Appearance on Mike Signorile to discuss Rachel Maddow and closeted journalism

Rachel's Audience

Rachel has a national TV platform because she speaks to a national audience.

If NBC/MSNBC perceive her as speaking overwhelmingly to and for an LGBT audience, she'll go back to speaking to a much, much smaller radio audience.

She's accomplishing a lot -- for all Americans, including LGBT Americans -- right where she is.  Don't ask for too much and lose that.

---

by: S1 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:44:50 AM CST

please!

I like Rachel Maddow and I'm glad she has her own show that reaches a national audience. But if we follow your suggestion to "not ask to much and lose that" I think we are making a big, big mistake. That is just what the right wing wants to cow us into doing--don't ask for marriage, don't ask for celebrities to be honest about being queer, don't ask for adoption rights, don't be a bad gay person! Just keep quiet, sit down, and shut up until the world is "ready" for you to be out and proud. No, thanks.

I'm glad Pam is going to be on Signorile's show discussing this issue. And I look very forward to hearing what Rachel has to say about her decision not to ask Huckabee about this anti-queer views.  

---

by: elizabethws @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

who asked for her to speak for LGBTs?

As far as I know, discussing the marriage amendments and the adoption initiative are PROGRESSIVE issues, and the question is whether Rachel (and folks out there) feels it's more problematic for her to cover them because she is out vs. someone who is straight or professionally closeted.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 13:03:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressives on gay rights

Progressives do not see the gay rights issue as naturally their issue. that's just my impression of what's part of the problem. Conservatives want to skewer us, and progressives want to ignore us or use us when it suits them.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:12:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive or not,

These are issues that have become major political news stories. To ignore them entirely is bizarre.

---

by: Decaf @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:43:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In order to address the national audience she must lie to them

by omission? Yes, I see not discussing someone's obvious bigotry is a  lie by ommission. It's like having David Dukes on your show, and not discussing he's a racist. Would you be okay with that? If not, why not?

I don't care what she's done in the past when it didn't matter. Now it does precisely because she does have a national show.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:07:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In other words...

MSNBC has told her that gay issues must stay in the ghetto because they are inappropriate for a non-gay audience. (At least, I hope you are implicating MSNBC and not expressing your personal views.)

The odds approach 100% that every straight person in this country has a gay friend, or sibling, or uncle, or aunt, or cousin, or niece, or nephew, or child, or even parent. In other words, gay issues are everyone's issue and affect us all. With regards to Maddow's interview with Huckabee, gay issues especially affect the children in institutions right now because ostensibly straight couples are unwilling to adopt them or accept them as foster children. To say that Huckabee's proven bigotry is off-limits because it is not relevant to a national audience is absurd and exactly what I would expect from America's mass media.

I find it exceptionally difficult to accept Maddow's "they don't interest me" comment. I believe the lightweight interview and her response to the fallout are the result of orders from her boss and do not reflect her personal views, and will continue to believe this until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:40:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amazing show!

The Signorile show was incredible. I love Rachel's show, but she shouldn't be given a pass on this issue. Mike really took her to task and I totally respect that. Rachel became noticeably angry and defensive, but that is to be expected. Pam, you are 100% right on in your preceptions of these issues. An African-American anchor on CNN would not have been so cordial while interviewing someone from the KKK (and yes the comparison is quite appropriate. In fact Huckabee believes in even less rights for glbt people than David Duke advocates for African-Americans).

P.S. Anyone else having a problem commenting on Signorile's blog? The Haloscan comment box just comes up completely blank.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:54:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huckabee has denied there has been a history of violence against gays

Let's forget a moment that civil rights should not be predicated on whether one has the victim of violence as a class. But, the fact he said that gays were not subject to violence, and thus our issues are not a civil right issues, is just plain false. What of gay bashing; what of the unspoken threat that we can not show our affection in certain neighbors, cities and states; what of the violence abroad including death in countries like Iran; what of the violence historically including the various 'therapies' in america to change sexual orientation; what of the Nazi's killing gays? How does one ignore how wrong Huckabee is on just the violence issue, and say they are for gay rights?

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:15:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Russ's Audience

I have a national radio platform.  (America Left: XM Satellite Ch. 167, where, coincidentally, my photo sits in the masthead alongside Rachel's.)

Rachel may be one of the few (only?) out-lesbian mainstream commentators.  I may be one of the few (ex. Bill Maher) out-stoner commentators.

Rachel seems to have decided that her national audience means she needs to tone down the LGBT stuff, lest she be perceived as "that lesbian show".

When I won my talk radio show, I was warned not to dwell on "God, gays, guns, grass, or abortion" since they were "decided" topics on the radio.  I was also warned not to emphasize my drug reform roots, lest I be perceived as "that stoner show".

I have decided that my national audience means I have lucked out beyond my wildest dreams.  I never intended to be a radio personality, it just kinda happened.  I don't fear losing this gig because I never expected to have it.  Therefore, I dedicate at least one of my 80 radio minutes every week to a marijuana story, because I would feel like I am betraying the 872,721 annual marijuana arrestees who don't have a nationally-heard voice if I didn't.  I feel by putting on a great show and not being afraid for people to know I am a responsible cannabis consumer, I help shatter stereotypes and foster understanding.  I often say that I'm talking about the Drug War because nobody else on TV or radio seems to want to talk about it.  I'm honored if someone thinks of my show as "that stoner show".

I couldn't live with myself if I had a national show and didn't bring up the subject that is my life.  I could never give a softball interview of, say, Drug Czar John Walters, like Rachel gave of Huckabee.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:39:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Must check out your show ...

... because I admire your stance on the drug issue, and your balls for taking the unpopular position.

As for Rachel, wow, I'm beginning to see that she is indeed selling out.  We all love her, and therefore its our duty to hold her feet to the fire.

Good going, Pam.    

... where Same Gender Love rules.

---

by: TaylorSiluwe @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:21:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She still does her raido show

on Air America.  More gay topics on it.  Melissa Etheridge and I were invited and spoke on her show about the tax discrimination protest.  My segment ran to long and it went over into the Ron Reagan show.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:20:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Variation on the theme

I am struck by your point #4 because of two reports I witnessed on Fox News about the Prop 8 protests.

