The Rachel Maddow Show Review

You've seen it. You certainly can't ignore it. These days, it simply can't be missed, The overbearing, temper-losing pundit, striving for fame through constant ranting and raving. I wouldn't be surprised if there are regular EMS teams on set, just in case the talent keels over. No matter if they are a red-faced, bowtie wearing conservative or a jackass of a liberal, these people just want to be heard, even if it costs them their dignity. If they must take the fire and brimstone approach, then so be it! Where have all the serious, professional journalists gone? Where is the objectivity? Or, should I be asking myself, are these pundits our new-fangled journalists?

Rachel Maddow, of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, isn't nearly as ferocious as some of her peers, but she does share one similar feature. She loves to argue with people. Not only that, but she does it with a slightly different twist on traditional American journalism. No objectivity. It's her view, and her view only, as long as her facts support her argument. She's aware of it, too. On her January 7th, 2009 appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, she explained, "Pat [Buchanan] and I disagree on everything except one thing, which is that we really like debating. It's fun to debate people and talk about issues with people who are GOOD at talking about issues. Who, sort of, follow the rules of debate, who aren't personally insulting, who can go there and get the ideas. It's good. It's constructive. I enjoy it."

Journalists' expressing personal ideas is not a new thing, people. Media all over the world have expressed points of view. In this way, responsibility is left to the audience, the public, to make it's own informed opinion through the clashing of other informed opinions. Maddow is one political analyst who actually gets how to make an intelligent argument and keep to the rules of debate for the sake of that argument!

There is a clear difference between what is today's intelligent journalism and what is done for the sake of television ratings. Rachel Maddow, a Stanford University and University of Oxford educated Rhodes Scholar, intelligently poses her arguments and listens to her adversaries, whereas cable news pundits such as Chris Matthews, Kevin James, and Bill O'Reilly are known for losing their temper and ultimately making fools of themselves, all for the sake of the camera. Do we really listen to what they have to say, or do we turn in for a fight? The last time I checked, Presidential candidates don't leave their podiums mid-debate to get in each others' faces and wail about who is right or wrong (although they may want to from time to time). They have restraint. They have civility. And after their debates are all said and done, voters can choose for themselves who, if either of the candidates, they agree and disagree with. I believe audiences learn more from clearly expressed viewpoints over name-calling and personal attacks. In other words, the public is less likely to listen to arguments made by someone who is flustered, pissed off, and taking personal jabs like they're in a schoolyard encircled by giddy onlookers. Otherwise, we would have had a series of Obama/McCain Smackdowns throughout last Fall. Yes, it would have made great TV, but voters wouldn't have benefited much in the long run.

So what does the presence of these cable news pundits mean for the future of American journalism? Is it okay to be completely non-objective if ideas are presented clearly and thoroughly? Although objectivity isn't at the top of Maddow's agenda, her commentary is more contemporary than traditional journalism. Although she is clearly pushing her own ideas, she expresses them through intelligent argument while listening to her opponents. The difference between Maddow and many of her pundit peers: she can hold a debate without it becoming a personal fight. Thus, The Rachel Maddow Show not only draws an adult audience based on content, but also has potential to intelligently speak to a younger crowd.

We've all seen how successful comedy shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can be when it comes to all ages. Although Rachel's show isn't technically a comedy show, it does have many of Stewart and Colbert's qualities. She discusses what she, herself, believes to be top stories and she regularly hosts discussions with persons whom she agrees and disagrees with. She does not care whether her viewers agree or disagree with her thoughts, she simply likes the clashing of ideals. Not to mention, her debates STILL make good TV.

Maddow's show is brilliant, if you can handle the modernity of her journalism and the less PC manner. Whether viewers agree or disagree with Maddow's points, at least they'll be able to make informed political opinions on their own.