 minutes; 5-10 minutes where he gets to re-air his views [as Bryce pointed out above.]
You’re allowing christofascists to continue hiding behind a facade of public virtue.
Is it much better to bring up the subject so they can dogwhistle Dixie to their faithful and run an entire circular news cycle about how mean you were so they get to replay it again and again?
It’s very similar to what Obama had to do with regards to racial civil rights issues, which was to more or less avoid the topic altogether.
It’s terribly unfortunate, but it is what it is. If Maddow did take the approach of challenging Huck’s views on gay rights, she wouldn’t be characterized as a progressive journalist challenging anti-progressive views. She would be characterized as a gay journalist challenging anti-gay views.
I think this is it. I like Rachel Maddow a lot, and though I am disappointed in the interview, her show is very new. MSNBC gave that tool David Gregory a show before her. No Republicans were willing to go on her show for weeks--absolutely no one from the McCain campaign would go on until she began making a loud point about the fact they were scared to go on her show.
And make no mistake, they are afraid of her. She’s smart as a whip and won’t sit back and let lying go unchallenged.
But journalism is not at all what it once was. Keith Olberman has wonderful Special Commentaries, but he still has really stupid segments and runs a bit of a boys’ club. I don’t really watch him anymore, and think if Rachel had the clout, her show could kick all kinds of butt.
But she’s going to have to earn the cred. She has to get the GOP to come onto her program, and that means occasionally she’s going to have to go soft on them. She’ll skewer Huckabee on her own time, but for now, when he’s willing to go on the show, she’s going to play nice.
It’s a shame, b/c she’s one of the few journalists out there who is really smart enough to do real journalism. But she also wants to keep her show on the air. She simply can’t do both b/c our MSM is completely fucked up.
I watched Across the Universe last night, and there’s a scene where one poltical activist is donating a spare TV to another b/c “we can get live feeds from Viet Nam now”.
We’ve never gotten the straight dope from Iraq. Lara Logan tried, but it wasn’t just Pravda Fox that let us down. There was no “free” press during the run up for war and there’s been no free press coming out of Iraq.
You would think that civil rights would be a big time MSM topic, but the proper framing isn’t out there. Rachel can’t frame the issue all on her own, especially since she’s NOT all on her own. I’m not sure how much control of her own show she has at this point, but it’s not going to be as much as Keith’s.
Topic? Boo on Rachel’s softsell for Huckabee. But keep that job, build your clout, and make me proud someday.
Comment #36: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 11/24 at 02:38 PM
What the hell good would it do?
It would do a lot of good because Rachel Maddow is brilliant, she is perfectly capable of calmly framing this issue in a way that counters Huckabee’s gift as a communicator with the fraudulence of his political views—that no matter how he tries to repackage social conservatism (and that’s what his book is about), the positions he advocates are antithetical to constitutional principles and civil rights most of us hold dear.
There’s no need to do an O’Reilly on the guy—just address the issue in the context of his book’s topic. Does Huckabee believe that the majority of Americans want to determine rights at the ballot box? Is this an important issue for him to sell in his new vision of conservatism, or does he think that his views may be in direct conflict with the libertarian wing of the party that has had it with the bible beaters? Turn it into the intra-party struggle vs. a call for LGBT rights. That keeps it on-topic and forces the former governor to defend his book’s vision. It in no way compromises Maddow (or any journalist) on the matter. What I’m hearing is that Maddow is handicapped from even doing that because her orientation compromises her.
This should remind folks that being a brainiac openly lesbian..progressive with a major soapbox…
is not enough for some.
I agree with those who write about the high tightrope Obama had]has to balance on.
Why is it..whenever anyone we are excited about is able to reach prominence…
falls short on our individual check-list...we condemn a specific slice-of-life?
Just look at what she has accomplished since her September debut..
Just look at her history so far.
What I admire about Rachel is her skill in moving beyond the cheap “gotcha’s” .
I can certainly see not bringing it up if the interview is about a specific topic other than gay rights; e.g., the economy. However, in an interview such as this one it would seem to be fair game. She might have said, “Will the Log Cabin Republicans ever have a place at the table?” Or some such.
Obliquely, she might have asked if clinging to the bible-belt social issues is making the Republican Party a regional party instead of a national party.
What I’m hearing is that Maddow is handicapped from even doing that because her orientation compromises her.
Yes, it does, especially in the wake of the nationwide Prop 8 protests. Anything she says at this point can be used to paint her as an “activist” and not a journalist, and gives the Republicans who’ve finally started going on her show an excuse to shun her again. Not only that, it gives the rest of the media space to start pressuring Democrats to not go on—after all, she’s just a gay rights activist, not a real journalist like Bill O’Reilly!
I think that six months from now, when the issue of Prop 8 isn’t so much in front of everyone, she might be more free to address it. But to do it RIGHT NOW when the issue is very public and very rancorous is basically asking her to end her career.
