Subscribe via RSS Feed

Maddow is a fraud

[ 109 ] March 2, 2013 |

I never watch her myself, but I always assumed everyone I knew did, so I’m disappointed to learn that her “popularity” is entirely due to her manipulation of the Twitter machine. As Dan Riehl notes, “Hmm.”

Because exactly.

It’s much more likely that Maddow’s at home painstakingly creating fake hot-lady Twitter accounts to boost her mentions than it is that fake hot-ladies are glomming on to her tweets in order to take advantage of her popularity.

I understand why conservatives want to chuckle at this non-story, but I’m not sure why they want to convince themselves that Maddow’s unpopular among the very liberals to whom they attribute her beliefs. I’m all for unfounded mockery, but conservatives need to have a little pride and be consistent. Just read those comments.* They seem to think we’ll hate “Raymond Mildew” because “he” is a lesbian, but that doesn’t even make any sense! If she’s a man she can’t be a lesbian. This isn’t that difficult.**

*Don’t!

**Unless you’re a conservative.

Comments (109)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. laslo says:

    There are multiple reasons not to like Maddow, this would rank low on the list.

    The righty comments you allude to are precious. Wonder if these folks have seen Ann Coulter in HD.

    • I literally cannot think of one reason not to like her. OK, I can. She’s my age and like a bajillion times more accomplished/well-read/educated than I am. I don’t like that, but I try not to hold it against her.

      • commie atheist says:

        Seconded.

      • cpinva says:

        then you aren’t thinking very hard.

        “I literally cannot think of one reason not to like her.”

        the main reason i dislike (for lack of a better term) her, is her intellectual laziness. with all the resources at her disposal (i assume), she does mediocre (at best) work. rarely does she seem prepared, when having a guest on with contrary views/opinions. she fails, frequently, to ask pointed follow-up questions. shit, jon stewart generally does a better of it than she does, and his is a fake new program.

        i’m sure ms. maddow is a lovely person, and her heart is in the right place, but she’s utterly failed to fully utilize the public platform she has. for that, i dislike her.

    • Joe says:

      I like her and generally her heart is in the right place, but I have sort of grown tired of her.

      She doesn’t really surprise me for one thing. She has a “speak to the choir” flavor. It’s great that she brings news and perspectives the “MSM” repeatedly doesn’t focus upon, but this gets tiresome. It was a surprise to have that goofy animal guy on Letterman on once to talk about an animal incident some time back & he challenged her a bit. That is, you can be on one side & still see shades of gray.

      My kingdom for a follow-up question that challenges a guest. Not that other MSNBC shows often do this. O’Donnell had Colbert’s sister on & we didn’t really get to know her much — it was mostly to goof about Stephen Colbert and such.

      Also, she is a tad too precious at times, like when she says “on the interview tonight” with so much gumption & it’s just another interview that doesn’t really say much novel. She is a bit schoolmarmish at times too.

      Again, this doesn’t mean she isn’t wicked smart and overall a good journalist, but it does get tiresome.

      • sapient says:

        I completely agree with Joe’s criticism. I like Maddow a lot when I want to be revved up: during the election, it was comforting to watch her, etc. Other than that, she can be tiresome, because one knows exactly what she’s going to say. I can do without her lectures on most days.

        That said, I read Steve Benen, her major blogger, religiously. There’s something wonderful about the fact that she identified him as her chief blog spokesperson.

  2. NonyNony says:

    I’m not sure why they want to convince themselves that Maddow’s unpopular among the very liberals to whom they attribute her beliefs.

    Because they are miserable human beings who know that their entire worldview is based on fraud and so they assume that everyone else’s is too?

    I kid. The Freepers aren’t self-aware enough to know that their beliefs are transparently fraudulent. Mostly they just hate everyone that isn’t them, and cheer on anything bad that would affect anyone they hate. It helps to realize that the Freepers have the emotional maturity of Gollum without his erudition or table manners.

  3. sharculese says:

    I’m not reading Free Republic can someone summarize what this is about?

  4. thebewilderness says:

    I am just so shocked to hear that tweets are being used as a promotional tool. Shocked I tell you.
    I made a million dollars a day working from home on my computer spamming the world and you can too! Call 1-800-whaaambulance.

  5. Data Tutashkhia says:

    Hmmm. The lady must be a multimillionaire; hard to imagine her sitting and typing bs all day. Probably some interns working for her publicist or something.

  6. thebewilderness says:

    If you go to First Draft on Monday’s the freeper fever swamp is presented by Tommy T so you don’t have to get slime on your boots.
    Is this spam? Now I feel bad.

