WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.549 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we are opening 00:00:02.549 --> 00:00:05.089 the source material on a figure who, well, has 00:00:05.089 --> 00:00:07.370 really dominated cable news for over a decade. 00:00:07.570 --> 00:00:11.089 But her foundation is maybe surprisingly academic 00:00:11.089 --> 00:00:13.470 and historically rigorous. We're talking about 00:00:13.470 --> 00:00:15.609 Rachel Maddow. We're diving into the biography 00:00:15.609 --> 00:00:18.010 of this DPhil -holding, Grammy -winning scholar 00:00:18.010 --> 00:00:20.989 who really managed to translate high -level policy 00:00:20.989 --> 00:00:24.050 research into a massive media brand. Exactly. 00:00:24.230 --> 00:00:26.129 And our sources today, they don't just, you know, 00:00:26.149 --> 00:00:28.750 list her jobs. They reveal a very deliberate 00:00:28.750 --> 00:00:30.929 strategy. So our mission for you, the listeners, 00:00:30.989 --> 00:00:33.649 to kind of connect the dots between that intense 00:00:33.649 --> 00:00:36.490 academic background, the Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 00:00:36.490 --> 00:00:39.289 and her, well, unconventional structure for political 00:00:39.289 --> 00:00:41.869 commentary. We want to understand the wonk behind 00:00:41.869 --> 00:00:43.929 the anchor, right? See how that strategy let 00:00:43.929 --> 00:00:45.950 us succeed across, well, pretty much every platform, 00:00:46.130 --> 00:00:49.829 TV, radio, books, podcasts, the works. It's pretty 00:00:49.829 --> 00:00:51.869 staggering when you look at the raw facts, the 00:00:51.869 --> 00:00:53.509 sheer scope. I mean, most people know her as 00:00:53.509 --> 00:00:56.530 the anchor of the Rachel Maddow show. But let's 00:00:56.530 --> 00:00:58.090 just hit some immediate headlines that show her 00:00:58.090 --> 00:01:00.770 historical importance. She holds a doctor of 00:01:00.770 --> 00:01:03.609 philosophy and politics from Oxford, first openly 00:01:03.609 --> 00:01:06.170 lesbian host of a major primetime news program 00:01:06.170 --> 00:01:09.709 in the U .S. And that detail always gets me a 00:01:09.709 --> 00:01:12.549 Grammy Award for the audio book of her nonfiction 00:01:12.549 --> 00:01:15.750 book Blowout. Yeah, that combination is exactly 00:01:15.750 --> 00:01:19.719 it. Academic rigor meeting mainstream like. Critical 00:01:19.719 --> 00:01:22.079 acclaim. That's what we need to unpack. This 00:01:22.079 --> 00:01:23.739 is someone who is a competitive high school athlete, 00:01:23.980 --> 00:01:27.099 volleyball, basketball, swimming. Right. And 00:01:27.099 --> 00:01:29.750 at the same time. reached the absolute top tier 00:01:29.750 --> 00:01:33.390 of global academic prestige. So the story isn't 00:01:33.390 --> 00:01:36.230 just about being a TV host. It's about a scholar 00:01:36.230 --> 00:01:39.409 finding the most effective way to deliver complex 00:01:39.409 --> 00:01:41.689 long form analysis. OK, so let's unpack that 00:01:41.689 --> 00:01:43.629 foundation, the academic side, the personal side, 00:01:43.730 --> 00:01:45.689 because the contrast in her background, they 00:01:45.689 --> 00:01:48.010 really seem key to understanding her later focus 00:01:48.010 --> 00:01:50.489 on things like systemic fairness and policy. 00:01:50.709 --> 00:01:53.049 Right. So she was born in Castro Valley, California, 00:01:53.370 --> 00:01:56.430 April 1st, 1973. And if you look at the family 00:01:56.430 --> 00:02:01.150 context, it's stable, solid, middle class, but 00:02:01.150 --> 00:02:03.890 definitely ideologically conservative. Her father 00:02:03.890 --> 00:02:06.250 was former U .S. Air Force, then became a lawyer. 00:02:06.430 --> 00:02:08.590 Her mother was a school program administrator. 00:02:08.930 --> 00:02:10.789 And the sources really emphasize that the culture 00:02:10.789 --> 00:02:13.409 she grew up in was, well, a world away from the 00:02:13.409 --> 00:02:15.289 liberal circle she moves in professionally now. 00:02:15.610 --> 00:02:18.030 Her family was described as very, very Catholic. 00:02:18.150 --> 00:02:20.289 And she grew up in a community her mom called 00:02:20.289 --> 00:02:23.370 very conservative. That was to create a real 00:02:23.370 --> 00:02:26.349 tension, you know, a curious, obviously bright 00:02:26.349 --> 00:02:28.569 student in an environment where her identity, 00:02:28.710 --> 00:02:31.289 her later politics. they would have been pretty 00:02:31.289 --> 00:02:33.689 oppositional. Oh, absolutely. And Maddow herself 00:02:33.689 --> 00:02:35.909 kind of acknowledged this split in her youth. 00:02:36.030 --> 00:02:37.930 She described herself in high school, and this 00:02:37.930 --> 00:02:40.330 is a great quote, a cross between the jock and 00:02:40.330 --> 00:02:42.930 the antisocial girl. So you have this active 00:02:42.930 --> 00:02:45.650 participation in team sports, the discipline, 00:02:45.849 --> 00:02:48.750 strategy, running parallel to this more internal, 00:02:48.810 --> 00:02:51.389 intellectual, maybe even isolated life. This 00:02:51.389 --> 00:02:53.289 balancing act seems to be a theme throughout 00:02:53.289 --> 00:02:56.389 her career. Public persona, deep internal thought. 