Rachel Maddow really overdoes her opening...

[Dream Girl]

Crazy Eddie..crazy eddies lawyer..Donald trumps sister...wtf? She rambles on and on with tangential irrelevant details that are supposed to impress the viewer with the depth of her research, but it's extremely boring. By the time she gets to the point, she's lost me. Get to the point already...

[Xipe Totec]

1. She did. Chill out. The point is the Consent Decree that has not expired yet. nt

[Dream Girl]

8. Yes I got that, but arcane details about Crazy Eddie way back in the day added nothing to the

Topic...it's like she's impressed with her grainy footage from 30 to 60 years ago...and btw I remember crazy Eddie. It's just boring...

[yallerdawg]

31. Did she have "the expert" who she finally asks...

"Did I get it right?"

Who then says, "Yes, you did, Rachel."

Followed by Rachel profusely thanking her guest.

And then next soliloquy begins?

[bullwinkle428]

2. I thought it was an interesting coincidence that his brother-in-law was spearheading

the defense of the Republican party's outright vote suppression tactics some 30+ years ago, given all he's been spewing to his supporters about "make sure you watch what's going on".

[malaise]

6. Precisely

I thought she provided great background for the discussion and the family connection was interesting

[HipChick]

11. Took me a long time to get used to her style, but I like how she connects the dots..

[malaise]

16. Many forget that Rachel has a PhD

Content, data and context matter

[Silver Gaia]

44. YES! These things do matter. Thank you.

[malaise]

57. I love her approach n/t

[stevenleser]

55. And I love that kind of stuff. Granted it may not be for everyone. nt

[malaise]

56. Same here n/t

[emulatorloo]

3. I personally like her style, and she always makes a good point

Ymmv of course.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes...I've only recently been able to get MSNBC again on cable and the wind-up she does

seems somewhat interminable. Sometimes it takes so long that I miss the ultimate connection because I've already mentally tuned out. Still, she puts a different slant on these stories and that can sometimes be useful. And generally, I do like Maddow still, though I think I enjoy O'Donnell more

[JoePhilly]

5. Let republicans live and die by the tweet.

The history of illegal poll watching is important.

As is Trump's connection to it.

[longship]

7. It's usually very geeky. I like geeky. I like Rachel very much. nt

[Lefthacker]

9. I love Rachel

But, she's no Paul Harvey. He would draw a tale and then give the "rest of the story." Her stories go on a little too long. There is a point, but by the time she reaches the point it's sometimes muddled.

[The River]

10. I Quit Watching Her

for exactly that reason.

[randr]

58. I'm with you

Makes me feel like a child with her repetitive banter.
If she were to cut out the useless self promoting yakking her show would only last 15 minutes.

[Duppers]

68. Same here...

For that and even more reasons.

[blogslut]

12. I like the way she tells the tale.

We all like different things.

[busterbrown]

13. She is detailed oriented and I

agree she can be long winded....She needs to get more adversaries on her show..However few of them want to participate in a debate with Rachel... Not her fault at all... I rarely watch her however....


Lenny is my man...

[Dream Girl]

19. Lenny?

[awake]

14. Crazy Eddie's (a cheat) lawyer is Trump's Brother-in-law

The very same lawyer unsuccessfully defended the RNC in 1982 case where the RNC intimidated voters in N.J. in 1981 with "Poll Watchers". Do to Trump's Brother-in-law handling of case the RNC is now been prevented for doing voter intimidation till 2017 but if the RNC does what Trump is wanting people to do "watching the polls" then the court injunction will continue for years to come.

[niyad]

17. many people actually like the history and context and the brilliant way she connects the dots

[Dream Girl]

18. I admit I used to love it, but it's gotten old...the connections don't seem brilliant

They seem random and forced.

[brush]

21. I wonder if she does it to fill time since not too many want to come on her show?

[Awsi Dooger]

22. I nearly mentioned the same thing

Rachel has to fill more minutes than typical hosts.

But recently it's been a trend even though she should have tons of material this close to election day.

[Mc Mike]

23. Right. Exactly what most news coverage is missing. Historical context.

Reporting not only what happened today, and yesterday, but what happened last week, month, year, and adding them all up.

Without that context, the repugs get away with transparent lies, all too often.

And she does it in 15 to 20 min. But some people want their 2 min microwave popcorn in 1 min. Everyone is getting pushed into shorter and shorter attention spans, less patience.

[Dream Girl]

26. Context is great when it's relevant...but some times her "connect the dots" are more like random

scribbles...meandering and just not that interesting..sometimes she hits the mark, but more often than not it comes off as pedantic and rambling.

