Image 01 Image 03

Again We Ask: Why Isn’t Rachel Maddow Treated Like Other Crazy Conspiracy Theorists?

Again We Ask: Why Isn’t Rachel Maddow Treated Like Other Crazy Conspiracy Theorists?

Erik Wemple of WaPo accuses Maddow of “a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry” in coverage of the Steele dossier, in which she “pumped air” into the accusations, but largely ignored contrary information.

Rachel Maddow gets my nod as the Worst Media Person for 2016-2019. She deserves that title not because she’s anti-Trump deranged — so are most of the hosts and guests on MSNBC and CNN, and large numbers of reporters and opinion-makers at major newspapers.

And Maddow’s not the worst at MSNBC — Lawrence O’Donnell is hate-filled and angry, but no one takes his intellect seriously. Maddow, by contrast, managed to defraud her own viewers with pungent conspiracy fear-mongering that has led them down a dark dead-ended alleyway, while maintaining the patina of intellectualism.

We focused on Maddow’s conspiratorial antics in April 2019, shortly after the summary of the Mueller report conclusions was released by AG William Barr, Why Isn’t Rachel Maddow Treated Like Other Crazy Conspiracy Theorists?

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has spent over two years pushing a conspiracy theory, yet she is celebrated by many people on the left in politics and media. Why is she treated any differently than say, Alex Jones?

You don’t have to be a fan of Alex Jones (and I’m not) to be disturbed by the fact that he was virtually erased from social media, banned at every level, while Rachel Maddow is free to advance all the crazy ideas she can dream up….

Alex Jones is deplatformed and Maddow is celebrated as an intelligent commentator.

Other than that, what is the difference between them?

But don’t take our word for it. Analysis at lefty journals have been among Maddow’s most fierce critics, because her taint rubs off on them.

Willa Paskin wrote at the left leaning Slate how seamlessly Maddow transitioned from Russia-collusion conspiracy to Barr-coverup conspiracy theories:

Rachel Maddow’s Conspiracy Brain

On Monday night, the first night that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show aired after Attorney General William Barr released his four-page memo on the Mueller report, Rachel Maddow was skeptical. Like, extremely, extremely skeptical. In fact, she had 15 questions worth of skepticism about the “the Barr Report,” which she displayed in remarkably tiny font behind her head.

The questions started with the basics—Had Robert Mueller expected the attorney general to jump in and make a no prosecution, no collusion announcement? Was it appropriate for the attorney general to make that kind of determination at this point in the process?—before taking sudden swerves into the conspiratorial. Robert Mueller had chosen not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment in his report.

“Well,” Maddow wondered, “why did Mueller make that determination and was it, in fact, a choice?” Was it possible that the special prosecutor had not explicitly described the president’s behavior as a crime in his report because there were plans to indict him as soon as he left office?

Ross Barkan at lefist The Guardian noted that Maddow built her viewership on Russia-collusion conspiracy theories:

With Trump has come Russia: two years of conspiracy-mongering about whether the president, a failed real estate mogul and reality TV star consumed with dubious deal-making, conspired with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Robert Mueller’s determination that no evidence exists to prove Trump and Russian colluded to fix the election has exposed, once again, the venality of A-list political punditry. At the top of the heap is none other than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow….

And Maddow, MSNBC’s ratings juggernaut of the Trump era, is the embodiment of this overzealousness. The Mueller investigation was covered more on MSBNC than any other television network, and was mentioned virtually every day in 2018. No twist was too minuscule or outlandish for Maddow; every night, seemingly, brought another nail in the coffin of the soon-to-be-dead Trump presidency.

There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was “curiously well-versed” in “specific Russian talking points”, strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia’s border.

Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the “continuing operation” – the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold.

Maddow is much smarter than this. But the siren song of ratings is too difficult for a TV personality ignore, especially when a television network is transformed from an also-ran into a top contender.

Maddow deserves a special place in the media hall of shame because she has clung to Russia-collusion, and used it to build her audience, long after other mainstream Trump-haters had moved on to other supposed Trump-defects. She just can’t give it up.

Erik Wemple at The Washington Post has a column about Maddow’s obsession, Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart. After documenting how over years Maddow tried to bolster the allegations in the dossier, Wemple noted that Maddow mostly went silent when the dossier was debunked in the DOJ Inspector General (Horowitz) report:

The case against Maddow is far stronger. When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document.

And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.

She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry.

Alex Jones is deplatformed, while Maddow still remains atop the MSNBC heap.

