Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 1:11 PM
Subject: Correction requested re: The Rachel Maddow Show
February 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Umhoefer and Mr. Borowski:
I'm writing to request that you make a correction to your Truth-O-Meter post of Thursday, February 17th, 2011.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/
In your effort to challenge a Capital Times editorial you have mistakenly ascribed the argument therein to Rachel Maddow. In so doing, you have half-quoted her in one instance, misquoted her in another, and misrepresented her overall.
Ms. Maddow is well aware of the Wisconsin budget shortfall. She said so just a few sentences after the line you decided to single out for “truthometry”:
"Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus—now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41669030/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
To suggest -- as your headline does -- that we somehow neglected to report on the state's real budget shortfall is absolutely erroneous.
We recognize the journalistic value in writing a "where did the budget shortfall come from" piece, but, if you need a bogeyman to deny the existence of the shortfall so you can make your case in the Politifact truth-o-meter gotcha format, you should pick someone who didn't explicitly say, "there is, in fact, a … shortfall."
Your piece concludes with this summary:
"There should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall ... We rate Maddow’s take False".
There isn't any debate on that. To suggest that we stated otherwise -- while simultaneously leaving out a key part of our report -- is a mistake on your part that damages the reputation of Ms. Maddow and MSNBC and therefore warrants immediate remedy. Ignoring that Maddow did state the facts correctly is irresponsible and inaccurate and must be corrected.
More egregious, however, is Politifact’s false assertion-- stated as fact, over and over again-- that our report blamed Governor Scott Walker and the Republican-led legislature for the current budget shortfall:
"She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it."
That synopsis of our report is a complete fabrication. Maddow never stated -- not once-- that Governor Walker's tax breaks were the direct cause of the budget deficit this year.
To state unequivocally -- as you do here -- that Maddow blamed Governor Walker directly for the current budget shortfall is a complete and utter distortion. And, yet, it's an assertion that is made repeatedly throughout your post:
"Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?" ... There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it ... Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it."
That claim may exist somewhere in "the liberal blogosphere", but it was never made in our report. Not once. Not only did Maddow say no such thing, you've missed her meaning entirely.
The point of that whole introduction to the show is that the budget isn't the real issue. That's why Maddow says, "What’s happening in Wisconsin right now is not about a budget." The point of the segment is not to correct the governor's math because it's not about the budget. She's not trying to find blame for the budget shortfall because –- again -- it's not about the budget. Maddow’s argument is that one way we know it's not about the budget is that the governor was willing to give away roughly the same amount as this year's possible shortfall. So, regardless of what the Governor says, the shortfall must not be so dire:
MADDOW: Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus—now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait. That‘s about exactly the size of the shortfall.
If you were confused about the point of the segment -- despite Maddow’s emphatic, repeated assertions that the budget was being used as a façade to hide the real intention of Governor Walker and Wisconsin Republicans to fatally weaken state employee unions -- you might have contacted MSNBC or The Rachel Maddow Show for clarification. You did not do so and instead published a dramatically inaccurate summary of Maddow’s views.
The damage already done by your article over the weekend will not likely be undone, but at least the record going forward can be corrected. We also ask that you remove the Maddow item from the Politifact Wisconsin feed that is populating the widget on the Journal Sentinel All Politics Blog - or at the very least that it be adjusted to not be misleading.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/allpolitics.html
Best wishes,
Bill Wolff
Vice President of Primetime Programming
Executive Producer, The Rachel Maddow Show
Letter #2 after the jump...
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Correction Requested re: The Rachel Maddow Show
Dear Mr. Adair,
MSNBC yesterday requested a correction on a Politifact item concerning The Rachel Maddow Show. We received response to that request from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that was frankly dumbfounding.
The correspondence is copied below for your reference, but frankly, I am writing to you not to re-litigate but to cut to the chase and ask you to clear up a rather straightforward error that Politifact has left uncorrected online for five days now.
In short, Politifact alleges that an assertion was made on The Rachel Maddow Show that in fact was not made.
Compounding the error, Politifact asserts that The Rachel Maddow Show ignored factual truths that Ms. Maddow explicitly did acknowledge, on television, out loud, and clearly.
