Rachel Maddow Says The Media Narrative Following Mueller's Testimony Was All Wrong

[babylonsister]

Posted on Thu, Jul 25th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Rachel Maddow Says The Media Narrative Following Mueller’s Testimony Was All Wrong


On her program Thursday, Rachel Maddow shredded the media narrative following Robert Mueller’s testimony, saying that the initial headlines about the hearing got it all wrong.

Despite the pundits claiming that Mueller’s hearing will doom any impeachment efforts, the MSNBC host pointed out that just the opposite seems to be true a day later.

“As of this afternoon, oh, look, there is five new members of the House who have just come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, including Katherine Clark who is in the Democratic House leadership,” Maddow pointed out.

She added, “The facts on the ground do seem to be shifting much faster than that kind of tut-tutting analysis has been able to keep up with even just over the course of today.”

Link to tweet

Maddow said:

As of this morning, you might have seen the national headlines, these super sober, super sure headlines about how if we know anything about the impact of the Robert Mueller testimony yesterday, it’s that it definitely didn’t move the needle one bit on the question of impeachment. If it did anything, it convinced Democrats once and for all that they definitely aren’t going to pursue impeachment. It killed that off forever. Those are the headlines all over the papers today, as of this morning. As of this afternoon, oh, look, there is five new members of the House who have just come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, including Katherine Clark who is in the Democratic House leadership. … In fact, further detailed reporting about that same meeting later today suggests that what the Democrats were really doing at that meeting was for the first time talking about the nuts and bolts, step-by-step chronological logistics of how exactly they would do it if they were going to do it. Including basic questions like how exactly their impeachment articles would be conveyed to the U.S. Senate if the House did, in fact, pass articles of impeachment and it was time to move on to the next step. That’s the kind of stuff they were talking about, which is not at all the same old page they were stuck on before. So all of this instant sage punditry and instant news analysis in the world that’s trying to be very reassuring now … I understand the impulse to be soothing. I understand the impulse to broadcast that sort of thing. I think it sort of feels good, particularly in the beltway press, but the facts on the ground do seem to be shifting much faster than that kind of tut-tutting analysis has been able to keep up with even just over the course of today.

more...

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/25/maddow-narrative-mueller-testimony-wrong-media.html

[The Wizard]

1. She's right

Mueller's descriptions of Trump as a criminal sre beginning to sink in. The media gives cover to Trump because they want two things, access and ratings. In doing so the commit journalistic malpractice. Ending the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Communications Act set up the media for failure to accurately inform the public as suggested in the First Amendment.

[FailureToCommunicate]

2. Rachel has it correct, IMO, despite the awful "tut-tutting" of Brian Williams on the

same network.

[RVN VET71]

10. WAPO this morning insists the Mueller hearing "fell flat"

and left the Dems scrambling for strategy.

Of course, the Post is partially right. The hearing fell flat because Mueller did not impress the Washington Post with his pizzazz and charisma. Screw the content of the hearing, the back and forth, the steady, unrelenting references to the Report that showed without any question or doubt that the so-called president is worse than a common thief and very close to a qualifying as traitor, as are virtually everyone in his family and administration.

The victors write the history and, so far, there seems to be very few voices for the righteous in this mess. If the media turns away from truth and freedom now, Trump will win in 2020 and that will be it, end of story.

[bullwinkle428]

13. Beat me to the punch re: Brian Williams. Literally 1 hour after Rachel's show

ended, he was beating the very drum she was dismantling.

[Grasswire2]

21. I turned it off and then told the show on twitter and FB WHY I turned it off.

And others agreed with me.

Covering the Dem "performance" instead of the substance of the report to Congress was rampant. Still is today on cable news.

It almost sounds coordinated.

And that awful "Democratic Strategist" on MSNBC today Antjuan Seawright? Horrible, horrible, horrible. He worked for Hillary??

[triron]

32. I'm convinced Williams is a closet Trump supporter.

[SharonAnn]

34. I couldn't believe Brian Williams. He was again on this a day later.

I now don't have to watch him again. It's clear that he's not reporting, he's just passing on someone's talking points.