  7. Modulo Myself says:

    Look, conservatives shill for human rights violators for 400K and liberals on television will promote their shows. Shouldn’t we just shake our heads and ask for relief from this vicious political cycle?

  8. Icarus Wright says:

    That’s unfortunate. I’ve seen bits of her show and she always came across as too…smug? Cute? Lefty-hip? Yet I always thought my negative reaction was to her style, since her analyses always seemed to have substance. Being caught out at something so silly is just so…dumb.

    OTOH

    conservatives need to have a little pride and be consistent

    LOL! No they don’t.

    • SEK says:

      As the good doctor notes below, I don’t actually think she’s the one who got caught doing/saying something dumb.

      • Icarus Wright says:

        It’s much more likely that Maddow’s at home painstakingly creating fake hot-lady Twitter accounts to boost her mentions than it is that fake hot-ladies are glomming on to her tweets in order to take advantage of her popularity.

        Point taken, but that assumes these fake tweets were generated with the express purpose of being discovered. Entirely possible, but that attributes a far more clever & sinister aspect to wingnuts than I’d have imagined.

        The prudent thing to do would be to wait for her response.

        • SEK says:

          I doubt she’ll respond. It’s just porn-spam, Twitter-style. I’m guessing I overestimated a familiarity with Twitter spam, which is odd, because I never use Twitter because I’m a Hoblo with the brevity.

          I apologize for being unnecessarily cryptic. I really wasn’t trying to be!

    • That’s unfortunate. I’ve seen bits of her show and she always came across as too…smug? Cute? Lefty-hip?

      Wow, that is weird. I would not use any of those words to describe her. Maybe “lefty,” but otherwise no no no no.

      • SEK says:

        Actually, I understand the “smug” remark, because she’s incredibly nerdy. I was watching an episode with my parents in which she made a sustained and complex Watchmen analogy, and if you didn’t know it was a comic, you’d think she was “smug.” But if you can recognize half the books on the wall behind her, you’d know she’s just a dork. (My kind of dork, I think it goes without saying.)

        • sharculese says:

          That is an awesome dog.

        • I guess she’s just always come across as really humble and down-to-earth to me, so I read “smug” and I go “Huh?”

          Then again, the wingers call her “Mad Cow,” which is surreal because she is so even-tempered and nice. I could see them calling someone like me that. I am not nice.

        • Icarus Wright says:

          I know Maddow is “nerdy” because she has a large library?? Hugging her dog in front of shelves of books in an obviously (for Maddow, uncomfortable) staged photo…

          Thanks for linking to that fascinating interview, but I simply don’t see where a cult of personality should have any play on how the news is reported. That interview reads like a Playboy centerfold bio without the measurements. Which, it must be said, isn’t Maddow’s fault; simply a function of the aforementioned dependency on personalities to convey information.

          When I said she was “cute,” I didn’t mean in the physical sense. What I refer to is her portrayal of herself: the kind of self-deprecating subtext that says “I know I’m smart and you know I’m smart, but I’ll present myself as insecure so as not come across as an arrogant cunt.” By comparison, O’Reilly is less pretentious and comes across as a smug, non-cute, arrogant prick. (“Cunt” and “prick” here being used as very gender-dependent derogatories)

          Quite possibly such observations say more about me than Maddow; I gave up the pretense of imagining myself as someone sans bias long ago…perhaps around 1997, when I noticed that female news anchors all looked like they were churned out of some Swedish model agency. Then again, Maddow isn’t by any stretch a physically ugly person.

          A lament.

          I should think you, SEK, would be more sensitive/aware of this stuff.

          • commie atheist says:

            So, not only do you lack reading comprehension skills, but you’re an asshole to boot. Duly noted.

          • LeftWingFox says:

            but I’ll present myself as insecure so as not come across as an arrogant cunt.”

            Go fuck yourself. Repeatedly.

            • sharculese says:

              What I refer to is her portrayal of herself: the kind of self-deprecating subtext that says “I know I’m smart and you know I’m smart, but I’ll present myself as insecure so as not come across as an arrogant cunt.”

              What the fuck?

          • Hogan says:

            (“Cunt” and “prick” here being used as very gender-dependent derogatories)

            Yeah, see, if you’ve written something that makes you feel the need to add this explanation, your next move should be toward the backspace key. Or possibly the Close icon at the top right of your browser.

          • Jewish Steel says:

            Sensitivity and Awareness. Got it.

          • thebewilderness says:

            Indeed it does say a great deal about you.

          • Anonymous says:

            Why just “female news anchors”?

            • Icarus Wright says:

              Because male news anchors tend to not conform to gender-based (paternalistic) ideas of what’s sexy.