4. Do out gay reporters have limitations regarding coverage of LGBT issues? More specifically, do heterosexual reporters or closeted reporters have more latitude to discuss and report on these issues than an out reporter?

What I saw twice was Megyn Kelly, news "partner" to OUT Bill Hemmer, report with distain in her delivery about some of the post Nov 4 Prop 8 protests, one specifically about the LA protest in front of the Mormon Temple.  In BOTH "reports" only Kelly spoke.  There was no interaction between this news team, one of them being gay.  During the "reports" the Hemmer was never on camera even for a reaction shot.  Seeing this dynamic not once but twice, made me wonder how the producers/directors dealt with Kelly's gay counterpart while making anti supportive statements about Prop 8 protests.

http://www.foxnews.com/america...

Back on point to Pam's post, I would have preferred Maddow stated something to the effect that she was fully informed about Huckabee's anti gay policies and then said she had no interest in talking about them....Better yet, she should have never agreed to have Huckabee on her show UNLESS she felt free and interested in addressing his anti gay worldview.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 13:13:39 PM CST

sirius--argh!

After numerous attempts to access the free 3-day pass through Sirius so I could listen to Pam on Mike Signorile's show, I am giving up--evidently Sirius doesn't like my Mac.

Pam, if you can post about your conversation, it would be great...sorry to miss it.

---

by: elizabethws @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 13:13:41 PM CST

Huck-for-abuck's comments alone require question

Whether from "out" journos or "closeted" or hetero.

The statement about not enough skulls cracked, from a "preacher" no less, doesn't demand a fast pitch curve ball instead of the usual lobbed softballs?!

Come on people, hold these bigots to the fire... especially when their "righteous" comments are recorded.

---

by: superherofan @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 13:20:43 PM CST

Rachel Is Yet Another Disappointment

Rachel's professed lack of interest in two of the key issues concerning the treatment of lgbt in today's America offends me no matter what the reason is for it. Either she has made a Faustian bargain to advance her career and misrepresents what she thinks or, despite her history as an "aids activist", she has many more issues with the closet than she realizes. When political scientists of all stripes are doing post-mortems on Prop. 8, why is that not of some interest to her? After all, she is a) a lesbian who is b) I believe from California and c) has a political science background (I think that is the subject of her Phd). Even if she does not personally want to marry her partner, is she not, as a policy wonk ,at least interested in the issue of whether basic rights should be put to a vote or how the dynamics of the Proposition 8 campaign in particular played out? Like it or not, she also has to recognize that she is one of the very few lesbian or gay faces tv viewers see(and may be the only lgbt person they know about), so when she downplays an issue of that importance to the gay community, she is also sending a terrible message about what the community itself considers important. As for Arkansas, I have an especially hard time believing she has no interest in exploring why voters would choose to leave kids homeless, on the street, in orphanages or otherwise without loving families rather than have them become part of a family with a gay couple. She has to realize that when she gives a Huckabee a pass she bears some responsibility when the policy positions he advocates succeed.  

---

by: David Goroff @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 13:27:32 PM CST

Rachel as an AIDS Activist...

...should know better than most the palliative effects of medical marijuana for HIV/AIDS patients, yet she was dismissive of Michigan's passage of medical marijuana as she discussed California's passage of Prop 8.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:44:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huckabigot should have been hung out to dry wanting PWA'S sent to CAMPS

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:52:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Holy smoke - Rachel just prevaricated on the air

She told Mike that she's asked me to be on her show and declined. I've never been asked, and in fact she's (or a producer) never emailed, called or in any way had contact with me before.

I have no idea why she would say this.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:43:34 PM CST

WOW.

Why would she do that?! I wouldn't be surprised if it's because she's feeling the pressure. Even though I like her show, and I see her as one of the sane people in news-I think she's sold out. There, I said it. Frankly, I knew she had when I saw how they have her 'femmed up' for TV, and you can't tell me she's not.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:58:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They don't give just anyone a tv show.

Rachel's talked at length about the rules for having your own tv show and how she's worked with them the best she could while still remaining as true to herself as possible.

I think she looks great as herself, but nobody -- nobody -- would give that look an hour of tv time five nights a week.  Compared to any other woman on tv, I would not peg Rachel's on-air look as being in any way feminine.  What she does look like is more professional and there's nothing wrong with that.

You don't want her to sell out?  Fine.  She's off the air.

Me, I'd rather she be on the air and do the best job she can within the demands of both her job and her employers.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:36:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How very disapointing

Rachel become just another media sell out. Changing her image, lying when the going gets tough and giving a pass to hateful creeps like Huckabee because it is expedient. Corporate priorities over ride everything in corporate media.  

---

by: Natasha Yar-Routh @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:05:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OMG

Rachel Maddow stock plummets for sure.

What is this fabication all about?

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:20:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmm

I skipped to the bottom and missed this part of this thread, and didn't read it before I posted below...

Well, that is odd.  And  a little disturbing.

M

---

by: Morry @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:36:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This will back-fire on her

and her credibility.  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:38:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it possible

That she actually did attempt to do this, but a producer screwed up or an email got lost or something?

---

by: mcc @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:41:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

all I can say is that...

It's not hard to find me in a variety of ways.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:44:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's true

Goodness knows, you have hardly mastered Monty Python's "How Not To Be Seen"! ;)

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:54:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True, but...

Frankly, why would she even bother to lie?  It makes no sense as there's nothing to be gained by it.  The two most extreme answers are that either she's a sociopath or she's mistaken.

I'm leaning more toward the mistaken end of the spectrum.

I don't think she actually books all her guests by herself.  She's a busy woman, she has people, it would be an extremely reasonable thing for her to have misremembered or to have been given the wrong information.  

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:27:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pat Buchanan?

Was there any mention of how Maddow obliges that hateful geezer? She's always smiling in his face, so I don't know why that would change with Huckabee.

---

by: Decaf @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 14:58:54 PM CST

Yeah, but

She also asks Buchanan some pretty tough questions, and has on many occasions held his feet to the fire on an issue.  Now, she hasn't blathered on and fumed at him the way, say, a Bill O'Reilly would do in her place when interviewing someone whose opinion comes from the opposite side of the political fence, but I'm not convinced we need a liberal version of Billo the Clown.

And yes, I'll agree that it is strange that Rachel didn't go after Huckabee when she had the chance, especially taking into consideration the fact that she does go after her buddy Pat when he's on the program.