Some conspiracy fear-mongers are more equal than others.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’ve always enjoyed seeing the print media, on one side, taking jabs at TV types and radio guys on the other. And vice versa.

But this stuff is far above that in intensity. It got me wondering whether we might get so lucky as to see the two sides attack each other over and over until both are dead.

And, this propaganda-disseminating twit gets lavishly compensated by MSNBC parent, Comcast, to the tune of around $10 million per year, for the privilege of spreading around Dhimmi-crat prevarications.

Maddow’s water-carrying for Jew-hating Dhimmi-crats, in slandering Steven Menashi and attempting to derail his appointment to the federal bench, was utterly vile and contemptible, and, her gleeful role in this slander campaign should not be forgotten.

Nice work, if you can get it.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to guyjones. | December 27, 2019 at 10:59 am

    Nice work, if you can get it.

    Out among the ‘arts’ crowd on Facebook, Maddow is a demagogue who cannot fail. She is unquestionable, she bears the true Word of God, and her pronunciamentos bear 99.9% of the truth of the coming defenestration of Herr Trump. Any day now.

    Barry Soetoro in reply to guyjones. | December 27, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    “Maddow’s water-carrying for Jew-hating Dhimmi-crats … .”

    Puzzling behavior given Roswell Rachel’s DNA is 50% Jewish. I’d like to see LI delve into this phenomenon, which became so obvious during the recent eight-year usurpation.

      What does her DNA have to do with anything? You don’t know Christians who are anti Christian? Is Nancy Pelosi who supports unlimited abortion a good Christian? George Soros is 100% Jewish biologically and despises Israel and worked for the Nazis as a child. If Rachel Maddow is anti Semitic how does ancestry make it less true?

        Milhouse in reply to Jackie. | December 28, 2019 at 10:39 pm

        He didn’t work for the nazis. It’s a vicious myth that people made up, because somehow they thought the truth about him didn’t seem bad enough.

        Other than that, you’re correct.

      25%. Not that it matters. She grew up Catholic.

She makes $30K per day to spew propaganda for the intelligence community. I don’t think it is any more complicated than that.

Is MadCow a lesbo? Just curious.

Maddow is much smarter than this.

That’s (unfake) news to me.

JackinSilverSpring | December 26, 2019 at 10:41 pm

The Horowitz report showed that the Mueller investigation was predicated on a lie. There should never have been a Mueller investigation, and I hope the weasel Rod Rosenstein who initiated the investigation gets his comeuppance. For Rachel Maddow not to acknowledge that she was totally wrong about the Russian collusion delusion hoax suggests that she should be not on TV but in a padded cell.

Ever read passages from her book? She is unbelievably ignrorant, and has intellectual sophistication of an average high schooler.

That aside, she’s protected by her handlers: the swamp/left/islamic axis.

For years, Chuck Todd and NBC were fooled by a massively successful Democratic disinformation campaign. It lead the news day after day, week after week, for 3 years. So, who does be blame for fooling him? Sean Spicer and the GOP, of course. Tool.

    SeekingRationalThought in reply to Ann in L.A.. | December 27, 2019 at 8:58 am

    Todd wasn’t deceived. He was a willing participant.

    jhennan in reply to Ann in L.A.. | December 27, 2019 at 6:43 pm

    willful tool of the left would be the proper way to describe F. Chuck Todd. He has no credibility left whatsoever. In fact, it is clear now that FOXNEWS was telling the truth for the last 4 years and CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/WAPO/NYT were all willfully lying. When are they giving the Pulitzers back??

She is a dim bulb, her claim to fame rests on looking like some androgynous mix where she comes off as well as Pat from SNL, without the charm.
She is educated, but for too many these days, education doesn’t equate to intelligent. She is like the AOC of the media. A nutcase who shouldn’t be on late night, never watched barely paid filler program.
The media is propaganda, and they are digging in deeper, rather than questioning why all the stories they have told are nothing like reality, they claim this time it is really real… they have disgraced themselves over hate.
It must be strange to live in a fantasy world where all you believe is lies.

    “She is educated…”

    I don’t equate attending school as an education.

    SeekingRationalThought in reply to oldgoat36. | December 27, 2019 at 9:00 am

    Sadly, like many others attending college over the past several decades, Maddow was trained, not educated. She isn’t capable of independent, objective and critical thought. Hence her silly ranting and raving each night.

So, the Washington Post is criticizing someone for unfair, slanted coverage of the dossierTrump? Riiight. Where is their mea culpa? Is Maddow the designated media sacrifice?

