MSNBC ELEVATES Rachel Maddow To NEWS ANCHOR

[Segami]

Viewers’ dreams of Rachel Maddow someday hosting Meet The Press took another step forward as new MSNBC advertising refers to as a news anchor.

According to TVNewser,

You won’t likely see MSNBC host Rachel Maddow filling in for Brian Williams on “NBC Nightly News.” While Maddow is usually described as the “host” of a cable news show, she is rarely called a “news anchor.” Her own NBC bio describes her as a “host”-and never even uses the word “journalist.”

So it’s worth noting that a new MSNBC promo flips the script, describing Maddow as a “news anchor with a big personality. She’s smart, funny and passionate.”

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc-promo-describes-rachel-maddow-as-a-news-anchor_b248067

It is an interesting change, and one that reaffirms MSNBC’s commitment to Maddow being the center of the network. Maddow has been anchoring the network’s election night and other big event coverage, so it isn’t inaccurate to refer to her as MSNBC’s news anchor. The problem is that Rachel Maddow continues to lose viewers because she is surrounded by a lot of shows that people aren’t watching on MSNBC. The network managed to lose 6% of its total viewers and 8% of its younger viewers during the midterm election last month.


Chris Hayes’ 8 PM show has been sinking the entire primetime lineup and pushing cable news viewers towards CNN by the thousands. It is a good idea to make Rachel Maddow the center of the network. It was a bad idea to remake the network in her image by hiring a group of low rated Maddow clones who have caused the ratings to plunge. Instead of highlighting and emphasizing Maddow’s uniqueness, the network has watered down her impact by trying to recreate her success with several other hosts.


NBC News has held the position that Rachel Maddow can’t host Meet The Press because she is too partisan, but the elevation to news anchor is another step into journalistic territory. The MSNBC ship continues to sink, but Rachel Maddow’s star is still shining bright.




http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/05/msnbc-elevates-rachel-maddow-news-anchor.html

[safeinOhio]

1. Me,

I'd vote for her for President any time.

[Martin Eden]

2. So would I

(but I'd put a better photo of her on the campaign posters)

[RKP5637]

5. K&R! n/t

[olddots]

3. MSNBC's bosses may be evil parasites but they're not braindead

Yey!!!

[merrily]

86. Yet, they put Gregory on MTP--and followed his failure with Todd.

[Politicalboi]

126. But they're not

"Partisan" as we all know.

[longship]

4. Her video podcast of her nightly program was #2, the last time I looked.

On my iGadget Podcast App of all video podcasts. Pretty damned good.

Download limited as I am here in the national forests of west Michigan, I download the audio version of her program every night, the only MSNBC program so blessed.

I absolutely love Geeky Rachel. (Or as many call her, Dr. Maddow.)

If she loses her gig at MSNBC, she could snag a prime professorship at a prime university. She's that smart.

[tularetom]

6. Arguably the best part of this is that they didn't elevate Chris Matthews to anything

Hope this pisses him off enough to quit. IMO he's the one dragging the network down. Him and Morning Joke. And Andrea Greenspan. And Chunk Turd.

[Ykcutnek]

7. LOL!

At least one executive will have spittle on them by the time Matthews is done.

[valerief]

17. They can take out Mika, too. nt

[vlyons]

54. What? you don't like obsequious Mika

patting Joe on the shoulder and telling him to calm down when he blows his stack?

[Enthusiast]

75. You don't like it when Mika looks adoringly at Joe while he pontificates?

Come on! She drools.

[merrily]

82. So, you don't buy that she's there as a moderate leftist to balance moderate rightist Joe?

Yeah, me neither.

[JDPriestly]

111. She is very nice, but she is there to make liberals look like weak lapdogs.

When she disagrees with something, she kind of makes a face, but doesn't really present a strong argument for what she believes is right. She is far too acquiescent. Just the conservative dream of a liberal.

[merrily]

112. I was being facetious. I could not agree with you more about Mika, and I probably

would not have been as nice as you.

I think she doesn't make strong arguments for two reasons: One, she knows what her role actually is on that show, regardless of the fiction that she is a balancer, and she wants both her job with NBC and Joe's good graces (If he wished, he could make her look even worse, and more often, than he does.)

Two, she is simply not up to outsmarting Joe, which is why she has that spot. After all, it's not Morning Joe and Mika, it's just Morning Joe.

Then again, to be fair, Scarborough is so disingenuous and hot tempered that I don't know many who do trump him on that show, or even try.

