Rachel Maddow vs. "Dr. Evil": Smackdown over Rick Berman's Corporate Funding (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow last night took on corporate PR maestro Rick Berman. Berman has established a bevy of anti-reform "non-profit" websites that enable him to attack everything from ACORN to unions to Mothers Against Drunk Driving while defending trans-fats, lowering the minimum wage and high fructose corn syrup as good for you and the economy. But most critically, Maddow notes, "We're not allowed to know who picks up the bill" for his hit jobs.

Berman, proudly known as "Dr. Evil," still refused to answer who pays for his attack websites, even as he's served as a leader in generating what critics say is misinformation about virtually all reform initiatives of the last 20 years, including union organizing rights and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Take a look at the first part of her interview, and judge for yourself who came out ahead:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[jalowe1957]

Rick Berman: A partisan PR flack who earned a B.S. in B.S.

[Einstein44]

Keep on fighting for us Rachel!

[Tommygun264]

As satisfying as it would have been to see Dr. Maddow reduce Berman to tears an drag a confession worthy of the last few minutes of an old Perry Mason episode out of the man, that was not her goal here. This is not FOX Noise - Rachel Maddow isn't going to browbeat the man with unsubstantiated opinions disguised as facts, cutting him off and screaming into the camera, "Rick Berman is satan incarnate and he must be stopped!". She is a journalist with ethics and, just as importantly, Dr. Maddow knows that her audience is intelligent enough that we do not need to be assaulted with hyperbole to get her point. Rachel Maddow did all any responsible journalist has to do - present the facts, providing the information not readily available to the public at large, overturning the rocks, exposing the slime and letting us as her audience decide who and what the real Rick Berman is, allowing us to connect the dots and come to our own conclusions. Just because this didn't disintegrate into a shouting match culminating with Rachel Maddow destroying the man, essentially ripping out Rick Berman's heart and eating it as he watched, does not mean she failed in making her point. We're smart enough to figure it out - to draw our own conclusions as to Rick Berman's motivation. Rachel Maddow knows that.

[TomFox]

Excellent post Tommygun. In other words, "She reported, we are deciding" Very nice. Faux News might learn something about Journalism from her.

[Tommygun264]

Thanx - I just couldn't bring myself to type those words. I got to meet and spend time with Dr. Maddow back when she was with Air America Radio, about two months before her first time filling in for Olbermann and about six months before she hit the big time with her own show, and I was impressed with the amount of respect she has for people in general, including those who vehemently oppose her positions. In one of the discussion panels she voiced her opinion that for the most part, people are a lot smarter than politicians and the mainstream media give them credit for and if you learn to be patient and calm with most people, you can usually come to a position of mutual respect, even if you still disagree on the issues. I think that is the secret to her success. I was surprised when she said that it was her experience as an activist with Act Up that taught her to be patient with and respectful of others. Patience and respect aren't the two words that first come to mind when I think about Act Up.

[bcarb]

I saw that episode, as I'm a big Dr Maddow fan. I once interviewed a man that had stalked and then killed his estranged wife. I'm telling you, Rick Berman's got the same evil look. I can't exactly describe it, but I know it when I see it.......A look of total narcissism and without a soul.

[noamjunior]

This is how you conduct an interview with someone you disagree with
Rachel did a great job keeping it civil while at the same time exposing Berman's ultra-con PR machine. And Berman should be commended for appearing on his show and participating in a civil, but hard-hitting interview. Although completely disagree with what he is saying, I respect him for appearing on the show.

[booker52]

Rachel kept her cool, had her facts and did a very good public service by having this piece of slime on and exposing him.

[RobDoub]

There was no chance of finding out who is behind Berman, and I don't think Rachel had any illusions on that point - nor should we. The law is setup to protect them. Perhaps we would like to see legislative change in this regard, but that is an entirely separate issue.

I think Rachel made entirely clear, and Berman did nothing to refute this, that Berman is a paid shill who will create a site to promote anything for money. His generally confident, slick demeanor didn't change that one bit. I thought Rachel handled it well. In fact, it reminded me again why I think she is one of the best interviewers on television, after only a year doing this.

