Rachel Maddow's credibility and ratings at a low ebb following Mueller findings, critics say
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
MSNBC 's "The Rachel Maddow Show" has been hit with a serious one-two punch.
One day after finishing May with its worst ratings since Donald Trump took office, the lefty pundit's eponymous program faced a Vanity Fair bombshell report that the New York Times didn’t want its reporters appearing on Maddow's show, not because her ratings were down, but because she was too far left, even for them.
“I do think Maddow, and others on MSNBC, have very strong opinions that affect their ability to tell stories in an accurate way sometimes,” the source said. “You don’t get tainted just by appearing [on the show], but it’s better to err on the side of trying to maintain objectivity and caution.”
The insider said colleagues at the paper are divided as to whether or not appearing on Maddow’s show would actually damage their reputations. Many of the Times’ top reporters are aware and “rightly sensitive” about the paper’s reputation of leaning left, the source said, and appearing on “Maddow” makes it hard to convince people otherwise.
A handful of journalists work for the both the Times and MSNBC, including Peter Baker, Nick Confessore and Jeremy Peters. All three of those reporters declined to comment when individually asked about Maddow. The Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment, either.
The paper did tell Vanity Fair that it was simply reinforcing an existing policy to be consistent with the paper’s standards. But Peters appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday, the morning after the news of a Times reporter being kept off Maddow broke. “Morning Joe” hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough have a public feud with Trump, but haven’t pushed the Russia collusion theory as aggressively as Maddow.
Maddow has dedicated much of her programming since Trump took office to hyperventilating over whether or not Trump colluded with Russia. Since Attorney General Bill Barr's letter summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report was released on March 24 indicating that a Trump campaign-Russia conspiracy didn’t exist, contradicting Maddow’s nightly narrative, her ratings have suffered.
Maddow lost nearly 500,000 viewers for her first episode following the release of Barr’s letter. Then she plummeted 13 percent in April compared to the same month in 2018, according to TVNewser , falling behind “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in the process. In May she averaged 2.6 million – her worst month since Trump took office – and a far cry from the 3.1 million viewers she averaged during the first quarter of 2019.
A New York Times insider thinks it’s wise to err on the side of trying to maintain objectivity and caution and avoid Rachel Maddow. (Getty Images)
Accuracy in Media national editor Carrie Sheffield feels that Maddow has long “ignored basic journalistic, fact-checking practices and the presumption of innocence in our legal system by relentlessly pushing unproven conspiracy theories about supposed Russian collusion” and her “lapse in journalistic balance” is part of why Americans have declining trust in the national media and why some reporters appear to be distancing themselves from her show.
“This was a long time coming, and we hope MSNBC will allow for greater balance moving forward. We hope that Maddow's programming will include substantive fact-checking, balanced debate and dialogue, rather than an echo-chamber monologue that further divides Left and Right," Sheffield told Fox News. "Americans deserve better.”
Cornell Law School professor and conservative blogger William A. Jacobson told Fox News that “Maddow built her viewership on Russia collusion conspiracy theories dressed up as analysis,” and said the Mueller Report “destroyed” her credibility.
“MSNBC is standing by her because she still has a large viewership emotionally invested bringing down Trump,” Jacobson said. “That some reporters refuse to go on her show is important, but is unlikely to change her behavior. Maddow long ago carved out her faux-intellectual paranoid niche, and she's stuck in it."
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall agreed that Maddow is still enormously popular with her anti-Trump base.
“Her opinionated approach, however, should make hard news reporters and their editors take pause before being associated with her agenda-driven show,” McCall said. “Such regular journalists risk being associated with the political leanings of Maddow, which could be harmful to their credibility.”
"The Rachel Maddow Show” is currently the No. 3 program in cable news, and MSNBC is standing by its cash cow.
“For over a decade, ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ has welcomed the best journalists from across the country and celebrated the hard work they do, day-in and day-out. This includes countless New York Times reporters and editors. That commitment to journalism is part of the DNA of the show,” an MSNBC spokesperson told Fox News when asked about the Vanity Fair report.
Maddow has emerged as a leader of the #Resistance, but her missteps on Mueller aren't the only time she has raised eyebrows. Maddow failed to ask Hillary Clinton whether or not she thought the Obama administration could have done a better job handling Russian interference, was called out by a media watchdog group for deceiving viewers when she ignored reports seemingly clearing Donald Trump Jr. of suspicions related to the much-hyped Trump Tower meeting, and famously disappointed viewers when a heavily promoted “scoop” about Trump’s taxes ended up being much ado about nothing.
Back in 2017, Maddow promoted a theory tying Trump to a tragic ambush attack that killed four American soldiers in Niger that was so outlandish that even the dependably liberal HuffPost criticized it as "so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map."
“Let’s be honest, Maddie’s brand has never been tethered to the truth or reality. She has been the National Enquirer of political coverage for years now,” conservative strategist Chris Barron said.
By Brian Flood
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
53 visitors
“Her opinionated approach, however, should make hard news reporters and their editors take pause before being associated with her agenda-driven show... regular journalists risk being associated with the political leanings of Maddow, which could be harmful to their credibility.”.....Jeffrey McCall
Once the false Trump-collusion narrative fell apart this was bound to happen. They lied to America for 3 years!
Will she cry again? I'd watch that.
One can only imagine what they'll be like if/when Trump wins a second term and even better the Republicans win back the House & win a super majority in the Senate!
