Stressful Interview! (Rachel Maddow Show)

IndigoSensor

IndigoSensor

Product Obtained
Retired Staff
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2 sx/so/sp
I was watching the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC tonight, when an interview came on. It was between her, and republican oregon senate canidate Art Robinson. If you don't know who rachel maddow is, she is a quite liberal news anchor, and is known for her sarcasm and use of extreme right wing republicans as sidehanded punching bags. At times I think she goes too far, but I find myself agreeing with most of what she says so I enjoy her program.

This interview though... It didn't go so well. I have NEVER seen someone (Art) talk over someone this much before! I started to have bad anxiety half way through this just from watching it! While neither of their hands were clean, I do think rachel was being mostly fair and was offering up quite valid (albeit, indeed out dated) questions. Art just refused to answer anything. I think rachel's goal was indeed to make him look silly (as she does with most extreme right wing people), and Art was trying his hardest to make rachel look like a bitch.


I'll just let you watch the interviews, be prepared to cringe:

[YOUTUBE]BNVTFP9-iQ8[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]j0jnp2d8czU[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVTFP9-iQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jnp2d8czU
 
Gosh, this video is almost unwatchable. The way Art Robinson constantly talks over Rachel is suffocating, but I guess that can be a disguise to avoid really looking flawed in his campaign which in a way it is clear that Rachel does not really share much of his beliefs. Robinson uses the same argument every time when avoiding the questions, which in my opinion makes him look rather bad due to the fact that Rachel is quoting directly from his research papers. What is the purpose of an interview/ debate if only one person wants to take over the entire conversation..jeez.
 
Rachel Maddow is retarded. Does SHE care about moveon.org spending MILLIONS on ads anonymously for Kerry and Obama? I think Art did a great job, he wasnt going to be caught in a rachel maddow drive by. Why is she even on air? Shes a shitty left wing version of O'rielly, except very very unsuccessful.

wow i can hardly stomach this, utter yellow journalism.
 
Last edited:
I actually felt bad for her while watching the interview. I can see how someone could get anxious from watching this. I actually found Robinson's responses amusing, because he rarely gave an answer to Maddow's questions. Whether or not he published something fifteen years ago really doesn't affect how relevant the statements are, which I'm guessing are very relevant for how often Robinson pointed out how old the statements were and didn't give any reason as to why he no longer believes those statements. I think that him talking over her questions and commenting on her interview skills derailed the interview more than anything Maddow herself did.
 
Last edited:
Raccoon Love said:
the fact that Rachel is quoting directly from his research papers. What is the purpose of an interview/ debate if only one person wants to take over the entire conversation..jeez.
Click to expand...


No she isnt! lol! the guy is a research scientist, he wrote MILLIONS of words on the subjects she is talking about and she picks a 10 word sentence that sounds bad and then strings an editorial OPINION into it ans saying "are you still a conspiracy theorist " I mean... And you people act like hes cutting her off from her interview, whos interview is this? her views or his? For someone who is supposed to be asking questions, she spent more time pressing opinions then anything else. This video, Rachel Maddow are a sad marker of exactly what is wrong with our "news" i this country. I would call her a bad journalist, but shes not a journalist, at LEAST Bill Orielly admits that he is an editorialist and not a journalist, this is pathetic. She looked like a complete novice and this guy ripped her to shreds, she did more harm to the politician she is trying to help then the one she is trying to hurt.
 
I wouldn't call her show news. I more call it political opinion / commentary. It can be seen as news by some because it is giving off information, but when one injects a lot of their opinions into something it steps away from that.


Detective Conan said:
I actually felt bad for her while watching the interview. I can see how someone could get anxious from watching this. I actually found Robinson's responses amusing, because he rarely gave an answer to Maddow's questions. Whether or not he published something fifteen years ago really doesn't affect how relevant the statements are, which I'm guessing are very relevant for how often Robinson pointed out how old the statements were and didn't give any reason as to why he no longer believes those statements. I think that him talking over her questions and commenting on her interview skills derailed the interview more than anything Robinson herself did.
Click to expand...

This
 
I kept thinking that Obama wouldn't have any trouble with answering her questions given that he had the same history as Art.
 
what's with such strong reactions
just another dumbass, except this one got airtime
you've never seen them before?? they're everywhere
 
I was about to say that I felt a little bad for Robinson, because I found several rumors that said Robinson didn't assume ownership of the newsletter, Access to Energy, until 1993, and that some of the articles Maddow referenced in the interview were written by the supposed former owner, Petr Beckmann. I can't confirm this, however, since the official archive for the newsletter in no way cites an author for the articles, even those post 1993.

