Rachel Maddow: The Epitome of a Public Intellectual

Anyone curious about current events and political discourse is familiar with the name Rachel Maddow. Born in Castro Valley, California, Maddow has dedicated her entire life to public service. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in public policy from Stanford University, and received a doctorate in political science from the University of Oxford. Her breadth of knowledge, outgoing personality, and on-going curiosity positioned her to be a solid candidate for a television show host. She worked as a news reader, an on-air sidekick, a disc jockey, and held a handful of other radio station jobs while finishing up her dissertation. In 2005, Maddow landed her very own radio show on Air America as the host of The Rachel Maddow Show. After the radio show’s success and her rising popularity, Maddow earned a spot on network television and transitioned The Rachel Maddow Show to MSNBC. After more than 15 years on air, Maddow upholds respect in the industry and is still one of the most popular anchors on television. When Trump was elected president in 2016, an undeniably polarizing time in our country, television broadcasters had a unique opportunity. Maddow strengthened her voice, stayed true to her beliefs, and positioned her show as, in the wise words of David Smith of the Guardian, “a nightly safety blanket for many progressives who identify with the ‘resistance.’” 

​

Through her writing in her best-selling books, her statements on air, and insightful comments in interviews, Rachel Maddow consistently engages the public in complex issues and explains the social, political, and cultural importance of current events in an approachable manner, solidifying her role as a public intellectual. However, in an overly saturated media landscape, on-air personalities must find a unique way to differentiate themselves from one another. Maddow’s distinct personality and undeniable passion for reporting shines through to her audience, and is a large reason why she attained such fame. 

​

In order to succeed as a television host, one must have certain basic characteristics. They should be likeable, be able to read a teleprompter, and be able to think on your feet (should there be any unexpected technical errors). Maddow is not just another on-air personality. She does not merely read the news; she envelops herself in it. Maddow’s signature way of presenting herself distinguishes her from other anchors; she has a naturally inquisitive tone of voice, delivers her thoughts succinctly, and speaks in an approachable style that makes viewers feel like she is their equal. Unlike other anchors, she does not take herself too seriously. Maddow notoriously uses humor and storytelling to engage her viewers in otherwise complex topics, effectively taking the intimidation out of learning about politics. Though she may touch on topics covered by other news broadcasters, Maddow reports on them in a distinct way; she dissects stories all the way back to their origins and shares niche details that may not be widely reported, creating a unique segment for her viewers. 

​

Rachel Maddow is undoubtedly a smart and hardworking journalist, but the characteristic that makes her stand out among other television personalities is how much heart she gives to her work. Though she aims for objectivity in her reporting, Maddow has a left-leaning perspective and is transparent about her liberal point of view. She freely shares her perspective to give viewers an honest understanding of who they are listening to. Her visible passion for the subjects she is reporting on makes her stories more compelling and makes her viewers, therefore, care more about the news. In 2018, a clip of Rachel Maddow went viral when she struggled to get through a segment on the forced separation between immigrant children and their parents. In hard-hitting journalism, the feelings of the victims in stories are often lost. Witnessing Maddow’s genuine, human response to injustice allowed viewers to take a step back and recognize the devastating reality of being an immigrant under the Trump administration. Critics may say that Maddow’s tears were unprofessional, but her response proves just how deeply she cares about humanity and how genuine her on-air personality is. Her response initiated her viewers to give more consideration to a subject deserving of attention. In addition to her earned respect in the industry and undeniable academic intelligence, Maddow’s empathy beams through the screen and subsequently makes her loyal viewers more caring global citizens.

