General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsi love Rachel BUT
i'm watching her show from last night and she just asked the same question something like 5 times in a row with slightly different words.
this particular rhetorical quirk of hers annoys the crap out of me. i heard you the first time!
am i the only one?
for reference: it was basically maybe the House should begin impeachment proceedings right away if it will hasten the collection of information and documents that trump is refusing to provide.
incidentally this is not a new pet peeve of mine. i actually wrote to her about it a few years ago but apparently my suggestion to stop doing that was filed in the trash.
LakeArenal
(28,728 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)drives people crazy when she keeps repeating things
vlyons
(10,252 posts)But if it bothers you so much, let her know. She has an email account, and is very open to hearing feedback.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)i did that a few years ago. got no traction. lol
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)Of your viewership.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)i said this quirk annoys me. i also said i love her.
Solomon
(12,305 posts)watch every night, only to wind up rolling our eyes and yelling at the tv - "Jeeezuz, get to the frickin' point"!!!
barbtries
(28,702 posts)my sons are used to me yelling at the tv anymore. usually it's a clip of trump or some other equally annoying republican, but sometimes it's rachel. I got it! I get it! Get on with it!
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)Maddow. There's a reason she's the no 1 Cable news talk show host, and if people don't like her, switch channels rather than gratuitous attacks. She has her style, and it is what got her to her no 1 position in the ratings. Don't like it, don't watch it.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)It drives me nuts when Rachel gives her introduction of a topic and then brings on the expert and asks the expert if she explained the talking point correctly or did I miss anything. Of course she didn't, she has never missed a thing in the whole time she has been on. That part of her cast drives me nuts. I just mouth the response from the guest " No you got everything, No you are exactly right, No, we talked about this before we went on air.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)I like her opening monologue, and I suspect it is a large part of her success because you can be dipping in after having little knowledge, and get it.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)a week away. I still admire her for her competence, and hitting the nail on the head.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)Love to watch her live but it would be 2am here.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)I'm glad she has a rock for a partner.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't need her to prove how smart she is.
Many times I hear her say "I'm not a lawyer but" and explain and then the guest says she got it right (though she is not a lawyer). Well I am a lawyer and yes Rachel, you are a lot smarter than me and smart enough to pick up a legal point quickly!
We know you are smart Rachel, that is why we watch you! You don't need the pats on the head!
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Everyone here on DU respects the hell out of Rachel but she is not above criticism. You may simply adore everything about her but not all of us do but still have respect and appreciation for what she does. Your remark of "don't like it, don't watch it" smacks of "America love it or leave it." which is also a BS statement.
I doubt Rachel would be as callous as you were in response to the OP's minor irritation.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)She's worked her way up the ratings doing exactly the presentation style that some keyboard warriors attack her for doing ! If they don't like it, there are other channels. I don't see many of the same people attacking Hannity for his presentation style.
This reminds me of the constant shite Hillary had to put up with.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)This many people (who BTW otherwise like her) saying the same thing about her means there is something there. There is nothing wrong with pointing it out. But I don't hero worship her, or anyone else, for that matter.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)I don't know if this is a "rhetorical device" meant to reinforce the point (if so, it is soooo overdone) OR if it is merely a time-filler technique.
But, yes, I find it annoying. Often by the time she finally does get to the point, I've unintentionally mentally tuned out. Then, I'm just pissed that I missed the entire reason for watching.
But, none of that will keep me from continuing to watch.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)she is on balance the best game in town, for historical perspective.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)The first segment before the first commercial is especially tedious.
Back when she did her show with Olbermann following, she never wasted any air time.
Nowadays, many a time, she could be cut back to half an hour with no loss of material.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)mitch96
(13,817 posts)Exactly... Filler.. That's why I record it. .blast thru the filler.. Her show, if you watch the whole thing is only 40 min w/o the commercials.. Less if she repeats her self..
I still think she is the best.. Her explanations of things is top notch.. Even I can understand it!
m
misanthrope
(7,405 posts)I'd love see a transcript of her show and edit it down for concision and clarity. I'm betting it would still be as informative and she would have room for more stories.
Raine
(30,540 posts)wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)I get bugged by the way she leads you on and on and on then makes her point.
She goes about 20 minutes when I could have made the same point in about two minutes.
Also how she tells you what will be coming up so stay tuned but it is not the next topic. You have to wait through another break.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)And times are so stressfulsurely for her as much as anyonethat its ok.
hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)An important and valid long term theme of Rachel's, - is that the processes are moving forward.
manor321
(3,344 posts)I want to hear from legal experts, congressional experts, historical experts, etc. more than I do from any host.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)A PhD in political science and a Rhodes scholar IIRC. So she also is an expert.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)I don't want to hear from a panel of talking heads.