Too little too late.

More than any other show, Maddow’s fixation on all things Trump makes me wonder how she’d ever transition at the end of his presidency … hell – how will any of them transition? Media wide “The Truman Show” moment?

    artichoke in reply to MrE. | December 27, 2019 at 1:43 am

    They want him and his supporters defeated, and then she plans years of victory laps around us.

    Remember that if ever thinking of inviting her and those like her into our polite company.

    She and everyone at MSNBC will be voting for Trump at the next election.

    CapeBuffalo in reply to MrE. | December 28, 2019 at 2:43 am

    I don’t know how Rachel will transition after Trump is gone. After all she started at MSNBC in September 2018. We didn’t get to see her during the Bush Delusion Syndrome days but we certainly know what her older comrades did! This is nothing new, just more of it and more orchestrated. Reagan got it , Bush really got it and Trump!!! well you are seeing it.
    when the Democrats finally get their very own President we will see the adoration all over again.

Victor Erimita | December 27, 2019 at 2:42 am

Interesting that even The Grauniad is calling her out. But they say the usual, “she is smarter than this.” She has degrees from two very prestigious universities. In “politics,” so I think we know what that means. But what does “she’s smart” mean? A high SAT score? A designer label degree? How is that a relevant qualifier for someone spreading Alex Jones-level sheer nonsense? This is Heaven’s Gate cult stuff she’s purveying.

Does “smart” means she really knows what she’s saying is utter bullshit and is just a shameless liar? Does it mean she allows her supposedly formidable intellect to be overshadowed by her blind ideological commitment? Both? So what? “Smart” has no meaningful relevance either way.

What I think “smart” means is that she got a couple fancy degrees at universities where she was fed and eager absorbed the predictable Marxist twaddle, and learned to speak in Ruling Class cadences, cultural references and codes. This was Obama’s sole talent. And Colbert’s (along with snappy snark). And many others called “smart” by the Regressive culture. In other words, fake smart.

Maddow is only only because she is such eye candy

I disagree that she is the left’s Alex Jones. From what I have heard out of her, I think she falls somewhere between the left’s version of Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. There are Alex Jones types on the left (although I have only read and heard about the ones with the racial and gender axe to grind). The left seems to be in tune enough with their audience to bring them as close to the crazy edge without going full insanity. Maddow is right on the edge of the cliff.

I keep hearing that Rachel Maddow is supposed to be a true intellect, but so far that is unverified and uncorroborated.

It’s hilarious when a rag like WaPo accuses a rag like Maddow…er…like MSNBC of being dishonest! LOL! COME ON! It’s like Moussolini accusing Hitler of being a Fascist! I mean…he’s RIGHT…but he’s also the pot calling the kettle black! Er…is THAT expression “racist” now?

It takes a special level of moral cowardice to continue to pay any attention whatsoever to R.M.
Maybe it’s the ‘smart glasses’ she puts on that fakes them off.

Rachel Maddow’s taint? I shudder to think of it, and would prefer to not think of it at all!

“Maddow is much smarter than this.”

We hear that all the time, that so-and-so is smarter than this. We’ve heard it about Rep. Nadler and Rep. Schiff, we’ve heard it about Speaker Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, we’ve heard it about Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, and many others: that they are smarter than this.

Are they? Are they really smarter than this?

You can have Rachel Maddow. I’ll take Dana Perino in every category.

Her homosexuality is her sole cache. Just like pete butthead’s.

Do a montage of PMSDNC talking heads they all believe the same Sorso talking points.


Watching the Democrats die on a hill they created is so entertaining. The funniest thing is that, after failing at their 3+ year attempt to subvert the voters will, they now will campaign on ridiculous far left ideas that the swing states will simply laugh at:

1. Confused men in our wives and daughter’s bathrooms
2. Open borders
3. Confiscation of law-abiding citizens’ firearms
4. Violent repression of free speech
5. Unlimited abortion through and after 9 months of pregnancy
6. Disrespect for our police and our military
7. Free health care for illegal immigrants
8. Elimination of private health insurance
9. Higher taxes
10. “Free” college for all

Thanks to the Democrats complete lack of situational awareness, we’ll get 4 more years of Trump.

Maddow claims in OAN lawsuit that statements she makes on her show should not be considered facts.

Leftists are at war…AT WAR!
They will NEVER surrender.
They will continue to win the war, until defeated…..and no sign of that happening any time soon.