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, however, for this reason:   Rachel (and Keith, for that matter) seem to have trouble getting Conservatives to come on the show at all.  As her show is still relatively new, perhaps she is signaling to Conservatives  that they can come on her show and not be eviscerated a la O'Reilly.  Not that having an exact opposite of Billo wouldn't be fun and cathartic.  I just don't think it's very productive.

Now, perhaps she erred too far on the side of caution, but give her a chance.  She's still getting her footing.  The show is still relatively new.

Just my 2 cents.

---

by: Morry @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:33:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is difficult. Really difficult

My two most favorite, can't go a day without, is Michelangelo on OUTQ and Rachel on Air America and MSNBC.  They are my two most revered journalists with Keith Olbermann rounding out my top 3.

I'm listening to Michelangelo and Rachel go at it on OUTQ and I just don't know what to think.

Is this infighting the least bit helpful.  It's like saying someone is not Gay or Lesbian ENOUGH and that is NOT helpful.  Moreover, it only empowers the Whack-O Rightys and they can point at this afternoon and say, see even the LGBT Community can't get along on their own issues.  blah, blah, blah.

Besser ein ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne ende

---

by: becca @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:42:29 PM CST

Then why should Mike and Pam have to be the ones who knuckle under to Rachel?

Why shouldn't she humbly agree with them?  Why is it always the activist-minded LGBT's who have to keep quiet and stand in the corner?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:30:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

KEEPING EM HONEST even when it's Rachel...nice job Pam!

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:44:54 PM CST

best to stay honest

I have no intention of stopping watching Rachel, as I still think she's the most interesting "talking head" on television, but this, admittedly, will make me listen with a grain of salt...

---

by: Morry @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:56:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

becca, are you new to the queer community?

Cuz honey some of the biggest ugliest knock down drag out fights are within the LGBt community, and within the Progressive movement. We may have an ugly break up that can last a year...see Lavender Women leaving NOW, and eventually mend fences, and come back as a coalition, Usually when one of us is attacked from outside the community, or when hundreds of thousands of us start dying of an unknown virus.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:49:36 PM CST

How Many Of You Actually WATCH Her Show?

I watch her show on a near-daily basis, and I find it hard to believe some of the claims on here that she is less than willing or able to forthrightly discuss LGBT issues on her show.

If I recall correctly, in the heat of the election and post-election madness, she was discussing Prop 8 and general social-conservative madness on a near-daily basis.

While she doesn't bring us up every day, she does a fine job of talking about the constant assault on the liberties of women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities.

I mean, with all respect, what more should she do?  Hers is a news show that is primarily about politics.  For example, she stands alone in her zeal to daily identify and highlight the shady backroom deals occurring in the waning days of the Bush administration.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally care a great deal about the harm that Bush is going to do to this nation between now and 11:59pm on January 19, 2009.  Indeed, that seems much more newsworthy to me than the well-known anti-gay views of a Christianist theocrat.

And in terms of being professionally closeted, it's simply not true.  She went on Conan O'Brien the other week and did an absolutely hilarious interview about the hate mail she receives telling her that she's gay.

From what some of us have written, it seems as though we are looking for a primetime, MSM-based gay news-hour.  And maybe we need one.  Yes, I think that Mike Huckabee and his ilk should be confronted regarding their anti-gay views, and yes, I think that our community (and country) could use more LGBT journalists with a national audience and broad public visibility.  But does that person necessarily have to be Rachel?  It seems that Rachel is doing a fine job of balancing liberal-progressive topics with news items of a more national scope.  And if that changes, then perhaps we can revisit these issues.

And please let me point out that being a journalist requires, if nothing else, ACCESS.  (God knows I have a lot of topics that I would love to discuss with Mike Huckabee, but I can guarantee you that he wouldn't return MY call.)  So if Rachel (or anyone else, for that matter) made a habit of sternly confronting every anti-LGBT interviewee she ever encountered on the air about their anti-LGBT views--regardless of why they were called to appear on her show in the first place--her ability to actually GET anti-LGBT people on the air would rapidly diminish.

Does this mean that she shouldn't talk about LGBT issues?  Of course not!  Does this mean that she shouldn't confront anti-LGBT people when appropriate?  Of course not!  But we shouldn't necessarily possess such a narrow view regarding what's newsworthy.  Rachel is a brilliant journalist, and I have a feeling that our community will be seeing a lot of brilliant stuff from her in the future.

Patience, young Jedis.

************

And Pam, I'm sorry to hear that she said something that wasn't true during her interview with Mike.  Of course we should hold her--just as we should hold anyone--to the standard of being, at a minimum, factually accurate.  And with Rachel, given her obvious brilliance and apparent commitment to dogging after the truth, I think we can expect her to be intellectually honest, to boot.

But I nevertheless worry about those among us who would jump to impugn Rachel's integrity without first giving her a chance to respond to the charge that what she said wasn't true.  Innocent until proven guilty still applies.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:56:29 PM CST

this is the problem

Does this mean that she shouldn't talk about LGBT issues?  Of course not!  Does this mean that she shouldn't confront anti-LGBT people when appropriate?

That's the whole point. The issue of Huckabee and his comments on The View and his position on same-sex adoption in the wake of the election result were both relevant and timely. Any reporter worth their salt would bring this up given the subject matter of his book.

As far as impugning integrity, she just went on the air and made it look like I'm avoiding her. I don't get it.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:14:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe

she had her fingers crossed, so it wasn't really a lie at all. Just a wee fib.

Seriously, maybe she thinks that her people HAVE tried to contact you- but frankly, it's disappointing and a bit mystifying why she decided to let this fall out of her mouth.


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:20:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

see Autumn's update

Her people ignored a request during the DNC, so they had our contact info.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:23:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two Separate Issues

1.  LGBT issues on the air vs. the Huckabee interview.

Point 1.  In terms of Huckabee's outrageous commentary on the View, I'm just not with everyone on this regarding what Rachel should have done.  I simply don't know what kind of good Rachel could hope to have done by confronting him on it.  He's a good old Christofascist, and while I would love to stick it to all of them as much as possible, I don't have that much interest in hearing him give a wishy-washy answer about how great families are.  We're never going to get a meaningful or intellectually honest answer from any of these people, and I'm inclined to stop trying.  Americans are already starting to see through their bullshit, and we are decisively winning the war for hearts and minds.