00:02:56.750 --> 00:02:58.990 OK, so academically, it starts at Stanford, B 00:02:58.990 --> 00:03:02.770 .A. in public policy, 1994. And she got the John 00:03:02.770 --> 00:03:04.969 Gardner Fellowship at graduation, which is notable. 00:03:05.090 --> 00:03:07.990 Public policy itself, that field, it inherently 00:03:07.990 --> 00:03:10.849 connects political action with like measurable 00:03:10.849 --> 00:03:13.090 outcomes. Right. It kind of sets the stage for 00:03:13.090 --> 00:03:15.650 her focus on policy analysis, not just political 00:03:15.650 --> 00:03:18.129 personalities. Definitely. But Stanford is also 00:03:18.129 --> 00:03:22.560 where. Our sources reveal this intensely personal 00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:25.120 moment kind of thrust her into the public eye 00:03:25.120 --> 00:03:28.620 way too early. As a freshman, the college newspaper 00:03:28.620 --> 00:03:31.560 outed her as a lesbian. Before she'd even had 00:03:31.560 --> 00:03:33.900 the chance to tell her parents. Wow. That is 00:03:33.900 --> 00:03:36.460 just a staggering invasion of privacy and such 00:03:36.460 --> 00:03:38.800 a stressful way to become publicly visible, especially 00:03:38.800 --> 00:03:40.860 so young. I mean, to have something that personal 00:03:40.860 --> 00:03:43.240 published against your will, that must have created 00:03:43.240 --> 00:03:45.219 this profound sense of scrutiny she had to learn 00:03:45.219 --> 00:03:47.479 to handle like right away. Yeah. And it seems 00:03:47.479 --> 00:03:49.719 she managed it by channeling that intensity inward, 00:03:49.819 --> 00:03:52.360 focusing on academics, which culminates in one 00:03:52.360 --> 00:03:54.740 of the highest achievements possible. the Rhodes 00:03:54.740 --> 00:03:58.020 Scholarship in 1995. And you really have to understand 00:03:58.020 --> 00:04:00.039 the weight of the Rhodes. It's incredibly competitive 00:04:00.039 --> 00:04:03.060 internationally based on intellect, leadership, 00:04:03.219 --> 00:04:05.900 character, public service. She was actually so 00:04:05.900 --> 00:04:08.020 sought after that year, she turned down a Marshall 00:04:08.020 --> 00:04:10.659 Scholarship, also prestigious to accept the Rhodes. 00:04:10.840 --> 00:04:12.939 And it wasn't just about the academic win, was 00:04:12.939 --> 00:04:16.639 it? No, not at all. By accepting in 95, she made 00:04:16.639 --> 00:04:19.480 history. became the first openly lesbian winner 00:04:19.480 --> 00:04:22.379 of the Rhodes Scholarship. Huge. Yeah, a really 00:04:22.379 --> 00:04:26.079 key moment for LGBTQ plus visibility in those 00:04:26.079 --> 00:04:30.139 elite academic circles in the mid -90s. It showed 00:04:30.139 --> 00:04:32.079 her personal identity and intellectual power 00:04:32.079 --> 00:04:35.180 were intertwined aspects of her public success. 00:04:35.540 --> 00:04:38.279 So the Rhodes takes her to Oxford. Lincoln College. 00:04:38.540 --> 00:04:40.579 And she starts working on a doctor of philosophy 00:04:40.579 --> 00:04:43.699 and politics. She finished that in 2001. A DPhil, 00:04:43.740 --> 00:04:45.620 that's years of dedicated original research. 00:04:45.879 --> 00:04:48.279 It's like the polar opposite of the 24 -7 news 00:04:48.279 --> 00:04:50.800 cycle she'd later join. Exactly. And the title 00:04:50.800 --> 00:04:52.839 of her thesis gives you the ultimate insight 00:04:52.839 --> 00:04:56.060 into how our analytical mind works. It was H 00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:58.040 -vades and health care reform in British and 00:04:58.040 --> 00:05:00.860 American prisons. OK. So not abstract political 00:05:00.860 --> 00:05:03.560 theory. This is deep comparative public policy 00:05:03.560 --> 00:05:06.079 analysis focused on systemic government failure, 00:05:06.300 --> 00:05:09.160 human rights abuses, all within controlled environments 00:05:09.160 --> 00:05:11.879 like prisons. That specific topic really does 00:05:11.879 --> 00:05:13.879 explain a lot about what people call the Maddow 00:05:13.879 --> 00:05:15.980 method, doesn't it? It absolutely does. Think 00:05:15.980 --> 00:05:19.040 about it. She chose something requiring rigorous 00:05:19.040 --> 00:05:21.779 cross -national comparison, Britain versus U 00:05:21.779 --> 00:05:24.800 .S. It involved deeply marginalized people, prisoners, 00:05:25.019 --> 00:05:27.899 and examined that intersection of politics, public 00:05:27.899 --> 00:05:30.540 health, human suffering. Her thesis wasn't just 00:05:30.540 --> 00:05:32.879 describing the problem. It was analytical, looking 00:05:32.879 --> 00:05:35.199 at where systems break down and how policy reform 00:05:35.199 --> 00:05:38.019 could fix injustice. That kind of deep evidence 00:05:38.019 --> 00:05:40.339 -based structural critique. That becomes the 00:05:40.339 --> 00:05:43.379 absolute backbone of her famous A -block analysis 00:05:43.379 --> 00:05:46.180 later on. OK, so here we have this defil holder, 00:05:46.300 --> 00:05:48.579 right? Trained in policy, comparative political 00:05:48.579 --> 00:05:51.500 systems. She comes back to the States. How does 00:05:51.500 --> 00:05:53.680 someone who just spent, what, half a decade studying 00:05:53.680 --> 00:05:57.079 prison health care reform end up, well, behind 00:05:57.079 --> 00:05:59.459 a radio mic? It seems like a