General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel Maddow the New Bill O'Reilly? Matt Taibbi Thinks So
By Rudy TakalaApr 23rd, 2021, 4:55 pm
Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi has a theory about which network anchor assumed Bill OReillys mantle in prime-time television.
OReilly, during the Bush years, was the #1-ranked cable personality, Taibbi said in an interview with The Hills Rising. And he got there in a very specific way. He played the role as this kind of jingoistic front-man who was constantly accusing people of being insufficiently patriotic, insufficiently pro-war. And he would have a parade of guests on, and question them about how devoted they were to the cause, or whether they were too affiliated or too supportive of terrorism or Islam or whatever it was, and that catapulted him to the top of the ratings. And he significantly relied on a story that turned out to be false, the [Iraq] WMD story, to kind of launch him into the stratosphere.
MSNBC has kind of stepped into that role as the network that is hyper-patriotic, that is constantly talking about a foreign dictator, and has been elevated by a story that has lots and lots of holes in it, and they havent acknowledged that, Taibbi said, referencing MSNBCs focus on Russia and numerous theories surrounding former President Donald Trumps relationship with the country, including those propagated by the 2016 Steele Dossier.
He also said MSNBC host Rachel Maddow served as a chief example of the networks direction, and suggested it was analogous to the Fox News of OReillys era.
more
https://www.mediaite.com/news/rachel-maddow-the-new-bill-oreilly-matt-taibbi-thinks-so/
lapucelle
(18,311 posts)snowybirdie
(5,234 posts)Matt. No reputable news organization will hire him. He once would say interesting and thoughtful things. Now he's devolved into drivel.
Cha
(297,625 posts)I didn't know about the other things.
PJMcK
(22,048 posts)Who knows or cares what happened to him?
He's become a hack.
LenaBaby61
(6,977 posts)I never really was sold on Taibi when he used to be considered a good journalist.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Go back to 2003 and you can find the total hit jobs he wrote on Wes Clark and Howard Dean. Also he was a Serbian apologist vis a vis Bosnia before that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)self revealed in an era when he thought it was safe, finally bit him good as women's rights advanced in this century. Including with #MeToo. His self-exposure lives on in his book of his and male colleagues' mistreatment, harassment and outright assault of females, both on staff and elsewhere.
Besides that, he's a dishonest and disreputable influencer for anyone who wants a hit on Democrats and the Democratic Party. Meeting that big demand's what's kept him afloat and published.
Of course he doesn't like Maddow. For a variety of reasons.
You nailed it.
notinkansas
(1,096 posts)sounds suspiciously like that of the prior guy.
live love laugh
(13,129 posts)agingdem
(7,857 posts)Rachel deals in well documented facts..any mistakes are acknowledged and corrected......Bill spewed paranoia right wing bullshit...and once again Taibbi is shrouding his insults in backhanded "compliments"...this is a hit piece..
Paladin
(28,272 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)ChrisF1961
(457 posts)Never impressed by him. Always seemed very arrogant.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)he's an abysmal human and while a good writer, his motivations are skewed.
Vogon_Glory
(9,128 posts)Somebody overlooked the obvious difference between Rachel and the Faux Noise has-been: unlike the has-been, Rachel doesnt spend her time parroting propaganda, instead Rachel tears into the lies, the cognitive dissonance, unpleasant and contradictory facts of the actions of (usually) right wing political hacks and politicians, scoring points with a smiling face and mirth-filled voice and taking down shibboleths.
crickets
(25,983 posts)katmondoo
(6,457 posts)2naSalit
(86,775 posts)And Rachel is the opposite of that.
Beringia
(4,316 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)that Trump was a milling, or unwitting Russian asset.
Once the full Mueller Report is released, there will be no doubt.
msfiddlestix
(7,285 posts)He drew my attention during the financial crises, and I pretty much appreciated his work on that beat. Later, it appeared to me something was screwy and didn't hold the same opinion I had during the Financial crises.
Since T was installed, it seemed to me he was working for Putin. period. I simply have been ignoring any and every utterance from that asshole since 2016. I see this and infer a confirmation of my instinct he's been working for or on behalf Putin all along.
Midnight Writer
(21,795 posts)He sure loves him some Putin.
msfiddlestix
(7,285 posts)I haven't seen or read anything to suggest OTHER than his own words expressed in print or otherwise expressed and laid out on the conveyor belt of propaganda funded by the Kremlin. Was a time I would be perplexed and sort of taken by surprise by some of the stuff he spewed. But it was always around the notion that impeaching was related to Putin, and he'd refer to that as a HOAX.
He can go EFF himself as far as I'm concerned. He's an effing tool of Putin. Period.
Scrivener7
(51,004 posts)Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)He wins the "precocious adult-child journalist of the year award," don't you think?
Taibbi wrote this "Hey, look at me" article just in the nick of time for me because I had forgotten he existed! Great timing, Matt!
PortTack
(32,793 posts)OnDoutside
(19,969 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)and 2004, it was lonely. The utter lack of seriousness of our press corps has been a long standing issue and it is very much part of parcel of why we got Trump in the first place.
msfiddlestix
(7,285 posts)Scahill was certainly on the run up to shock and awe