We are not nitpicking here -- Politifact is seriously and clearly wrong and should correct the matter immediately. Your inaccurate representation of Maddow's statements has now been posted online for enough days, with enough secondary pickup in the media, that a full new statement correcting Politifact's errors in this matter would be a more appropriate action than a simple update to the erroneous original post.
So we're clear here... The Rachel Maddow Show was factually accurate in its reporting on Governor Scott Walker, the Wisconsin state budget, and the rights of state employees to bargain collectively:
PolitiFact asserts that Maddow argued that Wisconsin's budget shortfall doesn't exist: "There should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall ... We rate Maddow's take False".
This is baldly and plainly untrue. Maddow's reporting on these points was accurate. Maddow followed-up the statement that Wisconsin started the year on track for a balanced budget (which is clearly stated in the Legislative Fiscal Bureau report she cited) with the (also true) reporting that, in fact, the state was now facing a budget shortfall. Maddow stated, "there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall". Politifact never notes this statement from Maddow.
PolitiFact asserts that Maddow blamed the $137-million on the $140-million tax cut: "She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.... What about Maddow's claim ... that Walkers tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?"
This claim is untrue, misleading and unfair. Maddow never stated that Governor Walker's tax cuts caused the state's $137m deficit. Maddow stated -- accurately -- that there is a budget shortfall and that the revenue forsaken by Governor Walker's tax cut program is about the same amount of money as the shortfall. Both of those assertions are true.
What Maddow's reporting illustrated was not that the Governor's tax cuts caused a budget deficit but, rather, that the Governor's behavior gives lie to his claim that his actions are motivated by budgetary concerns. Governor Walker added the cost of those new tax benefits to the deficit with no offsets, at a time when he claimed to be purely driven by a desire to tackle that deficit. Those deficit-funded tax giveaways, indeed, are about exactly the same size as the budget hole the Governor now insists he must take extraordinary emergency measures to fix.
That, in fact, was the point of Maddow's report; it was not an attempt to assign blame for the budget shortfall. Given Wisconsin unions' offered concessions and the Governor's refusal to accept them (and thereby move towards balancing the budget), Maddow's reporting was not only accurate but prescient.
A correction of your reporting is in order. Mr. Borowski's response to our request for a correction -- resorting to quoting other unrelated items on a show staff blog with which he takes issue -- highlights the weakness of Politifact's efforts to try to use Maddow's show to attack other points of view or points of fact that she herself has not espoused.
Which gets to a larger point here, and that is that a simple phone call or email from PolitiFact ahead of the publishing of this item could have served to clear much of this up. There is an underlying incoherence to Politifact's allegations. As written, Politifact claims that Maddow says there's no budget shortfall, but also that the budget shortfall is Gov. Walker's fault. How can Maddow deny the existence of a shortfall and at the same time blame the shortfall on the Governor? She can't, she wouldn't, and she didn't.
This fundamental misunderstanding of our report could have, in all likelihood, been cleared up had you reached out to us in the first place. That is a courtesy -- it should be noted -- that is routinely extended to the various subjects of your posts, but for some reason was not in this case. Failing to provide us with that opportunity was unfair and it should be corrected.
PolitiFact describes Maddow's reporting inaccurately and disparagingly. Her reporting was entirely accurate, and I would ask again that PolitiFact recognize that fact publicly.
Below please find links to the PolitiFact post in dispute and to our show's transcript as well as the text of our request for correction and Mr. Borowski's reply.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Wolff
Vice President, Primetime Programming, MSNBC Executive Producer, The Rachel Maddow Show
Leave a Comment:
YES! Yes yes yes yes! Tank ewe. Y'all NEVER disappoint.
Mrs. Maddow, I respect your point of view, I watch your program but you are wrong. You edited the footage and you know it, you began the segment saying Wisconsin was "great". You have used a tactic that calls into question your integrity and that is never excusable, ever. It is when we backpedal and use excuses and point out our detractors past transgressions like a caught child that we lose our voice, because we no longer deserve it. Mistakes are just that, it is nasty human nature that drives us to defend and justify them. I know you stand with the workers, I do as well, but you bent the truth to defend after being attacked. Be better.
Well, Wisconsin is great, and (which is what Maddow actually said) it is going to be fine, without all the draconian drama that is Scott Walker on stage. We do not have an "emergency" budget "crisis." Gov. Doyle in his last budget faced a deficit twice as large and he and the legislature put together a balanced budget without resorting to union busting and power grabs that have nothing to do with state budgeting.
