Peil might be right though, it might just be a pure ratings thing, i mean, i called it that she knew it was bullshit before the fact, when she simply tweeted that she had the returns, with nothing else, she knew she was sitting on a big nothing, so she had to hype it as much as possible without actually giving out any info cause no one was going to tune in otherwise.
Trump Tax Returns... The Deepstate war on US Voters
- Thread starter Snarkhund
- Start date
Peil might be right though, it might just be a pure ratings thing, i mean, i called it that she knew it was bullshit before the fact, when she simply tweeted that she had the returns, with nothing else, she knew she was sitting on a big nothing, so she had to hype it as much as possible without actually giving out any info cause no one was going to tune in otherwise.
Yeah, but she has to know this is a one time thing, and no one is going to be duped again. Wouldn't it be smarter to build credibility?
Can you imagine how this would be received?
LOL, when was the last time news agencies cared about credibility? Its first to market, click bait bullshit almost every time now. I mean theres a few of them who still care but few and far between these days it seems.
I know, I'm just pointing out that - in the quest for ratings - they're throwing themselves under the bus. Honesty would get them the ratings they need in the end.
Maddow's excessive hype is a win for Trump
BY JOE CONCHA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 03/15/17 11:40 AM EDT
Rachel Maddow likely learned a very important lesson about managing expectations on Tuesday night:
Under-promise and over-deliver.
Instead, as my former publication Mediaite put it in a headline last night, "Maddow trolled us all for ratings."
And boy, did she ever. The world seemingly stopped after Maddow's BREAKING: tweet about 90 minutes before her 9:00 p.m. ET program stating she had Trump tax returns. Seriously.Said tweet immediately jumped to the top trender on Twitter. Many in political media and even former Hillary Clinton aides seemed downright giddy at the impending news coming.
But at the time, I was struck by the holding of such coveted information for a full hour.
If NBC News/MSNBC had this story, and they had to vet it first from the reporter who took it to them, why hold it? Maddow is an anchor and even described herself this way in the recent interview with the Associated Press.
"People want to draft me as an activist all the time, ascribe that role to me," Maddow said. "I'm not. The reason I know I'm not is that I stopped doing that in order to be the person who explained the news and delivered the news instead. It's a very clear line to me."
In other words, Maddow is saying she doesn't inject opinion and editorial into her program. But in watching her program, it's impossible for anyone to agree that it is some kind of non-partisan news program without an agenda.
In the 8:00 p.m. hour on Tuesday, the host revealed in a subsequent tweet that the returns were actually from 2005. OK, that's fine, but why not let that be known in Tweet #1 that all-but-implied that these were Trump's returns over many years?
Unless, of course, the goal was to bring in as many viewers as possible via hype.
In the end, the big get (after a monologue to set it up that may still be going as you read this), showed that 11 years ago as a private-citizen, Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on a reported income of $150 million, or an effective tax rate of 24 percent. The documents (two pages worth) were sent to journalist David Cay Johnston, the founder and editor of DCReport.
On the same program, Johnston, without any evidence, said it was very possible Trump sent him the information himself.
The narrative has since been advanced by MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough.
How and why and by whom these documents were leaked is a big story, no doubt. Right now, we just don't know.
But in the media world, another aspect of this is the stunning level of mockery Maddow is enduring on social media from the right and the left.
But a CNBC headline is the most damning indicator of the reaction to how Maddow, an Oxford Rhodes Scholar, handled this.
"Donald Trump just got a nice victory, thanks, of all people, to Rachel Maddow," it reads.
CNBC is the sister network of MSNBC and as far as I can recall, doesn't engage in criticizing its own in such a manner under the NBC umbrella. Shorter headline: "Thanks for making all of NBC look bad, Rachel."
On the bright side, Maddow's report did show that Trump can release his taxes whenever he chooses to do so. The president had said during the campaign that he would only do so when an audit was complete, an excuse almost nobody buys.
No matter. Trump benefits here from a boomerang effect on a political media establishment that is seemingly doing everything in its power to prove White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon correct about the Fourth Estate being the "opposition party."
We've seen it too many times when the press makes a big error or false accusation in plain sight: Hurl a boomerang at Trump in an attempt to take him down via an impossibly-hyped story.., only to see it come back and, in this case, hit the cable news anchor who threw it twice as hard.
And in the process, give Trump all the ammunition he needs for weeks to point to "fake news" served up by "the opposition party."
Expectations are all about under-promising and over-performing.
You just saw a good example of the exact opposite of that on MSNBC on Tuesday night.
But hey, at least the ratings will be stellar, right?
Joe Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.
BY JOE CONCHA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 03/15/17 11:40 AM EDT
Rachel Maddow likely learned a very important lesson about managing expectations on Tuesday night:
Under-promise and over-deliver.
Instead, as my former publication Mediaite put it in a headline last night, "Maddow trolled us all for ratings."
And boy, did she ever. The world seemingly stopped after Maddow's BREAKING: tweet about 90 minutes before her 9:00 p.m. ET program stating she had Trump tax returns. Seriously.Said tweet immediately jumped to the top trender on Twitter. Many in political media and even former Hillary Clinton aides seemed downright giddy at the impending news coming.
But at the time, I was struck by the holding of such coveted information for a full hour.
If NBC News/MSNBC had this story, and they had to vet it first from the reporter who took it to them, why hold it? Maddow is an anchor and even described herself this way in the recent interview with the Associated Press.
"People want to draft me as an activist all the time, ascribe that role to me," Maddow said. "I'm not. The reason I know I'm not is that I stopped doing that in order to be the person who explained the news and delivered the news instead. It's a very clear line to me."