I think it would be more productive to pressure Anderson Cooper—he’s at a point in his career where it wouldn’t harm him much to become a bit of an activist. Or at least to officially come out, fer Chrissakes.
at a point in his career where it wouldn’t harm him much to become a bit of an activist.
Again, you’re accepting the frame that to discuss LGBT issues if you’re not heterosexual, is activism, not journalism. Would we be saying the same thing if Huckabee was asked about the Arkansas adoption ban by, say, Tom Brokaw if the former came on to shill his book? The topic is relevant because it was an election issue, and the former governor has a clear position on that as well as the future of the GOP and social conservatism.
I’m not a member of the LGBT group. I’d interview Huckabee and the rest of them any time, any place over civil rights - no matter who is being discriminated against. And I’d do it objectively and politely.
Their feet need to feel the heat.
If it meant allowing them to repeat their bullshit, good. That way more people will hear it, the kind of people who tune in to Rachel and Keith’s programs instead of the reps of the hate movement like Limbic and his ilk.
I have to say it is useful to ask pointed questions of assholes like Huckabee on these topics. They generally flail around, dancing around the issue, but if you keep hammering at them, they come clean about the depths of their ignorance. Witness the beauty of Lawrence O’Donnell asking Pat Buchanan straight up what he thinks of evolution. Buchanan finally cracked and admitted that he’s a creationist, and he was ashamed. As he should be. It was awesome.
After all, they’re covering an issue that directly affects them or people like them, so you can’t actually take anything they say on the subject seriously, because they’re just trying to get what they want.
The “problem” with liberalism in journalism is that it assumes that everyone is people like us. Identifying with the subjects of a news story has been cast as shameful - you have to other them or you can’t possibly be objective. But the news happens to people and impacts people’s lives, and fundamental human decency requires having some level of empathy.
It’s where the Village mindset comes from. They’re in their zeppelin, hovering across America and describing what the little people are doing. But if you want to see them as people rather than ants, you have to get out of the zeppelin - and they won’t let you back in.
I don’t know if that made sense. It did in my head.
Is it much better to bring up the subject so they can dogwhistle Dixie to their faithful and run an entire circular news cycle about how mean you were so they get to replay it again and again?
Then I ask again, what is the point of having Huckabee on your show if you don’t press him about any of the issues he supports? His mere, unchallenged presence on a show like that is a dog whistle to conservatives that they can get away with this shit and liberals will still “play nice”, because, god forbid, a conservative fuckwad won’t show up for a cushy interview.
Not addressing these people directly is what leads to people like Mike Huckabee (for crissakes, Mike Huckabee!) being seen as viable presidential candidates.
Let them bleat about being treated unfairly. And let them run clips of a meanine Maddow (or whoever), and every time, at least one other person will see that he doesn’t stand for anything but hate and hypocrisy.
“Did you really make say bigoted homophobic thing X the other day?”
“Yep, I’m a homophobic bigot.”
“Don’t you think maybe you ought to stop being a homophobic bigot?”
“Nope.”
Actually, the interview wouldn’t go that way. Let’s say Olbermann somehow got the interview, no restrictions. If he asked the question “Why don’t you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry,” Huckabee would try to double-talk his way around his bigotry. And it’s an independent journalist’s job to call people on that kind of BS in clear, straightforward language.
So, continuing with our hypothetical, Olbermann would likely hammering away at the lies and misdirections until just before the end of the interview—at which point he’d toss in the book plug, forcing Huckabee make the usual “thanks for coming on the show/thanks for having me” ritual.
But this is television news, so the rules were in place and the interview went to someone who was willing to follow them. It doesn’t make Maddow a bad journalist, just one who’s not as independent as Olbermann.
It doesn’t make Maddow a bad journalist, just one who’s not as independent as Olbermann.
For all of her rather steep rise, Maddow is still a rather junior commentator. She does not have the same leverage or latitude that much more senior people have, whether or not she has her own show. As such, she will not be as independent - at least, not as independent as somebody who has fully paid their dues.
Just because she has her own show does not mean she calls all the shots or is the master of the game.
The ONLY reason I can think of that would excuse this is that with an issue so close to home I know I would get really mad and maybe unprofessional. I can see her avoiding it because she might not be able to avoid the ugly reaction she might give someone so small minded.
That being said: I don’t get paid to ask those kinds of questions, she does. I don’t get the chance to question an asshole like this on national television, she did.
I’m inclined to wonder whether Maddow is simply refusing to be pigeonholed as a “gay journalist”, obliged to act as the house rep for homosexuality every time she opens her mouth.
Again, you’re accepting the frame that to discuss LGBT issues if you’re not heterosexual, is activism, not journalism.
So we should pretend the frame isn’t there and then be shocked and upset when Maddow loses her job?
I may have a different feeling about it since I’m in California and just watched Prop 8 pass because of incredibly bad strategy on our side, but there is something to be said for working strategically. I’m not sure what the strategic value is of having Maddow jeopardize her career when her show hasn’t been on the air 6 months.