Dear Rachel,
Thanks so much for defending the rights of workers! ( I'm a retired Wisconsin teacher who happens now to live in fabulous Portland, Oregon and am so proud of my former fellow teachers!) Thanks for exposing the hypocrisy and naked ambition of would be dictator in chief Walker. Have you gotten wind of the great new tweet inspired group UK uncut? Well, now we have US uncut which is organizing protest actions all over the U.S. Could you please showcase this amazing movement on one of your programs? Thanks!
Eileen Rence
Eileen,
Thanks for your service to our nation doing the second most improtant job after parenting, teaching.
In case you haven't seen it, The Nation recently did an extensive article about UK Uncut and what this British grassroots movement are doing to fight the austerity measures being forced upon them while coproations and the wealthy pay little or no taxes. Sound familiar?
http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party?page=0%2C1
Get involved with US Uncut, I'm going on Saturday, are you?
Maddow, I wish you could forward this to that group of non fact checkers.
"Maddow admits her mistakes and I get more fact based news from her than anywhere else. You need to admit your mistake and give Maddow and her staff their apologize. On your front page would be nice".
i think the first one is probably the more professional but the second one makes me giggle. especially the how can she assert that the budget shortfall is due to walkers tax cuts if she doesnt recognize there to be a budget shortfall to begin with. i had read the report and personally thought they were correcting what was at best a misstatement by maddow but i didnt think to look her transcript up. i am not a reporter, however, and it makes me wonder how a website that prides itself on being a non partisan fact checker could make the same error. i should also point out that because your letter says something was taken out of context you have just given a green light to every maddow hater to whine lmao.
If ever a girl was so spry, that she pretended and postured and lied, than a bonny young lass, if ever was tasked to find the truth she did abide.
Good lords and ladies, that was an amazing segment. Of course, Politicfact will probably attempt to fake fact check this, and fail.
XD
This TRMS segment tonight was one of the best #MaddowSmackdown segments I can recall - to just see Maddow rip all those a$$holes a new one for being wrong, wrong, wrong. Love the fire, and the steady slamming of lesser entities (including one that happens to have "fact" in its name). Whew. *blushes and fans self*
Just wanted to let you know: You have a very nice hair cut, you do not look like a "dude", even when you squint and I don't care that your gay. I watch your show because you shine the spotlight on things no other news outlet may be speaking about, you really do your homework on your subjects, you report with facts and you are quick to correct errors that you make. Edward R. Murrow would be very proud of you.
I Second and Third and Fourth that! Rachel is just a breath of fresh air when it comes to this crazy world of Politics.
Rachel you are the best. No one could do a better job at what you do.
Go after those lying, ignorant, jerks whose only purpose is to destroy the middle class.
I don't know if it was my e-mail that made you guys look at that PolitiFact piece but after tonight's show I have a nice warm fuzzy feeling. This is why I love the Rachel Maddow show!
I actually look at politifact regularly and was surprised to see maddow call them out. I'll probably stop going to them if they don't make a public apology.
Thank you, Rachel, for understanding the definition of and reporting real facts. All of the false claims, disguised as facts, by these GOP governors and legislatures is disgusting and a slap in the face to all the hard-working, honest citizens in the states who elected those people to help them. Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in Wisconsin between the "emergency" budget crisis and the $140 million tax cut for corporations. Are these tax cuts going to provide more than $140 million in new jobs and income for the citizens of Wisconsin? It's doubtful and I hope the residents of Wisconsin are outraged that Scott Walker is taking their tax dollars and giving them to his wealthy, corporate friends instead of the working-class people of Wisconsin.
Rachel, particularly good segment on Corrections. I've always admired you being able to admit a mistake with such good humor. And true, as you say, it's satisfying.
I trust you completely for being up-front, honest, and open.
It was a pleasure to see you give Politifact a nice slap - they deserve it, as does anyone else who substitutes fiction for fact.
Disapointing to see your treatment of this issue on tonight's show. PolitiFact got it right, as your segment last week clearly stated that "the state is on track to have a budget surplus, " and implied that the shortfall is due to the governor's tax change.
Your overall conclusion was right, but the edited snippet on tonight's show misrepresents the statement Politifact was questioning, as well as their conclusion. You're better than this.