[JDPriestly]

116. True. I watch it as rarely as possible. It does not take long to get Mika's role in that nasty

theater.

[Zen Democrat]

113. Meek-a

[Hulk]

44. Amen!!!!!

How low we have sunk with our media today. Shameful!

[pinboy3niner]

8. Anchor is perfectly in keeping with her nautical theme

Just ask her about 'Boat Jail.'

[Andy823]

9. I like this part

"NBC News has held the position that Rachel Maddow can’t host Meet The Press because she is too partisan,…"

And yet they put Chuck Todd as the new moderator of Meet the Press! Todd is one of the most partisan hacks they have. Saying Rachel can not be the host because "she" is to partisan is insane!

[heaven05]

13. yeah I liked that one too

all I could think was....

[Lamonte]

10. Rachael

I quit watching her because of her screaming for emphasis. It is hard to watch. Her sophomoric fascination with cocktails is out of place as well. Intelligent yes, but her delivery is a distraction. I have difficulty understanding why MSNBC has so few viewers.

[valerief]

18. You won't sway anyone here with that crap, especially since you can't even spell her name. nt

[greiner3]

23. I see you forgot the;

/s tag or if you aren't up on it;

[Cleita]

30. Her once in awhile cocktail minute, occasionally on a Friday, is

a distraction to you? I get the feeling you have had a few cocktails by then and it's the only thing you can concentrate on, or you really don't watch the show like the other Rachel critics on this thread. Also I have read the very same phrase over and over again all over the internet for months now. Really, cut and paste gives you away.

[alfredo]

39. I think her showing how to make different cocktails is charming.

What other hosts would do that? I have no problem with her voice or delivery. I also like how she can explain a complex issue clearly.

[Enthusiast]

77. Oh, but it's sophomoric!

Pffft! [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[alfredo]

88. But the job of the journalist is to inform.

My knowledge of mixed drinks were lacking until I found Rachel.

[Enthusiast]

92. We always enjoy Rachel's drink segment.

[alfredo]

103. She's having fun with it too. It's a nice way to end a week of shows.

[CTyankee]

107. so do I and I don't even like cocktails!

Esp. anything with brown liquor

But she is having so much fun it's hard not to feel her joy. So I can toast her with my glass of white wine and all is well!

[alfredo]

114. After a week of bad news, it is a good way to send us off with a smile and

a recipe for some classic cocktail.

[Enthusiast]

76. Okay. Who do you prefer? We want NAMES.

Tell us your better "anchor".

[AlbertCat]

80. I quit watching her

Good.

Who needs you?



What screaming? I've never heard her scream except in jest.


It's not a news broadcast y'know. It's an opinion show with Rachel Maddow as host (whatever the network wants to call her to improve their muck ups)

Since when were cocktails "sophomoric"? She's not showing you how to drink a beer out of a can.

Jesus!

Must be yet another RW lame complaint sent around by trolls.

[Enthusiast]

93. +1 an entire shit load.

[Voice for Peace]

96. I'm not a rw troll and I love Rachel's brilliant reporting

but confess I do find her delivery shrill, fairly often. Not
that it matters but my other criticism is that she uses too
many words, way more than needed, and that's a distraction
for me personally.

I presume since others don't feel the same way that it's my
own sensitivity or hearing, or maybe even a generational
thingy.

I have huge respect for her integrity in reporting. Could
care less about the cocktails though if somebody's having
alcohol issues, it is hard to watch people having fun with
booze.

Who are the other "clones" they are referencing? Chris
Hayes comes to mind but I think he's excellent. The
article is rather insulting in that aspect.

[AlbertCat]

100. You must remember....

..... there is a REAL campaign by the RW to invade and troll Left leaning sites. I wholeheartedly apologize for my accusations toward you. My mistake.


The only time I see Rachel Maddow getting sophomoric is when she is ironically commenting on the outrageousness or complete ridiculousness of whatever the RW is trying to dish out. She doesn't do this with serious matters as far as I can see. And I don't watch her religiously myself.... only when I feel out of touch or some issue I really care about is in the news.

And I'd much rather hear about the 100+ year old art of mixology than "news of the future. "Will Hillary run in 2090????? We will now discuss this for half an hour"


Again.... mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. So sorry.

[Voice for Peace]

101. no apology necessary

it wasn't me. But thank you.

[TheKentuckian]

104. Right wingers are the Borg of the internet, it doesn't matter what the site is about

If there is not firm moderation they'll be there mucking it up.