[Pablo175]

Rick Berman was terrific. Very articulate. Maddow couldn't make him blink. He pointed out that the left does exactly what he does. Maddow just stammered. This isn't a left/right issue. I can see why Olberman doesn't allow dissenter on his show. Berman would have eaten his lunch.

[katielady]

Pablo, you need your ears cleaned out or your tv fixed. Rachel told it like it is and he simply played the "everyone else does it" card.. Well, Everyone else doesn't do it... only those who have corrupted their moral compass.

[cmilburn]

And I should say I'm a huge Rachel fan.

[cmilburn]

Honestly, I expected more. Rachel covered all the faux sites before Berman came on and really, the only thing it appeared she wanted to do was have Berman disclose who is paying him and surely she didn't think that would happen. Rachel was far too nice and not tough enough. Where was the argument about the morality of these sites? These places promulgate lies and she should have hammered him on that. She only appeared to be up on the music major guy who works for Berman and why didn't she make more of that? Did she have sheets of facts she didn't get to? And if so, whose fault is that? She let Berman slime his way out of anything she asked and appeared to me to be woefully lacking in strategy. I was very aggravated that Rachel wasn't more forceful and didn't have command of the interview. Heck, it was almost an informercial on "Mr. Nice Guy Berman."

[Tommygun264]

I in no way doubt that you are a Rachel Maddow fan. However, I do believe that your disappointment stems from the fact that this was not a "gotcha" piece, Dr. Maddow peppering Rick Berman with rapid-fire questions, not allowing him to avoid giving a direct answer the same way Chris Matthews or Dylan Ratigan would. But that is not Rachel Maddow's style. The facts are on her side and she knows that we are smart enough to see through Berman's diversionary tactics. Every time Mr. Berman slithered his way out of answering the question posed to him, you recognized it. When Rachel brought up the fact that one of Berman's sources in an attack on a Harvard study on obesity is not a doctor, whose "degree" Berman used to try and legitimize the man as a source is in fact in music, we could all see Berman avoid admitting that fact. She did more than expose him as the force behind these deceptive websites, by allowing us to see the way Berman twists himself in knots to avoid acknowledging the facts presented, Dr. Maddow gave us direct insight into Rick Berman's deceptive nature, and allowing us to see it for ourselves is much more effective than having her simply make the accusation.

[Rogan]

Part of the reason Maddow operates on a higher and more effective level as a television journalist, in the way(s) in which you describe, is that her ego isn't as central to her work as it is with most people in that business. That is to say: the go-for-the-throat, "gotcha," loud and interrupting style of doing an unfriendly interview, usually does more to draw your attention to the host/interviewer throwing those antics up on the screen, than it illuminates the subject. This is indeed better work: the piece is not about Maddow; it's about Berman.

[COPerez]

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Go Rachel!

[Smithn]

I am so jazzed about Rachel Maddow's work and this interview may be the summit of all her achievements for older folks like me because it lifted an ever deeping fog of confusion on current issues. I sent it to everyone in my address book, posted it on NewsTrust & Dugg it. I did this because it is a come-in-ou­t-of-the-d­ark anxiety buster! It reminds us to always follow the money especially now that we're so bombarded by hyped-up drive time media.

[christies47]

Good points-- I agree that after not getting very far with "who pays you?" - Rachel could have followed up with " how accurate are your 'facts'?"

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if the "evidence" presented by Berman on these web sites consists of A) research paid for by the companies wanting to benefit from the outcome or B) studies by scientific outliers whose interpretation of data aren't representative of the bulk of scientists in their field.

I watch Rachel Maddow every night and have to say- even if Berman didn't run crying off the set- it was still a good exchange. Berman must be a little bit nervous about Maddow if he feels compelled to appear on her show. Let's hope next time she can offer some solid reasons his "facts" stink in and of themselves - not just because they're paid for.

