by Charley James –
A few nights ago, Rachel Maddow was discussing the Wall St. bailout on her MSNBC show with guest Dr. Laura Tyson.
Tyson, a former economics advisor to Pres. Clinton and now a professor at UC-Berkeley, was defending the banks who received bailout money for their total lack of disclosure or transparency on how they were using the cash.
What Tyson didn’t disclose – but blogger David Sirota discovered – is that she is a director of Morgan Stanley which received $10-billion from the Treasury Dept. Nor, did Tyson happen to mention that she earns $350,000 from the bank in director’s fees and owns 79,000 shares in the company.
When Sirota informed Maddow of this oversight, she did something that few, if any, hosts on cable news would bother doing. She not only admitted the oversight, Maddow chastised herself for not doing a better job researching Tyson’s background and current business interests. And she didn’t just mumble a hasty “sorry,” Maddow detailed her mistake, aired a response from Tyson and then apologised to her audience.
The Tyson incident is just one more example of why I love Rachel Maddow and, more to the point, why she is one of the best journalists around – cable, broadcast or print.
Charley James
The Progressive Curmudgeon
Articles by Charley:
About Charley James
PCL offers monthly Open House Events on the 2nd Saturday at 2pm and 3rd Thursday at 6pm. Click here to learn more.
That, along with a million other very good reasons, should explain why I, and millions of other smart people, love Rachel. To hell with the people who compare her, even abstractly, to Duke Cunningham and to all the other haters who are trying to put her down.
That, along with a million other very good reasons, should explain why I, and millions of other smart people, love Rachel. To hell with the people who compare her, even abstractly, to Duke Cunningham and to all the other haters who are trying to put her down.
That, along with a million other very good reasons, should explain why I, and millions of other smart people, love Rachel. To hell with the people who compare her, even abstractly, to Duke Cunningham and to all the other haters who are trying to put her down.
That, along with a million other very good reasons, should explain why I, and millions of other smart people, love Rachel. To hell with the people who compare her, even abstractly, to Duke Cunningham and to all the other haters who are trying to put her down.
She biased to the left. Admitting her mistake enabled her to make the “right” look bad. What’s so courageous about that?
Peter …
If what you believe is true, then isn’t it also true that by not challenging Dr. Tyson – who happens to be a Democrat – in the original interview, Maddow was letting the “left” look bad?
You can’t have it both ways and no matter how you slice it, Maddow did the right thing. I can’t imagine that Sean Hannity, who simply makes up “facts” every day that are incorrect would do the same thing.
Charley
She biased to the left. Admitting her mistake enabled her to make the “right” look bad. What’s so courageous about that?
Peter …
If what you believe is true, then isn’t it also true that by not challenging Dr. Tyson – who happens to be a Democrat – in the original interview, Maddow was letting the “left” look bad?
You can’t have it both ways and no matter how you slice it, Maddow did the right thing. I can’t imagine that Sean Hannity, who simply makes up “facts” every day that are incorrect would do the same thing.
Charley
Peter …
If what you believe is true, then isn’t it also true that by not challenging Dr. Tyson – who happens to be a Democrat – in the original interview, Maddow was letting the “left” look bad?
You can’t have it both ways and no matter how you slice it, Maddow did the right thing. I can’t imagine that Sean Hannity, who simply makes up “facts” every day that are incorrect would do the same thing.
Charley
Peter …
If what you believe is true, then isn’t it also true that by not challenging Dr. Tyson – who happens to be a Democrat – in the original interview, Maddow was letting the “left” look bad?
You can’t have it both ways and no matter how you slice it, Maddow did the right thing. I can’t imagine that Sean Hannity, who simply makes up “facts” every day that are incorrect would do the same thing.
Charley
Rachel’s viewers get the benefit of her intelligence, insight, and honesty. Thanks, Rachel.
Rachel’s viewers get the benefit of her intelligence, insight, and honesty. Thanks, Rachel.
Rachel’s viewers get the benefit of her intelligence, insight, and honesty. Thanks, Rachel.
Thanks, Charley.
A keith Olberman wannabe
A keith Olberman wannabe
A keith Olberman wannabe
In cable news land, “talent” has very little to do with the selection of – let alone the vetting of – guests. It was nice of Rachel to take the hit for her “booker.” I’ve seen show staff fired for less.
You’re absolutely correct.
In this case I suspect it’s that Maddow is doing two shows a day: Two hours on radio, one on television. A woman who is known for her meticulous research is compelled by her schedule to rely on what might be a less meticulous staff. The “where does your money come from” question should be asked in the pre-interview, which everyone who appears on any TV chat show goes through with a producer.
Had Maddow’s staff done the proper research on Tyson, and were I her producer, I would have let her go on and on about the banks and then, as my last question, asked “While that may be true, don’t you get paid $350,000 from Morgan Stanley (or whatever) for sitting on its board of directors? Doesn’t that cloud what you just said?”
Of course, I’m not on the staff and I’m not Maddow so all of this is very easy for me to say from the comfort of my office in Toronto.
In cable news land, “talent” has very little to do with the selection of – let alone the vetting of – guests. It was nice of Rachel to take the hit for her “booker.” I’ve seen show staff fired for less.
You’re absolutely correct.
In this case I suspect it’s that Maddow is doing two shows a day: Two hours on radio, one on television. A woman who is known for her meticulous research is compelled by her schedule to rely on what might be a less meticulous staff. The “where does your money come from” question should be asked in the pre-interview, which everyone who appears on any TV chat show goes through with a producer.
Had Maddow’s staff done the proper research on Tyson, and were I her producer, I would have let her go on and on about the banks and then, as my last question, asked “While that may be true, don’t you get paid $350,000 from Morgan Stanley (or whatever) for sitting on its board of directors? Doesn’t that cloud what you just said?”
Of course, I’m not on the staff and I’m not Maddow so all of this is very easy for me to say from the comfort of my office in Toronto.
But she still screwed up. In this day and age one of the first questions any host of any “talk” show should ask is “Where does YOUR money come from?”. But they don’t.
It ain’t journalism anymore, it’s propaganda, or cowardice. Probably both. The “talkers” are just as corrupt as the “Duke” Cunningham’s. They want the money and are willing to sell their souls to get it.
But she still screwed up. In this day and age one of the first questions any host of any “talk” show should ask is “Where does YOUR money come from?”. But they don’t.
It ain’t journalism anymore, it’s propaganda, or cowardice. Probably both. The “talkers” are just as corrupt as the “Duke” Cunningham’s. They want the money and are willing to sell their souls to get it.
But she still screwed up. In this day and age one of the first questions any host of any “talk” show should ask is “Where does YOUR money come from?”. But they don’t.
It ain’t journalism anymore, it’s propaganda, or cowardice. Probably both. The “talkers” are just as corrupt as the “Duke” Cunningham’s. They want the money and are willing to sell their souls to get it.
Good for Rachel. We all make mistakes. This makes me respect her more, not less:-)
Good for Rachel. We all make mistakes. This makes me respect her more, not less:-)