RadioBDC Logo
Roll Away Your Stone | Mumford & Sons Listen Live
 
 
< Back to front page Text size +

A Maddow Moment

Posted by Matthew Gilbert  November 10, 2008 11:34 AM

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

maddow_4-9.jpg

I was on the fence about "The Rachel Maddow Show" when it premiered in early September. The show felt a little redundant, paired as it is with “Countdown With Keith Olbermann.” But hey, talking-head TV is, by definition, redundant. It's all blah blah blah all the time.

And I've really grown to enjoy Maddow's wry attitude and tone, as she interacts with all the clips and guests and monitors the lame-duck presidency (“Quackitude”). She's not as heavy with the hammer as Olbermann; she has enough faith in her choice facts to let them stand on their own, without bluster. And she's refreshingly non-self-referential. Why, I do believe she is the sanest and most gracious of TV's left-leaners. (I know, Globe leftist conspiracy etc. etc. The comments section is all yours.)

It was surely a sign of the times to see her on Friday night interviewing Phil Donahue, who lost his own MSNBC show in 2003 reportedly due to his anti-Iraq War approach. The moment was very that-was-then-this-is-now, as Donahue plugged his documentary "Body of War," which is about a paralyzed veteran who is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The movie airs tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 7 on Sundance Channel.

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

28 comments so far...
  1. An out lesbian Rhodes scholar on TV! Who would believe it? Go, Rachel!

    Posted by Carol Anne November 11, 08 08:29 AM
  1. I couldn't agree more. Rachel's show is so much more subtle than Olberman's ranting. I love her sense of humor and that little gleam in her eye as the sarcasm drips from her! A nice addition to MSNBC. It kind of makes up for Olberman and Matthews.
    She's the one I want to watch now that the election is over.

    Posted by just saying November 11, 08 09:04 AM
  1. I enjoy Rachel's show. While very left leaning, she is not absolute in her thinking and acknowledges that there are gray areas in the world we live in. She's smart and funny and treats her guests with respect, regardless of whether she agrees with them or not.

    Her sarcasm is enjoyable because it's not delivered with the same heavy-handedness that many others use. She's serious when she has to be and lighter when she can be. The Rachel Maddow Show is the most refreshing political show on television--cable or network.

    Cheryl

    Posted by Cheryl Tully Stoll November 11, 08 10:40 AM
  1. This conservative will grudgingly agree, she is the sanest and most gracious of TV's left-leaners (that is not saying much). Unlike Olber-loon or the soon-to-be Democratic Senate candidate Chris "Tingly" Matthews, she allows her guests to make their point, and actually gives face time to a fair number of Republicans.
    No offense to old warriors Pat Buchanan or Joe Scarborough, but wouldnt MSNBC benefit ratings-wise and in credibility by hiring a young conservative for a talk show?
    Just shows MSNBC is in reality what liberals claim FoxNews is---a shill for one political party.

    Posted by Bob November 11, 08 10:43 AM
  1. Better than Keith Olbermann??! That is an outrage. In my forth-coming Special Comment, I will have more on this crucial topic. Suffice to say that, Matthew Gilbert, YOU MUST RESIGN, SIR!!

    Posted by Keith Olbermann November 11, 08 11:01 AM
  1. They're both great! Keith opened the door for Rachel with his success in squashing Bill O'Reilly with a hail of facts, showing a left (shouldn't this be called "rational" at this point?) leaning talk show host can not only compete with but regularly beat the rightist rant acts on Fox. His role was clearly targeted and now understood to be a direct hit.

    Kudos, Keith. You've been a spotlight upon the many deceits both Bush and his Murdoch bankrolled noise maching have been throwing out their these many years.

    Rachel is wonderful in a different way. She doesn't try to outshout the right, but instead delivers her message with a wryly humorous tone that makes it all the easier to absorb. Rachel, if you weren't so valuable in your present role (and, yes, I find you even batter on TV then radio) I'd say you should run for office.

    Keep up the good work, both of you.


    Rachel

    Posted by Steve November 11, 08 11:29 AM
  1. "Why, I do believe she is the sanest and most gracious of TV's left-leaners."
    You must mean she is saner and more gracious than Olbermann, since he is the ONLY other left-leaner on TV.
    Loved the comment post by "Keith Olbermann" 11/11 at 11am.

