🌪️ Twists and Turns in Media: Rachel Maddow’s Hypocrisy
A deep dive into Rachel Maddow's contrasting views on presidential pardons over the years.
Original video here.
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
Some news people, like Rachel Maddow, change what they say about the rules for presidents depending on which party they like. 🏛️ When a president from one party does something questionable, they criticize it a lot. 🗣️ But when a president from their own party does the same thing, they often ignore it. 🤐 This shows how some reporters don’t always stick to fairness and honesty. ⚖️ It reminds us that we should always point out wrong things no matter who is doing them. 👀✋
🗝️ Takeaways
🥨 Selective Outrage: Media personalities twist narratives to fit their political loyalties.
🤹♂️ Partisan Gymnastics: Critiques change based on which party holds power.
🎢 Cognitive Dissonance: The logic used against one party is often abandoned for the other.
📢 Tribalization of Critique: Accountability is treated as a tool for partisan warfare rather than a principle.
🔍 Call for Consistency: True accountability should exist regardless of party affiliation.
The Convenient Contortions of Corporate Liberalism: Rachel Maddow's Partisan Pirouette
In the grand circus of corporate media, few performers can twist themselves into such magnificent knots of cognitive dissonance as Rachel Maddow. Her recent rhetorical somersault provides a masterclass in selective outrage that would make even the most seasoned political gymnast blush.
Let's take a trip down memory lane—a journey of just four short years—where we'll witness the miraculous transformation of presidential pardon critique (video above):
Exhibit A (2020):
President Trump, as he winds down his last few weeks in office, is considering pre-emptive pardons for all his adult children, including his son-in-law Jared. What a mess.
Exhibit B (2024):
Cue all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth today about a president using his power, his pardon power, his powers as president to do something for a family member.
Ah, what a difference a presidential party makes!
The cognitive dissonance is so thick you could spread it on toast. When Trump contemplated family pardons, it was a "mess"—a scandalous abuse of presidential power that threatened the very foundations of democratic integrity. But when a Democrat does essentially the same thing? Suddenly, it's just politicians being politicians, and anyone critiquing it is apparently engaging in performative pearl-clutching.
This is the essence of corporate liberalism—a political performance where principles are less like steadfast guidelines and more like flexible yoga positions, bending and twisting to accommodate partisan convenience.
Maddow, once a voice positioned as a progressive watchdog, has transformed into precisely what critical media theorists warn about: a mouthpiece that prioritizes party loyalty over genuine accountability.
The irony is delicious, if not deeply frustrating. The same media machine that spent years critiquing Trump's nepotistic tendencies now wants us to look away when similar dynamics play out under a Democratic administration.
It's a masterclass in selective outrage—a technique so refined it could be its own academic discipline.
The Broader Context
This isn't just about one media personality's inconsistency. It's a symptom of a larger disease in American political discourse: the tribalization of critique. When accountability becomes a partisan weapon instead of a democratic tool, we all lose. Progressive change requires consistent principles, not convenient narratives that shift with political winds.
For those of us genuinely committed to systemic change, these moments are crucial. They reveal the fault lines in corporate media's performative progressivism—a landscape where genuine critique is sacrificed at the altar of partisan loyalty.
So here's to calling out hypocrisy, regardless of which team jersey it's wearing. Because true accountability doesn't have a party affiliation.
Stay critical. Stay consistent.
☕ If you enjoyed this article, give us a tip! We 🤎☕‼️
I’m not a big Rachel fan or a big MSNBC fan, they are both so biased. Like Fox, they have their own rhetoric and their own agenda that drives the divide between us even wider. What I do find disturbing is equating the current administration with the president elect who is a convicted felon.