I'm a regular viewer, like your haircut, and don't care that you're gay. But give your viewers a little credit...
She was correct in that assertion and correct in the shortfall assertion as well, you and politifact are both wrong.
I've carefully read the transcript posted below your comment, several times. Look at the bolded statements. Those statements are the ones PolitiFact objected to, and they are factually true.
The only weaknesses here are that 1) she starts out saying "Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus" and switches to "the state was on track" a paragraph later, and 2) she remarks "Hey wait, that's about exactly the size of the shortfall", which is also factually true but might be interpreted to imply (your word) that the shortfall is due to the Governor's tax breaks.
The way I see it, the first point is a rhetorical flourish, and the second point is either clumsy or somewhat misleading but not a lie. The rest of the analysis is fine, and I would give it a "True" or "Mostly True" score with a bit of clarification. It is not "False". PolitiFact screwed this one up.
Yes, one could say that it might have been misunderstood by many, but false? No.
Does anyone else besides me find it interesting that we're saying Maddow should apologize for being misunderstood? All the complaints being brought forward revolve around the fact that people guessed Maddow was insinuating the budget shortfall was due to Walker. Some have even said that when people watch TV they don't pay attention and it makes sense, because of that, how a website who professes to be a fact checker would've misheard or how a viewer would have misheard. I've tried to bring to everyone's attention, here on Maddowblog, that you have to listen to what is being said. There is a fundamental difference between hearing what someone is saying and listening to what someone is saying. One simply means your ears function normally, the other means you're actually intellectually engaging what the person is saying. You can't just fill in your own blanks whenever you hear something you don't like or whenever you miss a statement and don't understand. This is exactly why talking points work- because people do not pay attention to substance, they pay attention to what they hear over and over again. People don't listen for truth, they half-heartedly listen to what is being broadcast and fill in any blanks they don't understand. Misinterpretation now is taken as comprehension; sometimes I wonder if this phenomenon is why the divorce rate is so high.
Ah, I agree, Mickey M.
Rachel,
I, too, was a bit disturbed about your comment about looking like a "dude". You don't. That's just a right wing response because trying to argue the facts doesn't work out too well for them. Their natural inclination is to try to denigrate the people they disagree with or those that make them feel dumb. You know, all those things you saw in high school from the kids that had nothing else to make them feel superior but trying to tear down others. Or, if you didn't see it in your high school, what you see from Limbaugh or Fox News. But I do appreciate that your response shows that looks aren't as important as doing your job well and getting your facts right.
Two pieces of this story are worth pursuing further:
1. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. While the hyphenated paper may not have the reputation that the venerable Milwaukee Journal once had on the journalistic landscape (Pulitzers, historic record). Was a time when this paper cared about correcting the record. Maybe someone there still cares about the paper's once fine reputation.
2. Poynter Institute. OK, so this one may be a stretch. PolitiFact has won Pulitzer on its own, but Poynter owns St Petersburg Times (which spawned PolitiFact), and Poynter has over the years become on par with well known journalism schools in guarding the core principles of journalism. Besides running a lot of interesting research, a good media criticism site on its own, and being a source for continuing education for journalists, Poynter spends a lot of ink and pixels on being another kind of "Columbia Journalism Review".
It's worth a shot.
That segment was epic. There have been nagging doubts about PolitiFact floating around my corner of the Internet for a while now, but this pretty much blows them out of the water. I think they're too eager to establish their "objectivity" and "even-handedness" by going after people on both sides, which is why they jumped on the first part of Maddow's statement and ignored the rest.
I adore Rachel, watch her show regularly and might be her biggest fan in my circle of friends but I've got to agree with the poster who included the transcript of that night's show. That's exactly the message I took from it and, in fact, I happened to be on Politico at the time and promptly posted something like "Holy crap, Rachel Maddow's reporting....." I was called out on it by another poster the next day or so who had seen the Politifact article. I read it and had to agree. I told that same poster Rachel's seldom wrong and when she is she apologizes so pretty disappointed at her comment tonight. Still love her though........
Perhaps the best argument that the bill is not about the budget is the fact that the unions have conceded the pay and benefit cuts. The only thing they are not willing to give up is their collective bargaining rights which will not add a penny to the current budget.