Hi, give me a break. When Rachel says Huckabee’s a “doctrinaire theocrat”, she means that his responses to questions about gay people can be accurately predicted by looking at all the other wealth of collected statements from people with similar philosophies. Words mean things. It simply DOESN’T BEAR ASKING since the answer is already known with a great deal of accuracy. His views aren’t more or less radical than the rest of the religious terrorists he pals around with, so none of his anti-gay views are really noteworthy.
Rachel is OUT, but that doesn’t mean she’s the standard bearer for all LGBT concerns and causes, as strongly as she may feel about them personally.
What’s with these losers, like Bobbita here, changing leftists’ names? “Ricky”?? “Mandy”?? Are they even more infantile and stupid than their wrapper proclaims?
OHHHhh, I get it, they think this somehow shows they control these women somehow.
Well, Lil’ Bobsterloo, you don’t.
Comment #54: Eric, Rejector of Memez on 11/24 at 06:04 PM
Huckabee’s public views on legislating civil rights at the ballot box is indeed a relevant issue if he intends to ask Americans for his vote in 2012, and particularly if he’s continuing to sell his brand of social conservatism as a viable political commodity.
Shorter Pammy: “How dare Huckabee use democracy as a tool of governance!! The outrage!”
I’m disappointed in her. Not because she’s wrong in general, though—it IS pretty boring/frustrating to ask a homophobe about being a homophobe. Normally. In this case, though he’s defending a recent ballot box initiative by saying things that are demonstrably untrue. That warrants further inquiry. If Huckabee says the line about Prop 8 not removing a civil right enough times, people will believe it.
Just a word to those who would even deign to notice Bob Zimerman. He’s a hateful little nothing who never, ever has an arguable—or even coherent—point. He’s like a particularly snotty kid interjecting as the adults talk. My own advice is to ignore him in this thread and in all others, because he’s just an attention-seeking provocateur, not a debater, and to pay attention to him is to indulge him and demean whatever debate we’re having.
We have conservatives here who make rational points with which we disagree, and defend them rationally. Bob Zimerman ain’t one of them. I ain’t telling any of you what to do. I’m just giving strongly held advice.
Look, all this discussion, which is very good, aside, I’m willing to give Rachel a pass on this. Why?
Because she’s new. She’s liberal. She’s a woman. She’s intelligent. All four of things, especially in concert, work against her success. Maddow is making it happen anyway and it’s better for all us.
Yes, if she continues to be spineless, I’ll bitch about it but for now, I won’t lambaste her (too much).
Oh, and please ignore the winged monkeys. Honestly, they’re not very bright but they have been told what to say to try to gin up some arguing. It’s not worth it. Anyone with the balls (or ovaries) to call Amanda “Mandy” can’t be all that fucking smart, right?
Rachel is OUT, but that doesn’t mean she’s the standard bearer for all LGBT concerns and causes, as strongly as she may feel about them personally.
Who said she has to be?! Are you saying then that she cannot ask any questions about any LGBT issues at any time?
I am talking about this one guest, this one opportunity, and the issue of passing over newsworthy issues—the passage of ballot initiatives that reflect the political views of that guest who is appearing on the show to hawk a book.
That doesn’t translate into wrapping oneself in a rainbow flag and protesting. FAIL.
The ball, she dropped it. So long as the left preemptively kowtows to accusations of bias or “special interest” or (my favorite) “PC” when it comes to perfectly legitimate, urgent societal discourse, we lose. Even the wingnuts lose, because some of them have intelligence, and compassion, and the ability to be objective deep down in their pork rind hearts and it must be talked about. It’s NEWS, for the love of crap.
But that said, Rachel is my sassy television girlfriend and is entitled to lob whatever soft/hard/knuckle balls she desires on her very-first-ever TV program. She didn’t do her job on this one but I’m not changing the channel. This time.
Yes, Pam, it is fail, but again, Maddow doesn’t have full control of her show, it hasn’t been on long, she does not have the clout to do real journalism.
She let him hawk the book in order to stay on the air. Someone higher at MSNBC may very well have had a hand in it.
Just as Obama couldn’t lose his cool for fear of being labelled AngryBlackMan and thereby losing the election, Maddow also has to play a game. Right now, she has to get Republicans to come on her show, or it won’t be her show anymore.
Once she has the clout, once she has the reputation, then Republicans won’t be able to avoid her show without looking like they are afraid of her. Being afraid of a lesbian isn’t a good thing in Wingnuttia.
Obama went on O’Reilly’s show. It pissed me off, b/c O’Reilly is scum, but it shut up everyone who wanted to claim he was a lightweight and too afraid to face The Loofah Factor. Same thing here. Fail, but strategic planning for the long game.
We have to get the clout in order to use it. It does no real good for Rachel Maddow to Ashleigh Banfield herself.