pretty unconventional 00:05:59.459 --> 00:06:02.100 jump. It really is. And it speaks to her willingness 00:06:02.100 --> 00:06:05.199 to start small. Maybe unexpectedly, it started 00:06:05.199 --> 00:06:09.660 in 1999, Holyoke, Massachusetts, at WRNX. She 00:06:09.660 --> 00:06:11.959 got her first radio job by literally winning 00:06:11.959 --> 00:06:15.639 a contest. A contest. Seriously. To be the second 00:06:15.639 --> 00:06:17.800 lead, like the sidekick, on the Dave in the Morning 00:06:17.800 --> 00:06:21.339 show. This Oxford academic wins a local radio 00:06:21.339 --> 00:06:24.399 contest. It suggests this natural talent for 00:06:24.399 --> 00:06:26.920 communication, for performance that existed right 00:06:26.920 --> 00:06:29.560 alongside the academic chops. Wow. So she did 00:06:29.560 --> 00:06:32.399 that, then hosted a big breakfast on WRSI for 00:06:32.399 --> 00:06:34.660 a couple of years, and then makes the jump to 00:06:34.660 --> 00:06:37.759 Air America in 2004, the liberal talk radio network. 00:06:37.860 --> 00:06:40.139 That was her first real taste of national political 00:06:40.139 --> 00:06:42.980 commentary, right? Air America is where she co 00:06:42.980 --> 00:06:45.319 -hosted Unfiltered. And look at the co -hosts, 00:06:45.319 --> 00:06:48.000 Chuck D from Public Enemy and Liz Winstead, who 00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:49.699 co -created The Daily Show. That's quite a lineup. 00:06:49.819 --> 00:06:52.480 Yeah, definitely eclectic. Even after Unfiltered. 00:06:52.009 --> 00:06:55.029 filtered got canceled in 2005, the network saw 00:06:55.029 --> 00:06:58.089 her potential. They immediately launched the 00:06:58.089 --> 00:07:01.850 Rachel Maddow show on radio that April. And that 00:07:01.850 --> 00:07:04.029 radio show, that was really the training ground 00:07:04.029 --> 00:07:06.769 for the style she'd perfect later on TV. You 00:07:06.769 --> 00:07:08.649 know, conversational, but packed with context. 00:07:08.930 --> 00:07:10.810 The sources mention how tough that transition 00:07:10.810 --> 00:07:12.889 period was, though, especially once TV started 00:07:12.889 --> 00:07:16.259 happening. Oh, incredibly taxing. By 2008, her 00:07:16.259 --> 00:07:19.019 TV career is taking off, and the schedule is 00:07:19.019 --> 00:07:21.399 just brutal. The radio show had to be cut back. 00:07:21.660 --> 00:07:23.899 Eventually, it mostly just used audio from the 00:07:23.899 --> 00:07:26.279 previous night's TV show. She was basically producing 00:07:26.279 --> 00:07:28.639 two daily shows simultaneously. Burning the candle 00:07:28.639 --> 00:07:31.060 at both ends. Totally. The radio show finally 00:07:31.060 --> 00:07:34.019 ended in January 2010, when Air America itself 00:07:34.019 --> 00:07:37.420 ceased operations. So the TV pivot, that started 00:07:37.420 --> 00:07:40.600 back in June 2005, initially as a panelist. Yeah, 00:07:40.660 --> 00:07:43.250 on MSNBC's Tucker. Which was hosted by Tucker 00:07:43.250 --> 00:07:45.509 Carlson back then. Right. That's a fascinating 00:07:45.509 --> 00:07:47.730 little historical footnote, isn't it? Her cutting 00:07:47.730 --> 00:07:50.069 her teeth, debating him. It really is. Yeah. 00:07:50.149 --> 00:07:53.329 But by January 2008, she'd moved fully into being 00:07:53.329 --> 00:07:56.629 a political analyst for MSNBC. Became a regular, 00:07:56.709 --> 00:07:59.810 highly valued contributor on Countdown with Keith 00:07:59.810 --> 00:08:02.730 Olbermann. And Olbermann seems absolutely key 00:08:02.730 --> 00:08:05.209 here. Pivotal. She started subbing for him on 00:08:05.209 --> 00:08:07.410 Countdown. That gave her national exposure as 00:08:07.410 --> 00:08:09.709 a host for the first time. She said she was nervous 00:08:09.709 --> 00:08:12.379 doing those early shows. I bet. But the performance 00:08:12.379 --> 00:08:15.379 clicked. The episode she hosted was the highest 00:08:15.379 --> 00:08:18.740 rated news program in that key 25 -54 demographic. 00:08:19.699 --> 00:08:22.480 Olbermann saw that success and really pushed 00:08:22.480 --> 00:08:24.699 for her to get her own show. And that advocacy 00:08:24.699 --> 00:08:27.959 worked. Led directly to the launch of the Rachel 00:08:27.959 --> 00:08:31.920 Maddow show TRMS on TV, August 2008. Yep. It 00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:34.179 replaced Verdict with Dan Abrams in that competitive 00:08:34.179 --> 00:08:36.460 9 p .m. slot. And this launch, it wasn't just 00:08:36.460 --> 00:08:38.299 a schedule change. It felt like a real watershed 00:08:38.299 --> 00:08:41.340 moment in media. Absolutely. She became the first 00:08:41.340 --> 00:08:44.139 openly gay or lesbian host of a primetime news 00:08:44.139 --> 00:08:47.159 program in the U .S. That significantly boosted 00:08:47.159 --> 00:08:50.340 LGBTQ plus visibility nationally right at a critical 00:08:50.340 --> 00:08:52.299 time. And the success wasn't slow, was it? It 00:08:52.299 --> 00:08:55.320 was immediate. Immediate and, yeah, explosive. 