A/V equipment, movies, sports, photography, music, books, outdoors, you name it they are trolling and spouting nonsense.

Why the hell are there right wing Star Trek fans? Does not the whole world directly oppose about all that they believe? Is it not a picture of a future where they lost across the board and humanity and literally the galaxy is better for it?

[Voice for Peace]

125. basement dwelling libertarians.

I know one well. Big star trek fan. Big hearted person
but politically clueless.

[TheKentuckian]

128. Yeah, I know who they are it just strikes me as particularly odd they could stand much less love

repudiation of that magnitude.

Hate the UN? Forget that we belong to the United Federation of Planets.

Money? No one even cares, there is no hunger, no want, no homelessness. Can't worship the wealthy. Wealth is meaningless.

Bootstraps? Everybody just does whatever they want and have the capacity for that makes them happy.

Racism? Shit, we have folks from different biology entirely together in every way.

All in the most positive light too.

People are funny.

[Voice for Peace]

129. One person who comes to mind has a single issue political philosophy.

It is that the government has no right to use violence
against citizens in order to compel them to do anything.

Try having a conversation? I gave up after a couple of
frustrating years.

The question of human greed, for example, has
no meaning to this person. Nor the value of the
environment. This person is afraid of black men with
guns. This person is afraid, period. Loves Star Trek.

[erronis]

117. I agree - bombastic style by anyone is off-putting

I rarely break into a conversation on DU since there is so much crap that ensues.

However, I do like the little that I've seen of Ms. Maddow's reporting.

I don't like the incrediblly short "news" segments followed by the asinine MSNBC adversiting. I also don't like stridency in any cause.

That's why I'll go back to the non-vocal news reporting that I can get on DU, Reuters, etc. I can select what I want to see/hear, I can quickly move to something less obnoxious, and I don't have to be a patron of the MSM advertising parasites.

Back to my cave for awhile.

[olegramps]

94. I don't know how you pulled yourself away for FOX long enough to even tune in for 2 min.

[KamaAina]

134. "Rachael" is on the Food Channel.

[on point]

11. I like her, but longer can watch her

She has picked up a repititve style where she repeats the same content 3-5 times in different ways, I guess to ensure the audience understands. To me it a massive dumbing down and makes the show now unwatchable. Went from literate to dumb

[adieu]

16. I like that she repeats and shows an issue in different light

and have that issue last more than 45 seconds. She and her team pick the important stories for the day and really go to town on it. It's not finger-food news, it's news with substance and I do like that she takes 15 minutes or so to go through a historical viewpoint, a current viewpoint, and other viewpoints: ethical, legal, moral, practical, whatever, to explain why such a stance is right or wrong.

And, she provides data and evidence. Whereas even in other news shows, some facts are not so "reliable" she relies on just the reliable facts.

[dmr]

53. +1000

[immoderate]

58. Uh-huh. I find the same things.

Just in case you felt alone.

--imm

[Enthusiast]

78. Me too.

[valerief]

19. Maybe you're not her audience. You could always turn to Billo. nt

[on point]

35. Criticism of poor quality is not the same as wanting Billo instead

She has obviously dumbed down her exposition and now repeats THE VERY SAME CONTENT , no additional info in multiple sentences. This not emphasis, this is the kind of poor writing that earns you an F in English class. This is not the same as adding info or going deeper, it is the kind of thing you do if you don't think your audience got the first time through. Compare it to her earlier shows to see how she dumbed down. I get her point first to e, I don't need it repeated six times

Thins out the show so she now covers very little and I would say is insulting to her audience

[valerief]

36. Maybe you're a Hannity person. nt

[on point]

120. Yeah right. Perhaps you are a sycophant. My side right or wrong, unable to see fault where it exists

This is exactly what is wrong these days, where there is support for a side (say the dems or pukes) not because their position is right or wrong, but because it is MY side.

Attempting to vilify another, through name calling or association with evil (ad hominem attacks) , as you do above multiple times, is the last bastion of the loser.

We need more objective criticism, critical thinking skills and HONESTY that calls out faults where faults exist.

Otherwise you might support the dem party into screwing the country through something awful, say a corporate based trade agreement

[valerief]

124. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Your undercover is showing. nt

[Cleita]

27. Except she isn't any of those things you describe.

You should watch her show.

[alfredo]

40. She wants to be sure everyone understands before she gets to the meat of the subject.

It also underlines what she feels important.