Point 2.  In terms of the AR adoption ban, I think it was a smart move on Rachel's part NOT to bring it up.  Why?  Because it would have handed an open mic to one of the slickest, smoothest anti-LGBT haters in the nation.  It would have been nothing but talking points from Huckabee, and the interview would have gone nowhere, while giving the haters yet another opportunity to try to convince skeptical-yet-persuadable progressives that their anti-LGBT cause is actually just.

So by denying him a platform, Rachel may have done more good than ill.

2.  Whether Rachel lied on the air this afternoon.

Point 1.  I am not saying or implying that you or anyone else desires to impugn her integrity.  I simply wish to forestall a rush to judgment.  In light of Autumn's update, I agree that there are more questions that need to be answered.

Point 2.  I will reiterate that we should hold her to a strict standard of journalistic ethics and honesty.  But again, while we may know the truth of the matter among ourselves, we must nevertheless consider the distinct possibility that she is simply mistaken.  The woman's only human.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:42:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Patience my ass!

I'm DONE with being patient. And Qscribe is RIGHT-why SHOULD Pam and Mike be respectful to someone who is obviously a SELL OUT who dances around LGBT issues? Screw that noise. I trust Pam Spaulding's word one HELL of a lot more than Rachel Maddow's. IMO, she's trying to cover her ass.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:57:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please See My Posts Downthread & Upthread

Downthread:  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

To make it absolutely clear:  I'm not asking anyone to softpedal our interests.  Just give her a chance to get her sea legs!

Upthread:  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

I hold the view that the particular example of confronting Huckabee would have been, at best, meaningless and, at worst, counterproductive.  I do not, however, think that Rachel should always avoid talking about our issues.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:30:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, bull

All she needed to do, as I say downthread, is show a picture of someone who's been bashed and say they were bashed because they were either a)GAY or b)the assailant THOUGHT they were gay-and THEN ask why he felt that we haven't gotten our heads cracked enough. Confronting a hard core bigot like Huckabee would NOT be meaningless or counterproductive. It's frankly necessary. We need to hold these people's feet to the fire, not play footsie with them. They'd shove us into gas chambers if they had their way.
Sure, Rachel's getting her sea legs, and maybe getting confronted by Mike and Pam will shock some sense into her. I hope so.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:41:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes...like the poor straight brother..that died Monday in New York.

Walking down the street arm and arm with his brother...and SUV of thugs stop and beat him to death yelling epithets!   Ummmm lets see, then there are the sodomized tatto artist, Shepard, King and all the Transpeople we just 'remembered.'  But by all means lets be sure that CUTE, SWEET, LOVING Social Conservatism gets hyped and sold and taught so that those kinds of incidents can happen in even more places!

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:25:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well?

As another person wrote downthread, what would satisfy you at this point?  We can sit here and think of hundreds of things that Rachel might have done differently during her Huckabee interview.  The fact is that she didn't, and we can't go back and change how it turned out.  Further, whether we like it or not, the fact is that her NOT having done it has made it that much more likely that she will have ACCESS to Huckabee and his Christofascist cronies in the future.  After she has built a working rapport with these folks, she CAN ask the hard questions.  But doing so now, however immediate the issues might be, would sink her chances of having those folks ever come back on her show.

The cold reality is that gay and gay-friendly journalists don't have unlimited political capital to expend on confronting heterosupremacists and Christofascists.  If we want our message to reach an audience beyond the gay media--i.e., if we want ACCESS--we don't have the luxury of saying and doing whatever we want, whenever we want.  Do I wish things were different?  Of course!  But change takes time, however righteous the cause for change might be.

This is not to say that I don't understand why you might call "bull" out of impatience or frustration.  Indeed, I myself call "bull" all the time about heterosupremacy and hetero-privilege.  But no one can deny that we have to have political capital to spend it.  My view is that Rachel is building political capital.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:26:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I find your post insulting

The first step is to take responsibility for one's own actions which she has not done. But instead of oding that, she messes up and you come to her defense without her ever once acting as if she did something wrong. Where is the accountability in your analysis? The bull part is the lack of accountability.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:17:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

describe it

Describe what accountability would be? What satisfies you, satisfies all the critics?  And what would be accomplished?

Make it concrete.  What does she have to do? What constitutes accountability.  And afterward, what happens?

It's either about everyone simply complaining, or it's about something better coming out of this? What are your demands and how will they improve the situation?

(the reason I'm asking is because I've been in this community for a long time and in my experience, divisiveness usually just leads to, well, divisiveness.)

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:38:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the accountability issue was made concrete by both the post

and subsequent update. are you deliberately being obtuse? the  problem has been defined, and so has the behavior. The only real issue is whether she will own up to it.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:44:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

obviously

I could ask you the same exact thing.

Of course her behavior and "the problem" has been defined. My question to you and others is very very simple.

What exactly do you want Maddow to DO NOW?  What fixes it? What satisfies you? What are you asking her to do?  That's all I'm asking.

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:00:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and thus why you are being obtuse

you are asking a question with  obvious answers.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:07:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

okay, so I'm obtuse.

Tell me what they are.

Describe a satisfactory course of concrete actions on RM's part now that would appease you and be of constructive benefit to the community.

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:16:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh?

There are two issues being discussed on this thread.

1.  The Huckabee interview.
2.  The claim that Rachel invited Pam on to her show.

Which one are you talking about?

If #1:  What's insulting about having a substantive discussion about what she should or should not have done during the interview?  The accountability comes from the very debate that we are having.

If #2:  I have continually said elsewhere in this thread that she should be held to account for the veracity of her on-air comment this afternoon.  While we have evidence that she was WRONG, we don't have evidence that she LIED.  The accountability will come when we figure out which it is.