 

Another way that Maddow stands out among today’s television hosts is in the signature way that she reports the news: she nearly always integrates historical context into her reporting of current events. Most recently, Maddow has been writing a book investigating the history of right-wing extremism in the United States. Though she was inspired by the insurrection on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 and more recent attempts at domestic terrorism, Maddow traces America’s struggle to protect democracy and fight fascism back to World War II. As she discussed her upcoming book Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism with AP News, Maddow said, “Just as I like to dive into the backstory and deep origins of any particular news event, I also find it helpful to know if we’ve previously contended with something like what we’re seeing in today’s news.” As Maddow connects current events to historical events, Maddow is challenging her viewers to dissect news in a deeper and more engaging way. On June 12, 2023, Maddow launched a podcast series titled “Rachel Maddow Presents: Deja News” in which she delves into historical events to help make sense of current news. Instead of passively listening to headlines, Maddow encourages her viewers to continue asking questions and ponder whether society has dealt with similar issues before. In the first episode of “Deja News” titled “Riot at the Gates (Again),” for example, Maddow and her co-host Isaac-Davy Anderson explore how a violent right-wing attack in Paris during 1934 could help us understand the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to discuss her notorious use of history in reporting, Maddow explains, "I have this soft spot for history as an explanatory thing… I'm a completist. If you tell me something is going on geologically, I want to know about the formation of the star that created the solar system, that created that planet, that created that rock." Based on this short quote, the reader can understand that Maddow’s eagerness to use history in her reporting stems from a genuine desire to continue learning. Furthermore, Maddow’s commitment to providing an abundance of context in her storytelling, both in her television segments and in her writing, proves how great of an advocate she is for informed citizenship. She is not reporting in a cautious way to merely keep her job; Maddow consistently goes above and beyond in the hope of creating an equally passionate and informed audience.

​

Maddow’s educational approach to her journalism also makes her stand out among other television anchors. In the entertainment industry, it is common for talent to develop an ego or a superiority complex. Though Maddow is an expert in her field, she does not sit on a high horse. Even though she is familiar with complex political jargon, she takes the time to simplify difficult language and create digestible segments for the benefit of her viewers. Most importantly, she does not speak down to her audience: she teaches them what she has learned in a respectful way. In his essay “The Decline of Public Intellectuals,” Stephen Mack writes, “...if intellectuals are in a better position to perform [criticism] it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.” His point is that a public intellectual is not better than their audience– they are simply the ones who have the time to become educated on certain topics because it is their career. Maddow has dedicated her life to public service. She spends hours of her day conducting research before showtime and patiently walks her audience through complex issues on air because it is her job to share her knowledge. However, Maddow is known for her longer-than-usual and, as David Smith of the Guardian would say, “sometimes painfully detailed" segments. Anchors are not required to provide the level of detail that Maddow does. Maddow does so to increase the likelihood that her viewers understand her message. By dedicating extra time and energy into her shows, it is clear that Maddow does not think of herself as superior to her viewers. She has an altruistic outlook on her knowledge dissemination– she simply wants to help. 

​

One of the strongest arguments to validate Maddow’s role as a public intellectual is that she does not shy away from criticism. In “The Decline of Public Intellectuals,” Mack introduces Jean Bethke Elshtain’s perspective on what the social function of a public intellectual is. Mack quotes Elshtain as he writes, “So the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, whether it's those who promise that utopia is just around the corner if we see the total victory of free markets worldwide, or communism worldwide or positive genetic enhancement worldwide, or mouse-maneuvering democracy worldwide, or any other run-amok enthusiasm. Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers.” Elshtain’s point is that a public intellectual has a responsibility to deliver the hard truth, no matter the consequence. Many intellectuals would be discouraged by external criticism, but Maddow is quite the opposite. In an interview with the Guardian, Maddow confidently says, “I don’t care what anybody says about me. I don’t play requests and I don’t worry about the criticism. If we get something wrong, I’ll correct it, but, in the absence of that, the criticism for focusing on real news stories that bother people – that’s what I get paid to do.” She is committed to telling the truth and is professional enough to admit when she is wrong, but she does not shy away from tackling controversial or challenging topics in the face of backlash. Maddow’s courage and dismissal of harsh criticism is a personal sacrifice that she is willing to take in order to share stories that deserve attention. 

​

Not all news anchors are public intellectuals. It requires a healthy balance between bravery and humility, and, above all, a genuine desire to educate others. Rachel Maddow worked hard to achieve her level of stature and rightfully earned the praise she receives. Her progressive political beliefs are reflected in her role as a professional: she promotes informed citizenship and encourages meaningful public discourse. No matter the industry, professionals should learn from Rachel Maddow and her compassionate approach to education and knowledge dissemination.