In Praise Of Rachel Maddow

[Prophet 451]

Being British, watching Rachel's new show as it went out wasn't an option so I'm just catching up on it now via MSNBC's website.

She's fantastic.

Rachel has managed to avoid Keith's occasional pompousness (and I like Keith). She's fairly young, phonomenally bright, cute (it never hurts) and engaged in current events. She's also managed to avoid the trap that openly gay public figures often fall into of becoming purely a mouthpiece for gay issues. That's a good thing because a commentator who happens to be gay is different from being a gay commentator (same difference as between Senator Obama, who happens to be black and, say, Larry Wilmore's Daily Show character which is all about being black).

Obviously, the kinks are still being worked out of the new show, it's still finding it's feet (to my mind, the pop culture segment can be safely dropped). That's to be expected. What was striking through was the segment involving Pat Buchannon. The right has had the right (forgive the pun) to mouth off on TV without rebuttal for so long that it was shocking, in a good way, to see Rachel actually calling him on his obsfucations and reversals. Hopefully, it's the start of a trend.

Hopefully also, The Rachel Maddow Show is part of a trend as well. For years now, political commentry on TV has been almost exclusively the preserve of conservatives but, if Rachel's show gets good numbers (and it should) then we may start to see MSNBC repositioning itself to be the Liberal Network. That doesn't mean playing as fast and loose with the facts as Faux but it does mean, like The Independent newspaper here, talking about the things liberals care about. Currently, a big portion of the electorate is not being catered to. Conservatives have Faux; moderates have, what, CNN presumably (yeah, I know, works in theory); liberals have... what? If MSNBC is smart, they could position themselves to capitalise on that market segment. Still, it wouldn't be fair to place all that on the shoulders of Rachel Maddow.

So, ladies and gentlemen, please charge your glasses and join me in a toast: To Rachel Maddow, long may she talk!

[Auggie]

1. I would love to see any liberal network on the airwaves

But MSNBC is owned by General Electric and Microsoft. Collectively they've donated 3.5 million dollars to George Bush over the years. Forget it.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

[Prophet 451]

6. True, but things can change

With corporations, it's all about money. If they think they can make more cash backing Obama (and I have no idea how they've donated this cycle), they'll do so.

Also, how much control do MSNBC's corporate parents exert over it's content and how much are they allowed to get away with it? Faux is obviously directly controlled by Rupert Murdoch's views via Ailes and his memos. The London Times is also owned by Murdoch but the editors are fighting him on the attempt to give it's coverage a right-wing slant (with mixed success, it must be said). The Beeb is owned by the British government but fanatically independent and frequently criticises the government of the day. So it depends how much GE and MS interfere. Technically, the website I work for is owned by Murdoch but we've never had any interference (I presume that as long as our entry on the ledger shows a positive dollar amount, he doesn't care what we do).

[Auggie]

12. It's also to their benefit to control news content and its distribution --

they may make less profit through their media channels but it's cheaper than, say, paying their fair share of taxes or greening their companies. Many could view it as a necessary expense.

But I totally agree -- things can and do change. And one can only hope Americans will get off their collective asses and demand it.

[Duncan]

15. I would love to see any truthfull network on the airwaves

It could only help liberals if the truth were openly reported and discussed, instead of cherry picked and glossed over to distract from substantive issues, glossed over to avoid drawing lines of causality to any policies or people with corporate cash behind them.

[tilsammans]

2. A toast to Rachel!

I love Keith too, but he can come across as being full of himself.

Ditto to everything you said!

:toast:

[chelsea0011]

3. Maybe not. I saw the same old same old when Pat Buchanan came on.

[safeinOhio]

4. I love

when Pat goes off on something really stupid. She'll call him on it with a smile and then he'll crack a smile, letting us all know he knows it's all BS.

[Betsy Ross]

5. Do read about Rachel on Wikipedia.

She is one bright woman. And beautiful too. (MSNBC, the fake eyelashes are over the top. Rachel is an awfully good sport to put up with your make-over.)

