Rachel Maddow Breaks Down on TV

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Squidward T said:

and not one single tear, as disgusting as separating families is, Rachel used this opportunity to play up the dramatics

That's completely and utterly false. I've been watching Rachel for years and watched her do reports on all sorts of stories that tug at the heartstrings. I've seen her teary eyed and emotional a few times, (after Sandy Hook) but I've never seen her so upset that she couldn't get her words out at all because she was about to break down. 

Facts are facts. Rachel Maddow is a professional who is highly intelligent and works diligently to deliver the news and present the facts. 

[Whispering 18,865]

From Rachel Maddow's Twitter page:

1/6 Ugh, I'm sorry. 

If nothing else, it is my job to actually be able to speak while I'm on TV.

What I was trying to do -- when I suddenly couldn't say/do anything -- was read this lede:

2/6 "Trump administration officials have been sending babies and other young children forcibly separated from their parents to at least three “tender age” shelters in South Texas...

3/6 "Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the "tender age" shelters described play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis...

4/6 "Decades after the nation’s child welfare system ended the use of orphanages over concerns about the lasting trauma to children, the administration is standing up new institutions to hold Central American toddlers that the government separated from their parents...

5/6 “The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it,” said Kay Bellor, vice president for programs at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, “Toddlers are being detained.”

6/6 All from this Associated Press story that broke while I was on the air tonight, but which I was unable to read on the air:

https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e …

Again, I apologize for losing it there for a moment. Not the way I intended that to go, not by a mile.

[ChicaSkas 24,053]

4 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

What  How is this a more reasonable conclusion than she's just a human being that is mortified and disgusted by this policy? Rachel Maddow is quite a professional.

I just love Rachel. When I met her in Los Angeles several years ago she was wonderfully funny and smart and every bit as delightfully nerdy as I was -- and then could be instantly and perfectly professional.

For her to cry on air is serious. For this to happen in our country is beyond serious. 

I can't even believe he's trying to make this the Dem's fault. Don't pee on our heads and tell us it's raining , DonDon, this is your policy because your Party controls all 3 branches: legislative, executive, and Judicial.

 

NO Democrat in their right minds would ever condone kids being separated from parents for the crime of escaping horrors in Central america.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, Rumours1977 said:

Eh........  MSNBC is the Fox of the Left in my opinion.

While I don’t hate Rachel Maddow as a person by any means (or try to ridicule her display of emotion today... shame on the person who did that in this thread), I can’t watch her program for the same reason I can’t watch someone like Hannity. It’s just too biased for my liking. 

Just a personal preference I guess 

I hate to come across like "liberals are just better than conservatives", because thats not patently or inherently true at all.. but this is sort of a false equivalency.

MSNBC is an overtly liberal, left wing network, yes. Not all biases are equal however. MSNBC is not in the business of promoting false agendas, reporting on fake news, lying by omission, intense media slant, propagandizing and steering conversation, they do not promote conspiracy theories, etc. As far as ethic journalism goes, they are decent, where as Fox News is notably much less reliable, and the definition of unethical journalism. MSNBC goes out of its way to critique even liberal media and politicians and outcomes, they provide factual, researched information when available, the majority of their segments while still personalized, are not about intentional misleading of their viewers. They truly care about the truth and veracity and delivery of their positions, and are very willing to admit to mistakes in reporting on a daily, hourly basis. This is also evident in their cross referencing of sources, as they commonly recognize their bias, defer to more authoritative and neutral sources, even foreign sources at times. When the sources they have are not cross referenced strongly enough, or as unbiased as possible, they also do a decent job of informing the viewers - there is a difference between "this is what is currently being reported" and "this is verified truth" and for the most part I'd say I know when what I'm hearing is one or the other. They are pretty committed to being reliable for actual news.

This is an independently compiled chart that I have followed throughout its different versions and iterations, and while I disagree slightly with the placement of some sources, I never disagree strongly. The creator(s) also have detailed explanation of this chart and how/why they operate the way they do, what they use to inform this, etc. It's very methodical and certainly a good guide for someone that does not cross reference their own sources or get news from a variety of locations across the political spectrum.

