Comments on: Should Rachel Maddow Have Appeared On David Letterman?

By: ILoveHerPolitics

ILoveHerPolitics — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:50:51 +0000

I say, More Rachel Anywhere, Any Time!!! Maybe she didn't defend the subject you wanted handled, but she certainly spreads knowledge and understanding, no matter what topic she tackles. Gimme More!!!

By: ILoveHerPolitics

ILoveHerPolitics — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:50:51 +0000

I say, More Rachel Anywhere, Any Time!!! Maybe she didn't defend the subject you wanted handled, but she certainly spreads knowledge and understanding, no matter what topic she tackles. Gimme More!!!

By: David Badash

David Badash — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:34:22 +0000

I'm told trans folks are seventeen times more likely to be victims of hate crimes (I haven't confirmed this number but I'm sure it's reasonably accurate.) I think "joking" i s not only in poor taste, it feeds those who think it's OK to perpetrate violence against trans people.

Our leaders, and people in the media, have a moral responsibility to be sensitive to, and educated about, the people they're going to make a joke about. Many people, especially bullies, are followers. Give them an inch…

By: Clay

Clay — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:12:24 +0000

I don't know what he did You are talking about because I don't usually watch except Rachel Maddow was on.
You have to take these comedians with a grain of salt.That's what they do,doesn't really have a point except comedy.This reminds me of the people who gave president Obama a hard time about meeting with other leaders unless they did this or that first.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:37:24 +0000

I don't think anyone advocating Rachel Maddow "going after" Letterman. She could have said something positive about the appointment and made a joke about the questionable taste of the skit. But total silence was a mistake in my opinion.

By: polititez

polititez — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:28:29 +0000

I do not think Rachel "boycotting" Letterman who have made any point whatsoever. She would have just been a guest who was never booked. Accepting the invitation then lecturing Letterman on taste (or tastelessness) would have seemed impolite and wouldn't have accomplished a thing either. I watch Rachel daily for all the stories no one else covers, if her being on Letterman expands that audience. More power to her. The NYTimes would not have covered the Kill the Gays Uganda Bill had she not brought it to the attention of the world. I say put her on every show she will do. We'll all be better off because of it.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:51:05 +0000

As a member of the gay community, I really didn't find this to be offensive. I sometimes think that we, as a minority group, take things way too seriously … that everything is intended to be an insult. If a straight person tells a joke about another straight person it is not to demean their sexuality … so why does it always have to be demeaning for there to be a joke about a gay or transgendered person? I think that the intent is the important thing, and I personally did not find negative intent in this joke. I am sure there were people offended by it … but then those are probably the people who are offended by ANYTHING anyone has to say about the gay community in the form of a joke. Laughter is a tonic … drink up!

By: Video: Maddow on Letterman

Video: Maddow on Letterman — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:11:34 +0000

[...] skit during the show drew the ire of several LGBT advocacy groups, including GLADD. Some activists argued Thursday that she should have canceled her appearance in protest. She didn’t. And because she appeared on [...]

By: Aaron B. Brown

Aaron B. Brown — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:20:00 +0000

It was tasteless & hurtful to people I'm sure, such prejudice is still socially acceptable unfortunately, it'll be the last to fall.

But calling for boycotts should be a last resort, not the first impulse in my opinion. You're looking to increase understanding not alienate people for their ignorance. Dave might not get it now but if enough people talk to him privately there's a good chance he would come around.

I don't know what her opinion is on the incident, but it's not Rachel's responsibility to lecture Letterman on the content of his show, she might have broached the topic in a humorous way, as is her style, but I think the idea would've had to have been discussed with Letterman beforehand so that he was ready for it and perhaps prepared to make some conciliatory gesture.

I don't think Rachel is really the right person to go after Letterman since they're kind of peers. It's kind of not done, inappropriate etiquette so they tell me. And journalists who work for corporations are quietly discouraged from doing anything that might damage the bottom line of another sister corporate entity or anyone who works for them. Regardless of her personal ideology, Rachel is owned and operated by a corporate media outlet, she's not free to speak her mind, and anybody who thinks she can is fooling themselves.

I'm sure someone like Lady GaGa wouldn't have a problem jacking Dave's jaw a little in public. You need somebody who is a strong voice of advocacy, and someone with equal or greater power in the public sphere and I think the Lady qualifies these days. As a performer she has a kind of freedom that no journalist is privy to, certainly not any journalist who works for the mainstream media.

By: GrrrlRomeo

GrrrlRomeo — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:40:44 +0000

I've stopped expecting every gay and trans person who rises to the status of celebrity or public figure to be our mouth piece. Because, however they got there, I'm guessing it wasn't because they're gay or trans.

I think Amanda Simpson does a fine job speaking for herself. Rachel Maddow also does a fine job speaking for herself despite regular attacks on her sexual orientation and appearance from right-wing activists (and that lame SNL parody). And if we want to be seen as individuals and not just a group to be dehumanized, then we have to let our own be seen as individuals.