I am not in mediaI am not jealous. Just disappointed in the double standard. Having listened to her in the past, I know she would not have accepted the answers she gave you from others in the MSM. So, I am disappointed. I’ll get over and continue to ignore TV as my main news outlet. I was hopeful with her. Now that’s ended.

Oh, and maybe Rachel should show this page to Huckabee…http://www.hatecrimereports.org/
So we haven’t had enough of our heads cracked in? I STILL cannot believe Rachel didn’t challenge him on that comment.  

but someone did challenge himAgain, it’s possible to address Huckabee’s BS in a civil manner  – Todd Heywood of Michigan Messenger did:

Asked during the interview with BTL and Michigan Messenger if he was saying that the gay community does not experience violence, Huckabee said he thought gays were victims of violence. He also said the 133 percent increase in reported anti-gay crimes in Michigan was “not right.”
He then claimed Christians were victims of violence. First, he cited the Mount Hope Church protest as an example of violence against Christians, but when questioned about the video and whether it actually showed violence, Huckabee backed off the claim, saying instead, “Well it was certainly disruptive.”
He then quickly pivoted to the story of a 79-year-old woman whose cross was taken from her and stomped on as an example of the anti-Christian violence.
Huckabee also said he did not support hate crimes legislation, because the government should legislate against violence, not thought.

Sorry, that’s NOT Rachel. And this guy doesn’t have a news show on MSNBC. So that doesn’t count at all. Rachel counts, and she blew it.  

There were a plenty of ways she could, as a journalist,brought this up and covered the issue. I have seen her do it on other issues. I have seen how smart she can be when she wants to be. I have seen her watch some conservative use common GOP tactical talking styles such false equivalencies and call them on it, unlike other media types. So this is not about how. It’s about what.
The problem is not how she covered the issue. The problem remains that she did not cover the issue, and for what are disingenous reasons about it not being news.
The problem is I have seen her show. I have seen her cover points that are months old if she believes it relevant to the topic of the person she is discussing. She certainly had no problem bringing up specific comments made by Clinton when the rumors surfaced that Obama was considering Clinton for SOS.
 The idea that this virulently homophobic guy making outlandish claims on the subject matter of violence against gays is not newsworthy is just not believable. I mean look at the violence against gays in this country (the murders, maiming and beatings- how many in the news this week and how many we never hear about?), the suicides caused by the professional Christian right industry’s war on gays, the public intimidation of couples even holding hands in most parts of this country (out of fear of public reaction), the violence abroad in countries like Iran (where we are murdered as a part of state action),  the historical impact of violence (like with the Nazis), etc.
She’s smarter than the spin that she’s putting out.
That’s why i find her answer unacceptable. I have seen her show. I  am disappointed in her excuses.  Her excuse are meant for the lowest common demominator searching for a reason to let her off the hook of being an accountable journalist. That stuff is meant to work with people who want to believe her rather than be objective about what she’s saying from an accountability stand point.  

I’m glad the invite thing was just sorta confused and no one is actually lyingspeaking of Huckabigot, Daily Show had Jon Stewart rip him to SHREADS
BRAVO JON!

And there’s no reason why Rachel couldn’t have done the same thing…If she had wanted to. That’s the point of the whole matter. She could have called Huckabee on that comment and CHOSE not to. That’s why a lot of us are so upset at her.  

She’s Not That PersonAt different points during the Democratic Primary, my dad–an avid Obama supporter–would call and complain that Obama wasn’t hitting Clinton hard enough. He’d rant about the latest Clinton thing he’d read about or saw on television and, almost exasperated, he’d ask why Barack wasn’t mentioning any of this stuff. And I’d respond calmly that that wasn’t the type of campaign Obama was running…that he just wasn’t that guy. Our conversations would inevitably end with my dad wondering aloud if I really knew anything about politics and wondering what good all those years in college had done.
I feel like I’m having that conversation again–this time, about Rachel Maddow and what she should’ve said to Mike Huckabee. And in the end, I respond, simply, that she’s just not that guy. She’s never been overtly confrontational in the way that Olbermann or even Jon Stewart is–it’s just not her temperament. The tenor of her interview with Huckabee is the rule, not the exception.
Oddly enough, the exception comes when she feels like she’s being derided unjustly–as she did with David Frum and, I think, as she did with Mike Signorile. At that point, I think she’s more than willing to take the gloves off and be confrontational.
I’m happy to agree to disagree on this, though, because I’m not sure there is a resolution.  

But confrontationcan be fact based and asking them to explain. I think the intent IS to make them say what they REALLY feel. Observe:
Rachel: “Mike Huck, you said {cracked skull quote}”
Mike:—-
Rachel: But it the FBI/some agency statistics, gays have been {list the ways that gays have been killed, maimings, etc, stories, Numbers + compared to non gays}
Let Mike say his thing….
—-
See? Confronting him with facts. Totally fine.