[usafvet65]

67. :thumbsup:

[merrily]

83. I don't think that would be a problem in the MTP format, though.

Right now, the format is that she has to fill an hour nightly, sometimes with no guest (or thinks she has to).

[AlbertCat]

106. she repeats the same content 3-5 times in different ways,

I know! The world and issues are so complicated!

Better stick with Marvel Comic movies.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Too bad they don't have a news show for her to anchor. That would be nice.

MSNBC of course has no actual news show. Which is part of their problem.

[FairWinds]

14. Agree with "On Point" . .

Too frequently she is repetitive, talks in circles and footnotes,
and sometimes loses her thesis altogether.
And she is mediocre at best on economic justice and war & peace issues.

[valerief]

20. I'd guess you're more a Billo fan, then. nt

[Segami]

22. LOL!

[Cleita]

26. I watch a different show, but then I've been following Rachel since

she co-hosted a radio show with Liz Winstead more than a decade ago. I suggest you actually watch it too, because your post doesn't tell me that you have.

[valerief]

29. I used to love Rachel and Kent's banter on the Air America radio show. nt

[Cleita]

33. Yes, and she had Kent on the TV show recently.

It was good to see him.

[7962]

48. Liz Winstead used to drag her down on Air America.

I'd never heard of Maddow before then, but I got the feeling she was growing very tired of keeping Liz from going nuts and trying to follow what odd ideas Chuck D would blurt out.
She was definitely the brains of the show.

[Cleita]

52. I never got that impression at all.

Odd, what we all hear, if we hear at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Liz Winstead is one very funny person. Also co-founder and program director of Air America.

That is to say, she put Rachel on the air there.

[7962]

118. Oh, she's a great comic, but she needed to leave politics to people like Maddow.

And good for her for getting RM the exposure.
I just never cared for her rants. She could get very rude very fast, and Rachel would always pull it back out of the ditch. Certainly a lot of DUers love a rude, crude rant (I.E. rude pundit), but if you talk down the other side for being rude, then you shouldnt do it yourself. One of the reasons I dont care for Alan Grayson either. Hes just rude.

[AlbertCat]

105. And she is mediocre at best on economic justice and war & peace issues.

You do realize we aren't talking about Gretta Van Susteren, right?

[cally]

15. I prefer Chris Hayes...he's my must watch show each night

I like Rachel Maddow but prefer Chris Hayes

[babylonsister]

32. He's incredibly smart also. nt

[BuddhaGirl]

49. I love Chris too!

I like Rachel and still occasionally watch her show, but sometimes her loooooong lead-ins to a particular story are annoying.

Chris is whip-smart and I never miss his show

[FlaGranny]

110. Those long lead-ins

keep me on the edge of my seat. They are fascinating - lendng historical precedence and context to present day stories. Best thing about the show.

[alfredo]

115. That's the Rhodes Scholar in her.

[BuddhaGirl]

130. Glad you like them

YMMV...they are not always necessary, imo.

[Cleita]

21. Those commercials have been on for a few weeks and the anchor

label took me back a bit, also. However, if she starts filling in for the NBC nightly news, I might watch it for a change.

[AngryAmish]

24. What else exciting happened at comcast today?

If I wanted press releases I would go to pr wire.

[undeterred]

25. And she is wicked smart.

[merrily]

84. +1

[pinboy3niner]

28. Shhhh!!!

I'm trying to watch The Rachel Maddow Show!

[babylonsister]

31. Ha!!!

Me, too!!!

[still_one]

34. "she is too partisan" means she doesn't have enought RW bias, but presents news items in a fair

Manner

[yeoman6987]

37. I hope Rachel somehow gets some more eyeballs

The ratings are horrible. If anyone can, she can.

[nikto]

38. Kicked upstairs and getting more Establishment all the time

I like Rachel Maddow a lot and respect her fine mind.

But I have noticed her becoming more and more "establishment" all the time.
Big salary and promotions have a way of doing that.

She seemed far more feisty (likely to question establishment norms) back in the days when Olbermann was still around.

Now, she has very much given in to the 2-party "horse-race" mentality of the corporate media.
I suspect, Comcast has her just where it wants her.

Hey--I admit it--I get caught up in it too---The tit-for-tat Tea Party vs Liberal back-and-forth with
Fox News and the like, like Punch & Judy. It's easy to get suckered because the RW media spits-out
such absurd talking points these days, it is almost impossible to resist taking shots back at their collosal stupidity.