Comment #62: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 11/24 at 08:13 PM
Maddow doesn’t have full control of her show, it hasn’t been on long, she does not have the clout to do real journalism. She let him hawk the book in order to stay on the air. Someone higher at MSNBC may very well have had a hand in it.
Do you have any evidence of this? Maddow herself said she didn’t find the issue interesting, so you’re not taking her at her word? So which is it?
If it’s the former, then she’s just sitting there like a puppet being manipulated by her bosses about what to say and what not to say. That’s pretty insulting. No one stops her from addressing equally inflammatory issues from the progressive viewpoint, why is it this particular one - gay rights—that she gets a pass on?
We have to get the clout in order to use it.
And taking you at your word, does this mean she cannot cover any LGBT issues lest her status as an out journalist jeopardize her show? I’m not clear on what line she cannot cross when it comes to these issues simply because she chooses not to be professionally closeted.
seeker, ice weasel: on ignoring: you’re right, my bad. I’ll try to remember.
Comment #64: Eric, Rejector of Memez on 11/24 at 09:13 PM
On Huckabee: if you think RM or anyone could easily pin him down, you haven’t seen him in action. He’s VERY slick, very likable, and he’s had years of practice.
I was RELIEVED when he didn’t get the VP nod: he would have been quite a bit more formidable than SP.
Comment #65: Eric, Rejector of Memez on 11/24 at 09:15 PM
Do you have any evidence of this? Maddow herself said she didn’t find the issue interesting, so you’re not taking her at her word? So which is it?
Maddow doesn’t have full control of her show. Most on-air talent doesn’t have that, despite the fancy executive editor titles. They can and do participate in story meetings and planning the show’s line-up, but most of them don’t have real power. Without an independent production deal, and/or a board seat, Olbermann is about as independent as it gets. And as discussed above, his career path was unusual to begin with.
Maddow did have a better option here, and it was this: limit the double-ender to 2, 3 minutes max. Unless the book contains juicy revelations (and I doubt this one does), that’s all a conditions-attached author interview warrants. 7 minutes is a bloody eternity in TV time, and no news day is that slow.
Maddow also had the power to fill those 2 minutes as follows: one single question on party politics that’ll produce a soundbite for MSNBC (preferably one that sows division between the GOP and its Know-Nothing sucker base); one question designed to show Huckabee’s ignorance on an issue like the economy or national security; and the rest Larry King/Barbara Walters style softballs about the book itself that send the message to her audience: this is not a guy worthy of your time or mine.
Maddow’s new to this game, but she’ll learn how to leverage what authority she has.
Maddow doesn’t have full control of her show. Most on-air talent doesn’t have that, despite the fancy executive editor titles.
Again, she appears not to have been censored or discouraged from discussing other progressive issues with guests of all stripes—the question is why she (or the powers that be), if we accept your argument that she had no control over the questions being asked, decided not to pursue this very obvious and timely line of questioning on civil rights, his positions, and the ballot initiatives, particularly in his home state.
Why is LGBT rights an apparent third rail she’s allowed to get “a pass” on from progressives— would this hand-wringing about her clout be the case if she were closeted or straight? As I said up thread, folks are saying that Rachel Maddow should avoid questions that any good journalist would ask specifically because her sexual orientation “handicaps” her politically and/or jeopardizes her show. That is accepting the social conservative framing as the truth and playing defense—the same kind of thinking that had the No on 8 people refusing to show gay and lesbian families in ads because they thought it would inflame voters—as if these families didn’t already exist, and had rights under the domestic partnership laws in CA. Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 folks had no problem gaining support for 8 using blatant demonization in that reality vacuum.
Anything she says at this point can be used to paint her as an “activist” and not a journalist, and gives the Republicans who’ve finally started going on her show an excuse to shun her again. Not only that, it gives the rest of the media space to start pressuring Democrats to not go on—after all, she’s just a gay rights activist, not a real journalist like Bill O’Reilly!
I think that six months from now, when the issue of Prop 8 isn’t so much in front of everyone, she might be more free to address it. But to do it RIGHT NOW when the issue is very public and very rancorous is basically asking her to end her career.
Precisely. I first tuned into Dr. Rachel a couple years ago when I first got XM Satellite Radio and had access to Air America for the first time, and I was extremely pleased when she first started appearing on MSNBC. I was absolutely thrilled when she got her own full-time gig.
But the fact is, for most people outside of the highly tuned-in progressive community, she’s a relatively new face. And the public opinion on her show is still in its nascence. Most people know that she’s an openly gay media personality, but I think she really wants to avoid getting pidgeon-holed into the “isn’t she that gay-rights lesbian on MSNBC?” box. She’s still defining herself to the biggest audience she’s ever had. And she doesn’t want to be perceived as a single-issue commentator, because she’s not. But that’s what often happens to high-profile media pundits and personalities. Ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfair as it is, they are etched into the American consciousness as civil rights activists who don’t care about anything other than race issues.