    Posted by 1st in a contest with only 2 contestants November 11, 08 11:32 AM
  1. Please....left leaning? She is so pro left she shows no perspective on any issue. How about different points of view once in a while instead of the same old Media [I hate Bush...I hate Conservatives....I hate the GOP]. MSNBC is a joke.

    Posted by Robert T Ritchie November 11, 08 12:07 PM
  1. that's quite right! there is no liberal media bias! that's just a lie the neocons keep saying so we'll just forget after awhile and think it's true because so many fools have been saying it for so long! old tactic. nobody fooled by it anymore. we need more liberal faces on tv now that sanity has been restored in the white house.

    Posted by warmmdaddy November 11, 08 12:11 PM
  1. I just started listening to the podcast of her show and I like it, though I think she seems to enjoy her own humor a bit much. I wish Tucker Carlson's show was still on to balance out MSNBC's rampant leftiness. And I'm a lefty! Even when I wanted to throw my shoe at him, I couldn't help but agree with many of his points.

    Posted by christine November 11, 08 12:50 PM
  1. I couldn't stand politics or political talkshows until two years ago. My husband, who liked Keith Olbermann from his Boston sports days, said Countdown was different so I agreed to watch one episode. I admit I got a kick out of Keith's snarky humor, so kept watching. I particularly enjoyed Rachel's appearances, because they played off each other so well and clearly had regard for each other. I haven't seen warmth or humor in any other political show, on any channel. On both their shows, they actually listen to and are respectful of their guests, even when they disagree with them. That's what makes both of them different, and eminently watchable: they make politics humane. I appreciate that.

    Posted by Renee Wolf Foster November 11, 08 01:24 PM
  1. I had a good laugh when I read "Steve's" comment.Mentioning "facts" and olberdouche in the same sentance.It makes me wonder which planet these moonbats do live on.

    Posted by not a libertard November 11, 08 01:41 PM
  1. MSNBC is a total joke.
    That's why its ratings are so appallingly low.
    BORRRRRRRING.
    Just like that other media failure: Air America.

    Posted by Shecky November 11, 08 01:43 PM
  1. :::Chuckle::: I think most of the people who criticize TRMS have never watched it. If it's on MSNBC is must be leftist garbage! rarr.

    Personally, I love that she has guests with varying points of view and only has them on one at a time. That's the best part, not having to hear two guests talking over each other to get their talking time in. She doesn't have people on to referee fights, but to actually learn something from someone else.

    Posted by Michelle November 11, 08 01:49 PM
  1. Rachael Maddow and Keith Olberman joked that John McCain wore "Depends" underwear. Class act.

    She's been indoctrinated in left wing ideology and academics and is trapped like so many others. Like academics and government workers she hasn't been exposed to is capitalism and understands how it works. Those mean old capitalists are BURDENED with the responsiblity to actually turn a profit, and those profits are what create the abundance and jobs that fuel our nation. She hasn't done the research to show that the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the cost of government. She sees people that don't try as "oppressed". She sees people that succeed in capitaism as greedy.

    Maddow doesn't see that Obama is not JFK. JFK significantly lowered tax rates on the wealthy because he understood that their savings would be put into investments that would target the best companies that would grow and create those abundances. JFK knew that the wealthy's investment provided the horsepower to tow the rest.

    Further, JFK asked Americans to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you could do for your country". Obama is the pied piper of the "Give Me" Generation. He asked "What can Government give you?" Obama is feeding the delusions of Unions that tell their employees that they are worth $100k for stamping out bumpers on a Detroit assembly line when someone will do it for 50 cents an hour in China. Obama fed the delusion that lazy individuals are entitled handouts, free money to those that don't contribute a dime. Obama fed the delusion that illegal immigrants ought to be able to collect Social Security.

    Maddow doesn't see that Obama is not a manifestation of MLK's Dream. MLK asked that we not judge a man by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Obama was elected because an overwhelming majority of Blacks voted for him based on the color of his skin as well as almost every talking head that mentions race within three sentences of being on the air as of late.