[Mc Mike]

30. No offense meant to you, D. G. We disagree, but I didn't address your o.p. negatively.

The stuff Maddow does is exactly what I want. I like how she breaks the segments up, too.

I don't find her to meander, be boring, be pedantic or rambling. I miss Gaelredia posting Maddow segs in our Vid and Multimedia section. I thought it was a great asset to the site.

[JI7]

42. exactly how i feel. that's why the opening of her show is my favorite

[niyad]

60. sadly, you are quite correct.

[tblue37]

67. I love history and context, but I absorb information very rapidly, and I have little

patience for slow, drawn out delivery of information that I could swallow in a minute.

I teach college. If I dragged things out the way she does, my students would slip off to LaLa Land before I ever reached the key points.

To make sure they get something (because they really do not normally understand and hold onto concepts or information the first time it is presented to them), I circle back later and reweave the information into the presentation in a way that illuminates its significance without feeling like just a repetition.

Not all students have the same ability to understand and remember what I am teaching, so to avoid losing a bunch of them, I have to present material in a way that allows those who absorb things more slowly to grasp it, but I also need to make sure that the ones who are quicker on the uptake don't get bored out of their minds.

Rachel's problem is that she pitches mainly to those who need, or at least want, every single dot emphasized and connected for them--repeatedly--and ignores the needs of those who just want her to get to the point.

We are all busy, and many do not have time (or patience) to sit through her meandering windup. So instead of watching her, I just read about her show here and on other sites. That way I can get the point without having to sit through the preliminaries.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. Perhaps 20% of the time I'm patient enough

Otherwise I click away multiple times. Never feel like I've missed anything. Sometimes I don't return, if CNN is interesting.

The amusing aspect is once she finally reaches the payoff line she repeats it two or three times. Maybe she senses not everyone had awoken the first time.

[pnwest]

62. The long Rachel-splaining lead ups, followed

by the repeating of the main point 2 or 3 times always made me feel like she didn't have much faith in her viewers' intelligence.

[Doreen]

24. Rachel Maddow is actually my favorite.

I like how she pokes fun at Trump in the same way Elizabeth Warren does.

[Zen Democrat]

25. I am consistently annoyed with Rachel talking down to her audience, like we don't know anything.

She explains things slowly, deliberately, with an unnecessary repetition that puts me off. I got it the first time, Rachel. Seriously, I've been into Rachel since Air America and her early days at MSNBC with the wretched Tucker Carlson, and on to her current triumphant career. She should know she's not talking to an ignorant audience. Yet she continues to draw pictures in big primary colors and repeat, repeat, repeat.

[Dream Girl]

27. Yeah I used to listen to her show on Air America. She was really good. But she does talk down to her

audience. Yes Rachel, you're really, really smart..... smarter than me. But still, I'm not a total dunce...

[napi21]

29. Put me in the Rachel admirers. To me, she's one of the smartest talking heads on TV.

I've learned a lot from her. Some things are quite incidental and don't mean much, but some things make me go "AHHAA! I'm old now, and I like hearing about things that happened that I remember, but never knew the real story behind them.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

33. What you said,

agree a hundred proof.

[aidbo]

54. I'm not doubting your agreement, but I am compelled to point out..

..that 100 proof is only 50%.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

35. I don't like that show's style either.

For example, if she ever covered the story about the Trump Foundation using funds to buy an expensive painting of Donald and then displaying it at one of his properties, I don't need to know:

1. A brief history of charities in the USA.
2. A run-down of bogus complaints against the Clinton Foundation.
3. Charity regulations in New York and the USA.
4. Past examples of charities punished for not following the rules.
And so on...

To be clear, I'm not giving a real example since I don't even know if she covered it. That's just what I'd expect coverage of that story to be like on her show.

I prefer the fast-talking and fast-hitting of someone like Samantha Bee.

[tallahasseedem]

38. I definitely agree...

that tonight's opening took an awful long time to get to the point. By the time she got to it I was a little irritated that she spent that much time on it. Interesting information though...

[Monk06]

40. I agree too much getting around to, rather than getting to the point I also find her higher pitched

louder delivery, compared to when she started out, hard on the ear and distracting

She's best when she lowers the register and slows down

[stopbush]

39. Yep. That's a common and correct complaint about Rachel's opening here at DU.

I find her first 17-minute segment to be unwatchable and condescending.

[Raine]

41. Rachel is smart but she irritates the hell out of me because she takes too long to get to the

point. I've taken to doing other things during her first 15-20 minutes till she gets to the point.