2naSalit
(86,053 posts)msnbc has a panel of experts and if they don't they have more than one panel of experts. I like that she spends time providing information we need to understand what she's going to tell us and why it matters. She is an expert so she can tell us a lot before she turns to others for more perspectives. Besides, it's nice to have a change in format from all the other shows.
Polly Hennessey
(6,746 posts)Repetition helps me remember. Just like my dogs, I remember things after five or six repeats. 😁
treestar
(82,383 posts)I can follow easier because it gets into my head.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)It's one of the reasons I rarely watch Redundant Rachel for more than a few minutes, or at all. I think she used to be a grad assistant and it's like she thinks her viewers are a bunch of dumb students who need something repeated over and over and over. Or maybe it's because she got her start in radio and this was a way to fill time, or it's a nervous tic. I used to keep count and sometimes she would say the same words or a slight variation four or five times in lesss than a minute.
It just got to be too much for me, so she's lost at least one viewer thanks in large part to it. And for those who think you can write to her - she doesn't listen to even constructive criticism, as the whole episode about promoting she had trump's taxes and then it was basically nothing. She didn't back down a bit from that. Too bad because she has done a great job in illuminating several subjects.
shanny
(6,709 posts)I ever watched. I'd been tuning out for some time, but that was really the final straw.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)However, my wife, who keeps up with political news several times a week, appreciates the clarity - and the style. I know a few who only watch Rachel. There may be many more.
And, she comes up with perceptive scoops, key guests, and news that needs amplification in the rapid news cycle. This is all key to her ratings.
Remember the size of her megaphone and her influence are great.
hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)barbtries
(28,702 posts)i'm watching her show! it's important what she does. it's just this thing that grinds on my nerves.
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)etc., are just too much for me nowadays. Glad she's doing well.
hannah
(141 posts)Rachel is perfect. Keep complaining and you will get Chris Jansen or Kristen Welker. Both are used to rehabilitate Trump.
i don't know who either of those are. and i did preface my gripe with "I love Rachel" - i recommend her show to anyone who will listen. she brings the history.
spooky3
(34,302 posts)Are you thinking of Kelly ODonnell?
womanofthehills
(8,579 posts)She really puts out on the news - so she has some small quirks- who doesnt? I love that she is not one of those emotionless news people.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)would make it easier to get information right away when he said that an impeachment hearing was no different than oversight proceedings when it comes to compelling testimony and documents. At that point, her argument lost its steam.
I was surprised that she had tried to push this particular point because she's usually much better better prepared. This is something she could have known with a little research or by talking to people experienced in Hill procedures.
Caliman73
(11,693 posts)My wife and I were saying the exact same thing this morning. Rachel is one of the most intelligent, well versed, and entertaining editorial journalists in the business. However, the repetition of questions, the set up to the upcoming guest, is one of those things that she does that make us cry out, "OKAY Rachel, we got it! Get to the answer already!"
"Is it advantageous to the Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings to get information? Will this help the Democrats to get at the information they need? Is impeachment going to be something that improves Democrats ability to gather information? Will the Democrats have access to the information Trump and his lawyers are trying to block by going to impeachment? .... Will they...?"
ALRIGHT ALREADY!!
Still, I would rather watch an ENTIRE hour of her doing that, than one minute of ANYTHING that the idiots at Fox News have to say, ever.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)never watch fox. i get annoyed when their clips are played by others. i watch rachel on msnbc.com or youtube also. no cable.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I try to stay alert because shes really good, but cant.
happy feet
(856 posts)There have been times when I want to hear what she has to say, but after hearing her leadup said five times in 100 ways...I just turn the channel. It's annoying as heck since most watching her are intelligent enough to get it after the 1st if not 2nd time she says it.
JB in A2
(7 posts)Yes, Rachel is brilliant but I think she treats audience as if they are really neophytes.
Also, I assume part of this is to fill the hour.
Jarqui
(10,110 posts)lose patience sometimes.
The babbling about how much news there is tonight ... just give us the news
or
Reading the court transcripts can be a little much some nights - get to the point!!
Small price to pay though for her integrity, intellect and diligence, etc.
She's probably the closest thing to Walter Cronkite that we've got.
We need more like her at moments like this.
RealityBasedNewYorkr
(118 posts)Can only watch on DVR time delay where I can blast through the first 20 minutes of Department of Redundancy Department loopiness to get to the good stuff.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)like i said, i love her but i wish she would dispense with that particular schtick.
