A few nights ago, Rachel Maddow was discussing the Wall St. bailout on her MSNBC show with guest, Dr. Laura Tyson.
Tyson, a former economic 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 annually 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 do. She not only admitted the oversight, Maddow chastised herself for not doing a better job of researching Tyson’s background and current business interests. And she didn’t just mumble a hasty “sorry;” she 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 and print.
Tom Degan
1958-2023
To all Tom’s faithful readers of the Rant, we are sad to announce that he
passed away on December 7th, 2023. Thank you so much for th...
6 comments:
Good for Rachel. We all make mistakes. This makes me respect her more, not less:-)
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" Cunnighams. They want the money, and are willing to sell their souls to get it.
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.
She biased to the left. Admitting her mistake enabled her to make the "right" look bad. What's so courageous about that?
Rachel's viewers get the benefit of her intelligence, insight, and honesty. Thanks, Rachel.
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.
Post a Comment