One of the few saving graces from watching "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC? Its unintended amusement value.
Such was the case Friday night when journalist and author Carl Bernstein reined in Maddow during a segment aptly titled, "Talk Me Down."
Before interviewing Bernstein, Maddow enthused about MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann's "extraordinary" interviews with a former National Security Agency analyst turned whistleblower. Follow this link to see the seven-minute segment in its entirety; Maddow makes this assertion at 2:14 into the clip --
Here's the shocking bottom line -- the US government has been taping all of our calls and recording all of our emails, and an analyst involved in the program at the NSA says they specifically targeted journalists (pause) Nixon's enemies list initially had about 20 names on it. This administration's list includes the entire American press corps.
Wow, imagine the logistics involved, and handled by an administration allegedly incompetent at everything else. Maddow proceeds to introduce Bernstein, who wears the look of a man whose initial misgivings about appearing on the show were just confirmed --
MADDOW: Joining us now is Carl Bernstein, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author who of course is best known for his expose with Bob Woodward of the Watergate scandal, which ended the presidency of Richard Nixon. Mr. Bernstein, thank you for coming on the show tonight.
BERNSTEIN: Good to be here.
MADDOW: What is your reaction to these new allegations that we've heard on Keith's show this week?
Ah, now they are "allegations."
BERNSTEIN: That we don't know what they mean and what they are. I wouldn't go as far as you did ...
... but Tokyo Rose might have ...
BERNSTEIN: ... I think that there is an overwhelming problem with the Bush presidency about secret government and these allegations go to that. But more than that, there was a systemic failure because the Congress of the United States failed in its oversight function, in terms of the war and national security considerations and torture and the role of the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, they didn't know what the hell this presidency was doing.
However, from what we know about the NSA, it is the largest of the intelligence agencies and gets the largest part of the intelligence budget and it's like a giant vacuum cleaner that vacuums up all our incoming phone data, email data, and that's its function. The question is, how is that data examined? Now if ...
MADDOW (interrupting): Well, wait. Is it their function to collect all of that information or did they decide that was their function? I'm not sure, it was never the remit of the agency that they should collect all of the communications into and out of the country.
BERNSTEIN: The question about, there's a great book about the NSA called "The Puzzle Palace" ...
... and you really should read up on this before grasping at moonbeams ...
BERNSTEIN: ... that was written a number of years ago that explains its function very well. It is subject to great abuse because it has such a wide charter and because so much of intelligence collecting is electronic. And when you start digitalizing this information and looking for a needle in a haystack, if something was done such as taking journalistic institutions, say a newspaper, this network, or whatever, and systematically targeting, as you said, it is an absolute, total outrage, unconstitutional, the kind of thing that somebody ought to be prosecuted for. But we don't know that's what's happened.
What we do know is that we need to know what happened in the Bush presidency in all of these areas. President Obama has said, look, he wants to look forward, he doesn't want to look backward. At the same time, I'm sure that he wants to find out what is going on in the intelligence agencies, put a stop to the excesses, such as he has with Guantanamo, for instance, and in the process, I would hope, we'd find out what the hell has been going on.
MADDOW: Well, these latest allegations are from a man who, it seems to be unquestioned ...
... seeing how it was Olbermann who interviewed him ...
MADDOW: ... is in a position to know what the information that he is alleging. Certainly it is allegations at this point ...
... although clearly this wasn't the case two minutes ago when I introduced you ...
MADDOW: ... but we also know from the other allegations that have been proven about the NSA that they have the capacity for doing this ...
.... much like Saddam Hussein and the WMD he was waiting to rekindle ...
MADDOW: ... The only thing we need to find out is, whether or not we're willing to believe they'd do it and whether or not we're willing to follow the trail to find out in fact they did it.
... and it's obvious I'm willing to believe, even to the point of parading allegation as fact. Why the suspicious hesitation, Carl?
BERNSTEIN: Well, the latter part is the important thing. Let's find out what is going on. I think that you, that we really need to, I read the transcripts of Keith's broadcast with Mr. Tice (former NSA analyst) about four times ...
.... And I remain skeptical, as actual journalists are wont to be ...