00:08:55.940 --> 00:08:59.539 Within just one month, TRMS... Doubled the audience 00:08:59.539 --> 00:09:01.779 for that time slot. Doubled it. She was even 00:09:01.779 --> 00:09:03.539 occasionally beating Countdown in the ratings 00:09:03.539 --> 00:09:06.139 sometimes. It proved her unique style. That blend 00:09:06.139 --> 00:09:08.440 of intellectual depth and engaging delivery really 00:09:08.440 --> 00:09:11.059 resonated. People were hungry for something more 00:09:11.059 --> 00:09:12.899 than the usual cable news back and forth. And 00:09:12.899 --> 00:09:15.259 the critics noticed, too. Oh, yeah. Initial reviews 00:09:15.259 --> 00:09:18.100 were really positive. One outlet called her the 00:09:18.100 --> 00:09:20.980 star of America's cable news, described her as 00:09:20.980 --> 00:09:24.320 a liberal spark plug. Yeah. She brought a depth, 00:09:24.480 --> 00:09:27.100 a connection to history that cable news had arguably 00:09:27.100 --> 00:09:29.649 been missing. linking the day's news to that 00:09:29.649 --> 00:09:32.190 longer arc. Okay, so this is where we really 00:09:32.190 --> 00:09:33.870 get into the nuts and bolts, the intellectual 00:09:33.870 --> 00:09:36.809 machinery behind the show. It's crucial for understanding 00:09:36.809 --> 00:09:39.610 her success and why she could pivot later. Maddow 00:09:39.610 --> 00:09:42.769 has this clearly stated mission to increase the 00:09:42.769 --> 00:09:45.210 amount of useful information in the world. Simple, 00:09:45.330 --> 00:09:47.889 but powerful. And that philosophy really shows 00:09:47.889 --> 00:09:50.210 up most clearly in her signature opening segment, 00:09:50.389 --> 00:09:52.470 the A Block. For anyone listening who isn't familiar 00:09:52.470 --> 00:09:55.889 with this A Block, it can run for like... 20 00:09:55.889 --> 00:09:58.169 minutes, sometimes even longer. It functions 00:09:58.169 --> 00:10:00.549 almost like a mini documentary or, frankly, like 00:10:00.549 --> 00:10:02.509 a chapter from that defil thesis we talked about. 00:10:02.610 --> 00:10:05.049 It just digs deep into one story, laying out 00:10:05.049 --> 00:10:07.830 all the historical political context. It's the 00:10:07.830 --> 00:10:10.309 core of her method. And the key difference is 00:10:10.309 --> 00:10:13.070 she rarely just focuses on the latest tweet or 00:10:13.070 --> 00:10:15.830 the immediate outrage, right? Instead, she connects 00:10:15.830 --> 00:10:18.570 whatever's happening now to events from decades 00:10:18.570 --> 00:10:21.710 ago, uses archival clips, documents, old news 00:10:21.710 --> 00:10:24.639 reports. builds this intricate web of context. 00:10:24.720 --> 00:10:26.659 It's like investigative history packaged as a 00:10:26.659 --> 00:10:28.600 news segment. And she sees that as essential. 00:10:28.759 --> 00:10:31.019 She said the pressure is always to deliver something 00:10:31.019 --> 00:10:32.940 to say that people don't already know. She's 00:10:32.940 --> 00:10:34.539 not just summarizing the news feed. She's trying 00:10:34.539 --> 00:10:37.240 to add intellectual value, context you can't 00:10:37.240 --> 00:10:39.639 get just by scrolling. The pacing is deliberate. 00:10:39.759 --> 00:10:42.299 The tone analytical. The commitment to history 00:10:42.299 --> 00:10:45.230 is just unwavering. You really saw this during 00:10:45.230 --> 00:10:47.610 her coverage of the Trump administration, which 00:10:47.610 --> 00:10:50.190 often got criticized for focusing heavily on 00:10:50.190 --> 00:10:53.690 complex investigations. But her stated rule for 00:10:53.690 --> 00:10:56.230 covering that period was simple. Don't pay attention 00:10:56.230 --> 00:10:59.169 to what they say. Focus on what they do. Right. 00:10:59.250 --> 00:11:02.429 Action over rhetoric. Exactly. It let her filter 00:11:02.429 --> 00:11:04.830 out the noise of daily pronouncements and focus 00:11:04.830 --> 00:11:08.850 instead on policy changes, legal moves, investigations. 00:11:10.029 --> 00:11:12.289 the actual doing. Now, let's talk about how she 00:11:12.289 --> 00:11:13.950 identifies herself politically, because this 00:11:13.950 --> 00:11:16.110 often gets kind of flattened out or mischaracterized. 00:11:16.230 --> 00:11:18.929 She describes herself as undoubtedly a liberal. 00:11:19.090 --> 00:11:22.230 OK, but then she adds this really specific historical 00:11:22.230 --> 00:11:25.110 layer, saying she's in almost total agreement 00:11:25.110 --> 00:11:27.809 with the Eisenhower era Republican Party platform. 00:11:28.029 --> 00:11:30.570 That reference is so telling, isn't it? It suggests 00:11:30.570 --> 00:11:32.509 her ideology is rooted in things like, well, 00:11:32.570 --> 00:11:34.629 traditional government competence, strong infrastructure, 00:11:34.850 --> 00:11:37.570 national defense, positions that kind of transcend 00:11:37.570 --> 00:11:40.769 today's partisan lines. She seems to see herself 00:11:40.769 --> 00:11:43.370 supporting more classic model of American governance. 00:11:43.570 --> 00:11:47.169 And that focus on governance, on security, explains 00:11:47.169 --> 00:11:49.970 why she calls herself a national security liberal 00:11:49.970 --> 00:11:53.179 and a defense policy wonk. Her political positions 00:11:53.179 --> 00:11:55.600 often seem driven by this deep dive into policy 00:11:55.600 --> 00:11:58.720 mechanics. Like her opposition to the 2003 Iraq 00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:01.299 war, she focused her analysis on the evidence 00:12:01.299 --> 00:12:03.799 or lack thereof and the sort of campaign of deception 00:12:03.799 --> 00:12:06.940 that led up to it. Analysis first, then the position. 