    When Jackie Robinson played baseball, he broke racial barriers; but guess what, he was incredible, he friggin rocked. Obama is no Jackie Robinson. He knows how to give a good speech; most likely learned the oratory from Reverand Wright, but like Deval Patrick will be a lousy leader. I would have voted for a black in a second if I believed that their prescription would work. Sadly, I don't see Obama having the courage to stand up to Pelosi, Reed and everyone that is standing in line expecting a handout. He doesn't represent the people that work hard, he is asking us to tow more of the deadbeats and he is taking away our horsepower by taxing us.

    Posted by john p November 11, 08 01:56 PM
  1. For those who want "balance" to the left-ish lean of MSNBC, don't forget the channel selector. There's always Fox.

    Posted by j0646 November 11, 08 02:11 PM
  1. She's a little manly looking for my liking ... sort of like Greta Susteran ... I bet they are both spinach eaters.

    Posted by Joe Bama November 11, 08 02:31 PM
  1. Rachael does a terrific job and her show has reached a high level of consistency with excellent production values very quickly. I understand that her show is doing pretty well in the ratings, which is unusual for a new talking head.

    She is, first and foremost, very smart but not overbearing or conceited. She is articulate, asks good questions of her guests, seeks out and gets guests with different perspectives than hers and does not hammer them merely for effect. More often than not, they are willing to come back.

    I think it was a great move for MSNBC and, yes, they should try to get another conservative voice on the air. But it should be someone like Rachael who is smart and about content, not rhetoric.

    Posted by Mark Gottlieb November 11, 08 02:53 PM
  1. I like Rachel, smart, quick witted, open to new ideas (talk me down segments are really good usually). Keith does ware on my nerves at times... even as a flaming liberal...though last nights special comment on Gay Marriage was right on the money as far I am concerned.

    Posted by robert t. pooner November 11, 08 02:53 PM
  1. God, talk about boring, john p. I suppose the execs at AIG would find your five-page hymn to government-funded profits inspiring, while they're splashing in the hot tub at taxpayer expense. For the rest of us, thanks for helping us remember what it's like to stand in a RMV line for two hours.

    Posted by Marcus November 11, 08 02:59 PM
  1. Hey John P, mind lending out that crystal ball of yours? We'd all love to be able to see the future.

    Posted by Kevin H November 11, 08 03:01 PM
  1. John P, Right on !! You nailed it.

    Posted by Robert T Ritchie November 11, 08 04:26 PM
  1. Actually, John P, the new President was elected on the strength of his character, his family's character, and the character of Joe Biden and his family, as well as the utterly deficient and dishonorable characters of John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republicans in general who've spent the past 8 years running this country into the ground. He is a political Jackie Robinson, and like #42 will go down as one of the truly great ones.

    Posted by OnThe Left November 11, 08 04:31 PM
  1. Oh, don't forget, Obama was a cheerleader for failure. He wouldn't admit that the Surge worked, he says that the fundamentals of our Nation's economy are flawed. So if our fundamentals are flawed, what's a handout going to do but add to the debt? We go on a shopping spree with our stimulus package? We borrow the money from China and then give it back to them when we buy our flat screen t.v.'s to of course watch Rachael Maddow? Obama said that we could save billions if we left Iraq. But then he said we needed to fight in Afghanistan; how much will it cost to fight a war over there? Oh, what about the 250,000 socialists that went limp when he mentioned that we might need their help fighting terrorism.

    So for the bleeding heart liberals who love Maddow, we might not have found WMD like Colin Powell said, but we did find evidence of genocide. Have you guys seen the statistics of how many people in Vietnam died after we left? Would it have been the Christian thing to do if we left irresponsibly and there was a bloodbath there? Oh, am I a monster for mentioning Christ? Sorry...

    So if Iraq was about the oil, where is the oil? If we're this evil empire that everyone says we are, why haven't we colonized other areas or taken what ever we want? We're most likely the first superpower that actually hasn't taken what they want when they had the power to do so; somehow Bush is a monster. The truth is we're doing quite a bit of nation building to help stabilize one of the most volitile regions in the World. The people paying for that nation building are the wealthy and China. I love how people who don't pay taxes complain. Hey guys, when the check comes around you've got alligator arms. You feel entitled right, make someone else pay, make someone else work ten times as hard as you and take the money they earned. Sure, that's the right value structure that you build a society on right? Ask what your country can do for you.