Moreoverthe comparison with Barack Obama is not same. Obama was running for president and had to play safe. Rachel will be on every night.
She can afford to be “that guy” even if Brack could not.

I’m sure you’ll be doing a post about tonight’s Daily ShowJon Stewart pulled no punches with Huckabee regarding marriage equality.
So, I’ve changed my mind about Maddow’s interview with him. You were 100% right, Pam.
Stewart did an excellent job — and he’s not even a “real” journalist.

you did a great jobI’ve just learned of your blog, and it looks really great. I do think you do a great, and convincing job, talking about Maddow’s approach to the interview with Huckabee. (though Mike did come off as overly harsh, which wasn’t very productive.)
The one thing I wanted to comment on was that Maddow said she makes all her editorial decisions on MSNBC. I don’t understand how that could be. I mean, I’m not a watcher of television news normally, but since Maddow got her show on MSNBC I’ve watched tv news more than I have in a very long time. Then I hear that liberals like Olberman too, so I try sometimes to watch his show in addition to Maddow’s show. The only thing is they talk about exactly the same things a lot of the time. So why would I want to watch Olberman after I’ve heard Maddow talk about nearly every single topic that Olberman’s going to talk about.
Tonight’s Maddow show was largely about that corrupt Illinois governor. Chris Matthews, the show on after her’s, right away started talking about that corrupt Illinois governor. Olberman was talking about him. I was at the gym and he was all over CNN. THIS is why I can’t stand watching the news. the same news stories get repeated over and over and over again to point of making me nauseous.
And Maddow seems to be repeating what other shows are repeating. How could she be making her own editorial choices? Are these the choices she’s making? Really?
That said, I should recognize that she doesn’t only repeat what others say — she does talk about stuff that others don’t talk about sometimes. And I don’t spend my time comparing mainstream news coverage shows to each other to see how much overlap there is in all or most cases. But I do think it’s undeniable that there’s a very clear trend on the news of repeating a few big stories waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much, leaving all those mostly more important stories to be ignored, left for small independent media to pick up. And Maddow’s show isn’t some island unto itself in which these stories aren’t also repeated. And this leads me to wonder how she could be making all her own decisions when she talks about the same stories everybody else is talking about.
on another note, I’m very curious to know why these tv news people all talk about the same thing so much of the time. How is that good for ratings? Why would I want to keep watching this crap if they all talk about the same thing?

DutyYou did what you should have done: keep the pressure on Rachel and on  everybody who reports or comments on issues that affect the community.
Rachel did what she should have done: interview Mike Huckabee (and others) from her progressive point of view with some sensitivity to issues that affect the community.
Rachel isn’t going to be “our Asian reporter Trisha Takanawa” or “our lesbian reporter Rachel Maddow.”  She’s sometimes has a wider focus than that. She has a right to. And if she is a floodlight and not a spotlight at a particular time, then you be the spotlight. And vice-versa.
Keeping up the dialog and building bridges of civility and appreciation  (and for chrissakes learning what pronunciation of her name she prefers) are ways, very good ways, of keeping the pressure on.

Re: dutyAnd what does Mike think he’s accomplishing by pushing Rachel’s buttons with words like “lecturing” and what was that other word, “stuck up?”
And why is he framing you as a surrogate for the woman on Think Progress” with nothing to say of your own?
Is he trying to be BillO?  

he was merely acknowledgingThat the progressive (and straight) Think Progress blogger was responsible for raising the issue in the first place, not me. I simply took the information and expanded analysis of the point made.

MaddowI listened to the tapes of Maddow speaking to MS.  A couple of things:  I was an avid viewer of KO when Maddow was on.  As an “MSNBC analyst” she was, well, analytical, and provided important ballast to someone like Pat Buchanan.  On her own show, on the other hand, Maddow is glib, flippant, smug and often dismissive.  I don’t think I would personally like her.  This is compounded by the interview with MS.  Maddow, who is very popular right now and has “political capital” so to speak, took Michael’s argument and shoved it right back in his face.  She was defensive and turned the discussion totally around.  I remember early on when Maddow claimed that she was not a journalist.  Now, apparently, she is and she is making news judgments that she believes are relevant and confronting Huckabee on his homophobia was not, in her news judgment, relevant.  For her to tell MS that she is lobbied by every progressive group out there as a way to shield her for criticism that her news judgment was sloppy vis Huckabee is, in my world, manipulative BS.  She can call it what she wants.

“Glib” and “Smug”Honestly, I thought Signorile came across as more glib and smug than Maddow did, either on this show or her own.
He could have started with a question: even a tough question, like: “Rachel, why didn’t you ask Huckabee about gay marriage?” … then, let her answer, and drill down further from there.  Instead, he lectured her about a statement she made that personally offended him.  He immediately put her in a position where she became defensive, and with good reason.  She was being attacked.
Signorile (who I don’t listen to regularly) came across as a calmer, gayer Bill O’Reilly.  As in, “let me tell you all the things I don’t like about you so I can watch you crawl out of the hole I just dug for you.”  Not classy.