00:12:07.220 --> 00:12:09.840 Right. And similarly, her stance on the alleged 00:12:09.840 --> 00:12:12.340 Trump -Russia connections. It was viewed through 00:12:12.340 --> 00:12:14.740 that national security lens. Our sources confirm 00:12:14.740 --> 00:12:18.200 her view. If the presidency is found to be knowingly 00:12:18.200 --> 00:12:19.940 the product of a foreign intelligence operation, 00:12:20.200 --> 00:12:23.100 that is a full stop national crisis. She framed 00:12:23.100 --> 00:12:25.759 it not just as political drama, but as an existential 00:12:25.759 --> 00:12:27.600 threat to the integrity of government, which 00:12:27.600 --> 00:12:29.419 is totally consistent with her policy background. 00:12:29.620 --> 00:12:32.659 Now, this kind of intense conviction driven commentary 00:12:32.659 --> 00:12:35.159 inevitably led to conflict. And there was a really 00:12:35.159 --> 00:12:37.200 crucial legal challenge involving one American 00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:41.279 news network, OAN. Yes. July 2019, OAN sued Maddow, 00:12:41.440 --> 00:12:44.419 Comcast, MSNBC, NBCUniversal, the whole group. 00:12:45.070 --> 00:12:47.210 for $10 million. And the basis for the suit was 00:12:47.210 --> 00:12:49.889 a comment Maddow made describing OAN as paid 00:12:49.889 --> 00:12:53.309 Russian propaganda. Right. And that comment referenced 00:12:53.309 --> 00:12:56.070 a specific story in The Daily Beast, which reported 00:12:56.070 --> 00:12:59.070 that an OAN employee was also working for Russia's 00:12:59.070 --> 00:13:02.389 Sputnik News. OAN claimed this was defamation, 00:13:02.610 --> 00:13:05.049 that it hurt their reputation. OK, so let's dive 00:13:05.049 --> 00:13:06.929 into the legal outcome here because it's important. 00:13:07.250 --> 00:13:10.230 The case was dismissed in 2020 and that dismissal 00:13:10.230 --> 00:13:13.990 was upheld on appeal in 2021. The judge's reasoning 00:13:13.990 --> 00:13:17.330 is key. The court found Amato's statement was 00:13:17.330 --> 00:13:19.870 legally considered an opinion, not a factual 00:13:19.870 --> 00:13:22.210 assertion, and therefore couldn't be the basis 00:13:22.210 --> 00:13:24.809 for defamation. Yeah, this is a huge distinction 00:13:24.809 --> 00:13:27.110 for anyone in political commentary. Defamation 00:13:27.110 --> 00:13:29.090 usually needs proof that a factual statement 00:13:29.090 --> 00:13:31.850 was made maliciously and was false. By ruling 00:13:31.850 --> 00:13:34.389 that paid Russian propaganda was opinion based 00:13:34.389 --> 00:13:36.769 on that verifiable report about the Sputnik News 00:13:36.769 --> 00:13:38.950 employee, the court essentially validated her 00:13:38.950 --> 00:13:41.250 right to draw sharp analytical conclusions from 00:13:41.250 --> 00:13:43.710 reported facts. So pointed commentary, protected 00:13:43.710 --> 00:13:46.350 speech. Exactly. The statement, while definitely 00:13:46.350 --> 00:13:49.389 harsh, was ruled protected hyperbole and commentary, 00:13:49.629 --> 00:13:52.850 not meant to be taken as literal fact. That legal 00:13:52.850 --> 00:13:55.009 win basically affirmed the boundaries of her 00:13:55.009 --> 00:13:57.070 Maddow method, right? Confirmed she could use 00:13:57.070 --> 00:13:59.389 strong context -based language derived from evidence. 00:13:59.610 --> 00:14:02.950 And the kicker for OAN, Herring Networks, their 00:14:02.950 --> 00:14:05.809 parent company, had to pay Maddow's legal fees. 00:14:06.129 --> 00:14:09.210 Ouch. Now, following all this, we see a really 00:14:09.210 --> 00:14:11.710 interesting career shift start to happen. She 00:14:11.710 --> 00:14:15.429 took a hiatus, February to April 2022, to work 00:14:15.429 --> 00:14:17.549 on the film adaptation of her first big podcast 00:14:17.549 --> 00:14:21.129 hit, Bagman. Right. And then... Crucially, since 00:14:21.129 --> 00:14:24.549 May 2022, she moved to just doing the TV show 00:14:24.549 --> 00:14:27.309 once a week on Mondays. That felt like a huge 00:14:27.309 --> 00:14:29.870 pivot. Prioritizing these long -form, deeply 00:14:29.870 --> 00:14:32.269 researched projects, which are also highly profitable 00:14:32.269 --> 00:14:34.929 intellectual property, over the daily cable news 00:14:34.929 --> 00:14:38.169 grind. It did, although the sources note a strategic 00:14:38.169 --> 00:14:40.259 return planned. She's announced she'll go back 00:14:40.259 --> 00:14:42.600 to five nights a week from January to May 2025, 00:14:43.120 --> 00:14:45.399 specifically to cover the first hundred days 00:14:45.399 --> 00:14:47.559 of a potential second Trump presidency. OK, interesting. 00:14:47.720 --> 00:14:49.799 Yeah. So she'll revert back to Mondays after 00:14:49.799 --> 00:14:52.480 that. It shows that while long form is a priority, 00:14:52.740 --> 00:14:55.259 she still sees the need for that daily presence 00:14:55.259 --> 00:14:58.799 during really intense political periods. And 00:14:58.799 --> 00:15:01.659 that pivot to weekly TV really just underscores 00:15:01.659 --> 00:15:04.340 this transformation. Maddow has successfully 00:15:04.340 --> 00:15:08.320 become, well, a multi -platform mogul. Her writing, 00:15:08.360 --> 00:15:10.720 her audio investigations, they're winning awards 00:15:10.720 --> 00:15:13.299 usually reserved for the absolute highest levels 00:15:13.299 --> 00:15:15.539 of journalism and even the recording industry. 