    Obama's character you say... Tony Rezko was filth. Tony Rezko stole money that people who actually pay taxes gave to the poor. Tony Rezko had a corrupt operation and was convicted on 16 counts of political corruption. He bought off politicans to provide political cover for his operation. The apple of his eye was Barack Obama. Why would he buy the neighboring lot next door the same day as Obama for $625k only to sell a slice to Obama rendering the remaining piece of land too small based on zoning to build a house on? The remaining land after selling a slice to Obama was too small to build a house on based on zoning; it was worthless. It was $500k of graft. Obama then graduated to the big time, he got the second most amount of graft from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He provided political cover for their corrupt operation.

    Don't dare tell us that Obama is anything but a sleazebag politican.

    Posted by john p November 11, 08 06:12 PM
  1. "Don't dare tell us that Obama is anything but a sleazebag politican."

    I hereby "dare": starting in about five weeks, he's President of The United States of America.

    You're not only politically desperate, "john p," you're psychologically pathetic, like most of what remains of the utterly failed American right.

    Posted by Bruce November 11, 08 07:38 PM
  1. Hey Bruce, name one thing I said that is incorrect. You can sure say he's going to be our President of the United States, but he's a sleazebag politician. That fact remains. If he or you don't like hearing that than he should have thought about that before he took the money from Tony Rezko and took the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He took the money; I didn't, but go ahead and try to blame me for your delusion or defense mechanism to attack those that want to point out facts.

    OBAMA IS A DEMAGOUGE! A demagogue is a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. Obama is the most self absorbed man I've ever seen. He has written two books about his favorite subject, himself. He addressed the huge crowd of Germans as "People of the World". He was light on details and the Media attacked anyone who asked a tough question. Look at how they went crawling through Joe the Plumber's garbage. They did more due diligence on Joe the Plumber than they did on Barack Obama.

    You know I'm going to be the buzz kill for you, if you're delusional and want a security blanket, you were better off with Republicans. What's your messiah going to do when people line up to be healed? How many people can we bail out before we go bankrupt? Learn a bit about capitalism and you'll understand that Obama is a huge threat to our economy. Listen to the radio interviews of him criticizing the founding fathers and the Warren Supreme Court; it is quite shocking. Your vessel of hope can't go in every direction and everyone that had their hand out in the election he gave a wink to, he gave "hope" to people that have a hopeless cause and need to change them. He told everyone that Bush was the scapegoat. He didn't say, hey the American Automakers did what we asked and actually built the fuel efficient cars, but THE PUBLIC DIDN'T BUY THEM. So being the criminal capitalists, they actually manufactured the inventories based on market consumption. So that's Bush's fault. How about NAFTA that Clinton put into place, lots of automotive manufacturing jobs went to Mexico, but the Unions and Obama blame Bush for that. This isn't about Republican or Democrat; McCain is the first Republican Presidential candidate I voted for ever.

    Obama's demagoguery is blinding Americans from Reality. Americans want the comfort of delusion and don't want to wake up to reality; they want the fairy tale as Bill Clinton put it.

    Guys, it takes two to tango. When Reverend Wright made those hateful speeches, you can notice the congregation going right along with it. Obama got away with a campaign based on hot air and flowery fuzzy fluff because people were so desperate to believe again in a fairy tale. We have to open our eyes and act like grown ups. Obama is a demagogue, but is like a happy elf, fuzzy kind. That doesn't mean that our sense of reality shouldn't be uprooted.

    So pay attention to the next delusion, they'll give out more bailout money; money we don’t' have, money we're going to have to borrow from China and when the handouts make their way to people, they'll go to Circuit City or Best Buy and get a new TV. set and send the money back to China. That is idiotic and delusional, it is like saying that when your credit card is maxed out, spend more. Would a professional personal finance manager tell you to spend more when you couldn’t keep up with your bills? No, the answer was to move your earnings upward. I realize that this isn't in the vocabulary of those that feel entitled, but if you want more stuff, you've got to go out and work hard and earn more. So McCain's plan was about fueling the economy by giving resources to those that created jobs and created opportunities to earn more and we could have WORKED our way out of our debt; instead we'll sit in our delusions and just let the problems fester.