BERNSTEIN: ... It's very difficult in places to see exactly what he is saying about reporters, about what is coming from the FBI, about what is coming from the NSA. If you look at it very closely ...
.... and I know you are capable of this, Rachel ...
BERNSTEIN: ... he says, it's compartmentalized, he doesn't know how this was used, he saw something that was collected. We ought to find out what that was. But I wouldn't make the leap to an enemies list, for instance, and say that Karl Rove was runnin' around with all this information ...
MADDOW (interrupting, sensing need to save face): Using it to take people down!
BERNSTEIN: Exactly. Or ...
MADDOW (interrupting again, spurred by growing awareness that saving face in dwindling time remaining probably futile): Right. But the idea that they would choose journalists as a group, as targets, is ...
BERNSTEIN: They, they, wait a minute (pause, initial hesitancy about coming on show further strengthened) You're right. If they chose journalists as a group, as targets, it would be an outrage.
MADDOW (uncharacteristically tentative): Yeah.
BERNSTEIN: The question is, did they choose journalists as a group, as targets, I'm not sure that's what the gentleman said on your air. It's a little ambiguous. We ought to find out.
... and then make assertions like those you were just emphatically stating.
MADDOW: Well, he said, from his perspective, as I understand it, the way I heard it ...
... and allow me couch this even further ...
BERNSTEIN: Right.
MADDOW: ... is that they picked journalists as targets ...
Ergo, it must be true!
MADDOW: ... and what we need now, we need a government (crosstalk, inaudible) ...
BERNSTEIN: Well I hope that's not the case, because if it is, there ought to be hell to pay.
MADDOW: Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more on that. Carl Bernstein, it's so nice to see you. Thank you for coming in. Carl Bernstein, of course, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist.
What the clip at Maddow's MSNBC website doesn't show is what happened right after her awkward interview with Bernstein -- Maddow introducing a new feature she calls "Scrub, Rinse, Repeat."
You know, kinda like Bernstein did with Maddow.
While the Maddow-Bernstein meeting of minds was entertaining, it wasn't the best part of Friday's show, at least not for me. This came less than a minute into the segment when Maddow quoted Jefferson -- "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
Back to Maddow --
No freedom without freedom of the press. Limitations on freedom of the press mean losing our freedoms. So says Jefferson, so says me, ...
... so say the rest of us here on Rushmore.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So basically Maddow is
January 26, 2009 - 19:57 ET by motherbeltSo basically Maddow is saying, well, yeah, we really don't know what happened, it was "from his perspective" etc, but since we don't know that it didn't happen, we will assume that it did.
And after Bernstein explains it all, she says well OK, but if it did happen, I'm mad as hell!
Journalism
January 26, 2009 - 22:40 ET by KC MulvilleI don't agree with Bernstein all the time, to be sure, but you know what I like about the guy? His first response was to be skeptical. I love that! If only we could bottle that attitude, that would be great.
As Bernstein said, there's a lot to the story that we don't know. Before we rush to judgment, let's find out. It was compartmentalized, so let's ask other people in other compartments to see what they think. (I happen to know a little about data mining, so the fact that they were listening to a lot of data doesn't surprise me, or scare me - that's how it works.) But see how Bernstein reacted. He examined his own assumptions first, before swallowing the assumptions handed to him. He asked questions before he reported. That's what I want to see. That's what makes me want to read a reporter.
I feel like a football coach who just saw his team run the play correctly for the first time. THAT's the way to do it.
no bias on maddows part
January 27, 2009 - 13:21 ET by TruthMongerno bias on maddows part obviously! shame on us
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Another idiot.
January 26, 2009 - 20:00 ET by mizflame98She's nothing but an overglorified landscape boy who apparently convinced people that she was profound in her thinking.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Maddow's not engaging in
January 26, 2009 - 20:21 ET by SMGalbraithMaddow's not engaging in journalism, she's doing a psychic reading. Madame Rachel's psychic hotline.
From allegations (unproven) from a former NSA worker that journalists were "targeted" (by whom? for what?) to Richard Nixon's enemies list.
There must be about 145 other dots one must add to connect those two.
Amazing.
But she'll just say, like the clown Olbermann does, "We're just asking questions."
Okay, that's fine. Ask the questions. But don't make up the answers.
