Mr. wOw | 10/20/2009 5:00 am
In Defense of My Favorite 'Sick Puppy' – Rachel Maddow, by Mr. wOw

© AP
Last week, the former president of the United States, George Bush I, weighed in on opinionated cable yakkers. He allowed that there was a "lack of civility" all around, and was generous enough to concede that President Obama was "entitled to civil treatment." (This is quite a lot coming a man married to Marie Antoinette, aka Barbara Bush. Who can ever forget BB’s pronouncement that the devastated Americans corralled into the Astrodome, to escape Hurricane Katrina, were actually living better than they usually did? "This is working out very well for them.")
But of course, the one-time, one-term president had to single out the talking heads on the left, referring to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as "sick puppies."
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Olbermann a sick puppy, he has definitely worn thin. I once found him smart and not too over-the-top to irritate, but during last year’s campaign, he went off the rails – as did all the males on MSNBC – over the possibility that Hillary Clinton might win the Democratic nomination. And when she wouldn’t just fold up her tent and leave the campaigning field open to Obama, his head and his ego exploded, and it has been a swollen mess ever since.
Olbermann has become a parody of himself, preaching to the converted every night. He has his fans, for sure, but what he generally induces in Mr. wOw is a series of cringes. I’m on his side, but want him to shut up most of the time. And I detest that bit of business at the end: "This is the whatever day since George W. Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq." What does that have to do with anything now? Enough. And Olbermann’s paper crunching and tossing it at the camera (his audience?) – showy and nastily aggressive.
Which brings us to Ms. Maddow. She began popping up on MSNBC as a guest, often sparring, quite enjoyably, with Pat Buchanan (and infamously, with Joe Scarborough, who did not enjoy the experience). She seemed to have been brought up through the auspices of Olbermann, they were friends. Olbermann clearly respected her. And what was not to respect? She was a breath of fresh air on cable: intelligent, prepared, reasonable, amusing, blessedly devoid of the self-activated intolerant scream button that afflicts so many.
Maddow’s star was rising, and just so we knew it, MSNBC tried to slap on a bit of eyeliner on and femme her up slightly. Not only was this unnecessary, it looked unattractive. For one brief, terrible moment Mr. wOw feared her boyish haircut was going to be poofed into some sort of faux "do." Tailored simplicity shouldn’t be messed with.
Clearly, Maddow was being groomed for her own show, and finally, it happened. Initially, however, it looked as if she was too much a creature of, and too influenced stylistically, by Olbermann. She was suddenly "cute." She made funny faces, she used funny voices. Once I turned her on to find her wearing a funny hat! She was also relentlessly snarky. That becomes tiring. And then there was that guy at the end of her show, the "pop culture" maven, or whatever he was (still is) to riff on something insubstantial. As if anything insubstantial is wanted from Rachel Maddow. She was no less intelligent, prepared and reasonable, but she was losing something valuable and unique in what appeared to be an attempt to be one of MSNBC’s frat boys. Mr. wOw was distressed.
But of course, the one-time, one-term president had to single out the talking heads on the left, referring to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as "sick puppies."
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Olbermann a sick puppy, he has definitely worn thin. I once found him smart and not too over-the-top to irritate, but during last year’s campaign, he went off the rails – as did all the males on MSNBC – over the possibility that Hillary Clinton might win the Democratic nomination. And when she wouldn’t just fold up her tent and leave the campaigning field open to Obama, his head and his ego exploded, and it has been a swollen mess ever since.
Olbermann has become a parody of himself, preaching to the converted every night. He has his fans, for sure, but what he generally induces in Mr. wOw is a series of cringes. I’m on his side, but want him to shut up most of the time. And I detest that bit of business at the end: "This is the whatever day since George W. Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq." What does that have to do with anything now? Enough. And Olbermann’s paper crunching and tossing it at the camera (his audience?) – showy and nastily aggressive.