    And before you trash Bush, we were attacked by radical Islam. The rest of the world promised to help, but besides England, let’s face it, they mailed in the effort. If we mailed in the effort with France in WWII like they did with us now, they'd be speaking German. But left wingers used what France thinks of us as a basis for wanting Obama.

    By the way, do you like Deval Patrick; does it bother you that he asked a Parole Board to release a grandmother rapist from prison? A man who raped a woman for hours before murdering her. Deval Patrick has a fuzzy, happy politician elf that likes to give out handouts too. I bet you like him. The grandma that got raped for hours and murdered is sort of ugly; how do you file that away in your mind? Because he is a happy, feel-good guy do you just wash that fact away in your mind? Can you spin that somehow to blame George Bush or is that too complex; maybe you just repel that fact altogether because he is a Democrat despite it being one of the most repulsive things that a responsible electorate would shun. Instead, we filtered that fact and elected him to the highest office in our State. This will play out fabulous; we'll have higher taxes than New Jersey, we'll have more corruption than them as well because the electorate is blind and the Democrats put out a happy, feel good face that soothes us and makes us impotent and irresponsible.

    Posted by john p November 12, 08 10:04 AM
  1. There is a reason why people keep mentioning "New Deal" when they talk about Obama and a stimulus package. He's campaigned on the idea of starting new public works initiative's and improving America's infrastructure. I for one think this is an excellent idea. I live in Minneapolis MN which, as you may have heard, had a major bridge on I-35 collapse into the Mississippi River during rush hour. Not only would an investment in infrastructure help to ensure that more people don't die from a preventable incident like this, but we can make much needed improvements in the rail system, the interstate higway system and ports as well as improvement to our technological infrastructure. Unlike the failed attempts at creating jobs by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, public works investments are gauranteed to create jobs. More jobs means a larger middle class and capitalism works best with a large middle class. America is now facing a shrinking middle class. Middle class wages are stagnant or decreasing. Income disparity is it levels unseen since the Great Depression. A majority of income is now controlled by a minority of individuals, the top 300,000 combined earn more income than the bottom 150 million combined.

    As far as Iraq goes, we were lead into this war not for reasons of "genocide" but because we were told that Iraq presented a clear and imminent threat to the US. Vice President Cheney (and others) were going on TV to tell us about mushroom clouds or biological/chemical attacks in American cities and supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The concept that Sadam was an evil, murderous tyrant only came up to support their claims that he (Sadam) was going to attack America or fund/train Al Qaeda. These were all lies. I think there are a myriad of reasons why the US wanted to invade Iraq, oil being one (and probably the biggest) reason. Hell, the US figured that the cost of the war would be recouped fro oil revenues. Something else I find interesting is that Shell has recently (September 2008) opened an office in Iraq. This is the first time since 1972 that a foreign oil company has been able to do business in Iraq (state control of oil in Iraq started in 1971 or 1972, I forget which).

    Like Ms. Maddow, I do not believe that a larger military presence in Afghanistan is the right way to move forward. However, I am more of a realist than an idealogue and understand that US military prescene will increase in Afghanistan. I also realize that the US will be able to muster more international support for operations in Afghanistan and as such the cost may not be as great in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq.

    As far as Mr. Obama's connections to Mr. Rezko, I don't know enough to comment on it. I will say that no politician is perfrect, they all have skeletons in their closet. Politicians by nature like to wheel and deal and they all too frequently wheel and deal with the wrong sort. I would only assume that if Mr. Obama's connection to Mr. Rezko were serious, we would have heard a lot more of it during the campaign season, especially of there was the possiblity of illegal or unethical activities going on.

    Posted by Jason P November 12, 08 10:21 AM
  1. As far as the New Deal/ WPA through infrastructure: This sort of stuff is my business and I can tell you that these big projects don't employ people like they did back in the mid 30's. The reason for this is that lots of stuff was done by hand back then and as labor cost rose and construction means and methods advanced, work requires fewer people. It is funny, when we do projects in these emerging markets some of the labor intensive details are still used because labor is so cheap. Further, most of the work that does exist is sophisticated and not many schmos are needed to stand there and lean on shovels. I agree that the work is needed and is overdue, but I don't think it will employ the percentage of the population as did the works in the 30's.

