It was a standoff between a conservative who knew that his party had lost its sense of humor and an anchor utterly assured that satire was the transom for getting political information—and critique—to her audience.
I talked with Maddow after her show about her absurdist approach. “When Frum said I talked about things in an immature way, I am cool with that,” she said, as she gleefully removed her pancake makeup (which she appeared to despise). She then told me how she first found her ironic humor, in college, when she crashed an event called Conservative Coming Out Day, stole the group’s sign, and changed it to Sexually Frustrated Conservative Mud Wrestling Day. After graduation, she had more prosaic practice in comedy: her early jobs in commercial radio included writing a hot-tub-company jingle and dressing as an inflatable calculator.
Still standing in the show’s mirrored makeup room, she donned her signature horn rim glasses and said, “I realized I didn’t have to be afraid to be smart, and the audience can be there with me.”
Maddow, like so many others in the Obama age, is moving the mainstream in her semi-subversive direction. But before progressives pop open Prosecco, celebrating how they’ve finally taken over not only the White House and the Senate but also cable news with comedy, let’s pause to consider these shows’ future. Olbermann and Maddow’s audiences combined aren’t as big as Brian Williams’s, and their market share fell off along with everybody else’s after the election. Will the clever-comedy-news trend last? I think yes, mostly because I don’t believe that Obama is so radiant that he will defy parody, or that Bush and Palin alone created our taste for irony-laced news. Also, the Republicans, and their nutsy pundits, are not going away.
There are those who fret about whether news humor simply co-opts political life, acting as an escape valve that lets our civic energy dissipate. I agree with them that news satire like Saturday Night Live’s can serve as this kind of vent, ameliorating outrage with a laugh. But Maddow’s wit—and more obviously, Olbermann’s—is too pointed to just act as a kind of political-anger-management regimen.
As for those critics who fear that Maddow and Olbermann and the others have replaced thoughtful newsgathering with snickering, I can see their point. But I think they don’t need to worry so much. As I watched Maddow do her show in the studio that winter day, she struck me as a relatively trustworthy source for news.
She may look Chaplinesque, with her dark cap of hair and expressive black eyebrows set against pale skin, but her humor is, actually, pretty serious stuff. In fact, her take on the news is so gravely absurd it often makes the news seem even darker than it is. By calling attention to the malevolence and dishonesty around us, Maddow and the new ironic anchors have come up with one way to shake us out of our exhausted acceptance of it all.

Rachel Rocks!
#1 Posted by Wayne from Fullerton, CA, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:20 AM
You imply that Maddow being a lesbian defies 'common wisdom'. Really? You folks, of all people, should be setting an example for responsible journalism that does not further ostracize the LGBT community and sustain heternormative ideologies.
#2 Posted by Marcos, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 11:53 AM
It is disturbing that, in the 21st century, that any description of a woman has to include how she looks, what she is wearing, and what her sexual preference is. Rachel Maddow is smart. funny, and oh, yeah, she's has the gay. Give me a break.
#3 Posted by dbrown, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:12 PM
Keith Olbermannnnn is not not five years old. He's 6 maybe going on 7.
#4 Posted by novotny ingersol, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 12:16 PM
Maybe it is some smart Conservative who will figure out how to become what Jon Stewart was to the Bush administration, for the Obama administration...
#5 Posted by François Villeneuve, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 05:54 PM
I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that she has some of the most interesting guests on television. A minimum of the same old pundits and lot of folks who have new facts or opinions to contribute to a variety of issues. This is all pasted together with a little lefty snark. I just love her and the show PLUS, I learn something in the many non-snarky parts.
#6 Posted by rain39, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 08:15 PM
Really guys? Chaplin. Rachel Maddow is brilliant, smart and incredibly well informed. Her radio show was fantastic and did well when readers had no idea what her looks were. She was important in informing new voters while she guested on Dan Abrams show and many others during the recent election.
#7 Posted by tinywonders, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 09:35 PM
A few Republicans have come on Rachel's show, and when they have, it's been very interesting.