[malaise]

3. Let the jackasses bray

Facts be damned

[Joe941]

4. Start impeachment now!

[Hoyt]

5. The report was a flop, but the hearings were actually quite good,

mainly because Democrats were prepared and Schiff framed things perfectly.

Although Mueller started the day repeating the no evidence of conspiracy/cooperation BS, in the afternoon he was more open about trump being unethical, immoral, unpatriotic, and likely criminal, while emphasizing Ruskies will interfere with 2020 and are doing it now, while trump jokes about it.

Don’t know whether it’ll lead to impeachment, but it darn sure hurt trump.

[NewJeffCT]

12. Schiff is a master

Maybe the smartest guy in Congress.

[Totally Tunsie]

24. +++

[Funtatlaguy]

26. Yes. He is awesome. Also, speaks very well.

[2naSalit]

6. K&R

[VOX]

7. Christ, based on reviews, you'd think Muller was trying out a set for open-mic night at the Improv.

Which fits rather sadly into our fact-free universe under TrumPutin.

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Before these hearings, many uninvolved people didn't know half of what the report said

Now, it's going to be on their news feeds and news shows. So, some of it will sink in. It will make some people think.

[klook]

9. Looks like the truth is getting its pants on,

after the lies have circumnavigated the globe several times.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Yes, facts are a stubborn thing

and Rachel, respect your elders. She has focused on Mueller's age and physical condition. Yes he has applied his wisdom, expertise, and reputation to the OSC job. Yes he seems tired.

I think he just has minor ailments common to many over age 60.

[usaf-vet]

19. Maybe if the half of the country with working brains had listen to Mueller they would have IMO...

.... heard him say he didn't want to testify. He knows the limits of his body better than anyone.

It was his warning that although he managed the crafting of the report, it was a team effort. He played his role to perfection. He wanted the report to speak for him because he believed in its accuracy and it's directions to congress. I believe he knew he wasn't going to perform well as a public voice for it's content true as it was.

A football team can have a great coach, but he knows he would suck as a running back, punter, tight end. And so on. The coach would never want himself put in the game as a player even if the owner demanded it. Congress was the demanding "owner" in this case.

Mueller wanted to fight back I could see and feel it in his mannerism, but he was smart enough to not get into a pissing match with the GOP sycophants.

His primary goal was to NOT contradict the written report, in the heat of the moment.

I would have loved to see him at 74 invite Louie Gohmert and or Jim Jordan outside to work out their differences. I'm sure the former USMC Captian would have made several points requiring medics to tend to the wounded.

I admired him for ignoring them and maintaining his dignity.

[brush]

14. Sorry but didn't Rachel herself comment on Mueller seemed "old"?

Too many of the pundits ignore the content of the questions and Mueller's responses and commented dereisively on his appearance and mannerisms. It was disgusting.

[Hortensis]

15. Major MSM declaring that impeachment was dead? Oh, yeah, I noticed!

After 2016 I don't assume that kind of thing reflects bad judgment and pack journalism, but regard it as probable evidence of corrupt journalism.

As she pointed out, though, as the day progressed events forced them to cover direct contradictions of their story.

[YOHABLO]

16. Mueller had already warned that he would not go beyond the report.

He stuck to what was in the report and was careful not to implicate any political bias. WTF did the media want a food fight? I'm sick of the media telling us what the ''American people'' are thinking.

[cp]

17. Watched all seven hours, drew my own conclusions

As with debates, I turn off the TV, radio, etc. immediately afterwards, so as to reflect.
Mueller was steadfast. Schiff was brilliant. Nadler did well. Evidence damns Individual-1.
Time to begin impeachment hearings.

[FakeNoose]

18. Rachel ignored the memo from the NBC bosses, and she drew her own conclusions

This explains why Rachel Maddow is the BEST at what she does.

[hughee99]

20. I'm not aware that any "facts on the ground" have changed since his testimony.

I think before, there was the hope that Mueller was going to make everyone’s job easier, and when that didn’t happen, some holdouts decided to press on anyway.