00:15:15.840 --> 00:15:18.389 Let's check the writing career. First book, Drift, 00:15:18.470 --> 00:15:20.950 The Unmooring of American Military Power, came 00:15:20.950 --> 00:15:23.769 out in 2012, focused on the military's expanding 00:15:23.769 --> 00:15:26.090 role in American politics after World War II. 00:15:26.350 --> 00:15:29.049 And boom, straight to number one on the New York 00:15:29.049 --> 00:15:31.250 Times bestseller list for hardcover nonfiction. 00:15:31.269 --> 00:15:33.750 Right. Proving that defill level research could 00:15:33.750 --> 00:15:36.210 absolutely be translated for a mass market. Then 00:15:36.210 --> 00:15:38.769 came Blowout in 2019. That one was about corrupted 00:15:38.769 --> 00:15:41.269 democracy, Russia and the global oil industry. 00:15:41.820 --> 00:15:43.860 deep dive into energy corruption. And this is 00:15:43.860 --> 00:15:45.620 where that unique cross -platform recognition 00:15:45.620 --> 00:15:48.340 kicks in. She recorded the audio book herself. 00:15:48.559 --> 00:15:50.879 And won a Grammy for it. Exactly. Best spoken 00:15:50.879 --> 00:15:53.990 word album at the 63rd Grammys in 2021. You know, 00:15:54.009 --> 00:15:56.409 the Grammy win isn't just a fun trivia point. 00:15:56.549 --> 00:15:58.990 It really validates her delivery as part of her 00:15:58.990 --> 00:16:01.970 success. That category celebrates narrative quality, 00:16:02.289 --> 00:16:04.929 performance. Winning it showed she could hold 00:16:04.929 --> 00:16:07.230 engagement, translate the rigor of her writing 00:16:07.230 --> 00:16:10.070 into a compelling listening experience. Put her 00:16:10.070 --> 00:16:12.529 alongside other major figures who mastered spoken 00:16:12.529 --> 00:16:15.360 word. Totally. And her publishing success kept 00:16:15.360 --> 00:16:18.399 rolling. Bagman came out as a book in 2020, co 00:16:18.399 --> 00:16:20.519 -written with Michael Yarvitz, then prequel, 00:16:20.659 --> 00:16:24.120 An American Fight Against Fascism in 2023, which 00:16:24.120 --> 00:16:26.559 grew directly out of her podcast work. OK, so 00:16:26.559 --> 00:16:28.240 let's talk about that podcast pivot, because 00:16:28.240 --> 00:16:30.940 arguably this is the purest expression of her 00:16:30.940 --> 00:16:33.519 long form historical A -block method, just in 00:16:33.519 --> 00:16:36.559 a different medium. Bagman launched in 2018, 00:16:36.899 --> 00:16:40.799 six part investigation into the 1973 Spiro Agnew 00:16:40.799 --> 00:16:44.169 scandal, focused historical. deeply contextualized, 00:16:44.169 --> 00:16:46.210 just like the A -blocks. And the recognition 00:16:46.210 --> 00:16:48.370 it got immediately set it apart from typical 00:16:48.370 --> 00:16:51.629 celebrity chat podcasts. Bagman won the 2020 00:16:51.629 --> 00:16:54.190 Alfred DuPont Columbia University Award. And 00:16:54.190 --> 00:16:55.990 for listeners, you need to know that DuPont is 00:16:55.990 --> 00:16:58.190 widely considered the broadcast equivalent of 00:16:58.190 --> 00:17:00.730 the Pulitzer Prize. Wow. That's serious journalism 00:17:00.730 --> 00:17:03.820 hardware. It absolutely is. Yeah. Winning that 00:17:03.820 --> 00:17:06.519 showed her audio work met the highest standards, 00:17:06.740 --> 00:17:09.640 the kind usually associated with PBS documentaries 00:17:09.640 --> 00:17:12.359 or major investigative teams. And that critical 00:17:12.359 --> 00:17:14.440 acclaim instantly opened doors in Hollywood, 00:17:14.579 --> 00:17:17.640 right? Immediately. A film adaptation of Bagman 00:17:17.640 --> 00:17:19.940 was announced. Ben Stiller attached to direct. 00:17:20.160 --> 00:17:23.339 Lorne Michaels, Mr. SNL himself attached to produce. 00:17:23.539 --> 00:17:25.940 Clear proof that this detailed, historically 00:17:25.940 --> 00:17:29.279 grounded content is really valuable IP for mainstream 00:17:29.279 --> 00:17:31.519 entertainment. And then she did it again in 2022 00:17:31.519 --> 00:17:34.640 with Ultra. Yep, Ultra. Chronicled U .S. right 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:37.599 -wing extremism during the 1940s, World War II, 00:17:37.740 --> 00:17:41.519 focusing on the 1944 sedition trial. Again, not 00:17:41.519 --> 00:17:44.579 just pop history, forensic analysis of... Political 00:17:44.579 --> 00:17:46.680 movements and structures. And again, the major 00:17:46.680 --> 00:17:50.019 awards followed. Ultra won the 2023 Hillman Prize 00:17:50.019 --> 00:17:52.299 for Broadcast Journalism. And what's significant 00:17:52.299 --> 00:17:54.539 here historically is that it was the first time 00:17:54.539 --> 00:17:56.740 the Hillman Prize, which honors journalism fostering 00:17:56.740 --> 00:17:58.839 social and economic justice, had ever gone to 00:17:58.839 --> 00:18:01.279 a podcast. First time ever. Yeah. Confirming 00:18:01.279 --> 00:18:03.519 her audio format was being recognized for its 00:18:03.519 --> 00:18:05.960 depth and social impact, not just its popularity. 00:18:06.220 --> 00:18:08.640 And predictably. Hollywood came calling again. 