As you can see, while MSNBC is expressly liberal, they aren't radically so, and they are not in the business of publishing information that is objectively damaging to public discourse. Fox News is slightly more right leaning conservative in comparison (its like being 75/100 for Fox vs 65/100 for MSNBC I'd say based off of this) but it also does commonly produce unfair interpretations of news and at times produces nonsense that is damaging to public discourse. Think conspiracy theories, hosting conspiracy theorists on segments, etc. 

Sean Hannity is known for lying to his viewers, and with extreme vitriol and with clearly politicized motivations - to spread hate and disdain for liberals and minorities Rachel Maddow is in comparison known for talking a lot and boring viewers at times with her intellectualism and never ending incredulity towards things   

[rumours 45,521]

2 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I hate to come across like "liberals are just better than conservatives", because thats not patently or inherently true at all.. but this is sort of a false equivalency.

MSNBC is an overtly liberal, left wing network, yes. Not all biases are equal however. MSNBC is not in the business of promoting false agendas, reporting on fake news, lying by omission, intense media slant, propagandizing and steering conversation, they do not promote conspiracy theories, etc. As far as ethic journalism goes, they are decent, where as Fox News is notably much less reliable, and the definition of unethical journalism. MSNBC goes out of its way to critique even liberal media and politicians and outcomes, they provide factual, researched information when available, the majority of their segments while still personalized, are not about intentional misleading of their viewers. They truly care about the truth and veracity and delivery of their positions, and are very willing to admit to mistakes in reporting on a daily, hourly basis. This is also evident in their cross referencing of sources, as they commonly recognize their bias, defer to more authoritative and neutral sources, even foreign sources at times. When the sources they have are not cross referenced strongly enough, or as unbiased as possible, they also do a decent job of informing the viewers - there is a difference between "this is what is currently being reported" and "this is verified truth" and for the most part I'd say I know when what I'm hearing is one or the other. They are pretty committed to being reliable for actual news.

This is an independently compiled chart that I have followed throughout its different versions and iterations, and while I disagree slightly with the placement of some sources, I never disagree strongly. The creator(s) also have detailed explanation of this chart and how/why they operate the way they do, what they use to inform this, etc. It's very methodical and certainly a good guide for someone that does not cross reference their own sources or get news from a variety of locations across the political spectrum.

As you can see, while MSNBC is expressly liberal, they aren't radically so, and they are not in the business of publishing information that is objectively damaging to public discourse. Fox News is slightly more right leaning conservative in comparison (its like being 75/100 for Fox vs 65/100 for MSNBC I'd say based off of this) but it also does commonly produce unfair interpretations of news and at times produces nonsense that is damaging to public discourse. Think conspiracy theories, hosting conspiracy theorists on segments, etc. 

Sean Hannity is known for lying to his viewers, and with extreme vitriol and with clearly politicized motivations - to spread hate and disdain for liberals and minorities Rachel Maddow is in comparison known for talking a lot and boring viewers at times with her intellectualism and never ending incredulity towards things   

For me, it isn’t a false equivalency. Political bias (whether right or left) in news reporting (imo) is detrimental to the daily news cycle and is a continued catalyst for the rigid dichotomy that has been forming for decades between parties. Moreover, I’d actually disagree with the chart and say both would fall equally within the range of hyper-partisan (~70).

When I watch CNN, MSNBC, or Fox (as examples), I don’t view it as News. It’s people taking facts, filtering them through their world views, and regurgitating them. It isn’t News for me. That’s where I think our difference in opinion may stem from. 

I’m down to talk to you about this more over PM if you’d like. I feel kind of bad for derailing this thread with my rant(s). 

[Economy 53,073]

10 hours ago, Squidward T said:

and not one single tear, as disgusting as separating families is, Rachel used this opportunity to play up the dramatics

Ummm... Ur voice can crack and u can kind pause speech on and off if ur emotionally distraut but in a setting where u have to hold emotion back. Its happened to me before and to some people that's how they react (tho everyone is different)

 

This didn't seem fake to me

[lairofhk 936]

11 hours ago, Squidward T said:

and not one single tear, as disgusting as separating families is, Rachel used this opportunity to play up the dramatics

How utterly cynical can you be? Jesus. What are you doing, smiling with glee? 