Which brings us to Ms. Maddow. She began popping up on MSNBC as a guest, often sparring, quite enjoyably, with Pat Buchanan (and infamously, with Joe Scarborough, who did not enjoy the experience). She seemed to have been brought up through the auspices of Olbermann, they were friends. Olbermann clearly respected her. And what was not to respect? She was a breath of fresh air on cable: intelligent, prepared, reasonable, amusing, blessedly devoid of the self-activated intolerant scream button that afflicts so many.
Maddow’s star was rising, and just so we knew it, MSNBC tried to slap on a bit of eyeliner on and femme her up slightly. Not only was this unnecessary, it looked unattractive. For one brief, terrible moment Mr. wOw feared her boyish haircut was going to be poofed into some sort of faux "do." Tailored simplicity shouldn’t be messed with.
Clearly, Maddow was being groomed for her own show, and finally, it happened. Initially, however, it looked as if she was too much a creature of, and too influenced stylistically, by Olbermann. She was suddenly "cute." She made funny faces, she used funny voices. Once I turned her on to find her wearing a funny hat! She was also relentlessly snarky. That becomes tiring. And then there was that guy at the end of her show, the "pop culture" maven, or whatever he was (still is) to riff on something insubstantial. As if anything insubstantial is wanted from Rachel Maddow. She was no less intelligent, prepared and reasonable, but she was losing something valuable and unique in what appeared to be an attempt to be one of MSNBC’s frat boys. Mr. wOw was distressed.
Read more about: Barack Obama, Fox News, George H.W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, Mr. Wow, Rachel Maddow, U.S.























408 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Good read. Thank you.
Amy, PennDragon Studios
Mr. Wow
Great article, I agree with you on many points. I kind of turned Rachel off because she got so snarky. I thought she was belittling herself and if MSNBC was pushing for that to gain the 20-30 something snark audience - I felt it was a stupid move. I never saw her on Olbermann because I tired of him long ago, but I used to watch her on Tucker Carlson and I liked her very much, I didn’t agree with some of her thinking, but she always held her own with Tucker and could "turn" the focus on issues that were being overlooked. She was intelligent and well informed so I was impressed. As I said, I don’t always agree with the line of thinking, but she wasn’t snarky on that show and made great sense about certain issues.
After your article, I will give her another try. I have recently turned most of it off. I watch Greta Van Susteran occasionally, Whoopi was on the other night and it was a great conversation, I wish Greta would get more women legislators on her show from both sides of the aisle, and not have so many republican men on. A few months back Greta had Rosie O’Donnell and a legislator from Louisiana on her show who had formed a group to help at risk kids. Politics in Washington are fodder for the cable shows, but I like it when they get down with the "real" people and what we are doing. It seems like the disconnect is getting wider and wider between Washington and the peeps. Such a shame and it is pitiful.
Well Mr. Wow I have to agree with you. There was a time when I too really liked Olbermann. He was smart, witty and his opinions seemed fair assessments of what the issues actually were at the moment. However as you stated, he has indeed become a caricature of his own persona, hasn’t he? Personally I’m beginning to find him a tad pompous.
Rachel however is someone I did not start out liking. And before you read what I am going to say please keep an open mind. There was a time in our history when the only way Blacks could be accepted in the entertainment venues was to be "stepin fetchit" characters. Smile broadly, do a tap dance and say Yessum! as much as possible. My race was seen as less threatening if portrayed in this way.
I noticed the same thing among Gays and it made me mad. From Rosie Donnell’s show, to Ellen Degeneres, and now yes Rachel, all of their shows started with this air of "look how funny I am….see I’m not so bad, I’m not a threat…" Yes 2 of the 3 mentioned are comedians, but do you get my point? Rachel’s show in my opinion started strong and has only gotten stronger. I’ve written them several times to commend them on their research and quality of work. She has a way of explaining the current issues that makes it all crystal clear.
I’m really happy to see her doing less of the "stepin fetchit" schtick and more of a serious slant on important topics. Maybe it is a sign that we as a nation are evolving and can accept our news from openly Gay men and women and let the news be 1st in importance and who they sleep with 39th on the list of what matters.