But according to the right if you don't make the unions give up their collective bargaining, they may ask for a higher pay rate when the state is no longer running a deficit. And that would be bad.
Mickey, Then you have negotiating.
It will be removed because it's stupid.
I was extremely upset with the Milwaukee write -up on the "phony' doctors notes. I wrote Borowski and got a pat on the head and justification for LOUSY response.
I hope the franchior busts their chops!
Writing phony doctor's notes? Imagine the horror!
Swiping $72 billion union pension fund? No problem.
Wonderful commentary tonight, the act of speaking truth to misguided power is ever present in our Joan of Arc.
I honestly watched the whole segment hoping Rachel would at least say she could see how her statements may be taken as misleading. There was a journalistic grey line crossed in that segment which I have never seen her or the show cross before, and at the very least journalists need to be responsible for the implications of their words.
"That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year."
- Just because you are using their source does not make you right. That should have been stated, I cant imagine anyone was not confused when you said "there will be a surplus" followed immediately by "there will be a shortfall". That confusion is a direct result of a lack of clarity here.
in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office
- Politifact are wrong here. Their rating of you was way off base, BUT this connection you drew, in the minds of viewers was wrong too. There was no connection, other than Walker wanted to give money away while claiming he wanted to save money. You clearly did imply (perhaps accidentally) there was a causal connection between the deficit and the tax cuts.
My viewpoint was this (as I was defending you elsewhere on the net) - Politifact were clearly wrong to call your statements false. They were all true, as in factually accurate. They were wrong.
But you were not blameless. Morally, I would call this segment dubious. Politimorals could rate you down if they existed!
It was the first time I have ever seen anything I was uncomfortable with on what I regard as the news show with the most integrity in the US, if not the world. I wish you had aknowledged that you may have been misleading, and I dont think it would make your argument with politifact less valid.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an Australian, so not tied up in the politics over there. I wish we had you down here though!
Cheers,
SMZ
To be fair, I don't like criticising without offering an alternative. Here is how the segment could have gone.
Rachel Maddow:
And that is that. A little longer, but not slightly ethically grey. Maybe the first paragraph is a bit clunky, but the RMS wordsmiths could shine it up in no time!
I tried to hear Rachel saying it in my head, and particularly liked the air-figers around "budgetary emergency". I think I nailed it!
For the most part, I agree with you and see how your changes could clarify Rachel's comments. But I'm confused about your comment:
What source should she have used for fact finding that there was a surplus and now there's a deficit? To me, it did make her right.
I watched both episodes and never took away or got the impression that Gov Walker's tax giveaway affected this year's budget or was the cause of the current year's deficit. it was never stated to be retro-active, so I figured it was for the next budget session. For an analogy, it would be like looking at my current credit card paper statement and not seeing my brand new, just bought today, HDTV on it. (For clarification, no, I do not have a brand new HDTV just bought today.)
I've read the comments so far that say that Rachel should say something about how her previous commentary could have been mis-interpreted. Maybe. Rachel rises above ANY other news reporter/commentator on television or radio by calling out her (very, very few) mistakes. I am not aware of any Fox counterpart that does the same. To clarify, I do NOT watch Fox "News", but I do watch Fox "shows" (Glee FTW!)
To me, TRMS is an amazing news program. The hard working analysts that do the fact finding and checking and the wonderful writers imbue me with new knowledge and thought provoking critical thinking. I know of no other program that provides that to me.
PS. I'm available to be a hard working, fact finding analyst for TRMS any time!!!
Casere - In that section she stated "using their own sources" there was a surplus. As politifact (rightly) explained, the source report did at one point mention a surplus, but went on to say there were other pending expenditures which resulted in deficit.
I was saying that taking a line from the source out of it's context in her segment was cherry picking. Without the context (which wasnt given), stating "the state was on track to have a ... budget surplus" is misleading, because it wasn't. Rachel is rightly hard on examples of cherry picking elsewhere in the media. This is a clear example of it, she used a line from the report that was counter to the conclusion of the report.
That is the very definition of cherry picking, and while we can assume it was an accident (that report was very poorly worded and confusing), it also means she could aknowledge that the statement was incorrect, even if she corrected it in the next breath.
Further, the phrasing "the state was on track for a ... surplus" lends weight to the interpretation that she was implying Gov. Walker created the deficit through his own spending.
