To his credit, Kurtz supported Maddow's point about the hypocrisy of Republicans railing against the stimulus, while taking credit for jobs it created back home. But the way he set up the segment was interesting. First, he clearly set MSNBC against the "mainstream media." Now, while it's true that Ed, Rachel and Keith have a point of view, MSNBC still employs Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough. And they have the same kind of corporate ownership as the broadcast stations and major cable outlets.
But the way Kurtz set up the question struck me as particularly insulting to Rachel. He asked: "But why does it take Rachel Maddow to bring this up on 'Meet the Press?'" (Note the irony of the fact thatMeet the Pressis on a mainstream broadcast station - and is, in fact, one of the longest running shows on TV today.)
But what does he mean by saying "why does it take Rachel Maddow...." Is he making a comment on Maddow's journalistic credentials? Perhaps he should look at his own network, where Wolf Blitzer recently mistakenly asked Michael Moore about "Obama's"decisionto bail out the big banks. (Moore quickly corrected Blitzer, reminding him that the original decision was George W. Bush's.)
Rachel Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar, who holds a doctorate from Oxford. She has demonstrated the highest journalistic principles, criticizing both Democrats and Republicans when it is warranted. She also is quick to issue apologies when she gets it wrong, but doesn't back down under pressure when she's right.
To be clear: I realize that "mainstream media" is often used pejoratively, rather than respectfully. But Kurtz's swipe at Maddow seemed to brand her as somehow not a journalist, which she does not deserve.
