There's no kind way to say this, so I'll say it as directly as I can: By practicing real journalism, Rachel Maddow has performed a bit of professional masturbation.  Sure, she's having a great time now, really ripping things up, but in the end, she's just screwing herself.

Now that I've got the vulgarity out of my system for the moment, I hardly think I have to explain to the group here on the forum what I mean when I say this, or what Cenk meant when he implored Rachel to 'watch [her] back'.  Television news anchors and op-ed contributors in broadcasts utilize their degrees and academic achievements in the study of journalism far less than any other degree-holding professional likely does, and for one reason.  That reason?  If you stick to the primary foundation of 'Who, What, Where, When and Why', and leave out the marketability and entertainment aspects, you're in for some trouble.  The editors/producers might well decide your style is too dry or unprofessional somehow, and if you do a story on anybody who helps finance your network/paper, you may as well pack your bags, because pal, you're gone.

And let's also be realistic.  Maddow comes after the Republicans with a fervor, injecting some much-needed and long overdue vitriol into her jabs in their direction.  Her analysis on these things is not completely untinted by emotion and opinion.  But that emotion and passion does not in any way discredit the factual basis of the statements she's making.

Of course, in the wonderful world of television journalism and mainstream media on the whole, telling the audience what's true with respect to the 4 W's and H (Who, What, Where, When, How) isn't what the sponsors or executives in charge really want.  All they want is more ratings and more advertising revenue, so watch out whose buttons you start pressing.

The ethics of a reporter or journalist are (to the best of my knowledge) to ascertain as many facts as one can about a topic or event as possible, gather all of the information, fact-check everything that can be fact-checked, and submitting a story/synopsis to the editors or producers in time to tape the story or frame up the work around a live program. Statments made that cannot be fact-checked should be properly attributed as 'could not be confirmed at the time this report airs/reaches publication, but a follow-up in the coming days is likely/expected/will be conducted when possible.

As has been said on the show now a number of times, it's about the money, Lebowski.  Bunny says you're good for it.  (See 'The Big Lebowski' for a full understanding of these references).  If somebody holding a portion of MSNBC's pursestrings decides to get offended or be taken aback by Maddow's style and substance, she'll be shot out of that studio faster than a cannonball at the Barnum and Bailey Circus. 

But I would implore you, MSNBC, don't drop this woman.  Folks on the left need her to balance out the douche-to-airtime ratio the folks over at Faux News have going on.

Cheers.