Your effort to twist "Rachel tells jokes and telegraphs when she does it" to a statement that will by any competent orator be understood as "Rachel does not tell the truth, even when she is not telegraphing a joke". That part right there.
Rachel Maddow said:
OK, perhaps you can clarify something for me. Consider this article from the Associated Press:Rachel Maddow said:
The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid.
But I'm glad the judge ruled as he did. The Bullshit Machine — Jones, Carlsen, etc. — tell blatant lies, not just exaggerations, and are absolved by the "My client is just a comedian, your Honor" defense. It would be unfair to hold Maddow to a higher standard.
To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.
Any Maddow fan would know that if she had other facts supporting the charge she would have presented them over and over and over and over again!
Richard Lowry - Author of the above linked article:OK, perhaps you can clarify something for me. Consider this article from the Associated Press:Rachel Maddow said:
The exaggeration was to imply that OAN received much or most of its financing from Russia. Maddow DID make the case that SOME of OAN's propaganda was in effect Russian-paid.
But I'm glad the judge ruled as he did. The Bullshit Machine — Jones, Carlsen, etc. — tell blatant lies, not just exaggerations, and are absolved by the "My client is just a comedian, your Honor" defense. It would be unfair to hold Maddow to a higher standard.
To answer thebeave's question: Yes, Maddow does relay FACTS in contrast to the right-wing Bullshit Machine. In this case she draws an exaggerated conclusion, but any intelligent viewer would understand both the basis for and the nature of the claim.
Any Maddow fan would know that if she had other facts supporting the charge she would have presented them over and over and over and over again!
Rachel Maddow's Deep Delusion
Since you said she relays facts and speaks the truth (unlike the "right-wing Bullshit Machine"), I guess I'm to believe that her two year rant about Russian collusion was just a bunch of exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy, in a similar fashion to the OAN story. Is that right? I have only watched random clips from her off and on over the years on Youtube (I don't get any cable news channels at home, including MSNBC), so I really don't know all the details of what she said or how she said it. I kind of get the feeling though, that a lot of her viewers believed what she was saying all that time was factual and convincing, but perhaps they weren't smart enough to recognize entertainment when they saw it.
When Manafort gave polling data to the Russion operative (and lied about it to the feds) there was obvious collusion with Russia.
Mueller was not investigating Russian collusion. He was forbidden to do so and was told that aspect of investigation would be handled by someone else. He was lied to because it wasn't.
Consider this. KFC doesn't have a monopoly on chicken. Other fast food chains do chicken. But KFC is known only for its chicken.
That seems to sum it up pretty well. The GOP don't monopolize brazen political stupidity and political divisiveness, but it is their specialty these days. Especially in the US House. After all, a super majority of GOP in the House voted to put into doubt, Electoral Votes due to fraud that they knew never existed. You can't walk back from that.
If its so obvious, what was Rachel's meaning then, per my post? Was her whole 2 year diatribe about Russia and Trump just a goofy little entertainment saga rife with exaggeration, hyperbole and comedy? Or was it intended to be a serious analysis of the situation? No one has really answered that question, it seems.
IMO Rachel Maddow's hyperbolic spin of the actual facts (vis a vis Russian "interference") has been a mostly fruitless attempt to get people to gaze upon the unpleasant fact that we (Americans) allowed a foreign leader to manipulate our social and monetary landscapes to install a kompromatted, hapless bumbling incompetent self interested conman as President. One that he could (and still does) control without having to commit one single body or one overt act of malign aggression...
apnews.com
