by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.
Dr. Maddow gives a commencement address
I first became aware of Dr. Maddow – yes, she is a bona fide Doctor, she received her Ph.D in politics from Oxford University in 2001 – during the days of the now defunct “Air America” radio network. Air America was an attempt to offer a counter voice to “Right Wing” Talk Radio that was and still is, permeating what is offered all through the day, mostly on your AM dials.
It was a good idea. However, as is often the case, high expectations, combined with a limited investment and a limited amount of time to build an audience with an advertising base, put the success of the venture out of reach. It is difficult to match, in a matter of months or a few years, what your opponents have had decades to put in place. Most investors want a rapid return on their investments. It requires real commitment to take the long view. Evidently, not enough of their venture capitalist could afford that type of commitment.
The Early Days – Air America Radio
Rachel in Seattle
Air America did have a remarkable array of talent. In addition to Rachel Maddow, there were Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Mike Malloy and Thom Hartmann to name but a few. The problem wasn’t the on-air talent. The problem was with a management that didn’t know how to compete in the marketplace they were fighting in. It is easy to say, “radio is radio is radio,” however the reality is, “Progressive Talk Radio” appeals to an entirely different demographic. Different educational levels, different income levels and of course, different lifestyles. Running a “buy gold, because the world is about to end” commercial on a progressive station is not going to meet with the same success as running the same commercial on say, “The Glenn Beck Show.” It takes time and research to find your market and the advertisers to fill that market niche.
Keith Olbermann
Following the demise of Air America Radio, most of the talent landed on their feet and have gone on to continue the “Progressive Fight.” Al Franken ran for Congress and got elected to the United States Senate. Others continued in the radio broadcasting venue and Rachel was brought to MSNBC by Keith Olbermann. As Keith’s understudy, Rachel was great. Keith’s hard hitting, Edward R. Murrow style laced with satire and humor was nicely counter balanced by Rachel’s highly detailed, almost forensic examination of the days events. Keith gave the overview and Rachel connected the minute threads. Keith’s presence kept the news presented on MSNBC fresh, moving and varied. In Keith’s absence, the network turned to Rachel in hopes that she could shoulder the mantle of leadership.
MSNBC Gives Rachel A Home
Rachel with her Partner? Mate? Spouse? Susan Mikula
For awhile, it appeared that Rachel was up to the task and would be able to continue as Keith’s legacy. Overtime it became apparent that Rachel Maddow desperately needed the rudder that Keith provided. The first intimations of this began surfacing when I noticed that number of stories that Rachel reported on that had to do with “Gay Rights.” Anyone who knows anything about Rachel Maddow, knows that she is unabashedly a lesbian. She makes no pretense of her sexual orientation. Indeed when Rachel first appeared on MSNBC, she wore almost no make-up, no jewellery and in essence approached television as she approached radio. You can pretty much wear whatever you want in radio broadcasting.
Rachel’s yearbook photo from her “Pre-Butch” years.
Under Keith’s tutelage, she began softening her image. The faintest hints of eye-shadow, foundation, and lip gloss began appearing. On occasion I’ve even seen her sport modest earrings. Rachel is not a bad looking woman. However, the whole “Butch” thing she had in radio, just doesn’t sell when you’re dealing with a highly diverse television audience that can actually see you delivering the news. Nevertheless, without the mentoring of Keith Olbermann, Rachel has slowly degenerated into a “two issue” broadcaster. Like a horn player who only knows how to blow two notes, no matter how impassioned her performance, no matter how much dancing around, it’s still only two notes.
You can count on Rachel to reliably cover Gay rights or Gun control. Show after show after show. Only when something really big intrudes and simply must be covered, will Rachel deviate. Even then, she has been known to frame those events in the context of either Gay rights or Gun control. The recent bombing of the Boston Marathon is an excellent example. The following is a clip from her on-site coverage of the events wherein she works in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. Okay, so there was a delegation there. If you polled the crowd, you could find people who lost loved ones during the 9/11 attacks too.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
What happened at the Boston Marathon was an act of terror. The cost in life and lost limbs was high enough without trying to piggyback Sandy Hook to support a personal and political agenda. It amounts to pimping the victims – of both tragedies – to support your own personal agenda. It’s repugnant, crass and just plain wrong.
Rachel Maddow’s Problem
“But here’s the thing about rights – they’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights.” __Rachel Maddow
What I find fascinating is that on almost any given night, you can listen to Dr. Maddow make logical and impassioned arguments for the recognition of the Rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. Of course it then follows that Gay people should be allowed to openly serve in our military. They should be accorded the right to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the State. They should be allowed to adopt and raise children. The list goes on.
Rights Are Rights!
Rachel exercising here Right to be who she is.
In principle, I personally support equal rights and equal access for all people regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. If you’re a human being, you’re entitled to human Rights. Period. Whether I agree or disagree with your lifestyle or not. What borders on the surreal is in her very next segment, Rachel will shift gears and argue against people’s Constitutionally protected, 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear Arms. Yes, those are also a part of the same Constitution that Rachel often points to when she’s arguing that it’s language and interpretation be applied to the Rights of Gay people.
Why am I picking on Rachel? Unlike most of the talking – air – heads reading a Teleprompter, Rachel is a bonafide Ph.D. I’ve noticed she never mentions this and if anything takes pains to de-emphasize her educational credentials. I have and can wink at ignorance. However, Rachel is anything but. Thus, her arguments must be seen as disingenuous sophistry. If the 2nd Amendment can be voted on or misinterpreted, then the Rights of Gay people may also be voted on. Rachel has made it abundantly clear that she is anti-gun and pretty much everything people who are “pro-gun” stand for.
I do not agree with all the various positions of the “Pro-Gun” movement. However, I do understand the clause in the 2nd Amendment which says and was upheld in the “Heller Case,” “…The People’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” Both the President – Barack Obama – and the United States Supreme Court have upheld that the 2nd Amendment outlines an individual Right. It does not apply to a State – National Guard – Militia.
This is Rachel we’re talking about. Doctor Maddow. We’re not talking about someone hired for their photogenic, eye-candy appeal. Rachel was hired because of her intellect, insight and her ability to break complex events down to their simplest components and explain them in a way that common people can understand. Thus, when I hear Dr. Maddow point to the inviolate authority of the United States Constitution and interpret it’s provisions broadly such that not recognizing same sex marriage is discrimination and not equal protection under the law, then try and suggest that the 2nd Amendment from the very same Constitution is up for review, I am forced to question her honesty and suspect her commitment to principle. Rachel Maddow’s problem is, she’s entirely too smart to convincingly play dumb.