Obama’s tightrope walking on his “otherness” allowed him to push back the meme that he was just a black politician who only really cared about black civil rights issues (despite the best efforts by crapsacks like Hannity and Limbaugh to paint him in that light). He became the extremely intelligent, nuanced, broad-minded idealist politician who happened to be black. Which is different than being “the black politician”.
Maddow is playing it safe for now because she wants to build her reputation as a staunch advocate for a host of progressive positions, who can intelligently debate the nuances of tax policy, foreign policy, and health care initiatives as well as she can debate such matters for GLBT civil rights issues.
But hosting a show that is still extremely young and discussing a matter that is currently white hot can set her up for a trap that she might never get out of.
You’re right Pam, she should be able to scream about this from the mountaintops right now, but she’s in a brutal business, and if she does scream about it from the mountaintops right now, she runs the risk of getting “Sharptoned”, and unfortunately, it’s likely that her ratings will suffer, because the opposition will, with some success, paint her as a partisan gay rights advocate, not a real journalist.
The one thing a show as young as hers can’t afford is a ratings tumble.
It’s the craptastic nature of the tradiotnal corporate media. They couldn’t give a shit whether you are a staunch advocate for truth or a damn detestable liar. They care about what the A.C. Nielsen Company tells them, and that’s it. And if the news from Nielsen isn’t good, neither is the future of your show.
Again, she appears not to have been censored or discouraged from discussing other progressive issues with guests of all stripes—the question is why she (or the powers that be), if we accept your argument that she had no control over the questions being asked, decided not to pursue this very obvious and timely line of questioning on civil rights, his positions, and the ballot initiatives, particularly in his home state.
All I can say (again) is that the segment in question was not a normal no-holds-barred news interview, even though MSNBC wants it to appear that way. When it’s an author interview or other infortainment segment, even one featuring a politician, the talent has limited control over what questions he can ask. Like it or not, that’s how it works.
Even icons like Murrow and Wallace had to do these BS pieces and submit to the “off-limits” deals struck between PR flacks and bookers once in a while. Olbermann will, too, if he hasn’t already. It’s a sucky business that way, believe me.
If this were a regular interview, I’d be even harder on Maddow than you were. But from what little I’ve seen of her (TV is not my main news source) she seems to have no problem discussing Teh Gay and even challenging the wingnuts’ BS in those situations.
She gets a “pass” from me in this particular case because I understand the professional handicap that comes with working in her position at a bigcorp shop like MSNBC—a handicap that ultimately has very little to do with her sexual orientation. She could have handled it more effectively and stuck it to Huckabee without violating the “off limits” rules, but experience and a better producer will smooth that out.
Pam, in light of what DTG in STL said, had you considered that they put this homophobe asswipe on her show in the fervent hope that she would take the bait and sandbag herself? It is at least arguable that what she did was refuse to be suckered.
Well, but where is that conversation going to go? “Sure, Rachel, I don’t believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as the rest of us, and you know why? Because God says so, right in the Bible.”
And you know what? It does say that; the Bible is inconsistent with an ethos of tolerance for homosexuality. So then that conversation heads right to the place you can’t go in American society - whose religion is the right one? (None of them, as it turns out.)
e.g. the bible is a bunch of fucking stories. STUPID stories, that reflected the stupidity of the times. The difference is that Jews generally acknowledge that fact.
I understand what Rachael Maddow said about not questioning Mike Huckabee, though I don’t agree with her tactic. Republican tenants (anti-gay, anti-fun, hypocracy) are fucking stupid. I disagree with giving Republicans the common deference given to opposing viewpoints. I don’t respect people who are demonstrably stupid.
I look at it the same way I look at MRAs. They have points, which are articulated in english. But they’re still fucking stupid. If your internal morality (Hi philosophy students!) is inconsistent and demonstrably so, prove why I should respect any of your opinions. “But it’s my religion” is as offensive (because of stupidity) as is “I"m a person ‘of faith’”. Faith != Christianity. Asshole.
MSNBC continues to garner my respect. I was skeptical when Bill Gates bought a share in NBC, but in the last couple years they really have been making staff choices that reflect a (generally) centrist opinion. Given the prevailing bullshit asshole stupid right wing crazyness, that’s not saying much, but it’s something. And that something makes me respect Balmer. Somewhat.
Pam, in light of what DTG in STL said, had you considered that they put this homophobe asswipe on her show in the fervent hope that she would take the bait and sandbag herself?
Nope. Again, why is it this issue, given all of her progressive positions, that would “sandbag” her? What I keep reading here is that LGBT issues, if you’re out of the closet—is a third rail until some magical amount of gravitas or amount of time on the air is acceptable to make it “safe” to address that issue. Who, then, is the arbiter of gravitas and timekeeper?