I hope she doesn’t turnI just hope Rachel doesn’t succumb to the push-back from Republicans and turn into another Tammy Bruce.

FramedI’m pretty sure what you did along the way. I still caught a hint of Signorile’s  minimizing your thought and maximizing the sensationalism of his own show by framing you and Madddow as adversaries.
That’s why I mentioned BillO. That sensationalism and framing are part of the dominant media narrative I think we need to resist, whether its narrators are overtly hostile to us or overtly friendly.
I suggest we recognize another tension, a more organic one. If we are intensely focused on the thing that affect ourselves and our friends, Rachel is just as focused on time: does the story fit within the time she has? Does the story arrive at the right moment in the longer time frames of our growth (and recently, shrinking) as people in a larger community and at the right moment in what we all can fit into our attention: the narrative we construct together to make sense of the events in our lives.
Rachel is helping us construct a common, uniting narrative, not a small, polarizing narrative. Mike, I’m not so sure about.      

Glib and SmugGlib and smug were the words I was searching for. Signorile was overheating the discussion and was engaging his microphone and not his guests. His treatment of Pam and Rachel was emotionally provocative and  intellectually lightweight.  

WedgiesIt isn’t just Rove and BillO who drive wedges between people. We can grow our own too. Let’s not be them.

Not to mentionthat he was not interested in reality. When he asserted that she didn’t cover enough, she replied that she covered Prop 8 about 11 times (I am assuming she can back her facts up; I don’t watch her show; heck, I don’t have a TV), he tried to dig himself out of that one, but not too successfully. And I guess talking about the issue 10-11 times was not enough for MS. Well, not everyone wants to have a show only about “gay issues”. I admit I wouldn’t watch it.

I can’t listento his show, because he’s badly informed on a lot of things and he hypes the most sensational and fear-mongering approach most of the time. He’s the  left version of Limbaugh. I’ve shuddered the few times he’s tried to address technology issues because he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is just cherry-picking points (frequently out of context) for what he thinks will inflame his listeners the most.
I do think RM fumbled on this one, though. If she’s going to be a progressive voice, she has to actually speak up.

I was thinking “petulant”Signorile came off as whiny and more interested in conveying his feelings than in hearing anything Rachel might have to say.  He goes on and on for minutes, before he lets her get a word in edgewise, and then interrupts her almost every time she tries to speak, first to further emphasize his point, then to try to back away from his criticism like some sassy child who realizes he’s gone too far.
If that’s the model for gay journalism, I’ll take Rachel any day.  

MaddowSo why do you think Maddow avoided asking Huckabee any questions about his homophobic statements?  why?  If Joy Behar and Jon Stewart have no problems asking Huckabee direct questions why did Rachel Maddow duck it?  The ones here support Maddow’s silence may want to rethink that silence in the face of mounting losses in CA, FL and Arkansas and the report out of NJ on civil unions.  
MS made the point clearly that he didn’t expect her to be gay on her show.  He expected her to be progressive.  Progressives are asking direct questions of Huckabee.  Maddow refused and when she was questioned about it she got royally defensive.  It was disappointing.
You support for her silence is worrisome.

Turn turn turn

I just hope Rachel doesn’t succumb to the push-back from Republicans and turn into another Tammy Bruce.

Which is why we keep the pressure on. Just like Pam did.

Silence?On her show, Maddow clearly and pointedly asked Huckabee to defend his statements that indicated that the Constitution should be amended so that it reads more like the Bible.  She clearly and pointedly asked him why a theocracy was better than the first amendment.
These were progressive questions, from a progressive journalist.  She didn’t use the words “lesbian” or “gay” or “Proposition 8″ or “marriage,” but she was essentially getting to the root of Huckabee’s homophobia (and his troglodyte stances on abortion, and his seeming indifference to the Bill of Rights).
Go back and watch the clip; she was civil to her guest, but it’s not like they sat there eating crumpets and doing each other’s nails.

Great job on the show, PamYou expressed your points wonderfully well. By the way, you have a lovely voice.

Congrats on all the negative buzz

I’ve been out for several hours so I’m just getting back to this and see the thread about my appearance and Rachel Maddow’s on The Mike Signorile Show is buzzing.

Yeah, congratulations to you and Mike on creating more negative buzz for the first openly gay news host on TV than any of the right wingers have been able to. Way to go gay rights movement. (Which I say not to be glib, but to be critical of a movement which has a history of infighting and ineffectiveness.)

But she DID confront him.She quoted him as saying that he want’s the Constitution to “reflect God’s law” and asked him why he wanted to turn America into a theocracy.  It was a tough question.  I’m wondering how many people who are tearing her a new one on this saw the same interview I did.

She’s STILL not “that” guy”pecola’s point was that Maddow doesn’t choose to bloviate.  It’s her show, it’s her decision.