Thus, being "stupid like a Fox" keeps people polarized, and keeps the discussion conveniently OFF certain topics--For BOTH sides.
Whose "Mission Accomplished" is that?

I used to fall for that far more a few years ago. Not so much these days.

Throwing bombs back and forth with Conservative media---Basically, a trap, IMO.
She is getting more co-opted by the week.

What about questioning America's drive for Empire? The dominance of AIPAC?
Fraud and waste in the vast US Military budget?
What about investigating the VERY REAL voting irregularities in this past election?
What about Hillary's ties (and Holder's sycophancy) to Wall Street?
The Privatization of America's Public Schools?

Non-stories, in MSNBC/Maddow-Land.

Has she succumbed to becoming just another member of "The Village", Hullabaloo Blogger
Digby (Heather Parton) has so soften referred to (and not in a complimentary way)?

Rachel, like MSNBC in general, has become a cheerleader for the Democratic Party, rather than an un-affiliated
outlet for a Progressive point-of-view.


I would quickly regain my former full regard for Rachel, if she would just have a
few of these folks on as guests, to compliment the usual Washington Establishment types who populate
corporate media:

Chris Hedges
Noam Chomsky
Brad Friedman
Richard D Wolff
Danny Schecter
Greg Palast
David Sirota
Dar Jamail

But, in actuality, Rachel can't, I believe, because her corporate employer will not permit
those voices to be heard on American Corporate TV News.

Yeah, IMO, rachel's voice has been compromised, but I don't blame Rachel.

Rachel isn't the problem---Her employers are.

[LovingA2andMI]

61. PERFECT~~~

[bbgrunt]

64. ...and if you don't play their game, you end up like Keith.

I used to watch that station until they got rid of Keith. Even after that I watched for a while. But while Rachel is better than most, I feel patronized by her repetitious style and disappointed by her pulling her punches on a lot of fronts.

like you, I feel she has been clearly co-opted by owners.

I'd watch keith anyday.

[alfredo]

41. I have a feeling Alex Wagner is going to be kicked upstairs too.

[appalachiablue]

50. Yes, Alex is very smart, with her big smile. On Bill Maher once she was sharp as can be,

serious business. She's under utilized now at MSNBC. Rachel's also good in a group, on a panel and will handle a larger venue. Joy Reid's extremely sharp with an even style. Hayes very bright, but limited like others in what he can cover. Schultz is a good populist, the Rev. too, Chris Matthews is an old pro.

[alfredo]

70. They've got a strong lineup.

[UTUSN]

42. Well, for this I will be cheap and say: awww-right awww-right-awww-right!1 - and

is Tweety burning?!1

[Cleita]

51. Tweety has the utmost respect for her.

When she first started her show, she invited him as a guest. They tangled on a topic, which I don't remember now, but she slammed him down with facts. I remember him turning to her and saying:

"You really do your research, don't you?"

I don't think he's ever been on again except when they co-host election and other weird coverage.

[UTUSN]

91. Well, after Tweety acted as the hitman to take out DONAHUE, he fueled Joe SCABS

into the msRnc pipeline. Tweety is such a piece. Piece of work?!1 Piece of... I'm thinking, I'm THINKING!1

[Mr.Bill]

43. Having her anchor an actual news show

would be a breath of fresh air to TV journalism. It would also fix what I believe to be her main flaw, which is getting hung up on one story for days on end sometimes. She is definitely the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to cable news. She also obviously has a brilliant staff. They uncover and flesh out stories with a thoroughness that is rare today.

[nikto]

45. Good point----"getting hung up on one story for days on end sometimes" is the biggest problem

It does keep her from reporting on other stories, less desired by Ownership.

That may be just The Plan.

[silvershadow]

46. I enjoy Rachel and Ed. The rest of them can go. MSNBC needs a major overhaul.

I watched Olbermann religiously. Ed's good, but got his wings clipped a little and never really recovered his "Edness". To think MSNBC is a liberal media outlet is really a joke. Daytime is dominated by Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell, etc.

[nikto]

47. Images that will NEVER have Rachel Maddow in them...

It's called, "Muckraking".

Rachel doesn't do that.

Comcast would not approve.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/8IHnxCbUNPCprZCfmmKJM6Km7mcul7a182E6zzOB8za78Ik5U6hLLcdpO7SwWovMN9NqaWAmROGtd7nZnkcL2LHc76vtB-xhgqck=s0

[AlbertCat]

108. Uh huh

[nikto]

131. Fair enough...

2 out-of-6 ain't terrible.








But it ain't great.