              Ignoring Wolf Blitzer – who owns possibly the coolest, most alpha dog, and sexiest name in human history.

              • Anonymous says:

                Really? As has been demonstrated in recent LGM threads, straight men can, without injury, be utterly unaware of the sexual appeal and objectification (when it’s economically tenable to exploit) of other men. That you find male news anchors homely doesn’t prove your point. It just means you’ve got blinders on.

                I gave up the pretense of imagining myself as someone sans bias long ago…perhaps around 1997, when I noticed that female news anchors all looked like they were churned out of some Swedish model agency.

                That’s a just a lazy non-sequitur, smacking a bit of bitterness. Awwww. The good-looking ladies have ruined your televised news by pretending to be journalists. Something something something, male oppression.

                According to your testimony, women are damned either way. Too boner-inducing, and they’re mindless lemmings hired for their looks and their ability to read copy. Too “cuntish” and confident (what you’re calling smug) and they’ve an over-inflated ego.

              • Anonymous says:

                Also, a resounding LOL at your attempt to wield technical jargon you’ve obviously never closely interrogated. What’s a non-paternalist or “gender-based” criterion for sexy? I’ll wait…

                In the meantime, please ponder the notion that a woman isn’t “conforming” to anything simply because you happen to find her attractive. It’s a bit disingenuous to imply that all women on the idiot-box are (secretly) trying to turn you on. Being born female-bodied doesn’t ruin your credibility, despite what dicks like you think.

          • “I’ll present myself as insecure so as not come across as an arrogant cunt.”

            “I gave up the pretense of imagining myself as someone sans bias long ago…perhaps around 1997″

  9. Um, tons of fake hot lady accounts follow me on twitter. It’s not unusual. I believe it’s called spam. I’m not surprised Riehl has never heard of it.

    • anthrofred says:

      Dammit, foiled again.

    • Red_cted says:

      I have some hot lady followers who seem to tweet from an endless supply of fortune cookies. They want me to look at the hot pictures on their websites. They’re called twitterbots.

      I have another “male” follower I can’t figure out: follows thousands of people, has thousands of followers, and has never posted a tweet. Wasupwidat?

  10. BubbaDave says:

    Hell, I’ve had 4-5 fake hot lady accounts on Twitter and I’ve never tweeted anything at all. (Seriously, I just use it for the unified Discus comment system login. DON’T YOU JUDGE ME!)

  11. Incontinential Buttocks says:

    I can’t believe that you made me follow those links, SEK.

    I like good snark as much as the next guy, but you can at least spare your readership the need to visit websites like that in order to figure out what your posts are about.

    And, look, you’ve gone and confused Icarus Wright!

    • SEK says:

      Don’t blame me, I can lead you there, but I can’t make you drink.

      (And at least I’m not disguising the links via shortening like WordPress wants me to, for no particularly good reason.)

      • Pseudonym says:

        Click tracking/counting, one would assume.

        • RhZ says:

          I hate both of those trends, shortening (so you don’t know where someone is sending you) and click tracking (try to track me and I will simply not click at all).

          Sorry just had to vent, two of my biggest bugaboos, together again!

      • some guy pretending to be joe from lowell to make a cheap joke says:

        Having been led there, I now have no recourse but to drink. Heavily.

  12. anthrofred says:

    Hey, remember when Sandra Fluke was a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex and not get pregnant*, but then she was also a huge lesbo and conservatives guffawed when she got married to a man?

    * I almost wrote “with dudes”, and then realized that the loss of distinction may have been part of the problem in the first place

  13. commie atheist says:

    Dan Riehl? I’ll reserve judgment until Josh Trevino weighs in on this, so I can hear what the people who pay for his opinions think about it.

  14. anthrofred says:

    From the comments: “[freeper poster] Laz would make a real woman of her.”

    Oh, how lovely, the rape-her-til-she’s-straight trope. Stay classy, boys.

  15. commie atheist says:

    If she’s a man she can’t be a lesbian. This isn’t that difficult.

    I’ve always considered myself a lesbian in the body of a man, so, there.

  16. Manju says:

    Ok, I admit it. I created the Dark Avenger in order to boost my own popularity…in a convoluted sort of way. But convolutism is my thing.

    However, Dr. Dick is for real.

  17. commie atheist says:

    Also, too:

    With so many supposedly unique accounts mentioning her name, the term #Maddow has quickly risen to the top of trending topics on twitter-something @LeftyBollocks found odd since her show has so few viewers.

    Viewers aged 25-54 tend to disagree with @LeftyBollocks.

