/div>MSNBC host Rachel Maddow responded to the departure of Keith Olbermann on her Jan. 24, 2011 TV show with praise and thanks. At the end of the segment, she assured her viewers that Olbermann's leaving would not compromise her reporting, stating "that decision has no effect on the editorial independence that makes it possible for me to do this work." She went on to comfort her fans, adding "We are here, we are not going anywhere and we're really really glad you are with us."
The last portion of this statement was clipped out, however, for anyone listening to the audio feed of the same show. I access Maddow's audio-only shows through a handy app for iPod and was confused at first listen because the segment abruptly ends mid-sentence. At the 39:20 mark, Rachel's comment cuts off, along with her assurance that her show is not in jeopardy, from the audio as follows:
"...that decision has no effect on the editorial independence that makes it possible for me"
Full stop. Then a different segment begins. Aha! MSNBC, fresh off the Comcast/NBC merger news is censoring Maddow, I posited. They don't want her to say she has free editorial independence because in fact, they are selectively muzzling her! Hm.
Concerned I was thinking too conspiratorially, I asked my wife to listen. She felt it was probably just a glitch, which is also possible, but what a place to have a random sentence cut off -- right as Maddow proclaims her autonomy and job security.
A lo-o-ong time listener of Maddow who has caught just about every single show, I cannot remember a glitch like this ever before in audio or the TV feed - except for one episode
in which Rachel's guest First Lieutenant Dan Choi announced his intention to come out on TV. On this March 2009 episode, the segment went soundless and then shut off, just as Choi was going to admit he was gay, forcing the hand of the military to take high-profile action in discharging him.
Maddow had no explanation during that episode for what happened or why, reinviting Lt. Choi to make the same statement the following night, but still sans any explanation of what happened. To me, it was simple - someone at MSNBC got cold feet and pulled the plug, seemingly going around Rachel to do so and had it worked out the next day, perhaps after consulting the suits.
- Advertisement -
A supporter of Maddow, I am to this day surprised and glad they ever let her on the air in the first place - and I remain concerned corporate masters use a non-disclosure agreement to prune what she can and cannot cover, but of course I am just guessing based on what goes out over the air - and what doesn't.
In April 2009, I pondered
why Maddow or anyone else at MSNBC had not at all mentioned the mysterious, fiery death of Ohio election insider Mike Connell or in an expanded follow-up
, the even larger issue of election tampering whereby damning evidence pointing to Bush administration officials was being whitewashed by mainstream media.
Finally this week, a widely-published report broke
, detailing allegations of 2006 elections fraud, but evidence was well in hand back in 2009 pointing to the same suspects within the Bush team, not the least of them Karl Rove. This belies everything I know and believe about Maddow, who since her first day at Air America radio had the industry's best nose for un-reported and under-reported stories. Is she being muzzled?
I do wonder who may be filtering Ms. Maddow today and what tomorrow holds. This article points out how America's corporate cable TV gatekeepers keep Al Jazeera English off our sets, but if Maddow is the left-most host left on cable TV, she must be the next big target for those in corporate-controlled media who want to go back to the pre-Olbermann days when none dared speak out.
- Advertisement -
(OpEdNews Contributing Editor since October 2006) Inner city schoolteacher from New York, mostly covering media manipulation. I put election/finance reform ahead of all issues but also advocate for fiscal conservatism, ethics in journalism and (more...)
|The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.