[AlbertCat]

132. I can only post when there are images of...

Besides your premiss doesn't deserve even the time I wasted proving it's a crock of shit.

[nikto]

136. Why the hostility, Mr. 2-Out-Of-Six?

By any measure, your flaccid 2-out-of-six response, accompanied by your understandible
inability to find what doesn't exist on a Google search (I was able to find my particular examples
because they, UH, DO exist. ), was not empirically impressive.

I'm sure you can do better, at least on other topics.

And then, to finish off the job of frying any dignity you had left, you end with a tea-bagger-like
flare of hostility to being gently 1-upped.

There are no pictures of Ms. Maddow (who still does some good things) interviewing Chomsky, Hedges, etc,
BECAUSE SHE NEVER HAD THEM ON HER SHOW.
Again, no histrionics or swearing---- just the truth.

That was my point, and I was able to back it up, 4-2, without complaining about what I couldn't Google, etc.


You come off as needlessly hostile (strictly defense-mechanism reaction), and with
your profanity employed in a falsehood, weak, as well.

Some folks care about truth and accuracy, and sometimes even accept a correction from others (as I did in my 1st response),
while others seem to be far more emotional about just being "right", evidence, or lack of, be damned.


If you can't make a good argument, don't try--You'll just get frustrated and angry,
like this time.

I assume, being a long-timer on DU, you have made some past arguments convincingly,
and posted eloquently on various subjects.

I'm certain I could go find them on Google, as long as they exist.


But truthfully, this was not one of those times for you.

[AlbertCat]

137. It sounds more hostile than I intend

I just cuss like a sailor.... both my parents did.

I forget you can't hear my tone of voice.

I looked on Google for a bit.... but y'know....

Rachel is excellent, if not perfect. I imagine she does as much compromising as she needs to to stay on the air of a major, commonly known network. And even then is accused of outrageous partisanship, when really she is just thorough. All these petty complaints as if she's Mornin' Joe or something!

I mean, for instance, nobody knows who Amy Goodman is except us folks who actually seek out Democracy Now. Some undecided might actually have heard of Rachel Maddow and can turn on the boob tube to see her.... even in AZ or NC!

[nikto]

138. I like Rachel, but she is definitely limited by Comcast

Comcast/FOX/CBS/CNN would NEVER have the likes of Chomsky, Hedges, Jamail and others
on-air. And these voices are some of the most enlightened and perceptive out there--But alas,
they do question the corporate line, America as Empire, and corporatism in general,
to a degree that our American corporate networks will not allow.

Not just depressing.

Downright scary.

That is why I appreciate Martin, Hartmann and a couple others on RT, which, with all its faults (which are entirely transparent and un-subtle), has far more freedom to report on American "Muck" than America's mainstream networks.

That is the sad reality.


These days, we need all the good sources of real information and intelligent viewpoints we can get.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. Oh sure, and "Dances With Rove" and "Chucky Toad" are non-partisan....

Why don't they just admit that "Meet The Press" isn't supposed to be for public consumption?

It's for the Beltway Villagers who keep repeating to themselves that "Reagan is a God" and "this is a center-right country".

[dawnie51]

56. Who else loved Rachel?

Keith Olbermann. He was and is a big fan.

[LovingA2andMI]

63. Olbermann....

Was a fan when Rachel was his Protege. To say that he IS a fan now after the fallout is a stretch as Keith has never spoke on the Fact Maddow said nothing in his defense when he was fired.

[littlemissmartypants]

57. Interesting! Thanks, Segami, for an interesting thread. lmsp

[LovingA2andMI]

59. This Article from the BLOG of Politicus USA is obviously....

Opinion. Personally opinion is good as we have a blog and many of our articles are Op/Ed's. However, to assume that Chris Hayes or Chris Matthews for that instance is the reason why MSNBC is in a far third place behind CNN is dead wrong.

Here's the thing about MSNBC. You can completely miss any show after Ed Schultz at 5pm ET. Guess what, is the result? Nothing as everything that is said on Ed's show will be repeated as if it is new news 1 to 5 hours later. Only when a new breaking news story comes out, these folks change their tune later.....that includes the preachy Maddow.

Having Maddow go on and on for the first 15-25 minutes of her show without break on whatever subject (unless it is breaking news) is old as dirt -- to be honest. If the TV Show was a Radio or Podcast show Okay, however Maddow is on TV. Change the subject or bring on more guests for analysis and debate.