[Prophet 451]

8. The eyeshadow was a bit OTT too

Rachel must have the patience of a saint.

Something I've noticed is that the MSNBC make-up department tends to make her (picking my words carefully here) more stereotypically feminine than she chooses to be when I've seen shots of her outside a studio.

[Betsy Ross]

10. I agree.

But it more important for her to be on-air than any make-up/no make-up issue. She is a good sport. I do wish she would wear slightly more colorful clothes though. I couldn't be happier or more proud of her for her work.

[Betsy Ross]

11. I agree.

But it more important for her to be on-air than any make-up/no make-up issue. She is a good sport. I do wish she would wear slightly more colorful clothes though. I couldn't be happier or more proud of her for her work.

[Graybeard]

7. To Rachel! Long may she broadcast.

She was very classy in thanking both Keith and Buchanan. They both had a big part in boosting her career, but I hope she has more RW spokespersons on other than "Uncle Pat". There is enough of him already on all of the other shows.

[Prophet 451]

9. True but it was the first show

Obviously, she's still finding her feet and anchoring a show is very different to doing a few minutes on Keith's show or even covering for him so I figure the intention was to start with guests that she already knew, was comfortable and could work with.

[Dudley_DUright]

14. I could do with less "It's Pat" myself

Surely he is on TV enough as it is and does not need to invade Rachel's show just for balance (ultraconservative whackjob vs. reasonably liberal host).

[Lugnut]

13. K&R for Rachel. n/t

[FatDave]

16. "we may start to see MSNBC repositioning itself to be the Liberal Network"

I've been hoping for that since Countdown started to get popular. I've emailed [e-mail] voicing that opinion. I even suggested they replace Morning Joe with Dan Abrams (who suddenly has a lot of free time). I suggest everyone who feels similar do the same.

[Prophet 451]

21. Already done so

Keith's ratings are slaying. I fully expect Rachel's to do the same once she finds her feet. I actually went further and proposed they put Dan Abrams on the morning show (we think alike there) and for Meet The Press, supposedly MSNBC's newscast of record, switch Brokaw for Bill Moyers.

[riverdeep]

17. In my area

with a fairly good cable package, I now get a total of:

Keith Olbermann x 5=5
Rachel Maddow x 5 =5
John Stewart x 4 =4
Stephen Colbert x 4=4
---------------------
18 hours per week

if you want to include Jack Cafferty's occasional segments, he's more centrist, but what the hell- he gets like 5 minutes a day- so let's be generous and give him half an hour.

18.5 hours per week of genuinely liberal programming. Counting just Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, not even the networks which would make the ratio even worse:

Fox 24 hours x 7 days=168
CNN 24 hours x 7 days=168
MSNBC 24 hours x 7 days=168
---------------------------
504 hours of possible programming

18.5/504= 3.7 percent of my programming is liberal. Not exactly overwhelming.

edit: comedy network sort of throws it for a loop since they are not a potential for news, but you get the idea.

[hfojvt]

20. it may be just me, but Stewart and Colbert are half an hour here

so that cuts it down to 14.

And aren't you forgetting the CBS Evening News? :o

[riverdeep]

23. Knew I forgot something. That just makes it worse (14.5). Thanks.

[Prophet 451]

22. You forgot to knock Keith and Rachel's ten hours off

So it's more like 494 but I take your point. I'm not saying they're anything like there right now but with Keith doing gangbuster numbers and Rachel doing likewise in the near future, the suits in charge of MSNBC might ( that's "might") get the idea that they can turn a profit by catering to a liberal demographic.

[democracy1st]

18. K & R

[Overseas]

19. Yes !! K&R for Rachel !!

Sorry to hear Kent Jones wasn't at his best. He did excellent comedy segments in her morning radio shows on Air America.

[riverdeep]

24. Loved Kent Jones on her show on Air America, before he was fired.

It gave a totally different character to it. I think last night's segment was so short, no one knew just what to do.