Politifact as still well out of line to not give her at least a half-true. I would rate her "mostly true" or "true", but again, slightly dubious ethically.
I'm only being hard on her cos she is the best!
cheers
Cool, thanks Soul for the clarification. I do not use Politifact, but will check them out.
I agree with SoulmanZ, and I really like your alternative transcript. Had that been what was actually said, there would have been no cause whatsoever to even review the segment, let alone give it an unfavorable rating.
The distinct impression I drew from the segment was that the state of Wisconsin had a surplus until the governor passed a bunch of tax cuts, and then used the resulting deficit to justify attacks on public sector workers. Yes, if you torture the English language enough, you can justify a different interpretation, but wouldn't we all be better served by honest clarification than by defensiveness?
The original segment was misleading. Politifact often downgrades ratings which are technically true because they give a very different impression than what is actually the case. In this case, maybe their downgrade was excessive ("False" is pretty harsh), but saying things which are true in a way that seems to suggest something false is not being truthful. Whether it was intentional or not, such innuendo is more properly the purview of Fox News. We expect better of Rachel.
The most unfortunate thing of all is that her larger point--that this whole fiasco has nothing to do with budget deficits, seems to have gotten lost in the melee. I think she is right. And I hope that, if nothing else, she will be careful in the future not to let sloppy wording obscure her brilliant analysis.
I cannot believe I am saying this but....reading the transcript I DO see the insinuation that the budget surplus was wiped out by the tax cuts. That may not have been the INTENTION, but it's really quite easy to make that connection. Especially the line "Hey wait, that's exactly the size of the shortfall"
I saw the segment, in my mind you were making that connection. On all other areas I totally agree with you and I was plenty mad when I saw the Politifact posting. I hope they open and talk to you guys and print a retraction or at least pull the post down. BUT...they do have a teensy bit of a point :-)
I feel you,
I got the same impression when I first saw the segment. Granted, I was watching it while playing some video game, but it's not hard to see how what Rachel was saying could be linked into the false statements attributed to her by Politifact. If you're not paying close attention, you'll hear "...on track to have a $120 mil surplus ... in fact a $137 mil shortfall ... given away $140 mil worth of tax breaks..."
I have faith in Rachel that this juxtaposition was inadvertent, and not meant to confuse. As stated repeatedly, the point of the segment was to state how the money was not the real issue.
Still, I can't help but be reminded of how Iraq War proponents sold their case, bringing up 9-11 while quietly admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with that day. Of course, the confusion there was intentional and surrounded a matter of much larger importance.
But my desire to hear Rachel admit, "Okay, I can see how someone might be confused by that," does not absolve Politifact of claiming that she was lying (she wasn't) or being purposely misleading (I seriously doubt it). They even have varying ratings for each statement evaluated. Why they didn't recognize her claims as being at least technically correct is curious.
What? Someone has half-quoted, mis-quoted, or mis-characterized something Ms. Maddow said? Why she does this herself all the time, many of which I have pointed out. Even Jon Stewart called her on misrepresenting a quote of former President Bush...I heard no apology or correction. Did I miss it or the others?
T dum, I'm okay with your comment but I hope I am not a threat to the viewers such that they need protection.
I like Rachel. She's smart. She's effective. Heck, not that she'd care, I think she's cute. She's challenged my views on a number of things. Thus, I challenge back.
Based on your user name, I'm not sure you are open to being challenged though. I could be wrong.
I loved this segment today and can highly recommend two brief, pithy, and amazingly useful books to people (and I would love to see what Rachel would do with them!). They are both written by Harry Frankfurt (honest) and the first is called "On Bull@!$%#" and the other is called "On Truth". He is a philosopher and emeritus professor at Princeton and he also wrote a book called "Taking ourselves seriously and getting things right".
These are fairly serious books and ask questions like "is BSing different than lying? If so, how?" and "is truth important- if so, when?"
After reading these books, it becomes perfectly clear why right wing pundits and "news sources" could care less whether what they say is true or not- it only matters if it gets them what they want. But don't take my word for it, get a copy and he will explain it better than I ever could. He was on the Daily Show a half-decade ago- it would be great to see what Rachel could do with the concepts. Then, maybe get James Carse, author of "Finite and Infinite Games".
I am in love with your use of the term "egregious."