That says a lot about people’s perception of LGBT issues as well as Maddow’s decision. Someone on my blog asked about the professionally closeted Anderson Cooper, who reports on LGBT issues relevant to current events fairly regularly. My response:
It’s odd knowing that he’s professionally closeted, but it raises the obvious question—would he be perceived as “activist” or obsessed with LGBT matters and boxed in if he was officially out? That’s the conundrum—and the defense some are offering for giving Maddow getting a pass. I find it kind of bizarre.
That leaves us with two questions: 1) how much gravitas or clout does an out gay MSM reporter/host have to have before it’s “safe” to cover LGBT issues and not be questioned as to bias; and 2) Does it somehow serve both the reporter and the community long term to remain professionally closeted so they can freely report on LGBT issues as any straight reporter could without being questioned as to motive?
I see being both mulled over here, and what has been eye-opening is the amount of indirect acceptance of #2 in order to cut Maddow some slack since she obviously cannot recloset herself. It sounds like advocacy for boxing in one’s self by avoiding a certain amount of discussion of LGBT issues. If you’re out of the closet, that it’s sufficient for the time being to simply “be out” and on the air, as opposed to being out and having your objectivity questioned when it comes to that one aspect of yourself if you venture into LGBT issues.
Pam, I get what you’re saying, but for all we know - it could be painful for her, at this point in her life. There are times when I find it hard to speak to an interview subject about, say, child molestation. It doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t strive to do my job properly, but sometimes, you hit a wall. Especially if you know that the person’s response may be profoundly offensive and hurtful to you as a human being.
At the same time, as someone who looks up to Maddow, I wish she had spoken about this to Huckabee too. But I feel that sometimes, you can divorce yourself from the situation, and other times, you can’t, hence the need to hold back.
but for all we know - it could be painful for her, at this point in her life.
OK, I really doubt this, but yes, anything is possible in the hypothetical, right?
However, your scenario is another an attempt to find a way to give Maddow a graceful out on this. It doesn’t address the big picture. It is interesting that people are, in their defense of her, tacitly approving of professionally closeting in general because the other side of the coin is that an out gay reporter needs to steer away from LGBT issues, lest they be boxed in professionally, whereas the someone who is closeted or straight won’t be seen as biased on the issues.
I’m still waiting to hear why some find it necessary and acceptable that this one aspect of Rachel Maddow—her orientation—should curtail her reporting on LGBT issues any more than she, as a woman, should curtail any questions to a raging misogynist, for instance, about sexism if he comes on the show to hawk a book, or not challenge a big war hawk because she has a progressive viewpoint. I’m just asking folks to examine why sexual orientation seems to be treated differently, even on the left, and it’s worth exploring why this is so. Mind you, I’m not just picking on progressives—obviously a lot of Rachel’s gay fans are citing the same reasons, so it’s not as if we aren’t all still stewing in heterosupremacist thinking, even if we don’t really want to. In a way it’s not unlike dealing with race.
I’m still waiting to hear why some find it necessary and acceptable that this one aspect of Rachel Maddow—her orientation—should curtail her reporting on LGBT issues any more than she, as a woman, should curtail any questions to a raging misogynist, for instance, about sexism if he comes on the show to hawk a book, or not challenge a big war hawk because she has a progressive viewpoint.
First, let me be clear: “off-limits” conditions for this type of interview are not acceptable to me—it’s one of many bad practises that contributed to my decision to leave the MSM.
Second: it’s not this one issue, or this one journalist. In the Huckabee interview, Olbermann would have been just as aggressive as Maddow wanted to be on Prop 8 type issues—the difference between the two in Huckabee’s eyes is not sexual orientation, but the fact that Olbermann has the rare luxury of not submitting to most “off-limits” conditions while Maddow doesn’t.
By the way, based on articles about Huckabee’s book, it doesn’t directly prescribe making “ZOMG Homos” a success-driving core principle of the GOP—he’s too much of a coward and weasel to tell that truth. If he had, questions about LGBT couldn’t have been placed “off-limits.”
One aspect of this that I can’t tell is being ignored, danced around, or completely overlooked has raised its head in a few posts, and in fact, in Maddow’s original point - the idea that there was no point in asking Huckabee any questions about his stand on gay rights because she, and we, know the answers already.
I don’t think that’s the whole point, and ignoring it gets us to the point where she gets defended because obviously her only choice was somehow to either ignore the whole subject or rage at him so much her job and objectivity were in danger.
But what about, what is to me, the far more important point? There are LOTS of people out there, even on the progressive side, who simply are not aware of the current state of gay rights, or gay issues. The gay press and select blogs cover these things extensively; those of us who care arrange things so we know them. Others don’t.
I have a close straight friend, so close we consider each other family. I have talked gay rights with her until we’re both tired of it, and she considers herself solidly on our side. She always votes in our favor and so on. She was one of our witnesses when my partner and I registered as domestic partners in Chicago (net benefits, one piece of paper and two wallet cards, period.), and was heartsick when we couldn’t swing a way for her to join us at our wedding in California in September. And so on. And even then, when Prop 8 passed, she was dumbstruck to find out that there was a Federal DOMA in place, and that 2/3 of states already had amendments preventing marriage.