Rachel constantly complains that Republicans won't come on her show. Her brilliance, knowledge and fearlessness apparently makes her too scary for mere Republican talking points.
#8 Posted by IsistheCat, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 10:37 PM
I'm also exhausted by Maddow interviwers' fascination with her sexual orientation. From Leslie Stahl's sixth-grade-level questions, "Did you go to prom"? to the more subtle digs of this piece -- the Chaplin eyebrows, the "hated" makeup -- I wonder if the interviewers' jealousy at Maddow's success hasn't found its expression in homophobia. Rachel Maddow is a breath of beautiful fresh air. And if these folks aren't jealous, it makes me incredibly sad that after 40 years of GLBT activism, supposedly intelligent Americans remain so stupid about non-heterosexual people.
#9 Posted by Italiana, CJR on Sat 14 Mar 2009 at 11:31 AM
Don't you people ever comment about what's positive about a story? This one is full of insight. The few words about her appearance come at the end and are in context to the story.
#10 Posted by Rachel, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 09:36 AM
People! Give Alissa Quart a break!! I found her thoughtfull, sensitive and enlightning! I believe she said no less than RM would say herself about her show and being a lesbian. It should be SHOUTED that RM is a witty, smart, lesbian who we need to listen to. My only regret is that it took sooo long for her to 'give me the truth'. Can we clone her?
#11 Posted by Robin Martinez, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 11:58 AM
I think Rachel is great, and more intelligent then most. Could people please get over the fact the lady is gay. I ware size 81/2 shoes, and have blue eyes, which has about the same significance as rachel's gayness. Lets get past it. She is great, and so refreshingly honest.John
#12 Posted by John Sumner, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 12:13 PM
Rachel's show is indeed a watershed moment for television news.
What's brilliant about what the show does is that even when mocking it's still relating information; valid, accurate information.
I've never seen the combination melded so well.
And she comes across as remarkably genuine, as in yesterday's piece on the subway hero Craig Lindsey.
http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2009/03/maddow-video-nyc-subway-hero-craig-lindsey-get-this-guy-a-series-now.html
Like Redford in that baseball movie, she is a "Natural."
#13 Posted by Joe Bua, CJR on Thu 19 Mar 2009 at 12:28 PM
Enjoyed the story, but tend to think the author overlooked the true influence for the trend in comic/parody/witty/irony news. It lies with "NBC News Overnight."
It ran in 1982-83 around the midnight time slot. Linda Ellerbee hosted, along with a couple of male co-anchors. There are a few clips on Youtube. Give them a look, you'll see the genesis.
#14 Posted by Kent, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 12:02 AM
This is one of the most serious and insightful articles I have read this year. The carping criticisms based on its mention of Rachel's sexual preference are juvenile. Rachel is an American treasure.
Can anyone really believe that her lesbian preference is entirely irrelevant to this piece. This is about a changing of the guard in television, and Rachel's position in the new alignment. It is about the shift from faux seriousness to ironic distance, from incorporation in the mainstream fantasy to a stance outside of it that enables its deconstruction.
This is all of a piece with the shift from compulsory heterosexism to sexual and personal freedom.
The critics might do well to step outside of their own blinders and see the world in a fresh and often funny light.
#15 Posted by Lenard Waks, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:06 PM
This is one of the most serious and insightful articles I have read this year. The carping criticisms based on its mention of Rachel's sexual preference are juvenile. Rachel is an American treasure.
Can anyone really believe that her lesbian preference is entirely irrelevant to this piece. This is about a changing of the guard in television, and Rachel's position in the new alignment. It is about the shift from faux seriousness to ironic distance, from incorporation in the mainstream fantasy to a stance outside of it that enables its deconstruction.
This is all of a piece with the shift from compulsory heterosexism to sexual and personal freedom.
The critics might do well to step outside of their own blinders and see the world in a fresh and often funny light.
#16 Posted by Leonard Waks, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:08 PM