In other words, Maddow is saying she doesn't inject opinion and editorial into her program. But in watching her program, it's impossible for anyone to agree that it is some kind of non-partisan news program without an agenda.
In the 8:00 p.m. hour on Tuesday, the host revealed in a subsequent tweet that the returns were actually from 2005. OK, that's fine, but why not let that be known in Tweet #1 that all-but-implied that these were Trump's returns over many years?
Unless, of course, the goal was to bring in as many viewers as possible via hype.
In the end, the big get (after a monologue to set it up that may still be going as you read this), showed that 11 years ago as a private-citizen, Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on a reported income of $150 million, or an effective tax rate of 24 percent. The documents (two pages worth) were sent to journalist David Cay Johnston, the founder and editor of DCReport.
On the same program, Johnston, without any evidence, said it was very possible Trump sent him the information himself.
The narrative has since been advanced by MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough.
How and why and by whom these documents were leaked is a big story, no doubt. Right now, we just don't know.
But in the media world, another aspect of this is the stunning level of mockery Maddow is enduring on social media from the right and the left.
But a CNBC headline is the most damning indicator of the reaction to how Maddow, an Oxford Rhodes Scholar, handled this.
"Donald Trump just got a nice victory, thanks, of all people, to Rachel Maddow," it reads.
CNBC is the sister network of MSNBC and as far as I can recall, doesn't engage in criticizing its own in such a manner under the NBC umbrella. Shorter headline: "Thanks for making all of NBC look bad, Rachel."
On the bright side, Maddow's report did show that Trump can release his taxes whenever he chooses to do so. The president had said during the campaign that he would only do so when an audit was complete, an excuse almost nobody buys.
No matter. Trump benefits here from a boomerang effect on a political media establishment that is seemingly doing everything in its power to prove White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon correct about the Fourth Estate being the "opposition party."
We've seen it too many times when the press makes a big error or false accusation in plain sight: Hurl a boomerang at Trump in an attempt to take him down via an impossibly-hyped story.., only to see it come back and, in this case, hit the cable news anchor who threw it twice as hard.
And in the process, give Trump all the ammunition he needs for weeks to point to "fake news" served up by "the opposition party."
Expectations are all about under-promising and over-performing.
You just saw a good example of the exact opposite of that on MSNBC on Tuesday night.
But hey, at least the ratings will be stellar, right?
Joe Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.
LOL, hard to believe she actually said something this stupid, but i guess she did, maybe i was wrong and she really is a delusional moron, either that or she thinks her viewers are.
I prefer to tune in too people who i think are fair, like Chris Wallace, or Jake Tapper but i can count those people on 1 hand these days, and im not even sure i can count Tapper as fair anymore, he has turned into a flat out anti Trumper, but in fairness Trump is shitting all over his organisation so its not really surprising,
But i think you are overestimating the intelligence of the population, sites like hufffington post and breitbart have proven the hyperpartisan model seems to generate more clicks, in this day and age with the internet people are becoming more partisan on both sides, so in their eyes they see it as better to cater to one side or the other, than the few people in the middle who want to watch legitimate news people. I mean look at the turn CNN a once respected news network has taken in the last 10 years. Look at how far left NYT and washington post have went, i mean we all knew they were biased towards liberals before but it wasnt nearly as overt.
The problem all these left wing news sources are facing is that they are trying to out Fox, Fox News, and there is a million different places you can go to for left wing news, and only a couple for right wing news, so they are left up shit creek all fighting for a smaller and smaller market share.
Last edited:
The media, democrats and the left(ie, the same thing) all seem astonished by each Trump win. They regard each win as simply a matter of incredible dumb luck or illicit Russian assistance. How many times does a guy have to beat you for you to accept that he is just better than you?
Yeah, im still having a tough time with this one, cant tell if he is brilliant or the media is just this stupid. So far in the mudslinging game the media has managed to take Trumps approval rating down, but the only people whose approval rating is even lower than Trump's is the media's at this point.
Then there is seemingly obvious blunders like when he said "Obama wiretapped my phones" which could have instead said "According to News reports, The Obama administration wire tapped people in my campaign." Maybe its because hes always been a salesmen and not a politician. Maybe its because hes an idiot. Maybe it was simply too long to fit on twitter
The second comment would have given him an out, the first one created a frenzy with the media now desperate to get him where he cant possibly win, either way the media will now claim victory cause its never going to lead back to Obama directly regardless of what we learn. Of course if he had said it the second way the media probably never would have covered it because it would have been accurate, and left them with nothing to shit on him for.
So at the same time it made him look pretty dumb, it also created a feeding frenzy in the media, with sharks circling the same water that has consistently made them look dumb.
Hard to say if he considers this a wash.
Either way one day there will probably be textbooks written about how Trump was able to bend the media over and stick it in them, all by catering to their own desires, whether it be intentional, or by bumbling around like a useful idiot, he has thoroughly exposed them as the partisan hacks that they are.
Last edited:
They're getting desperate. Flaying arms and limbs now.
No Russian Trump connection. Racism charge isn't sticking, except for the queers in Hollywood.
Tax returns are a hyped-up nothing burger.
What's next? Baron doesn't wipe his ass in the morning?
And we still respect and revere American journalists? Perhaps we should drag them out in the street and beat them mercilessly for lying to us?
No Russian Trump connection. Racism charge isn't sticking, except for the queers in Hollywood.
Tax returns are a hyped-up nothing burger.
What's next? Baron doesn't wipe his ass in the morning?
And we still respect and revere American journalists? Perhaps we should drag them out in the street and beat them mercilessly for lying to us?