I'm insulting no one when I say that I am interested in cutting her slack on her journalistic choices and in holding her to account--FAIRLY AND WITHOUT PRE-JUDGMENT--for her on-air comments earlier today.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:39:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i am not interested in cutting her slack

she's a journalist and her job is to report information as accurately as she can without hiding important information. knowing this guys views of homosexuality is the same as knowing david dukes views on blacks when he was with the kkk.

she needs to explain her behavior in a way that will not come across as if she's decided gay issues are not that important. reading her statements both today and inthe past indicates she's spinning. someone who is spinning is never going to say "i am spinning."

the insulting part is where we are not suppose to put 2+2 to equal 4 together. any given piece you can certainly explain a way, but the total of it is a pattern. patterns can often tell us more than any particular bit of information. you can ignore that pattern as you want, but don't say there is nothing to tell us already from where she's coming. especially considering, by comparsion to her priro behavior, it's clear she would not have acted this way but-for the new opporturnities fo rher personality.

as i said upthread- its easy to do the right thing when ther eis no pressure on you, bu there, she's showing us who she is.

and if gay issues are not that important, she needs to just say that. if they are, she needs to explain why an obvious bigot is given a pass for a reason that would not pass muster under any other circumstance. it's the double standard when looking at this from a media angle as a journalist that destroys your argument.

the very first step in accountability requires truthfulness  not just talk, but truthfulness. truthfulness- here would require her to really explain better than she has how exactly this differs from  a black person not discussing race with david dukes.  she needs to explain better than she has why she has not reached out even after prop 8 to address gay issues even while her co-anchors have done so on other msnbc shows. You can rationalize "one of us got" in as the basis for it, or you can sort of ask how much value is there in having someone who is lesbian who is ashamed once she's reached a certain status to talk about these issues like any other political discussion.

it's the very fact she's so blunt about other issues that damns her here.

the problem with your argument is that the thing itself (her not talking about it considering its news)  is pretty unexplainable outside of spin.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:03:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Enough.

Let's agree to disagree.  I have given several articulations of my view, and you have rejected them based on multiple assumptions about Rachel and her motivations.  We have to accept that there is a truth to be discovered here that neither of us is likely to ever fully know.

So let's just leave it to our mutual readers to decide who is right.  While I appreciate your strongly-held views, I am not going to be convinced by them, just as you are not going to be convinced by mine.

Enough.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:16:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

apparently

The problem with your argument JTW is that you refuse to acknowledge that you and I and everyone else here can read RM's mind and know her exact intent! ;)

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:22:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no- its that you hold her to a different stadard that

I am almost certain you would not hold MSM. That to me is unacceptable and wrong. Hence the lack of accountability in a nutshell.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:21:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

let me sum up your view

I like her, she's a lesbian, and I am willing to cut her some slack.

The brief version of my view: she's a journalist,a nd therefore, I am not. She's got a job to do, and I want to know why here, on something that matters to us gays , she is making excuses that she would not make elsewhere and would attack other journalists for having done

It comes down that

What I want the mutual reader to understand is that is wha separates you from me is a clear articulation of how we view media.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:19:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm with JTW

I agree to disagree with you.

When you start telling me what I think, it's time to call it a night. (though it explains how you can deduce RM's intent without a second thought. Must be nice to be a mind reader)

As noted earlier, this isn't a defense of Maddow as much as it is a refutation of the idea that there is ONE RIGHT THING that all LGBT, or all progressives, must do.  It's not about Maddow, both JTW and I have said we were disappointed with her actions. Speaking for myself, it's about our community and its expectations, and our strategy for progress.

Good luck with your approach.  

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 23:24:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Evidence?

We don't have evidence. We have an assertion by Maddow that she asked Pam to be on the show. And we have an assertion by Pam that she has never been contacted by Rachel but instead her attempts at contacting Rachel went unanswered. So, there's no evidence of either.

---

by: avocado @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 03:59:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Allegation?

I hesitated to use "allegation" in this context, because, to the lay reader, it might have appeared that, in using this legal term of art, I was attempting to downplay the seriousness of their claims while simultaneously calling into question the claims' veracity.

So, my bad for deliberately using the wrong legal term of art here.  I simply didn't want to imply that I wasn't taking Pam's claim seriously by calling it an "allegation."  I stand corrected.

It seems that, moreover, in light of Pam's later post on this issue regarding whether she had been contacted (see http://www.pamshouseblend.com/... ), we now have some firmer evidence beyond bald assertions.

So now we can BOTH be right!

---

by: JTW @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How could it be counterproductive?

Seriously asking.  I'm trying to imagine how calling out homophobes can hurt us--unless you buy into the idea that challenging bullies will only make trouble.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:53:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Not the Homophobes, It's HUCKABEE

I'm not in any way saying that bigots shouldn't be confronted.  But Huckabee is no ordinary bigot.  He's smooth, calm, charismatic, and well-spoken.  I have seen interviews with him in which he has spouted some astonishingly bigoted things and come across as kind, thoughtful, and COMPLETELY REASONABLE.  He's like a heterosupremacist v2.0!

It is this last part that I am saying we should avoid.  The last thing we need is to allow the public to develop a perception that homophobia and Christofascism are anything other than COMPLETELY UN-REASONABLE.  Huckabee is too smooth an operator for me to ever be comfortable with giving his anti-LGBT views a voice.  Ever.

So please don't construe my Huckabee comments as "we shouldn't stand up for ourselves" comments.  They're simply not.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:22:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not yet obviously a sell out to me

Pam and Mike deserve kudos for critiquing Maddow's interview with Huckabee, and for raising questions about how she covers LGBT issues generally.  They are absolutely right to do so, and serve the community well.

It's sad to hear Maddow argue in response that Huckabee's virulent homophobia is "uninteresting".  That argument invites the wider progressive community to similarly dismiss our issues across the board, when we should rather be holding them (and ourselves, as part of that community) to account for a politics based on principle rather than on expediency.

Still, this seems to be a case where we can get somewhere arguing on the merits.  Every journalist working has the same moral responsibility as Maddow does to cover LGBT issues thoroughly and fairly.  She is on the spot in a way that most others aren't, and is perhaps more inclined to consideration of constructive criticism than many.

...

I certainly hope that Maddow's claim of having invited Pam to be on her show was a simple mistake (she was confusing her with someone else, perhaps?) and that she contacts Pam to say so.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:48:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rachel's excuses don't make sense

"From what some of us have written, it seems as though we are looking for a primetime, MSM-based gay news-hour."