At least Chris Hayes does that (i.e. brings on other guests he might not necessary agree with and treats them with respect as long as they do the same toward him). In fact what's killing Chris Hayes show is he is not on WELL BEFORE Maddow -- like Ed's 5pm ET spot. That way he will stop sounding like a Maddow clone.

Maybe it's just us but we are not Ra-Ra on Maddow. Never have been since Keith Olbermann was kicked aside for her new "fame" and never will be.

[merrily]

85. I would go further. MSNBC rides the same stories from Morning Joe to the Last Word.

Maybe the presentation is different from show to show, but there is little new all day long. And they are often not terribly important stories to begin with, like what a former basketball player has to say about about Ferguson.

[CTyankee]

123. Yep, Morning Joe is an "early indicator" of the GOP talking points for the day...

The first long segment on MJ each weekday gives us a rundown of what the MSM is gonna (and not gonna) talk about.

[usafvet65]

60. I'm one of those viewers that Maddow has lost and

it has nothing to do with surrounding programs.
For me it has been her new delivery mechanism. I feel that she is lecturing to a six grade class.

She is great at breaking down difficult issues into bite size pieces. But I don't need to be fed the pieces six different ways in a 20 minute rendition.

Her guest interviews are great because she stays focused on the guest and the topic at hand.

I like the smart and passionate Maddow. I don't need the funny Maddow.

There is a difference between light hearted delivery and a joke ridden delivery.

I still watch MSNBC starting at 6:00 CST. Watching Hardball, Chris Hayes, often skipping Maddow to return to The Last Word.

Sorry for the rant. I want the old serious Maddow back.

[Cleita]

62. Oh, the "I loved her until she left me".

She evolved.

[usafvet65]

68. I believe I have the right to not like the evolution

right? Or is this not allow on DU?

[Cleita]

69. Sure you do and do I not have the right to say

you are missing something?

[renate]

71. I don't disagree with you....

I watch her show each and every day. I love it. Around here my entire family refers to her as Rachel because we all know her and love her (though nobody will ever love her as much as I do .

I adore her, always have, always will--but I have to admit that I often find myself wishing she had an editor. (I don't know how much of what she says is written by her, or whether she ad libs off what she reads on the prompter.) She does repeat herself. It's... well, not a fact, I guess, but I think any writing teacher who got hold of a transcript would do a lot of crossing out. Of course, written language is different from spoken language, so there's that caveat.

I do like her being funny--I think you and I differ on that. I absolutely love that combination of razor-sharp intelligence and goofiness. It makes me smile just to think of it. Plus, her goofiness is usually in the service of pointing out right-wing absurdity, and even when it's not, I still love it. When I want 100% serious news, I watch Al Jazeera.

But anyway, yes, I also wish she could trim a little of the fat off her explanations, as historically interesting or fact-checkingly impressive as I always find them.

[GP6971]

90. I've found

that her long lead up on a particular topic is usually worth the wait.

[Cha]

72. Wonder if chucky's feeling the heat at his sorry heels? As If Chucky Todd isn't too bloody

partisan.

The brass at msnbc trying to scam like they did when they said david Gregory was "left leaning".. when they were giving excuses for being in chucky.. right.

thanks Segami

[merrily]

87. For me, it isn't so much that he's partisan. It's that he is a partisan HACK.

These days, everyone is partisan. And NBC News is clearly rightist.

But, nothing Brian Williams says about a Democratic candidate, while pretending to be objective, is going to become part of a Republican's campaign advertising.

Brian Williams, though he probably does vote Republican, is not a partisan hack. He knows how to do his job. Not true of Todd, even when he was on MSNBC, the supposedly left alternative to Fox.

[Hulk]

73. Tyt or Thom hartmann???

What's up with Chris Matthews and Joe the repuKKKe- lite?.? Are they supposed to draw independents,and progressives? Oh, fucking please! What a joke!
Get TYT and Thom Hartmann on the line-up. Get some hosts that we can relate to. I can stand watching Matthews and Joe the "token rwpuKKKe" for election night......but a regular dose of those dim witted numb skulls is a waste of time. And who would tune in to that horse shit every night? Give me a break. I cancelled my cable, and ive been totally satisfied with none of the cable horse shit; but if I had to watch cable BS, DUMP Chris and Joe. And add TYT and Thom Harrmann, if you could get them. What a waste of time and intelligence to be watching their bull shit when Thom and Cenk have substance to share with some real value.