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:11.500 Steven Spielberg's company, Amblin Entertainment, 00:18:11.900 --> 00:18:14.440 optioned the film rights to ultra -late in 2022. 00:18:15.019 --> 00:18:18.420 Spielberg. Right. So what you're seeing is the 00:18:18.420 --> 00:18:21.380 defill method becoming this massive, profitable 00:18:21.380 --> 00:18:24.660 content engine. Her TV show provides the visibility 00:18:24.660 --> 00:18:27.680 and, frankly, the funding for these high -level 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:30.319 historical research projects, which then get 00:18:30.319 --> 00:18:32.589 turned into films by A -listers. And just for 00:18:32.589 --> 00:18:34.769 a fun detail that kind of loops back to her love 00:18:34.769 --> 00:18:37.829 of structure and synthesis, she co -wrote a New 00:18:37.829 --> 00:18:40.710 York Times crossword puzzle in 2018. Yes. Which 00:18:40.710 --> 00:18:43.410 she called the pinnacle of my existence. Whether 00:18:43.410 --> 00:18:45.309 it's an argument about oil or a puzzle grid, 00:18:45.369 --> 00:18:47.329 it's kind of the same task, right? Organizing 00:18:47.329 --> 00:18:49.950 complex info into a satisfying, solvable structure. 00:18:50.329 --> 00:18:52.390 Okay, so with this level of prominence, she obviously 00:18:52.390 --> 00:18:54.529 attracts both intense loyalty and really sharp 00:18:54.529 --> 00:18:57.210 criticism. That contradictory public image, it's 00:18:57.210 --> 00:18:59.349 almost part of the brand itself. Definitely. 00:18:59.390 --> 00:19:01.980 On one side, you have immense... praise for her 00:19:01.980 --> 00:19:04.920 intellectual approach. Time magazine called her 00:19:04.920 --> 00:19:07.500 a whip -smart, button -cute lefty, radiating 00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:10.359 essential decency, praised for delivering news 00:19:10.359 --> 00:19:14.319 with agenda but not hysteria. Her fans really 00:19:14.319 --> 00:19:16.799 appreciate that deep analytical effort she puts 00:19:16.799 --> 00:19:19.119 into every single segment. But then on the other 00:19:19.119 --> 00:19:21.019 side, critics often accuse her of acting like 00:19:21.019 --> 00:19:23.599 a lockstep party member or maybe a smug cable 00:19:23.599 --> 00:19:26.630 partisan. I remember the editors of The New Republic 00:19:26.630 --> 00:19:30.009 back in 2011 included her among their most overrated 00:19:30.009 --> 00:19:33.009 thinkers, saying her show demonstrated the intellectual 00:19:33.009 --> 00:19:35.289 limitations of a perfectly settled perspective. 00:19:35.750 --> 00:19:37.549 And that dual perception, it really highlights 00:19:37.549 --> 00:19:39.690 a fundamental challenge in media today, doesn't 00:19:39.690 --> 00:19:42.309 it? When you apply rigorous analysis, people 00:19:42.309 --> 00:19:44.970 who disagree with the conclusion often just dismiss 00:19:44.970 --> 00:19:47.890 the analysis itself as biased partisanship. But 00:19:47.890 --> 00:19:49.710 her visibility isn't just political, it's cultural, 00:19:49.809 --> 00:19:53.670 too. Her impact on LGBTQ plus visibility is undeniable. 00:19:53.980 --> 00:19:56.640 recognized multiple times by magazines like Out 00:19:56.640 --> 00:19:59.180 and the advocate for her prominence as an openly 00:19:59.180 --> 00:20:01.539 queer public figure. Shifting to her personal 00:20:01.539 --> 00:20:03.359 life, the source has mentioned she lives with 00:20:03.359 --> 00:20:06.279 her partner, the artist Susan Mikula. They met 00:20:06.279 --> 00:20:09.460 back in 1999, apparently while Maddow was deep 00:20:09.460 --> 00:20:11.579 in her dissertation research. Yeah, and they 00:20:11.579 --> 00:20:13.960 split their time between Manhattan and West Covington, 00:20:13.960 --> 00:20:17.259 Massachusetts. So balancing that intense media 00:20:17.259 --> 00:20:20.819 world with a more rural, quiet life. One of the 00:20:20.819 --> 00:20:23.119 really important aspects of her public persona 00:20:23.119 --> 00:20:26.000 is her openness about mental health. Yes, very 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:28.279 important. She's been incredibly transparent 00:20:28.279 --> 00:20:30.410 about coping with cyclical... depression since 00:20:30.410 --> 00:20:32.869 she was a teenager. She's noted that while it's 00:20:32.869 --> 00:20:35.250 something she manages daily, it doesn't diminish 00:20:35.250 --> 00:20:38.289 her capacity for joy or her ability to succeed 00:20:38.289 --> 00:20:40.509 at a very high level. And that disclosure carries 00:20:40.509 --> 00:20:43.150 a lot of weight, doesn't it? Huge weight. She 00:20:43.150 --> 00:20:45.569 said she felt a responsibility to share her story 00:20:45.569 --> 00:20:47.890 because learning about others who are successful 00:20:47.890 --> 00:20:50.670 despite dealing with depression had been really 00:20:50.670 --> 00:20:53.470 vital for her own journey. So that act of sharing 00:20:53.470 --> 00:20:56.490 turns a private struggle into a kind of public 00:20:56.490 --> 00:20:59.509 service. which really aligns with the ethos of 00:20:59.509 --> 00:21:02.049 her academic work on suffering and systems. The 00:21:02.049 --> 00:21:04.190 sources also give us a peek into how she deliberately 00:21:04.190 --> 00:21:07.269 manages the immense pressure. She lists three 00:21:07.269 --> 00:21:11.589 key things for staying sane. Exercise, sleep, 00:21:11.769 --> 00:21:14.220 she calls herself a good sleeper, And fishing. 