This is the same absurd rationalization that Rachel used on Mike's show. Is it too much to expect of a reporter to merely mention an issue as historic as RESCINDING EXISTING CIVIL RIGHTS?! Can you imagine if on the same night Obama was elected, Mississippi had voted to strip Blacks of voting rights? Would Rachel have said "I'm not really interested in that. I don't want to do some angry Negro show"?

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:49:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm Not Sure What You Mean By "Absurd Rationalization"

There's a lot of news out there to report on each day.  Rachel has less than 48 minutes to cover it.

Rachel made a judgment call as to which news about Huckabee was going to be most interesting to her viewers.  While I disagree with her judgment call on this, I'm not so blinded with rage and a sense of betrayal that I can't at least understand why she might have made that call.

Moreover, however badly we might wish it so, Rachel is not the lesbianchor of a primetime, MSM-based gay news-hour.  She's just not.

She's a professional journalist with her own aspirations, and while we might wish for her to be a zealous advocate for us, that's simply not what she's paid to do--just like Barney Frank isn't paid to constantly advocate for LGBT rights in Congress.  Frank isn't afraid to take on the bigots when he needs to, but he also doesn't go around constantly castigating them whenever he gets a chance.  Should he be subject to same criticisms as we are levying against Rachel?

I'm not advocating for professional closets but instead for a willingness to give Rachel the benefit of the doubt.  Some of us need to chill already.

On a lighter note, Rachel had a brief spot on the Larry Craig scandal last night.  It's not like she's unaware of what's going on.

---

by: JTW @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:35:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like Rachel

But if Pam Spaulding reports she wasn't contacted, I trust her on that point. We don't have to trash EITHER, we just need to get to the truth.
I could wish Rachel did cover some more LGBT issues, but that's her choice. She is but one part of where LGBTs can learn about issues effecting us, and I prefer a wide range of unaffiliated LGBT sources, so no one queer media holds a monopoly of what we hear.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:02:28 PM CST

The TRUTH is obvious

"But if Pam Spaulding reports she wasn't contacted, I trust her on that point."

You don't need trust, just common sense. Do you think in a million years that if Pam was invited on MSNBC, she wouldn't jump at the opportunity? Hello?

Let's get real, Rachel wasn't "confused", she was bullshitting. If not, then why not have Pam on her show TOMORROW to discuss the issue?

Who's lying now?

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:56:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think marriage matters to Rachel because, well, it doesn't

She lives in Massachusetts and is privileged to have that ability should she decide.  

Overall, though, her specialty is national security, not domestic policy and minority rights.  She's very strong on that issue, and not so strong on others.  She's trying to come up to speed quickly on the economy, but I think as a real intellectual type, she's both shy to go into a topic like domestic policy and minority rights that isn't her specialty, and intellectually not as curious on that front as she is on the War on Terra and the Iraq Occupation.

The only time I expect to hear gay marriage discussed on her radio show is when David Bender comes on to discuss it.  Otherwise, she sticks to what she is strong at.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:03:49 PM CST

There's Some Real Power In What You Just Wrote

Journalism is a set of skills.  It is not a set of substantive knowledge.  So being a good journalist requires mastering the skills of interviewing, writing, and reporting.  But being a great journalist requires the ability (and flexibility) to become conversant on the substance of your work, whatever it may be.

Assuming that any given journalist has the ability and desire to become great, it will still take her some time to get to the point at which she can really dig into substantive issues.  It's a career-long learning process.

So let's cut her some slack, folks.  She's been at the full-time anchor gig for less than 2 months.  How long did it take Anderson, Wolf, Keith, or David Gregory to get to where they are now?

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:26:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll Give Her Plenty of Breaks

But lying about saying she's asked Pam to be on her show is another can of worms.  Lying is lying.  Doesn't matter if the liar is Gay, a Lesbian, or a whatever.  

I like Rachel, but I don't have time for bullshit.  She just lost another viewer.  

Houston

---

by: rlbtzero @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:50:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please See My Post Upthread

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

I'm in agreement that she should suffer the consequences for lying.  But lying requires intent.  For us to rush to judgment on this is to impute an intent to Rachel that is simply unproven at this point.  People are wrong all the time.  That doesn't make them liars.

---

by: JTW @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:33:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it really impossible that she just made a mistake?

I make mistakes like that from time to time.  Fortunately, I have yet to be called a liar for misremembering something or repeating something I was told that was not correct.

I'm sorry, but this is nothing for her to bother to lie about and there's no reason for her to think she could lie about it without being found out.

So either Rachel Maddow is an idiot, an impulsive liar, or she was just mistaken.

I vote for mistaken.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:54:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It' s not that simple

"So either Rachel Maddow is an idiot, an impulsive liar, or she was just mistaken."

It's more complicated than that. Rachel is now making big bucks and feels obligated to squelch the gay stuff on air. Does that make her a liar? ... not at all. Instead, most likely she is carefully "protecting" her image in the same way slickmeister Anderson Cooper does. Is it disgusting? - of course.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 23:01:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

note Autumn's update to the post.

It's even worse -- her people were contacted and given our email and cell info back during the convention and no one from her camp responded.

When Pam and I were at the Democratic National Convention this year, I specifially sent an email to MSNBC for either Pam, me, or both Pam and me to interview Rachel Maddow for The Blend. The point of contact at MSNBC -- Gina Stikes -- was sent Pam's and my email addresses, as well as our cell phone numbers.

At that time, it had been announced that Maddow would have a new show on MSNBC, and that it would begin after the Democatic and Republican National Conventions. Since we all were going to be in Denver at the same time, I thought I'd ask on behalf of PHB for an interview -- I knew our audience here at The Blend would be interested in hearing directly from Maddow about her show. I didn't get a response back from my request directly, but I did get put on an email list.

I've again emailed Pam a copy of that email to MSMBC's Gina Stikes requesting a Maddow interview.

So, at least at one point, the Rachel Maddow Show people at MSNBC had Pam's and my direct contact info.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:17:44 PM CST

How does one express

a long, drawn-out whistle of shock via keyboard?

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:21:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So somebody sent your info to a contact person and then never heard back?

And this was right at the beginning of her new show, when everybody connnected to it would have been at their busiest?  And now Rachel says that, since her show has been on the air, she did contact you -- most likely meaning that she had you contacted -- but this never happened?

It is impossible for me to see this as anything other than as an extremely minor breakdown in communications.