    As far as Iraq, don't forget Colin Powell was the one who technically "lied" to the UN, our conduit to the world. It was funny how Obama trashed Hillary for not having the "judgment" to not authorize the use of force in Iraq, but then he chooses Joe Biden who voted the same way Hillary voted. If poor judgment was the reason why he was asking us to consider him, why did he consider someone that by his definition didn't have good judgment? Then he applauds Colin Powell, the man who supposedly lied to the World about WMD. If Obama was a man of conviction and thought the War was immoral and based on lies, he wouldn't have been applauding Colin Powell's endorsement, voted to fund over $300Billion to the War and vote to confirm Condi Rice to Secretary of State. He shifted gears when he realized that there wasn't a strong candidate that voted against the War running.

    I agree that WMD were the main reason why it was an imminent threat, but the Genocide wasn't a back track deal as you frame it, Hussein as a risk to be evil and start genocide was the basis for the potential risk, kind of like if you had reason to believe that an ex-murderer had possession of a gun, would you be warranted to search them? What if they resisted being searched? It wasn't a clean situation and the threat of Bush's incompetence was less than the threat of Hussein hanging out there. Lots of reputable Democrats made that call and unlike Obama, I think they exercised good judgment while at the same time being wrong. Obama never had the intelligence estimates and didn't have to vote and was representing a far left district, so for people to give him credit for having "judgment" is a joke.

    As far as Rezko and "politicians by nature, not being perfect and all having skeletons in their closet", I agree. My whole point before getting lambasted was that Obama isn't a knight in shining armor. He too has his hand out like all the other politicians and his whole "The reason why Washington is broken is because of corporate lobbyists..." that is complete b.s. coming from him because what do you call Tony Rezko but a corrupt felon who bribed politicians. He helped Obama buy his house. In the transaction, he bought a $625k buildable lot next to Obama’s and sold a sliver of land rendering the remaining parcel unbuildable based on zoning. Why would he drop $500k down the drain? A man like Rezko wouldn't waste $500k on someone unless he knew it was worth it. What did Rezko see in Obama to make him think that he was worth handing over $500k, not to mention the other thousands and thousands for prior donations?

    What I'm saying is that Obama is not a messiah. When you try to align his track record with his rhetoric, they don't align and further, he is the worst example of some of the things he preaches against. We just need to keep our eyes open. I do not think Rachel Maddow is wire in such a way to give us objective insight. I'm not saying don't listen to her, but take her in doses and for sure get another viewpoint.

    I was a big time Democrat and then this transformation occurred while watching Olberman and the light went on and I was like, this guy is kind of out of his mind; kind of like the skit on SNL.

    Also, Maddow is gay. I support gay rights and I think anyone that wants to claim that they are progressive ought to be more open to same sex relationships and allowing them to flourish in America. Obama supposedly knows what it is like to be oppressed but wouldn't go to bat for the gays, the ones that need true leaders to stand up and push the line of scrimmage towards a full realization of our potential in freedom.

    Personally, Maddow is kind of like the smart kid that makes fun of someone because they have a hard time finding their words or misspeak, kind of like an intellectual smug bully. She has no tolerance for people that aren't as polished as she is and makes sport out of someone because they aren't as gifted as her in her areas of strength. It is kind of like how the pretty girls make fun of the regular looking ones, she is the smart kid making fun of the others. It isn’t so much the elitism of it, as the ignorance for the regular folk’s perspective and the acknowledgement that someone has to pick up the tab or do the work in the society. Sitting around and commenting like the two old guys in the balcony on the Muppets Show day after day makes for a warped perspective.

    That is small stuff; the big worry for me is the underscoring of the delusions that hurt our value structures of industry and capitalism, the values that bear the fruits and abundances that we survive on. I think she needs less contempt for capitalism.

    Posted by john p November 12, 08 01:23 PM
 

About Viewer Discretion

What we're watching on TV.

Contributors

Katie McLeod is Boston.com's features editor.

Rachel Raczka is a producer for Lifestyle and Arts & Entertainment at Boston.com.

Emily Wright is an Arts & Entertainment producer at Boston.com.

Sarah Rodman is a TV and music critic for the Boston Globe.

Meghan Colloton is a Things to Do and Arts & Entertainment producer at Boston.com.

Michael Brodeur is the assistant arts editor for the Boston Globe, covering pop music, TV, and nightlife.

archives