00:21:14.420 --> 00:21:17.240 Fishing. Yeah. It points to this grounded, disciplined 00:21:17.240 --> 00:21:19.759 approach to maintaining health in a ridiculously 00:21:19.759 --> 00:21:22.619 demanding job. We also know she's a practicing 00:21:22.619 --> 00:21:25.240 Catholic and medically she had surgery in 2021 00:21:25.240 --> 00:21:28.240 to remove a cancerous skin growth from her neck, 00:21:28.339 --> 00:21:31.200 which was successful. And finally, she's undeniably 00:21:31.200 --> 00:21:33.779 a pop culture staple now, which just shows her 00:21:33.779 --> 00:21:36.039 broad reach. I mean, being impersonated multiple 00:21:36.039 --> 00:21:38.500 times on Saturday Night Live by people like Tracy 00:21:38.500 --> 00:21:41.339 Allman, Abby Elliott, Melissa Villasenor. That's 00:21:41.339 --> 00:21:43.599 a certain kind of arrival. It is. And she plays 00:21:43.599 --> 00:21:45.680 along too, right? She's appeared as herself in 00:21:45.680 --> 00:21:47.819 scripted shows like House of Cards on Netflix 00:21:47.819 --> 00:21:50.420 and the movie Red, White, and Royal Blue. And 00:21:50.420 --> 00:21:52.539 maybe the ultimate example of her versatility, 00:21:52.720 --> 00:21:55.519 she voiced the fictional news anchor Vesper Fairchild 00:21:55.519 --> 00:21:59.140 in the Batwoman TV series, lending her very distinctive 00:21:59.140 --> 00:22:02.079 voice and persona to a whole different fictional 00:22:02.079 --> 00:22:04.579 universe. Okay, so if we pull all this together, 00:22:05.140 --> 00:22:07.859 Rachel Maddow's career really feels like a masterclass 00:22:07.859 --> 00:22:11.230 in... Intellectual translation. We started with 00:22:11.230 --> 00:22:13.670 that academic foundation, competitive athlete, 00:22:13.849 --> 00:22:15.970 conservative background, then becomes the first 00:22:15.970 --> 00:22:19.329 openly lesbian Rhodes Scholar, earns a DPhil 00:22:19.329 --> 00:22:21.769 from Oxford doing intense comparative policy 00:22:21.769 --> 00:22:23.650 analysis on tough subjects like prison health. 00:22:23.730 --> 00:22:26.109 Right. And that rigor wasn't left behind in academia. 00:22:26.269 --> 00:22:29.109 It became the absolute core of her media brand. 00:22:29.269 --> 00:22:32.289 It fueled her quick rise from local radio to 00:22:32.289 --> 00:22:36.420 primetime TV anchor. Crucially, she translated 00:22:36.420 --> 00:22:38.980 that academic method, the deep context, the history, 00:22:39.059 --> 00:22:42.500 the evidence into a repeatable, successful media 00:22:42.500 --> 00:22:44.990 structure. That's signature A block. And that 00:22:44.990 --> 00:22:47.410 methodological consistency seems to be what enabled 00:22:47.410 --> 00:22:49.869 the pivot to becoming this multi -platform mogul 00:22:49.869 --> 00:22:52.309 we see now. She leveraged her TV authority to 00:22:52.309 --> 00:22:53.750 become a number one New York Times bestselling 00:22:53.750 --> 00:22:56.549 author, won a Grammy for her narration, and then 00:22:56.549 --> 00:22:59.150 developed these high -level investigative podcasts, 00:22:59.450 --> 00:23:01.710 Bagman and Ultra. And those podcasts didn't just 00:23:01.710 --> 00:23:04.089 get popular. They won the DuPont and the Hillman 00:23:04.089 --> 00:23:07.730 Top Journalism Awards and got immediately optioned 00:23:07.730 --> 00:23:09.950 by Hollywood giants like Spielberg and Stiller. 00:23:10.200 --> 00:23:12.220 It's incredible. Her success really shows the 00:23:12.220 --> 00:23:14.839 power of that deep, context -driven research. 00:23:15.160 --> 00:23:17.279 So for you, the listener, the takeaway might 00:23:17.279 --> 00:23:20.339 be that intense intellectual investment doesn't 00:23:20.339 --> 00:23:22.299 have to limit your options. It can actually provide 00:23:22.299 --> 00:23:26.000 the ultimate foundation. She successfully turned 00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:30.180 her intense curiosity and policy wonkiness into 00:23:30.180 --> 00:23:33.759 critically acclaimed, highly profitable IP across 00:23:33.759 --> 00:23:35.819 pretty much every modern media format. Which 00:23:35.819 --> 00:23:37.799 brings us to our final provocative thought for 00:23:37.799 --> 00:23:41.079 today. As journalism, as news consumption keeps 00:23:41.079 --> 00:23:43.680 changing so rapidly moving away maybe from just 00:23:43.680 --> 00:23:46.960 daily punditry, is this long -form, historically 00:23:46.960 --> 00:23:50.279 contextualized, A -block method the future? You 00:23:50.279 --> 00:23:52.000 know, the method she's now adapted into these 00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:54.680 high -value, award -winning podcasts and books 00:23:54.680 --> 00:23:56.720 is that the template for how highly informed 00:23:56.720 --> 00:23:58.599 public figures will share complex information 00:23:58.599 --> 00:24:01.299 going forward. Is the DEFA -level investigation, 00:24:01.579 --> 00:24:03.740 but packaged as compelling entertainment, the 00:24:03.740 --> 00:24:06.099 next great medium for serious intellectual engagement? 00:24:06.299 --> 00:24:07.859 Something to think about as you navigate the 00:24:07.859 --> 00:24:08.299 news. yourself.