[shoful 13,304]

Good there are consequences to breaking the law. Parents should know the risks of illegally crossing over a border and endangering their children. This will definitely make illegals stop flooding into our great country. 

Trump will build a great, big, beautiful wall!

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, shoful said:

Good there are consequences to breaking the law. Parents should know the risks of illegally crossing over a border and endangering their children. This will definitely make illegals stop flooding into our great country. 

Trump will build a great, big, beautiful wall!

People seeking asylum are following the law, not breaking it.

Those crossing the border illegally are committing a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor does not require that your children are kidnapped from you. This is a human rights violation. 

No, what has happened is that people still come across the border. The numbers have only increased. 

Trump isn't getting funding for his stupid wall that never was  going to stop illegal immigration. Everyone knows it's a waste of money, including the GOP. 

[ryanripley 86,575]

1 hour ago, shoful said:

Good there are consequences to breaking the law. Parents should know the risks of illegally crossing over a border and endangering their children. This will definitely make illegals stop flooding into our great country. 

Trump will build a great, big, beautiful wall!

jesus christ, you're literally supporting the kidnapping of INNOCENT children  

this is humans being treated like animals up for slaughter, "great country" my ass

they've already lost 1000s of the kids too

[shoful 13,304]

14 minutes ago, Whispering said:

People seeking asylum are following the law, not breaking it.

Those crossing the border illegally are committing a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor does not require that your children are kidnapped from you. This is a human rights violation. 

No, what has happened is that people still come across the border. The numbers have only increased. 

Trump isn't getting funding for his stupid wall that never was  going to stop illegal immigration. Everyone knows it's a waste of money, including the GOP. 

No those crossing the border are committing a crime. It’s no different than if parents commit a crime in the US and are jailed. The children must be put into orphanages or given to relatives. There’s really not much of a difference here except they are put into “shelters” because this is not their country. 

And Trumps beautiful wall has already been funded for $1.6 Billion. We will get more don’t worry about that. 

[shoful 13,304]

16 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

jesus christ, you're literally supporting the kidnapping of INNOCENT children  

this is humans being treated like animals up for slaughter

Okay read my post above. And you’re being very over dramatic about the situation. Anyway humans are “animals” so..... whats your point.

I respect your opinion thats how you feel but I’m just stating facts and how I feel. And no Im not a bigot or a racist. I believe in a justice system 

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, shoful said:

Okay read my post above. And you’re being very over dramatic about the situation. Anyway humans are “animals” so..... whats your point 

are you serious? are you actually serious? do you not see these poor children being taken from their parents? it doesn't matter if humans are "animals", you don't treat any living creature like it's product being shipped about

what is there to be over dramatic about?! kids are being torn from their parents and held in fenced of cells left to cry for their parents, i've seen the footage myself

you can not defend this in any way. these children are INNOCENT, they don't understand what is going on and this will scar them forever. there's nothing to be over dramatic about, it's what's literally happening

you can be against illegal immigration but jesus christ, taking children away from their parents in a strange land? how horrific.

[Whispering 18,865]

5 minutes ago, shoful said:

No those crossing the border are committing a crime. It’s no different than if parents commit a crime in the US and are jailed. The children must be put into orphanages or given to relatives. There’s really not much of a difference here except they are put into “shelters” because this is not their country. 

And Trumps beautiful wall has already been funded for $1.6 Billion. We will get more don’t worry about that. 

No, those asking for asylum or crossing at asylum points are not committing a crime. 

Also, when people commit a misdemeanor in the US, they are not jailed. Their children are not kidnapped. Orphanages were outlawed long ago in the US and replaced with more humanitarian choices. That's why these shelters are seen as being inhuman by our standards for young children.

That will build about five per cent of it. I'm not worried about it, the GOP doesn't even want to spend money on that useless piece of junk. 

[ryanripley 86,575]

no child this young should be begging to see their parents

my heart is breaking

land of the free? more like land of the monsters