[Rogan]

I think the reason for that is that the metaphoric waters of science have been so badly muddied by clowns like Berman and their corporate funded junk science, that trying to get into that conversation in two segments or less, without an army of scientists arrayed on her side of the table to refute bad science as it comes up in conversation, would not be the best use of that precious interview time with Berman. And it would not tend to paint a clear picture of Berman's work: you get into talking about science, and no one who isn't sure, can be sure. Didn't you notice? That's where Berman WANTED to go. His PREFERRED interview concentrated on the science - the only reason I have to mistrust anything in Berman's long ramble about trans fats, is that I mistrust him. I know very little about food science (though I've learned enough recently to resent it very deeply that the post-Bush FDA is doing such a bad job of protecting me, that I MUST educate myself, to avoid being poisoned).

[jesselee26]

could not agree more with the previous, two comments. spot on.

[sting7]

The case is not about who came out ahead, the fact that he was able to come on the show and expose himself was his downfall because Rachel put a face to evil. When someone is advocating for cigarette smoke and fat then you know he is being paid and he foolishly came on and self immolated himself. He is paid to do the most evil things and is an astroturfer. So when one sees the so called angry people who "want their country back" one should realize they are fake and have been created by Koch and Berman

[dnewm]

I watched the program last night. I have to say that Rachel was very earnest in her questioning of Rick Berman but I have to score it for Berman! He smiled, remained calm as a proverbial cucumber and responded, whether responsively or not, to everything Rachel threw at him. When she took a commercial break and suggested to him that he could leave if he wished (in her own way) he said not at all, he would be willing to remain for the entire rest of the program. At the conclusion when she offered to have him back he was overjoyed at the prospect. Frankly, I was bemused, she trying to press him and he parrying her accusations. I'd also say this: I found her main thesis deeply flawed. She seemed to argue that she couldn't evaluate the validity of Berman's claims on his numerous websites unless and until she knew who was paying him to maintain the websites. I find that a specious argument. It is quite easy to use Google or some other search engine to find "answers" to any propositions advanced on a Berman website, including contrary answers. Do your own research, Rachel, to evaluate the truth or falsity of Berman's claims. He may be wrong 100% of the time. I don't read his websites. But you can focus on the contradicting facts to establish that. You don't need to know his corporate sponsors, although you're welcome to pursue that too.

[IMHO-LOL]

dnewm...Wow. I was going to write something but you captured my thoughts perfectly. Berman was quite the adversary for Rachel. (Though I did notice some facial expressions on his part that indicated that he was not quite as "cool" as he tried to project).

One point he made was very telling. As Rachel pressed him on divulging his contributors, he said that people like Melanie Sloane from CREW never divulges her contributors. And neither do many other non-profits on the left. It was a good point. And I noticed that when Ms. Sloan came on the air for the next segment, Rachel asked her nothing about HER contributors.

Yes I'm a liberal. Yes, I really like Melanie Sloane. But, I also treasure openness and truth. And I like good debates.

This was a good and civil debate and I would like to see more of them. In the end, I have to thank Rachel for this segment. It shows what good TV and good debate can be.

(By the way, I don't for a second believe that Berman is a force for good. His websites are designed to mislead. They are not balanced. Then again, MSNBC is not balanced either).

[JScott]

(By the way, I don't for a second believe that Berman is a force for good. His websites are designed to mislead. They are not balanced. Then again, MSNBC is not balanced either).

Yup wonder if there are groups that would do enough fact finding/digging about
Berman that would expose that GE (NBC) probably paid him for some of his services.......ah corporate media, isn't it grand. (Kinda sad in a way tho)

[ephoenix5]

Yeah, I think Rachel's line of attack was a bit lacking in luster. It just wasn't as exciting as "it is the consensus of the medical community that high frutose corn syrup is harmful to you and that it is a major contributor of .... blah blah" -- what's your evidence, etc.

But I think she didn't do that because debunking the websites one at a time would have taken too much time, plus most people know that the websites are contrary to common knowledge already. She, perhaps felt there was no need to debunk the claims -- so what was left to find out is who is sponsoring these things -- who stems to gain the most by disseminating disinformation.

You may think that Berman is the "face of evil", but Rachel was trying to find out who was the man behind the curtain. Who is the person signing the checks to fund these assaults on the truth. Who is the real face of evil. I think it was a worthy goal, but she came short on that.