NSA Activities
January 26, 2009 - 20:27 ET by slickwillie2001The NSA has been 'vacuuming' up electronic signals for many decades, since some time in the seventies when it became possible. We have agreements with the British and Canadians to ensure a wide area of coverage. Every President since Nixon has known about this and approved it. 99.999% of this data is never heard by human ears. This system has been written about in many books and newspaper articles over the years. There's nothing new here, except perhaps Maddow.
The NSA has been
January 26, 2009 - 20:46 ET by SMGalbraithThe NSA has been 'vacuuming' up electronic signals for many decades, since some time in the seventies when it became possible
James Bamford documented some of this in his book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace.
The vast majority of it is never listened to, just taped. But with the amazing ability of modern computers, key words can be searched or filtered out of this enormous information.
My guess is that the difference today is the enormous processing capabilities of computers and the more precise software that weeds out false positives.
Narcissism at it's finest...
January 26, 2009 - 20:32 ET by BKeyserSo whatcha got to hide there, Rach? Afraid someone might have seen your emails with Olbie as the two of you childishly planned your nightly Bush-bashing sessions? Or maybe you've had phone conversations with Hamas leaders? Or maybe, and most likely, you're just trying (albeit in vain, as usual) to project yourself and your ilk as much more important than you really are.
BTW- I couldn't watch the video (she gives me stomach cramps and I often find myself running for the commode whenever I hear her utterances) so thanks for the transcript, J.C.
MADDOW: "But the idea that
January 26, 2009 - 21:07 ET by kgMADDOW: "But the idea
that they would choose journalists as a group, as targets, is ..."
Very appropriate.
I bet it never dawned on Maddow that Bush was so secretive because plans and secret methods to capture terrorists were leaked by those in congress and other places. And then journalist, such as Maddow, in an effort to make it look like Bush failed, release the information to the public making it harder for those protecting us to do their jobs.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
No need to worry
January 26, 2009 - 23:47 ET by doug1950If indeed, journalists were targets, she has nothing to worry about.
So, the government under
January 26, 2009 - 20:40 ET by ckc1227So, the government under Bush was listening to and recording at least a billion phone calls, and at least a billion emails....every single day? Wow. How on earth did they ever find the time to torture all those poor, misunderstood freedom fighters?
P.S.
I wouldn't really give Bernstein much credit here. He's basically agreeing with much of her premise right from the get go.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
Right about Bernstein.
January 27, 2009 - 04:42 ET by tomchrisThere was no McCarthy era-like moment with Bernstein crying "have you no shame, Ms. Maddow. Have you no shame." Still, the crooked smile on Bernstein's face was telling as clearly the "facts-be-damned," "drive by shooting" (as El Rushbo calls it) was bit much for even a msm dinasaur like himself. He kept saying "we don't know" but as far as Maddow is concerned: "hey, it's in the guy's book so it must be true."
You gotta love it.
Possible expaination.
January 26, 2009 - 20:38 ET by mizflame98Maybe Olbermouse and Madcow are mistaking the radio transmissions they're receiving from their dental fillings for the NSA spying on them. Tin foil hats donned before they go on the air should straighten that all out.
Just a suggestion.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
"Our liberty cannot be
January 26, 2009 - 20:47 ET by Reaver"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
Since Rachel seems to be fond of quoting Jefferson may I suggest these-
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it."
or,
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
I don't think she would be as fond of these.
Rachel Maddow...
January 26, 2009 - 21:38 ET by JPR1reminds me of a dental hygienist I once had. For forty-five minutes I listened to her speak as if she were addressing a nine year old. I about lost it one day, had to really check my attitude.
Anyone engaged with her content or delivery must be awfully shallow.
2 projectiles = 2 projecting juveniles
January 26, 2009 - 22:09 ET by needle"BERNSTEIN: …If they [the NSA] chose journalists as a group, as targets, it would be an outrage."
Yeah, that’s right. After all it’s the journalists' role and prerogative to pick out groups, such as conservative Republicans, or individuals, such as Sarah Palin, as targets.
Isn’t it lovely, how these two piranhas indulge their projection?!?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Two words for Rachel Maddow: ECHELON and CARNIVORE
January 27, 2009 - 00:08 ET by R D HelmGoogle them yourself, you brainless bimbo, because I am beyond damn tired of explaining them here at NB.