[OnDoutside]

43. I really enjoyed that Crazy Eddie/Trump piece, highly informative. The coincidence was amazing.

[ecstatic]

49. It once again makes me wonder what Trump is up to. Is it

possible that he is unaware of the consent decree that was ordered as a result of the case his own brother-in-law lost? ! He would have been around 35 years old at the time. Old enough to remember! Or is he purposely trying to destroy the republican party?

[OnDoutside]

64. Based on what we know of him, he wouldn't have remembered.

[Inkfreak]

45. She's incredibly smart but terrible at hosting a show.

Interestingly, I find her being interviewed fascinating. I think she comes off better on the other side of the table. When questions are being asked if her and she gives thoughtful opinions.

[Javaman]

46. I stopped watching her years ago. I listen to Amy Goodman now.

that's real reporting.

[Gothmog]

47. I strongly disagree

I like last nights opening. I am also working on voter protection efforts and have been following this issue on Trump's poll watchers

[ecstatic]

48. I like it. Helps me remember what is said

for future reference. Without her elaborate intro, there's no way I'd remember any of the names or info presented last night. It's perfect for people with ADD.

[BklynBgoddess]

50. Not rambling..

Her style is what keeps me interested in the story. I enjoy her show.

[niyad]

61. welcome to du

[Paladin]

51. So skip the first ten minutes of her show every night.

Problem solved.

[msanthrope]

52. You seem concerned. nt

[Renew Deal]

53. She needs more car chases

[MFM008]

59. Drives my mom nuts

I have to talk her into not changing the channel.....

[mulsh]

63. Rachel needs to take a basic journalism class at someplace like Harvard Extention, MSNBC needs

to assign a competent editor for her copy. she's got good ideas and her heart is in the right place but she's proof that merely earning a Ph.D does not a journalist make. She should also talk to Chris Hayes and Joy Reid about journalistic writing, they can tell her a thing or two. When she congratulates Chris on a "good piece" I've begun to wonder how she can tell.

I enjoy her show and when she's on a good story or it's a busy news night she's succinct and to the point.

Slow nights she rambles all over the place on her way to the story. It makes me turn my TV off and pick up a book.

[tblue37]

65. That is exactly why I cannot bear to watch her show. nt

[PDittie]

66. I stopped long ago.

The teevee political news generally -- both MSNBC and CNN -- has been a large contributor to this horrible election cycle. Too much Trump for ratings early in the year, and now it's too much Trump for everybody (especially most Republican officeholders on the ballot).

[ProudProgressiveNow]

72. She follows the old "Connections" tv show premise....

Connections is a 10-episode documentary television series and 1978 book (Connections, based on the series) created, written, and presented by science historian James Burke. The series was produced and directed by Mick Jackson of the BBC Science and Features Department and first aired in 1978 (UK) and 1979 (USA).

It took an interdisciplinary approach to the history of science and invention, and demonstrated how various discoveries, scientific achievements, and historical world events were built from one another successively in an interconnected way to bring about particular aspects of modern technology. The series was noted for Burke's crisp and enthusiastic presentation (and dry humour), historical re-enactments, and intricate working models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)

?list=PL-teo99ENSypJDyeXmEpLOxWMB9UVPbOS

Great show.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

74. I remember this program.

He explained why we all have lawns in one episode.............

[LisaM]

76. Yes, she does - and I like her.

I like the way she strings together a bunch of things into one point. The problem I have is that it's like a big radio tease - "coming up next!" and then it's at minute 59 of the next hour - and sometimes, she seems rather coy doing it. And it gets repetitive.

[lanlady]

79. I agree, when Rachel gets her goof on, she's annoying as hell

She makes interesting historical connections and parallels but she overdoes it, time and again, and wastes so much airtime - it's a shame! I wonder if it's her choice or her producers. I listen to the podcast version (don't get cable) and find myself shouting at her through my Bluetooth player to get to the point already. Especially when she plays endless tape from news or speeches from 25 years ago. Maybe the suits at MSNBC have decided it's cheaper to air news from old archives than to pay writers to write, you know, present-day news.

And does Rachel ever know how to beat a dead horse. Even more airtime is wasted as she repeats her main points of interest at least six times just in case we didn't get it the first or second or third time.

Still, I listen to her because she is so damn smart and often funny and shares my contempt for the Republican Party. I've learned to take the bad with the good.

[alarimer]

80. I like that she doesn't dumb it down for the masses.

Intellectuals really piss people off, it seems.