I think you're an excellent voice for the community, a great writer, and that you'd make a perfect guest for her show, but I have no problem whatsoever believing that your name simply got lost in the shuffle.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:06:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope that's the case.

I really want to believe that instead of any of the alternative answers.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:25:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed

From what I can tell, from a quick Google, Gina Stikes is a general media contact for MSNBC and NBC, so it's not hard to imagine that Pam and Autumn's contact information got lost in the shuffle.  

---

by: pecola @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What would be a victory in this case, please?

(The following is above and beyond the whole question of RM saying she had invited Pam on the show when she hadn't. I agree that, on the face of it, that's pretty strange)

That said,

What would you consider a successful outcome to this, Pam? I am sincerely curious.

The F*ckabee incident happened, there was reaction/disussion here, and now a week or so later, there's been this radio thing. What could Maddow have said that would have satisfied you and allowed you to put her back in the "okay" column?  

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm really curious, because this and the tone of the Signorile interview (of RM)makes it seem to me that the point of this is simply to pass judgement, yours, MS, and some of your commenters,not just on Maddow but one those of us who disagree with you- those of us who got labeled "apologists" or described as coming to Maddows "defense."

It's not so much Maddow I'm trying to defend as it is the idea that none of us voted to accept any one person's definition of acceptable behavior on the part of public LGBT personas (other than the generally agreed upon mandate to come out at almost any cost), or for that matter, progressive media personalities.

This seeming need to JUDGE and repudiate and condemn, to grade and find wanting, seems to outweigh our common agenda of progress.

I agree that we were probably all disappointed by Maddow's choices with Huckabee. But I do not understand what she owes us for that.  So again, what would she need to do to satisfy you at this point?

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 16:59:26 PM CST

Um, excuse me..

We are commenting on her actual BEHAVIOR on the air, and why she actually GAVE Huck a pass on his anti gay statements. I don't necessarily think it's judgmental to call her on that-she's the one who CHOSE to take the MSNBC job. And-if she had done the same thing on her radio show, she'd still be called on it, IMO.
And Maddow's not the only one who's been called on playing nicey-nice with bigots. It's happened to Anderson Closeted Sell Out Cooper as well. ANY time ANY LGBT journalist sells out their own community, we need to confront them about it. It keeps everyone honest.
I highly doubt Keith Olbermann would have been as nicey-nice as Maddow with a well-known hardcore bigot like Fuckabee. So, why should Maddow be?  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:17:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

why the sarcasm?

I agree that she did things and said things and it's more than clear what you're commenting on. Anytime any of us make a comment we are passing a judgement of some kind. The issue is what type of judgment, and the constructiveness of that judgment.

my questions are this:

1) what do you want from her now that would make it better or okay?  is there something that everyone agrees on that would correct the problem and/or redeem Maddow?  What would that thing be?

2)If there is no answer to that, then is the point of this, on the part of Pam, MS, and commenters, simply to voice disapproval of Maddow's actions? If so, is that constructive in and of itself?  You say it's to keep RM honest.  She didn't go as far as many of us would have liked but how is that dishonest?  And what could she now do to prove her "honesty" to you?

Further, to equate out lesbian RM to long closeted ANderson Cooper on the basis of one misttep is, imho, exceptionally out of proportion.

As far as Olbermann, why does Maddow have to be exactly like him?  What is that equivalency?    And for that matter, what about Jon Stewart? He occasionally confronts his guests but time and again he softballs people who we all agree need to be held to the fire.  Is he also a sell out?

Sorry, I just don't see what's constructive about this.  It still , to me, appears to me more about condemnation and charging RM as a sell out closet case on the basis of one interview, than about constructive change.

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, it seems that Rachel and Anderson have some things in common.

True, Rachel's out. But-being out isn't enough. It seems like both Maddow and Cooper do their best to seem 'non threatening' That's their choice, but that's NOT what we need. We need LGBT journalists to put the collective feet of the bigots to the fire, and that's NOT happening in this case. Yes, her forte is more along the lines of foreign policy, but her softball questions for Huckabee knowing full well what a bigot he is doesn't do her any favors with some of us.
There are PLENTY of LGBT journalists who haven't sold out and who have had plenty of work in the 'establishment'-Mike Signorile for one, Andrew Sullivan for another. I just don't see the need for Rachel to re-cast herself as a 'non-threatening lesbian' just because she's on TV. I'd have more respect for her if she wore a suit and tie instead of that ugly drag queen crap they dress her in.
I personally think the next time Rachel has someone like Huck on, that she should politely ask WHY they are so bigoted. I'd personally go so far as to put up the pictures of LGBT people who have been bashed, and gently ask what those people did to deserve such treatment. She doesn't have to get in his face-IMO, she just has to ask the questions. It's probably NOT that hard.
Lastly, I didn't say Rachel HAD to be like Olbermann. I'm saying Olbermann wouldn't have played footsie with a HARD CORE BIGOT like Huckabee. And I don't see the reason why Rachel should have to play footsie with that son of a bitch either.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:12:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Projecting

I'm going to reserve the bulk of my comments until I hear the audio of Signorile's show, but I do want to take issue with one issue in particular:

I just don't see the need for Rachel to re-cast herself as a 'non-threatening lesbian' just because she's on TV.

In order to be recast as a "non-threatening lesbian," wouldn't Maddow, at some point in her media career, have had to been a threatening lesbian? And, assuming that to be the case, when was that?

As someone who regularly listens to Maddow's radio show, I don't recall her ever being overtly aggressive towards any of her guests, even when they disagree. It's simply not who she is. Maddow does not, and to my knowledge has not, engaged in the type of aggressive debate that you're advocating, unless she's provoked to do so (as she was in her interview with David Frum, for example).

Point being, she hasn't re-cast herself--this is the person she's always been--and the suggestion that she's somehow changed for TV is either a reflection of a limited exposure to Rachel Maddow or someone projecting their desire for who she should be on her.

---

by: pecola @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:32:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then please explain to me..

WHY she wears what she does. This is a woman who identifies herself as a BUTCH LESBIAN. Meaning, wearing men's clothes. I know there are varying degrees of butch, but that is what Rachel herself says. Nobody else. Since she is a butch lesbian, why is she not wearing clothes normally identified with BUTCH LESBIANS?
That tells me she re-cast herself. And sold us out in the process.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:34:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re-Casting?