So your seed is Fox dissing MSNBC and whining about political bias.
It drips with hypocrisy.
Your seed links TVNewser and here is what they ACTUALLY say:
Fox is on standard cable and MSNBC is on premium, you get what you pay for...
I thought it was pretty fair:
“MSNBC is standing by her because she still has a large viewership emotionally invested bringing down Trump,” Jacobson said. “That some reporters refuse to go on her show is important, but is unlikely to change her behavior. Maddow long ago carved out her faux-intellectual paranoid niche, and she's stuck in it."
That's the bottom line.
You would.
BTFW, why do you think that the opinion of securities attorney is relevant? Fox cites a partisan hack in an article whining about partisanship.
So your bottom line is a bias opinion from a securities attorney yet you posted your seed in News and Politics.
BTW, the headline doesn't support your 'bottom line' and the article doesn't support the claim in that headline or your 'bottom line'.
Yeah because every cable carrier is the same....
Seems to me you live in a area where the cable company likes to take advantage of those addicted to fake news.
Where did I say that?
Seems to me that you don't recognize that in many rural areas, cable companies have monopolies.
And that has to do with what?
It has to do with the FACT that monopolies are designed to take advantage.
I'm not surprised that you view a simple question as spin...
Where was the question?
You went from stating that you had to have premium cable to get MSNBC to, for WTF knows why, talking about rural areas and cable monopolies.
I can't think of anyplace I've lived that you had to get a cable upgrade to get MSNBC. FOX,CNN and MSNBC always come with standard cable.
So what do you call going from stating;
To spinning all the way to;
I laid it out for you so you can stay focused.
Maybe you should have stated that where you live MSNBC is a premium service which I highly doubt.
So you end up paying more for MSNBC's bias and lies?
The higher paid the consultant is, the smarter they automatically are.
C'mon Greg ..... you should know that.
Since Hannity is the highest paid, your posit is ridiculous.
As opposed to getting FOX bias and lies for less?
And your sarcasm detector needs some work ....
So are you saying I should flag his comment for mocking?
No, i'm saying your sarcasm detector needs some fine tuning.
So tune it more toward contempt than mockery, got ya.
.... lighten up Francis ..... get it?
What does ONE day in MAY have to do with the FIRST QUARTER ratings Vic?
One day? It's part of a trend since Mueller delivered his report, wouldn't you say?
TV Newser (free registration required) reveals the continuing loss of a substantial portion of the viewership for both cable news networks in the third week of May:
"Both CNN and MSNBC are subsidiaries of large publicly-held corporations, AT&T and Comcast, respectively. It is time for the grown-ups at the corporate level to recognize that each of their subsidiaries have adopted a losing business strategy of focusing on left-wing propaganda, a declining market niche. Shareholders need to demand that existing management be replaced at both cable news operations. They have squandered their credibility and need to provide former viewers with visible evidence that they have learned their lessons.
The move of CNN’s New York operations from Columbus Circle to Hudson Yards has already been used as an excuse to lay off more than a hundred staffers , a typical move of companies in decline. But that cost-saving measure will not persuade former viewers to return, much less add new viewers. Firing Jeff Zucker, head of CNN who was promoted by AT&T and given broader responsibilities , would be a visible sign that corporate understands the need to change and to win back lost viewers."
"Hat tip: Roger Luchs"
No thanks.
Don't click or read the 'thinker'.
BTW, the comment I replied to wasn't about last month.
No?
BTW, the comment I replied to wasn't about last month.
You were talking about May 31st, which was last month. I do love to hear everything contested, including the sun rising, so please tell us how May 31st is an outlier of May?
Where in this thread did I say ANYTHING about May 31st Vic?
When you post bullshit about my comments, expect to be contested.
I thought you would at least concede that you made the statement. Try post# 2.4,1:
"What does ONE day in MAY have to do with the FIRST QUARTER ratings Vic?"
When you post bullshit about my comments, expect to be contested.
I don't deal in bullshit, I don't work for CNN.
I'll give you the last word so I can put this to rest.
As opposed to bailing and ignoring the question completely and pretending it was never asked, as is the practice of all too many here?
So in your world, asking you a question about your deflection is 'talking about May 31st'. Got ya Vic.
Word.
I see you're back making inane comments rather than answering questions put to you hours ago.
Your comment is a perfect example of practice I spoke of in mine.
Well done.
I think it is fair to say that the seeded article is a hit piece by Maddow's tv competition , Fox News.
I don't often watch Rachel Maddow. It's not that I dont think she's any good, but there are other shows I would rather watch if I'm watching tv at that hour. Chris Cuomo is more entertaining.
Not really. It gives credit where credit is due
Considering this is a hit piece on Maddow from Fox News... YES REALLY!
So what if it is?
Most of the mass media is in a constant state of "hit piece" against their ONLY significant competition. Fox news
The preponderance of venues like MSNBC are the ones driving the media polarization bus not the other way around.
Fox is now mostly pure WH propaganda, not news, which is why their viewers are the most ignorant - they are fed and believe Trump lies daily. Pathetic.
I wouldn't know I don't watch it but I'll take your word for it as you must be a viewer to form your conclusions.
I like your source of a left wing news source to substantiate your bias that Fox is bias.
He probably does watch it, and his handlers try to explain to him what he just saw in spin form to make it seem what he thinks he saw was the exact opposite of what he actually saw.
progressives morals are regressive (and they are being rejected)
their voice is growing weaker by the day.
such fun