MSNBC has had a lot of problems recently, what with low ratings and, now, Melissa Harris-Perry's one-woman rebellion. But to us cats, it was summed up by one silly moment we witnessed during coverage of the South Carolina primary last night. Sadly, we have to single out Rachel Maddow, who is usually one of our favorites, for a tsk-tsk.
Just before the polls closed, the Clinton campaign confidently predicted that Hillary would meet or exceed Bernie Sanders's 22-point margin in New Hampshire. Oooh, Rachel wondered, what if Clinton only wins by 15 points and it ends up looking like a loss? To which Chris Matthews responded that he thought the campaign probably knew what it was talking about.
Nothing like a 48-point blowout to make a talking head look stupid.
We cats have to get something off our furry chests. What will it take to get the Bernie-Sanders-loving Maddow (not to mention her equally-BS-loving colleague Chris Hayes) to admit that Hillary Clinton has had a good night? We'll be wondering just that this Tuesday, when Clinton is forecast (at least by Nate Silver and his merry band of data-crunchers) to do well. But sadly, the pundits will probably be consumed with what's going on on the insult-hurling, name-calling, bathroom-humor-laden other side.
A friend of ours recently emailed Rachel to suggest that she quit her job and go work on the Sanders campaign, which made us grin. As for us, we're merely hoping that going forward, Maddow and other liberal pundits try to refrain from indulging in the "media malpractice" that they constantly inflict on Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In MSNBC's case, it's less of a case of out-and-out inaccuracy (yep, we're looking at you, New York Times), and more of an unrelenting skepticism, a thinly veiled hostility and a continued resistance to giving credit where credit is due. It drives us cats crazy, and it makes us HISS.
No comments:
Post a Comment