Rachel Maddow last night spent about ten minutes rambling about how she liked a certain radio show and (eventually) how it aired some anti-immigrant legislation satire that included references to voluntarily leaving the country that (eventually) was attached to something Mitt Romney is saying. It was definitely something warranting editing, not just a bit of self-indulgence that is more filler than substance. I find this occurring too often (if not this badly) in segments that already have a limited amount of time to cover the subject matter.
Again and again, I am left annoyed that stuff isn't being covered. For instance, repeatedly, a reader/viewer (fine, this reader/viewer) did not get a real sense of what exactly SOPA does that bothers people. Instead, we get a lot of commentary and political theater (talk about how people opposed SOPA, seeing it as a threat, but I still didn't quite understand why exactly) and general comments. So, Rachel Maddow notes the irony of anti-union legislation being passed in the state that will provide the field for the Super Bowl (remember, sports are unionized) and reports in general about efforts to pass such legislation and opposition to it, but what exactly does the legislation entail? Details!
The issue here is "right-to-work" legislation, a nice bit of framing. A bit of history, including a 1947 federal law that deals with political contributions (sorta relevant these days) which "allowed states to prohibit unions from collecting fees from non-members or making membership mandatory," would be very helpful here. It is particularly important in Indiana since it is a type of swing state, one that "straddles the union and non-union regions of the country, a buffer between the country's unionized northern block and anti-union South and West." Instead of spending ten minutes rambling about Mitt Romney, perhaps a segment could be included to discuss such details, including how unions are harmed when free riders are helped by union efforts that they need not pay for. Shades of the health insurance debate?
And, one claim made is that these laws are economically valuable to the state. True or not? Is the debatable value there superseded by the importance of not weakening unions or perhaps some other factor? It would be helpful if Rachel Maddow and others do more to address these issues, though the link underlines that some are doing the heavy lifting. It is appreciated that RW brings to the forefront various issues that deserve to be out there but necessary context is sometimes lacking. This and the rather predictable nature of the coverage (good sources sometimes surprise you, everything rarely black/white) is a major problem in news commentary today. MSNBC/Current/Democracy Now! all have this problem from my experience. Chris Hayes, helped by having at least one dissenting voice on board, seems to do a somewhat better job at times. Other sources might too.
But, if at times coming at things from different directions (liberal, conservative, allegedly neutral etc.), sources all over are too incomplete.
Again and again, I am left annoyed that stuff isn't being covered. For instance, repeatedly, a reader/viewer (fine, this reader/viewer) did not get a real sense of what exactly SOPA does that bothers people. Instead, we get a lot of commentary and political theater (talk about how people opposed SOPA, seeing it as a threat, but I still didn't quite understand why exactly) and general comments. So, Rachel Maddow notes the irony of anti-union legislation being passed in the state that will provide the field for the Super Bowl (remember, sports are unionized) and reports in general about efforts to pass such legislation and opposition to it, but what exactly does the legislation entail? Details!
The issue here is "right-to-work" legislation, a nice bit of framing. A bit of history, including a 1947 federal law that deals with political contributions (sorta relevant these days) which "allowed states to prohibit unions from collecting fees from non-members or making membership mandatory," would be very helpful here. It is particularly important in Indiana since it is a type of swing state, one that "straddles the union and non-union regions of the country, a buffer between the country's unionized northern block and anti-union South and West." Instead of spending ten minutes rambling about Mitt Romney, perhaps a segment could be included to discuss such details, including how unions are harmed when free riders are helped by union efforts that they need not pay for. Shades of the health insurance debate?
And, one claim made is that these laws are economically valuable to the state. True or not? Is the debatable value there superseded by the importance of not weakening unions or perhaps some other factor? It would be helpful if Rachel Maddow and others do more to address these issues, though the link underlines that some are doing the heavy lifting. It is appreciated that RW brings to the forefront various issues that deserve to be out there but necessary context is sometimes lacking. This and the rather predictable nature of the coverage (good sources sometimes surprise you, everything rarely black/white) is a major problem in news commentary today. MSNBC/Current/Democracy Now! all have this problem from my experience. Chris Hayes, helped by having at least one dissenting voice on board, seems to do a somewhat better job at times. Other sources might too.
But, if at times coming at things from different directions (liberal, conservative, allegedly neutral etc.), sources all over are too incomplete.