Ms. Belinda,
I completely agree. I was isolated from all media by a warped and overly indulgent in her faith, catholic mother …who then pushed me into media as an early career…because I was reaching for approval and recognition from her.
I learned it wasn’t what I wanted to do once I got into working with some animators …by doing voice and foley with them.
…and I started the journey that fit for me.
I really enjoy your posts. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and perspective in a classy and educated way.
Amy, PennDragon Studios
simpletownUSA.com
Thanks Amy for the compliment, although I must admit I don’t think I am worthy.
People like Rachel who claim to not own TV’s and use the justification that there is only garbage on, are short-sighted. Walk into a bookstore and you will find great literature and trashy books. Stop by a newsstand and you will find really good and thought provoking magazines and newspapers, and others that are only good for wrapping fish in. And radio….some good and some bad. The internet, some great websites and some not worthy of the mouse click.
But does anyone say, "I don’t log onto the internet, too much trash" or "I don’t read newspapers, they are just a bunch of garbage" Yet for some reason when it comes to television, people come across as very elitist, just because some shows have no redeeming value, the entire medium is trash. That really annoys me.
Ms. Belinda,
My husband has worked in every level of the Entertainment Industry for over 25 years…
To him Film is Art, Stage is Life, and TV is Furniture.
We all have jobs to do…don’t we?
News commentators disturb me, because in the world my training came from the words "news commentator" would never be.
…and yet I understand the purpose behind them…I just don’t hold a lot of trust in the research they claim before they spew and our People get hurt.
I’m tired of that. Very tired of that.
It’s nice to meet you on this wonderful forum.
Amy, PennDragon Studios
Belinda Joy! You certainly know more about RM that I do - and I have sought her out since she first came on the scenes - I find her a breeze from the ocean, and more so because she doesn’t bother with the telly! In fact, when would she have time to do so, there’s nothing of value on it, lately, save for BBC and PBS and a couple other sporadic shows - there is NO news other than RM, and BBC, and … PBS. IMO, that choice isn’t "elitist," it a personal option.
One thing amused me - I have heard that many viewers are writing the sponsors about the "appearance" of women on the telly, and the conduct/foul-mouths of men, so again, perhaps CNN backed off RM, and decided to "permit" her to be "real." I surely hope so.
You have a right to your opinion CJay as we all do. I find there are shows on PBS and BBC that aren’t that great. But then again I don’t have a (pardon the ugly expression) throw the baby out with the bath water - mentality. I understand that all the stations on cable television have some good and some bad programming. However as I said it is hypocritical of someone who earns a living on TV, actually making money based on who and how many watch her every night on MSNBC, to herself not even own a TV…..that is ridiculous. What if we all adopted her attitude, TV sucks therefore I’m not even going to own one. It’s silly and bizarre in my opinion.
As for the change in her show and how she now comes across, it is what I eluded to in a earlier post on this thread, the honeymoon is over. That period of gently being funny, charming and unassuming in the attempt to be non-threatening to those viewers that may have had a problem with her sexual preference. Just like Ellen Degeneres was when she had her first prime-time show, she started in the same way and then toward the end there was a change. And the same happened with Rosie.
I think she now sees America collectively has accepted her for who she is and are more interested in what she has to say then who she is having sex with. So it freed her up to concentrate of the news more than winning over people.
Belinda, I have to say this - ones sexual preference means nothing to me, whatsoever!
I believe she addressed the answer to your question right away:
"There was a time in our history when the only way Blacks could be accepted in the entertainment venues was to be "stepin fetchit" characters. Smile broadly, do a tap dance and say Yessum! as much as possible. My race was seen as less threatening if portrayed in this way. I noticed the same thing among Gays and it made me mad. From Rosie Donnell’s show, to Ellen Degeneres, and now yes Rachel, all of their shows started with this air of "look how funny I am….see I’m not so bad, I’m not a threat…""