ART ROBINSON vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2

October 07, 2010 MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show
http://MOXNews.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• art
• robinson
• interview
• congress
• election
• 2010
• hiv
• aids
• hormesis
• hor-mesis

[CHEETAH69]

Most awesome journalist today - period.

[petele345]

He's taught thousands of students? Who'd take a class with this crackpot?

[WowUrFcknHxC]

@petele345 right. since when does satellite use light? pretty sure it's radio waves...

[tygre]

@schulwitz "Do you understand why such behavior is absolutely disingenuous and unethical journalism?"

Yes, it's why I don't watch these horrible shows. I've never seen the Maddow show before; I landed on this page by following a link from another website. I personally dislike any/all dramatic/sensationalistic "journalism" despite which side of the aisle it comes from.

[schulwitz]

@tygre

.

Her "job" is to interview this guy, and yet when he asks her "can I please answer YOUR question?", she says she won't allow it (2:46).

.

In addition, she makes up lies regarding Robinson's position on nuclear testing. Then, when she is confronted on the matter, she doesn't defend her position, provide a source, or apologize, she merely changes the subject.

.

Do you understand why such behavior is absolutely disingenuous and unethical journalism?

[schulwitz]

@tygre

.

"[he] paused between sentences."

.

Actually he doesn't. Plus, she interrupted him, so she should have just apologized and said "it's the medium" instead of banging her head on her desk like a child.

.

Then, at 2:46, when he asks if she wants an answer TO HER FUCKING QUESTION, SHE SAYS NO! Then changes the topics to AIDS!

.

She doesn't care about his answers, she just brought up hormesis to slam him on radiation and lie about his position on nuclear testing. BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT!

[tygre]

@schulwitz I don't know Robinson's position on nuclear testing, so I can't say whether her comments about it are lies. On 1:17-1:23, I'd say it looks like he made a statement, and she asked a followup question. Unfortunately, he did what so many of us from the NW do, and paused between sentences, so when he continued talking about 1.5 seconds later, it appeared (to him, because of the delay) that she interrupted mid-response, not in the gap. Had it been in-person, I think it would have been ok.

[schulwitz]

For instance, in this video, at 0:11, she says she wants to understand hormesis, but throws in lies about him supporting nuclear testing, confusing the subject. Then, when Robinson starts to explain hormesis in detail at 1:17, he's not even allowed to talk for 6 seconds before she interrupts him at 1:23. Then, when he calls her out on it, she claims it's due to the delay due to the satellites. Total bullshit and she knows it, SATELLITE DELAYS ARE NOT 6 SECONDS LONG!

.

Obvious lies, no?

[schulwitz]

@tygre

.

OK, fair enough, but recognize that most people would consider such words to be sarcastic.

.

It still amazes me that you think her questions were relevant though. It's not just that she focused on an anonymous contribution, it's that she refused to focus on the political issues (despite protests from Robinson) and chose to focus on Robinson's personal life and science. Furthermore, she is disingenuous in her questioning. Continued...

[tygre]

@schulwitz Does I think she thinks he's "charming" in the strictest dictionary sense of the word?  No. I imagine she probably used "charming" when she meant to say "quaint."

As for O'Reilly & Obama, I would absolutely defend O'Reilly on the same question, provided the circumstances were the same, i.e., the anonymous donation in question exceeds the maximum size allowed. Had the anonymous ad buy fallen within established donation limits, I seriously doubt she would have even brought it up.