Why Is Maddow In The Bag For #DebtTrapDebbie Wasserman Schultz?
A few months ago, a radio interviewer asked me why I wasn't calling out Rachel Maddows' biased anti-Bernie reporting. I said I didn't think Maddow was biased, just being a fair and balanced reporter. The interviewer laughed (at me) and sent me some video clips to watch. She was right and I was wrong. Rachel came off as a turd, slanting her reporting against Bernie and in favor of Hillary. It didn't take much longer before I stopped watching her show altogether, breaking a habit of many years. After the convention, I gradually started watching again, although I still accept dinner dates during her time slot without a second thought, something I would have never done last year. Yesterday I did watch her show and, because I know far more about the race between Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova than she-- or the dullard NY Times reporter she hauled on as her "expert"-- will ever know, I was sensitive to the subtle and less-than-subtle ways she slanted the show against her old enemy (Bernie) and against Tim's campaign.
Maddow's production team asked Tim if he'd do her show and he said yes. But she apparently changed her mind and used some very selective bits from the Young Turks video above. And she eagerly, gleefully, said that the latest poll showed Wasserman Schultz "beating him by double digits." Technically, that's true but it's reason for Wasserman Schultz to be crapping her pants and for Canova to be doubling-down. The poll has a 5 point margin of error and the score was 50 to 40 with Tim leading gigantically among voters 34 and under, equivalent to Wasserman Schultz's biggest group, voters over 75. Many voters over 75 are trying to not go out of their homes in fear of zika-carrying mosquitos.
As for Bernie not helping Canova, I thought it odd when Maddow crowed about that in her annoying way, since I had just spoken with Tim a few hours earlier and he was telling me how wonderful it was that Bernie's latest letter for him had generated 300,000 much-needed dollars for the campaign's Get Out The Vote effort. Tim was still hoping that Bernie-- who is more popular than ever in south Florida-- would have the time to come to the district and campaign for him, the way a whole litany of corrupt corporate Dems from Hillary and Obama to Pelosi and Biden and rushed to the district to try to bolster a member of Congress who gives the Democratic Party such a terrible name and makes the party an object of scorn among people who aren't over 75. Early voting in going on right now and election day is Tuesday, August 30. There are no more important House races in the country. It says a lot that Rachel Maddow-- who promotes herself as "the smartest person on TV" or something equally laughable-- seems too be trying to put her thumb on the scale for Wasserman Schultz and likely doesn't even have an understanding of why the Canova challenge is important to the Democratic Party, the south Florida and to the U.S.A.
Yesterday, Michael at BrainSpank.org alerted me to an open letter to Rachel that he had written in late May.
Rachel,A couple of weeks ago Tim was finally able to corner Wasserman Schultz into debating. She did her best to hide it-- insisting on an 8am debate and not even mentioning it on her website. Today, a video of the debate isn't available on her website, primarily because no one can watch it without seeing how unqualified she is to represent a Broward/Miami-Dade district in Congress and how out-classed she was by Canova. The debate is featured prominently on Canova's YouTube video channel, Judge for yourself-- and if you like what you hear, please consider contributing to his last minute GOTV efforts by tapping the thermometer above Michael's letter on the right.
You’ve been in my living room for years. Pretty much from the beginning. You know, post Keith Olbermann. I was even a fan of you before that, on Air America.
I’ve always understood that you have an agenda, a bias. It never bothered me. It was usually congruent with mine. You’ve always been pretty transparent about it, so I’ve always been able to factor it in and filter it all with that in mind.
I have long appreciated that you report on issues and stories that no other network would or could. I’ve enjoyed the humor and aplomb of your approach. I love that you broke the Flint Michigan story and the various bullshit that’s occurred regarding voting, civil and gender rights. I adore how brave and salient your priorities have been.
But lately you’ve been pissing me off. Your coverage and commentary on the Sanders campaign in general and the recent events at the Nevada convention in particular are clumsy, irresponsible and embarrassing. It was lazy and intellectually disingenuous. You simply didn’t report the facts. What you did broadcast was sloppy conjecture. You interviewed the chair of the the Nevada DNC, Roberta Lange, the woman at the center of the controversy, and let her tell lie after lie after lie.
It was a smear.
Why didn’t you give equal time to someone like Erin Billbray, a Nevada super delegate, who could have given an accurate accounting of events and eyewitness testimony? If Thom Hartmann was able to get this “get” why weren’t you? Why didn’t you invite Nina Turner? What the fuck Rachel?
Why do you continue to repeat lies about chairs thrown, violence and people needing medical attention even on Friday’s broadcast? These are lies Rachel Maddow. I know that you know they are lies and I am disgusted.
There was no violence. There were no chairs thrown. A thousand cell phone cameras and nothing to support the crap you continued to report. The alleged threats to Lange are completely unsubstantiated. No proof, no evidence, no forensic investigations of the recordings. Jon Ralston finally admitted he wasn’t even there and you based most of your bullshit on his reporting.
When it comes to the Sanders campaign, you’re no different than FOX News and every other entity out there. He is the best candidate to run for president in my lifetime and you all lie so egregiously as to not consider the well being of the people you broadcast to but rather to serve a more insidious itinerary of corporate dominance and political mendacity.
I am profoundly disappointed. You violated my trust. The MSNBC network is bad enough with Chris Matthews’ obvious conflict of interest, but you are clearly in the tank for a candidate that I cannot support. I would be a fool to expect honesty and integrity from you in light of this. I will continue to rely on sources that cannot be corrupted by corporations because they have inoculated themselves by refusing to take their money.
After all, isn’t that the entire point of Bernie’s campaign? The influence of corporations and their money in our society and our political system? The point that you, your network, and every other media outlet exert transparent strain to ignore?
You are complicit and I am offended.
Shame on you.
Drinks for my friends.