  18. Red_cted says:

    “They seem to think we’ll hate “Raymond Mildew” because “he” is a lesbian, but that doesn’t even make any sense! If she’s a man she can’t be a lesbian.”

    Hey I’m a man and I’m a lesbian! It’s all in the mind you know.

    • Crackity Jones says:

      My father liked to joke that he was a lesbian (after which he’d pant like a dog). It was never funny. The more he did it, the less funny it got…but I still found it funny.

  19. anthrofred says:

    Especially odd since there are so few people in those demographics on Twitter.

  20. Shakezula says:

    If it weren’t for careful culling my following would be 49% SEO experts and 49% porny babes. But in Rightsville it is gospel that liberals keep winning elections because they control the internet and the media. The idea of Maddow fiddling with Twitter

    Also, too: When appropriate, you can save time by stating “Dan Reihl says X” and then everyone will instantly know X is a fat fucking lie. Unless X is an encounter with brown youths, in which case everyone will know X is a lie and Dan nearly shat himself in fear.

    • Shakezula says:

      The idea of Maddow fiddling with Twitter ^fits perfectly beneath their tinfoil hats.

      (Cat, not brain fart.)

    • Djur says:

      Wingnuts also take Twitter weirdly seriously, a lot more so than liberals in my experience. Hashtag campaigns are a lot more common, and all that #tcot #teaparty stuff doesn’t seem to have a prominent liberal counterpart. And there is a LOT of bragging about how much more presence wingnuts have on Twitter, how wingnut campaigns rank high in each year’s trending topics, etc.

      Hell, the GOP was trying to make #Obamaquester happen. I’m sure there are liberal hashtag campaigns, but they don’t seem to be as big a deal.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        My hunch is that wingnuts take Twitter seriously for the same reason they take bumper stickers seriously. Or Clint Eastwood. Or Ronald Reagan.

      • Jewish Steel says:

        It’s like when grandpa puts on a pair of wayfarers, drinks a coke and says, “Radical!” Twitter is an oracular sacrifice to what is young and hip.

        Or when Rubio says, “…man.”

      • Jberardi says:

        Tribalism. Our team should/must/will win because fuck yeah, our team. It doesn’t matter if what they’re winning is of no consequence because (again) fuck yeah, we beat you dumb libtards.

      • JL says:

        I’ve seen plenty of lefty activist hashtag campaigns around specific events or topics, but the point is normally to make it easier for people who want to do so to follow what is being said about a topic. I’ve actually used hashtags for particular protests to find out say, people are being arrested at the other end of a several-thousand-person march.

        I get #teaparty, I can see why Tea Partiers would want to be able to follow Tea Party news without having to follow every single person who tweets such news (I certainly know people who do the same with, say, #occupy), but I really don’t get #tcot. Like, how many “top conservatives” can there be? Can’t you just follow those people? What is the hashtag adding? And I don’t get conservative whining about Twitter gulags. If you send too many tweets in a short period of time your account gets locked for a while because Twitter thinks you’re a spammer. It’s not about your conservative politics. The people I know who livetweet events have backup accounts for this very reason.

      • Cody says:

        I greatly enjoy the GOP hashtags though. I often use them to point out really stupid stuff on it.

        I’m guessing a lot of other bored liberals do this.

        #Obamaquester Republicans wanted these cuts all along – why is it a problem now!

  21. Dan Coyle says:

    Oh God, Bob Somerby just exploded!

  22. leo from Chicago says:

    From the guy who gave us ‘Against Springsteen’…

  23. Uncle Ebeneezer says:

    I think that given the constraints of main-stream cable tv, Maddow and Chris Hayes do about as good a job possible at asking good questions, countering bad/disingenuous answers and covering important stories that few others are talking about. They are SO much better than most that I’m kind of surprised that people think they are weak interviewers.

    • Joe says:

      Chris Hayes, and the panel format helps here (especially since there tends to be one at least with a different p.o.v), regularly takes a “devil’s advocate” approach.

      I don’t really see Maddow doing this. I don’t know how “restraints” of cable really requires her to be as predictable as she is, though (as with Democracy Now!) it’s great she deals with topics and perspectives other do not. But, when does she say something that is a bit surprising? A bit not the expected line? When does she ask her guests “but …” like questions?

      • YYZ says:

        Chris Hayes’ show is much better than Rachel Maddow’s.
        Maddow is better than the rest of the daily hosts on MSNBC but her show is still meh on most days. Maddow is generally more insightful as a commentator than as a host. Maybe her program would be better if she had a few correspondents to interact with.

  24. Gilda says:

    I visit daily a few sites and sites to read content, except this
    blog presents quality based writing.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site