Well, you didn't answer my questions, but I'll oblige you and answer yours.

I don't feel particularly qualified to render an authoritative opinion one way or another about what butch lesbians should wear. With Rachel Maddow, though, I think she made a judgment about which was more valuable--having this national platform, while being "dressed up like an assistant principal in order to meet the minimum dress code for being on television" or not having the platform? And, a few years ago when she first began making television appearances, she decided that that was a worthy sacrifice (though she still wears her sneakers through the broadcast and changes immediately after the show's over). I think most of us, who work in environments with dress codes, have to make similar decisions. Are we all recasting ourselves? Hell, frankly I'm jealous that Rachel Maddow only has to do it for 45 minutes a day.

As to why she doesn't wear suit and ties, I'm not entirely sure she'd want to wear that...I mean, her picture on the cover of The Advocate was the closest I'd ever see her to wearing one. Are you equally offended by the fact that The Advocate and Out magazines put her in clothing that's not authentically hers?  

---

by: pecola @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 00:08:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Very good point

You make some excellent points. I watch CNN a lot and the African-American anchors have no qualms about reporting on African-American stories without going to pains to appear "objective" (and show respect towards racists). In fact, CNN did several long in-depth reports on the African-American community and all the anchors were involved and expressing their opinions (as proud, healthy African-Americans). It seems absurd that gay journalists are held to some rediculous standard that they must keep their "bedroom lifestyle choice" private so their reporting is balanced.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 23:05:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right. Absolutely!

And I don't blame those African American anchors for confronting those bigots one bit. So, if AA reporters on CNN are perfectly happy to go after racists, why should Huckabee, who is an avowed anti-gay bigot get off easy on the Rachel Maddow Show? It just doesn't make sense.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 23:50:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I can't speak for Pam, but...

I would think a good way for Maddow to go would be to:
1) Just admit it.  Something like "Ok, ok, I know.  I should have asked him about it.  And slaughtered the BS like I usually do.  This job ain't so easy, ok?"
2) Get Pam on her show, put this to rest, and put two brilliant heads together on the pertinent issues.  Then end it on an allied note.  
3) And when the next homophobic ass comes on her show trying to get away with telling people Rachel and the rest of us don't deserve equal rights... show him what she's made of!
I love watching Maddow's show, and I think I understand some of the stuff going on behind this, but even she has to admit a little humble pie is in order.

Yes we can!

---

by: bluegirlbb @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:45:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now,

see?  That's constructive.  

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:04:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rachel Maddow? STICK A FORK IN HER!

She's done.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:12:57 PM CST

Proudly Be On Rachel's Shows

I will proudly go on Maddow's shows, during the campaign, once I am in office, whenever.
Pam Bennett for Aurora City Council

Pam,
J'aime ma Peau

---

by: Blonde Pam @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:18:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you running?

For a Ward or Open seat?

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:11:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

At-Large

I am running for Aurora City Council Member At-Large. The election is Nov. 2009.
Pam Bennett For Aurora dot Com

Pam,
J'aime ma Peau

---

by: Blonde Pam @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:46:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rachel rocks

I dearly love Pam and Mike.  I have been on the Rachel Maddow radio show with Melissa Etheridge.  Rachel is the new star of MSNBC pundits. Not saying that Pam and Mike are envious (Sirius on the verge of bankruptcy), but they are more LGBT militant due to their venue of blog (Pam in North Carolina) and satellite radio (New York).
If there is real news to be reported in the LGBT domain, I am sure Rachel will report it.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:28:30 PM CST

sometimes

I think she rocks sometimes, and she doesn't at others.

But of greater importance is that we, the LGBT and liberal/progressive, community don't have many Rachel MAddows. She is of value to us.  Not above reproach or criticism, certainly, but of value enough that "stick a fork in her, she's done" or tossing her under the bus after one mistake is poor strategy as a community.

---

by: virgotex @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:09:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but that's bullshit

Pam and Mike HAVE NOT SOLD OUT. They haven't changed the way they dress to appeal to heterosexuals. They are VERY open in their reporting. To say that either Pam OR Mike are jealous of someone who's sold out to a corporation is just asinine. Besides, I wouldn't be envious of her-I'd feel sorry for her.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:20:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LGBT community

We, as a community, get angry when others want us to conform to their idea of who we should be. How is it okay for us to do that to each other?

---

by: angie @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 19:34:04 PM CST

one factor in rachel's favor

I'm sure after she got her TV show she was over run with "new" BEST lesbian and gay friends, all having some suggestion for her show...(queers are like that, yeah we are.)

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:15:12 PM CST

Let's hold off judgement

I think Rachel's hands may be tied by the network.  

On a sidenote, I was so excited about Obama's win in November.  I am anxious to see what he does for the gay community who turned out in great numbers to support him.  I hope HE doesn't let us down.

---

by: SteveinNJ @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 20:47:28 PM CST

Well, gee that's funny...

Considering that according to Rachel, MSNBC doesn't tell her what to report. How do DRESS, maybe? Frankly, that's just as bad.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:27:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

audio is up

 I have the audio up - plus more information on the did she/didn't she invite me on her show matter.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 21:10:40 PM CST

Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart

Both had Huckabee on their shows.  One called him on his bullshit, one did not.  

End of story.

Houston

---

by: rlbtzero @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 16:43:29 PM CST

Pam and Autumn's credibility?

Let's see: Pam and Autumn accuse RM of lying, while outright lying themselves? How junior high can this get?

When RM's show was announced, months before there was a "Rachel Maddow Show", Autumn emailed Gina Stikes, the general media contact for ALL of MSNBC. She did not receive a reply.

On this basis, Pam and Autumn claim that Rachel had their contact information.

Really? In what universe?

Gina Stikes does not work on the Rachel Maddow Show. The Rachel Maddow Show did not exist when Autumn emailed Stikes. The fact that Autumn received no reply from Stikes just as likely means that Stikes never saw the email, rather than Pam's assumption that they were "ignored".

Either way, email lost or ignored, Stikes is not passing the contact information along months later, after Maddow's show is off the ground.

For Pam and Autumn to claim that Maddow has their contact information based on these events is nothing short of a lie. And they know it. Any thinking person knows it.

---

by: Calliope @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM CST