My husband’s coworkers in NW Indiana, (homophobia begins at home) we astonished to hear that our marriage gave us no benefits in either Illinois or Indiana. In their mind, marriage is marriage and the benefits are automatic. They have no idea what we are complaining about, beyond the need to fly to one of the coasts for a ceremony. One of them compared our situation to her choice to fly to Vegas to get married, and could not wrap her head around the idea that yes, we really are married, and no, we get no benefits here, including hospital visitation or inheritance rights. “That’s not fair!” Duh.
We need to demand that the mainstream media covers our current status. As things stand, a large percentage of even the people most likely to support us are simply completely uninformed, even the Democrats, much less the people who only hear about gay rights in church. Since, in their minds, we already have equal rights (who doesn’t? This is America!), the court cases and marches and news items HAVE to be about something extra, like forcing churches to marry us or changing school curricula.
People like Huckabee, Palin, and every other anti-gay politician, where it is appropriate, needs to be asked very basic, tiresome (to us) questions that give us no new information. Because they need to be on the record, and SEEN to be on the record, as the bigots they are. We are at, or near, the tipping point where casual homophobia is shifting from a given to a social embarassment, and if people like Huckabee know that they can claim things like Prop 8 not prohibiting marriage and not get called on it, that won’t change. People like Maddow asking softball-ish questions, but still raising it, allow other people to report and hound them on the BS answers. She doesn’t need to be the attack dog, but she can still raise the questions.
I guarantee you, a simple, non-attack-dog question like “this week you said marriage is not a civil right, could you explain that?” would have gotten a BS answer, but it would have been picked up by the Daily Show and far more people would have seen it that way.
I disagree-- I think Maddow actually prioritizes things like stopping our government from forgiving Joe Lieberman and applauding convicted felons (Ted Stevens) on our time more than she does about exposing homophobia. Maybe she cares more, in terms of how she uses her time. Rachel is my TV life partner, but she’s not my avatar. I accept that she’s not always going to say what I want her to-- similarly, she doesn’t talk to Paul Rieckhoff that much about gays and lesbians in the military, although he’s her BFF on military/veterans’ issues. I don’t even know where he stands, but he’s standing on top of a big steaming pile of don’t ask don’t tell nearly weekly basis. Why doesn’t she bring that up? Maybe because she’s more interested in the wars and the treatment of all veterans than she is in the (stupid, misguided) gay service ban. I don’t think she’s dishonest, I think she’s got other priorities.
Also, she talks to Pat Buchanan all the time-- and he’s racist as all fuck. He ran for President as a racist. Rachel seldom talks about racism with Republican and Democratic racists on her show-- but again, priorities. I don’t know where hers are, but I usually take her word for it.
I don’t think she wasn’t comfortable, I think she just wasn’t into playing “stimulus response” games when bringing the issue up would be futile, could paint her into a professional closet, etc. when she had a short time to talk about other stuff that was simply more interesting to her and her portential obvious.
I think a good term for this is “fielder’s choice”
Also, she talks to Pat Buchanan all the time-- and he’s racist as all fuck.
I have to say, I loved watching her needle him on election night. When Obama was declared the winner, Pat’s face was already as grey and tattered as an old KKK sheet from his attic. And despite his desperate denials, Maddow just kept pushing him about the blow American racism took with a big smile on her face. If she can gleefully kick that old hatemonger while he’s down, there’s hope for her as a journalist.
Maddow’s using a long-term rope-a-dope strategy. When Huckabee is closer to being even more dangerous, and not just another Republican bigoted asshole, then she will sucker punch him, such as during a crucial primary or general election campaign, if that atrocity becomes the nominee.
Do you have any evidence of [Maddow’s lack of independence/clout]? Maddow herself said she didn’t find the issue interesting, so you’re not taking her at her word? So which is it?
Yes, Pam, I do. She’s been on air, with her own show, for less than 6 months. That is evidence enough for lack of power. She’s also a woman, which means that she will not be given the power or credit she deserves for much longer than it should be. Again, I don’t watch Olbermann anymore b/c he has a tendency to be a bit of a boys’ clubber--not on par with Tweety, by any means, but not quite feminist (as in believing women are equal) either. On top of that, Maddow is openly gay.
That’s your evidence. Female, out of the closet, on air for less that six months. Plus she’s shown herself to be so damn smart on other people’s shows that Republicans have been loathe to go on her show.
If it’s the former, then she’s just sitting there like a puppet being manipulated by her bosses about what to say and what not to say. That’s pretty insulting.
Well, to a degree she is being manipulated, though she’s by no means a puppet. She has bosses. In order to get Huckabee on, and she’s not the only one who wants to get Republicans on her show, we don’t know what conditions were put on the interview. It’s understandable fail b/c she has been on air for less than 6 months. When she’s been on air for 6 years it will be unacceptable.