'nough said.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
good advice R D
January 27, 2009 - 09:10 ET by Miss CheviousHowever "she" would never make it past THIS entry :
Echelon Magazine, a Gay Magazine For GLBT Business Professionals
http://www.echelonmagazine.com/
"not that there's anything wrong with that"... George Costansa
protecting their own
January 27, 2009 - 04:05 ET by DFCmaybe the Executive Branch had reason to believe that some members of the esteemed press were collaborating with the enemy, that is assuming these "allegations" are in any way true
Obama's Enemies List
January 27, 2009 - 05:23 ET by Jack BauerWell, so far this is what is well documented.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ENEMIES LIST
#1 Rush Limbaugh
#2 Sean Hannity
I mean, it's the first week of his Presidency with economic meltdown unabated, Gaza, Tax Cheat Geithner, closing Club Gitmo ... and he FINDS TIME to pesonally talk about Rush Limbaugh.
Wow. Talk about wrong priorities.
And for all his gfaults, Nixon actually DID have enemies in the Press Corps. Lots of them.
While Clinton (mainly) and Obama (universally) had/have slobbering sychophancy in the MSM. And that is still NOT ENOUGH for Obama.
HISTORY FACT CHECK
Anyone remember the Clinton's ENEMIES LIST. That would be the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- for those with longer memories than most liberals. Didn't they use the FBI and the IRS to "get" their enemies?
Jack... That there was a
January 27, 2009 - 05:24 ET by JerJack...
That there was a right wing conspiracy to "get" Bill Clinton is hardly subject to doubt. The only question is whether it is fair to describe it as "vast". Probably not.
Didn't they [the Clintons] use the FBI to "get" their enemies?
No.
Jer
C'mon Jer -- I loves yer
January 27, 2009 - 05:37 ET by Jack BauerC'mon Jer -- I loves yer man, but be serious! This is beyond dispute.
Just a little light bedtime reading huh?
Jack B,
January 27, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Jery'know the feeling is mutual...but did you have a chance to read the article I linked for you several weeks ago when you took me to task for using the term "cleared" [of wrongdoing] with respect to the Clintons and filegate?
I'll concede they weren't "cleared" in the sense that the case had been litigated in federal court and the Clintons were legally exonerated, but the issue was thoroughly investigated by the OIC-- Ken Starr and Robert Ray--and their final report found no malfeasance on the part of the Clintons.
If you didn't see the link, or can't find it, let me know and I'll see if I can dig it back up.
Jer
"Thank you for coming in.
January 27, 2009 - 06:24 ET by RR GOP"Thank you for coming in. Carl Bernstein, of course, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist."
And that's the only reason she didn't tear into him.
These Leftists are pretty predictable. Associate any of the following with a guest's name and they become starry-eyed and defer any of the usual nastiness saved for the unwashed/uneducated Conservatives they get on their shows: Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, Academy Award, Kennedy.
It's like Carl Zuckmeyer's play, The Captain of Kopernick which lampooned the German people's tendency to automatically follow anyone in a uniform.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
The "Noble 4th Estate"
January 27, 2009 - 10:14 ET by nadadhimmiThe "Noble 4th Estate" demonstrates it's integrity yet again. The guardians of free speech will make sure that Talk Radio is shut down because it doesn't conform to their political screed, all the while claiming caretakership of the 1st Amendment. Hugo Chavez, and Lenin, are smiling. Limbaugh however won't go quitely into the nite, and he's got the audience and money to fight these totalitarians.
and there's always....
January 27, 2009 - 11:09 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonHe can take his show to the internet, a cable channel, or numerous other options.
And each attempt to silence the Conservative Voices will be met with increasing public anger.
Not Really Exposing Anything
January 27, 2009 - 11:05 ET by GrrrlRomeoYou know you guys aren't really exposing anything here right? Maddow doesn't try to pretend she's not liberal. Everyone who watches her knows she's liberal. You're confusing news commentary for journalism. I mean, if you disagree because you're conservatives, then just say you disagree because you're conservatives instead of pretending to be unbiased.