However, he didn't even try to mention ownership issues that could have raised questions about the credibility of Maddow's research to the average audience, which leads me to believe the rumors I read on the subject are only rumors. Furthermore, by constantly referring to the age of the articles being 15 years, Robinson indirectly takes full credit for the articles (since 15 years ago would be 1995, two years after Robinson's acquisition of the newsletter). The fact he references writing thousands and thousands of pages without stating whether or not these pages are all published in the newsletter pushes him closer to accepting responsibility for those articles.

Also, for some more after thoughts on the interview, Robinson, by not providing Maddow with substantial answers to the questions presented to him, did not provide the people he wants to vote for him with substantial answers. After watching the interview, I don't know any more about Robinson, or what he and his campaign, stands for than what I would get from watching a political campaign ad.

I'm rambling now... erm, carry on.
 
Detective Conan said:
Also, for some more after thoughts on the interview, Robinson, by not providing Maddow with substantial answers to the questions presented to him, did not provide the people he wants to vote for him with substantial answers. After watching the interview, I don't know any more about Robinson, or what he and his campaign, stands for than what I would get from watching a political campaign ad.

I'm rambling now... erm, carry on.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Weather Rachel was trying to spread negative ideas is not important, but the fact that Robinson kept on cutting when she was trying to give a question. Not to mention he kept given most of the same responses on to why he does not wish to respond, which made him look rather bad.
 
Raccoon Love said:
Exactly my point. Weather Rachel was trying to spread negative ideas is not important, but the fact that Robinson kept on cutting when she was trying to give a question. Not to mention he kept given most of the same responses on to why he does not wish to respond, which made him look rather bad.
Click to expand...

Wait wait.... that she was trying to smear and ambush a guy running for office is not important, whats important is that he didnt fall into her trap? Seriously? He didnt look bad, he looked rather intelligent, the 1st rule in politics is not to be on the defensive, its to get your points across, Rachel Maddow should have her travesty of a show cancelled, she, continually referencing the 150,000 anonymous dollars he got, woopdidoo, how many millions does MSNBC spend to promote her failing show? Does that get counted in the incumbents favor?
 
From what I have read on other commentary sites on this interview, there is a camp of people that think rachael did very well and there is a camp that thinks robininson did very well. Neither of those sides are ever going to see how the other sees what they do. I personally think Rachel did well and robinson was very (for lack of a better word) mean/unanswering in his responses. I can't really see how others would think otherwise. Nevertheless there is broad enough set of opinions that I must understand that it must be a valid opinion to also see that robinson did well.

Your inate political opinions, what issues you feel are releveant to a canidate, and your opinions on how a debate (even though this was an interview) should be run and dealt with, will ultimately determine what you see in this. That is why there are different views on this interview itself.

And for the record, rachel's show actually has some of the highest ratings on MSNBC and even compared to other news shows on other networks. There is simply enough people out there who like it. By comparision, the glen beck show (to which I can not stand even remotely) does very well as well. It baffles me, but it is what it is and people like it.
 
because both shows are opposite sides to the same coin
 
you are wrong because you are different
that is all
 
I felt the questions were valid. The girl was on him like stink on shit for dodging her questions but I think they were valid. If I was a citizen I'd want to see a response to the guy's research writings. Maybe he's written a lot and doesn't recall, maybe it's outdated, but that doesn't invalidate the question at all. He should be able to, and should answer. And about that $150,000 anonymous donations, well that's just a matter of fact. There's nothing wrong with stating that point blank.
 
What's the problem with anonymous donations? Shouldn't we be a lot more concerned about funds from those who make their donations known to the candidate and may try to use this to influence policy? I would personally prefer it if all political donations were required to be anonymous.



As they say, "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution." It is true that reducing human radiation expose beyond a certain point does more harm than good (essentially, if there is not enough radiation for the body to recognize then the mechanisms it uses to defend against what little radiation there is get shut down), but short of living in lead containers it is very hard to reduce levels that much in most parts of the country. I do remember reading about one or two spots where radiation levels are too low for human health though.




This reminded me a lot of my attempts to debate things with my father. I'm guessing Art is also an INTJ who relies too heavily on his immature tertiary Fi. What type is Maddow, ENTP?
 
Last edited:
Maddow is the best; just saying ... I miss her show (MSNBC streaming took a beating somewhere, making Olbermann and herself unwatchable.) I still heartily approve of both, though
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top