[Enthusiast]

74. Compared to the other networks, the entire MSNBC evening lineup is vastly superior.

Seriously. Even Tweety. Well, maybe not Tweety. But the rest of 'em.

Just imagine what they could accomplish without that strictly enforced corporate agenda that gets in the road.

[lonestarnot]

79. Well excellent.

[merrily]

81. I always thought NBC should have chosen her over Gregory and Todd, especially Todd.

Not even because Maddow is a Democrat, but because she is, IMO, clearly much smarter and sharper than Gregory and Todd.

For me, Gregory was just a dufus, who did not have gravitas, even when he was White House correspondent. Todd is dull, can't keep his biases to himself, and is nowhere near as knowledgeable as Maddow. Reading his wiki or watching his old show, I couldn't figure out what the hell got him any career in a field as competitive as political commentary on a major network (NBC), let alone MTP, the jewel in the crown of NBC News.

In her current format, Rachel can get to droning on (Todd even more so) and seeming overly delighted with the sound of her own voice. However, those things would disappear in a format that involves only interviewing and panel discussions. In any event, she would, imo, be far superior to both dufus Gregory and partisan dullard Todd as host of MTP. Plus, we'd finally get out of NBC News' obvious penchant for rightist white males in positions of importance.

If MTP's PTB also let her choose some panelists who are more interesting than Cokie Roberts, we might really see something that actually draws in a lot of people, instead of losing viewers.

[Gothmog]

89. Yeah for Rachel

I love her show

[DFW]

95. Rachel is too partisan, but Gregory and Todd are NOT???

At least Rachel, in addition to being partisan (at least she admits it, where Gregory and Todd combined, h do not), is smarter than Gregory and Todd combined, tries to get her facts straight, corrects them when she gets them wrong, and welcomes guests with opposing views.

I understand that she terrifies potential guests with opposing views, as her command of facts usually destroys the credibility of the lies that form the basis of Republican talking points. But so what? MTP was never intended to be a free ride for the invited guests. Rachel smiles while tearing phony arguments to pieces. Chuck Todd accuses Obama of not saying the word "Syria" after he said it four times within the last 15 minutes. What kind of host is going to give NBC's show a better chance of survival, anyhow? People who want preaching to the right wing choir don't need Chuck Todd--they'll go right to Faux in the first place.

[katmondoo]

97. I once watched all of MSNBC news programs

Now I am down to Rachel and Lawrence O'Donnell Rachel is #1. The rest of the lineup has too many Repubs and too many Repub clips
The woman at 4:00PM just gets on my nerves, smiles too much and has a grating voice, forget her name. Chris Mathews (TWEETY) is unbearable. He succeeds in making me furious for his love of the right wing while pretending to be a loyal Democrat.

[Todays_Illusion]

98. Comcast owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. It is libertarian as is Rachel.

How can one be expecting Rachael to be liberal when owned by Comcast?

[AlbertCat]

109. It is libertarian as is Rachel.

Oh please!

She's not an anarchist.

[SCVDem]

102. It's not officially a weekend

Until Rachel sends us to prison!

I enjoy the final block being news light. Moment of Geek, the News Quiz or her chemistry lesson. Mixing cocktails is chemistry after all.

Now off to prison!

[McCamy Taylor]

119. Way to go, Rachel Maddow!

The Koch Brothers worst nightmares are coming true.

[The Wizard]

121. BBKO

Bring Back Kieth Olbermann. After all, he put them on the map when over half the country was being ignored by the stooge propaganda posing as main stream media.

[hopemountain]

122. try to not miss rachel, lawrence, ed, and the reverend

and chris hayes

i appreciate their passion for truth & justice and the facts ~ and their heart for people.

[NM_Birder]

135. I liked Chris Hayes as well,

I liked Big Eddie better on the radio, it was easier for me to hear him more often.

Reverend Al Sharpton is to facts, what bottled water is to a healthy lifestyle. Both cultivate as appearance of having your interest in mind, but in reality neither are as good for you as they claim, and ultimately are detrimental to the planet.

[lexington filly]

127. Chris Hayes' show is so under-rated. Give it a shot.

He's my favorite host because his presentations are not only really informative, but done with interesting depth. I learn more about issues. I've wondered if his time slot is hurting him. Rachel's show's writing has become too formulaic for me. She addresses different subjects each night but always in a repetitious manner across the segments. Not talking about her viewpoint. That, I share. And I like her a lot. But I like "All In" much better.

[themaguffin]

133. Media Bistro comment section might as well be FOX Nation etc.

all asses