Personally I think it's a little awesome how often Newsbusters has articles just about Rachel Maddow. You could do one for every show because she is unabashedly liberal. Problem is, the frequency with which Newsbusters posts about Rachel Maddow I now know exactly what it will say just by reading the headline, and usually don't bother clicking through. It's that predictable.
Nice try, GrrlRomeo
January 27, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Jack ColemanThe post doesn't criticize Maddow for being liberal, as you claim in a manner reminiscent of Maddow (no wonder you came to her defense). It's about Maddow yet again not knowing the different between allegation and indisputable fact, and of another liberal in the media attempting to show her the difference.
That there are numerous posts about Maddow at NB is not because she espouses liberalism which conservatives writing here oppose -- she is as much entitled to her opinion as any one of us. It's because Maddow routinely engages in half-truth, distortion and hyperbole, and in a smarmy, over-the-top manner to boot.
Over-the-top?
January 27, 2009 - 16:40 ET by GrrrlRomeoIf you were talking about Keith Olberman, or Chris Matthews I might agree about being over-the-top. But I think you just have a prejudiced view to start out with based on that... Maddow doesn't have that same style as those two or right wing hosts. Because someone figured out liberals shouldn't try to copy conservatives in their style of being shouty. It just doesn't work as well.
Again, I think if you disagree you should just be honest and say you disagree and say why. Attack the ideas instead of the person. The bulk of post here is a copy and paste of the transcript with you inserting sarcastic remarks in between. Which...I would say qualifies as "smarmy".
And this post is full of hyperbole.
"MADDOW (interrupting, sensing need to save face)" And you know she was interrupting because she was sensing the need to save face because you can read her mind? And those (parenthesis) should be [ square brackets ] as it is information YOU added to the transcript as you percieved it.
She conceded that they were allegations from the beginning all the way through end.
No more "prejudiced" than your view of me
January 27, 2009 - 17:59 ET by Jack ColemanA person reading this and other posts I've written about Maddow would be dim or deluded to not see I disagree with her about nearly everything. Your suggestion to "just be honest" and say why is a thinly veiled attempt to dictate how I express myself. That's up to me, not you.
To the extent there is smarm and hyperbole in the post, it is an attempt at irreverence to put Maddow's smarm and hyperbole in perspective. Your suggestion about brackets is duly noted, but the formatting indicates when Bernstein and Maddow were speaking, and when it was me.
Are you denying Bernstein and Maddow disagreed with each other in this segment? As I recall, it was an emphatic "that" when Maddow said at the end she agreed with Bernstein on "that." In other words, on little more than that.
I wouldn't really give
January 27, 2009 - 14:01 ET by suzycreamcheeseI wouldn't really give Bernstein much credit here. He's basically agreeing with much of her premise right from the get go.
I thought maybe it was just me reading the transcript wrong. I kept waiting for the Bernstein Body Slam, but even when he was trying to correct Maddow he was being too nice about it, almost like he wanted her and Olbermann's paranoid delusions to be real. Disappointing to say the least.
Please
January 27, 2009 - 16:23 ET by jdubyaThis stupid tramp hasn't a clue as to what she is flapping her gums about. The fact that she started with a comment on TJ regarding freedom of the press, this flamin'tard would realize that she is no longer the press but some stupid potty talk outfit. The press is this: the ability for any citizen to express or print their own material. That is what the freedom of the press truly is. We are all living it live here and now, much more readily available outlets for all of us citizens to express these thoughts.
The fact that she and twitchy legs seek out some sort of dastardly crack dream about being under the government looking glass is sheer stupidity (well, we are talking about two of the most retarded video people on the planet, appearing right after each other, every night, on the MSNBC network). This is what happens when you employ a failed sports caster who now wears tinfoil hats and promotes his soon to be boss.
What a bunch of losers.
I feel like I just lost 15 minutes of my life...
exactly!
January 28, 2009 - 01:22 ET by gordonThey can't wait to tell everyone they know that the government is watching their every move, recording their every word. In reality, their only real fear is that no one is watching or listening to them. They are using the government as an advertising campaign.
"Listen to me because I have important stuff to say. I know it's important because the government listens to every word!"
it's sad that their lives have such little actual meaning.