FakeNoose
(32,346 posts)She is repetitive sometimes, and I think it's mainly when she really wants to get a point across. Also it seems there are times when she has to fill 60 minutes and she only has 50 minutes worth of material.
But Rachel has other nights when she's running a mile a minute and I can't keep up with her. I DVR her show at night and usually watch it the next day, and sometimes I have to replay segments. She's talking so fast I can't always follow, and I might even put on the closed captions.
But like another poster said, Rachel always brings it.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Fortunately, she's worth the irritation of that particular quirk. Best program on all television, imo.
meadowlander
(4,358 posts)Trump repeats his bullshit 6000 times each, so Rachel repeating a complex and thoughtful question 5 times is probably not excessive.
I watch her while I'm doing something else at the same time (like cooking dinner or reading DU) so it doesn't bother me that much.
stopbush
(24,376 posts)Its verbal masturbation serving as a place holder until she decides to finally, FINALLY ask the complex and thoughtful question.
comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)stopbush
(24,376 posts)over the years. A real channel changer, as it was last night.
Extreme laziness on her part.
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)And sometimes you see the guests listening carefully to make sure that there is only one question. Rachel talks like folks who are paid by the hour to talk (lawyers, professors) rather than like folks who are paid by the procedure to solve problems (surgeons, plumbers).
barbtries
(28,702 posts)and think about a person i used to work with as his medical/legal liaison. We did record reviews and medical examinations for lawyers involved in litigation. he was a brilliant man but when it came to writing, I always thought he'd never recovered from grade school and thought the longer the report the better the grade. fact is, lawyers and judges don't really want to wade through 50 pages when the salient points can be made in 10 or 20. after I was not working for him anymore he basically had to give up the medical/legal part of his business because his best customers quit using him, and it was because of his verbosity.
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)I record her the night before and watch first thing in the morning. But I'm also usually doing something while she is on in the morning, making coffee, feeding dogs, watering plants, washing dishes, reading. So, I lose track sometimes of her comments. Her repetitiveness keeps me from rewinding so often.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)that makes sense too.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)I've seen this in TV hosts and instructors. If they don't get the information they are trying to elicit the first time around, they might restate the question in a slightly different way in order to gain more details or to push the person being interviewed to think differently about the subject.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)this is prior to the guest showing up. it's only for the audience.
Raven
(13,872 posts)twice or three times, it's probably necessary for some folks to hear it more than once. If people want to watch bs, they can listen to Tweety.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)Really dont like it.
As for the suggestion, she is kind of kicking ass in the ratings.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)because (for me anyway) she delivers the news with real insight and especially provides historical context. i wish she would stop with the repetition stuff but still a huge fan.
Talitha
(6,477 posts)The reason I'm asking, is that her repetitiveness reminds me of Professor Alex Filippenko's lectures in an astronomy course I bought from The Great Courses. He's wonderful, and I can understand what he's talking about the very first time he explains it. But then he proceeds to cover the subject matter from a number of different angles, and sometimes it can be a bit much. But sometimes I NEED to see things from another angle in order to learn the subject matter, so it all works out in the end.
Rachel and Alex are both excellent teachers, and their enthusiasm is amazing. Rachel's repetitiveness can sometimes annoy me but TBH, it depends on the mood I'm in on any given day. She's taught me a lot, and her clarity and depth helped me immensely when I first got into all of this political stuff.
Rachel and Alex both LOVE what they do for a living. And let's face it, how many of us can say the same thing? So here's what I think: Bless 'em - warts and all. If they can manage to keep teaching me things, I'm going to keep watching. And I'll probably say more than a few times: "OK, I got it the first time".
Thank heaven they won't be able to hear MY annoying little voice.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)but if so, she would have definitely taught at some point.
Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)lanlady
(7,133 posts)You're not the only one, barbtries. I listen to the podcast of her show on my way to work and find myself yelling at her when she goes into Roget's Thesaurus mode. It's super annoying. Does she think we're thick or don't understand English? Then again, I keep listening because no one has been covering this disastrous, traitorous administration as well as Rachel.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I'm not a regular viewer of any newscast, so take my opinion with a grain of sugar.
Yes, Ms. Maddow doth protest to much and in repetition. Pass it on.
shanny
(6,709 posts)I stopped watching because I got tired of having things explained to me 3+ times. I am not 7.
greyl
(22,990 posts)her show this evening was strikingly excellent and timely.
barbtries
(28,702 posts)i'll watch.
Raine
(30,540 posts)I can't stand the way she drags things out and the way she keeps repeating and repeating and repeating. I quit watching her, couldn't tolerate her any longer.