[Grasswire2]

22. Go read the Seth Abramson threads from yesterday and today. nt

[hughee99]

23. I've been reading his twitter and while he says

“Fact: the Dems have enough evidence on obstruction” (sorry, that’s actually a paraphrase), that is a matter of opinion and not based on any new evidence. Abramson himself said months ago that they had enough evidence.

[pnwmom]

27. There was a MAJOR change. Nadler filed a document with a court asking for the documents

that the Grand Jury reviewed related to the Mueller report, and said the information was needed preliminary to an impeachment investigation.

That wording has never been used before . . . but it was used in the Clinton and Nixon impeachments.

[hughee99]

28. That hasn't changed the facts of an impeachment case.

We don’t have new information now that we didn’t have before, they’re just now acting on what they’ve known for a while.

[pnwmom]

30. Nader's action is itself a fact, and it changes the legal status of the investigation,

and greatly improves the ability to get the courts to comply with subpoenas.

But there were some new things related to Mueller's work we DID learn during the hearing. For one thing, that the counter-intelligence investigation is still ongoing, and involves Trump.

[hughee99]

35. Does the fact that there is a investigation still going,

Without having any findings, change what we have at the moment for impeachment? Yes, Nadler is moving forward, but we didn’t learn anything new yet that would change the facts of an impeachment case.

[pnwmom]

36. I don't understand what your concern is. Mueller had said over and over again

that he was going to stick to the "four corners" of the report. Why would you have expected him not to?

And multiple investigations and trials are still ongoing -- Roger Stone among them -- that could still yield more articles of impeachment.

The important thing to happen has happened: Nadler has official opened an impeachment investigation, based in large part on the Mueller report, and informed the court. There is no reason at all to rush to vote on articles of impeachment for just the obstruction charges, when further charges -- coming from ongoing investigations, including in the State of New York -- could be developed over the next year.

[hughee99]

37. Here is what I am saying...

Yes, Mueller stuck to the report. He provided no new information on impeachable offenses. Everything we know now, we’ve known for months, so the process that Nadler just started now COULD have started months ago. No “smoking gun” emerged from the hearing to get people to say “Ah, now that we have this new information, it’s time to impeach”

[ck4829]

25. Kick

[Gothmog]

29. I agree with Rachel's analysis

[elocs]

31. It's good that both the Left and the right can now blame the media

for when things don't go how they like. It's nice that we have this in common with each other.

[Caliman73]

33. Unfortunately, how the media frames events has a major effect on how people perceive it.

The problem comes from the attributions and motives not necessarily from the skepticism itself. All information can be biased by conscious or unconscious things. The difference is in why people are calling out bias.

Right wingers blame the media from having a "liberal" bias. There goal is twofold with that strategy. The first is to inoculate their viewers against any information that goes against the specific conservative bias that outlets like Fox News Channel, right wing radio, and websites like Breitbart convey. The second part is to accuse the "mainstream" outlets of having the bias so as to pull those outlets into airing the right wing perspective along with the standard reporting. In a situation where the news reports that the tax cuts Trump proposed and the GOP pushed through, have not benefited the economy as the GOP predicted, the noise from the right would inevitably get right wingers invited to spin that information rather than just leaving that information as presented. So you have the right wing narrative along with a "journalistic narrative"

I am not sure what you mean by "the Left" so I am making an assumption and you can correct me if I am wrong. I assume by "the Left" that you mean people to the left of moderate to center left Democratic Party positions. People who follow AOC, Omar, and Sanders. Their attribution of the problem with the media narrative is based on the assertion that most of the media is owned large corporate entities, and highly consolidated. While much of the on the ground reporting staff are typically trying to maintain a standard of journalistic integrity and trying to limit bias and focus on fact based reporting, the on air personalities are expected to represent the interests of the organization. There is a range from an attempt to deliver information in a factual middle of the road approach, to the punditry of the intelligent but left leaning style of Maddow, to the firebrand approach of O'Donnell, etc... but the goal of of the on air staff is to draw in viewers and the way that has been most effective in drawing in viewers is through the excitement of conflict.

The media frames information in a way meant to draw in the most views and attract revenue streams. Journalists I believe, want to get things correct and try to limit their overt biases, but the information is filtered through the interests of the agencies that put on the broadcasts and how the information is presented affects their business model.