During the election/debates sometimes Rachel would be so far off camera they turned her mike off.
And taking you at your word, does this mean she cannot cover any LGBT issues lest her status as an out journalist jeopardize her show? I’m not clear on what line she cannot cross when it comes to these issues simply because she chooses not to be professionally closeted.
\
Not what I meant at all. I never said anything like that. I just said I could see why she might decide that it wasn’t worth fighting to skewer Huckabee on this issue at this time. When I say fighting, I don’t mean with Huckabee: I mean with her bosses.
I am also assuming, that as an out-lesbian she is pro-homosexual rights in general. I liked it when she told Buchanan that his party made her feel like they hated her. When she says asking Huckabee if he hates homosexuals is a boring question, it’s because she knows he hates her.
Again, she appears not to have been censored or discouraged from discussing other progressive issues with guests of all stripes—
If Maddow’s people tried to get Huckabee on her show, and Huckabee’s people said they would only come on if she restricted her questions to the book and stayed away from Prop 8, there’s a restriction right there. We, the public, will never know unless someone leaks that information. That’s unlikely to happen since they want everyone to believe that the ‘news’ isn’t really as scripted as it is.
She and her higher-ups may very well have swallowed their pride and let him on in order to gain cred and access to him and other Republicans in the future. I don’t find that hard to believe at all, and would like to know what evidence you have that she actually think Huckabee’s a great guy who deserves a softpedal (well, besides the interview of fail).
I have high hopes for her in the future b/c she seems to know how to use her brain. But journalism today is a big corporate business and not really that concerned with getting to the truth. I really think that the longer she keeps her show on, the more control she will have, the higher salary she will command, and the more able to control interviews she will have. That said, she’s only one interviewer on a medium that has several 24/7 ‘news’ channels.
Again, would an interview of Rachel Maddow attacking Huckabee right now be worth Ashleigh Banfielding her? I believe she’ll get to skewer him just fine in the future, like in 2012 when he’s running for President again. If she’s managed to keep on the air and keep her ratings then the Huckster will feel pressure to do the Maddow Show no matter how much he hates her (see Obama going on O’Reilly). And she won’t hold back then at all-->since that will mean she’s been on TV for 4 years and has some clout.
Or maybe I’m entirely wrong and she’s a wimpy sell-out who actually enjoys sitting next to Pat Buchanan.
Comment #88: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 11/25 at 07:32 PM
Pam, what if Rachel Maddow’s views were different from yours? I’m not saying that they are, but what if she wasn’t all that into gay marriage and thought everyone should have civil unions only? What if she held some of the views of Log Cabin Republicans (and I’m NOT saying that she does), would you still want her bringing up these issues if she didn’t agree with your views? Because I think what you want her to talk about is what you’re interested in, not what she’s interested in.
Did Huckabee’s book have any homophobic stuff in it? If not, and he was there to talk about the book, perhaps she wants to make sure that future guests with books will believe they can come on the show without being ambushed about their views about other things. Like, if Pat Buchanan had a book about social medicine, a serious book with pros and cons, and none of his wacky out-there stuff. Would you think she should be allowed to discuss just social medicine with him, because that’s the topic?
I do believe, like many have said, that she doesn’t want to be the LESBIAN journalist, who brings her own personal life into every show. Maybe she likes how Ellen’s talk show career has worked out for her - light on the personal lesbian stuff at the beginning, but when it’s appropriate, she showed parts of her wedding to Portia on the show. But Ellen didn’t want to be the LESBIAN talk show host, she just wanted to bring interesting people on the show and talk to them. I think that Rachel Maddow wants the same thing, only with more serious world view issues. I think you want her to be your version of her, which doesn’t appear to be what she is or what she wants. No one worries about what Christiane Amanpour’s personal views are when she interviews people, and I think Rachel Maddow should get the same consideration. It’s well known that Rachel is a liberal, but not all liberals have the same exact feelings about everything. Perhaps Rachel isn’t interested in discussing gay marriage when that’s not the topic. If she was doing a show about the California election, then Prop. 8 would reasonably be part of the discussion. The show was about Huckabee’s book, not every whacked out bible thumping view he has about gay people.
I think Larry’s right… She could have made him look like an ass, but he would never have returned to the show. I think she’ll wait until he’s more politically relevant (2012?) to bring him back and hammer him with tough questions.
Even though I don’t agree with her decision, I can kinda-sorta see where someone would come to it. It may not be so much that she doesn’t care, but that it would come across as her injecting her personal life into the interviews and give the right wing a talking point against her. As in, she’s spending all of her time talking about things that affect her personally and not discussing real issues.
Again, I don’t agree with her, but I think that’s the rationale. It is, unfortunately, a symptom of the way the right wing has made it impossible for people who are actually affected by a particular issue to discuss it because they’re not “objective.” Only a white man can discuss racism and sexism “objectively,” etc.