Rachel Maddow “owns” David Frum on MSNBC.
Except she didn’t. Why are so many people convinced that this was an epic takedown? Frum argues that Maddow has not fulfilled her duty as an MSNBC host to engage in open dialog with Republican figures like Paul Wolfowitz. She refutes his other main argument, that the sarcastic tone of Maddow’s show hurts political discourse, and he seems to concede. But she in turn concedes his argument that she could possibly be more open to discourse with the GOP.
But the salient argument here is whether Maddow’s sarcasm is equivalent to McCain supporters calling Obama things like “Terrorist!” at rallies. Unfortunately, while Maddow is ready to refute this, Frum is not actually arguing it. He never makes this claim, only points out that this is a reductionist trick to wiggle out of his real accusation that all parties involved in today’s political scene are in some way guilty of cheapening discourse. Maddow first tries to escalate the argument by pinning the cries of McCain’s supporters onto McCain; Frum deftly parries this by pointing out that candidates surrounded by a stadium of supporters cannot hear everything shouted by individuals in the crowd. The sound that a news camera picks up is not the sound that a candidate or an audience hears, as we learned during the Dean campaign.
Maddow could have countered: After McCain asked, “Who is Barack Obama?” an audience member shouted “Terrorist!” McCain grimaced and continued. So the candidate clearly ignored a chance to quell the violent speech (which he finally, half-heartedly tried days later).
But Maddow let the conversation wander, later returning to her false claim that Frum had equated her show with the shouts of “Terrorist!” Maddow used a Bill O’Reilly bullying tactic on a guest of her own show. I don’t understand how a rational observer could see anything impressive in her performance with Frum.
