I don't think I can watch Rachel Maddow anymore.

[Unsane]

It's simply TOO goofy.

I'll stay with Keith and NewsHour (PBS). The weird voices, graphics, comic props and daily jokes started to grind on me. If she conducts a hard-hitting interview I might watch that, but the rest is unbearable. Sorry.

[amitten]

1. Yeah--the goof wears thin.

I like the idea of a liberal news show, but if the anchor skeeves me out, I can't watch.

[Stevepol]

21. One problem could be that a lot of people won't come on her show

BECAUSE she's so hard-hitting in an interview.

In other wds, it could be she's being forced to resort to some of these other devices since the guys who would make the best interviewees are scared to let her interview them.

[Mojorabbit]

79. I like the goof

It makes me able to listen to the worst news and still keep my blood pressure down. It is a perfect mix.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. That's what she did in her radio show

I liked it then, I like it now

And her interviews are quite hard hitting

I guess... to each its own

[Unsane]

4. Some of her interviews are very good, and I like her as a guest analyst.

[The Brethren]

10. Same here.

I like Rachel's show a lot and it never wears on me. I just wish I had even more time to watch it on busy days.



Know what you're paying for. The Stimulus Plan ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"): Orig. House version -- http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf , House spreadsheet -- http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw ; Senate version -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_02_The_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009.pdf ; and Senate compromise -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1 , Text and $$$ details of Senate compromise -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_08_UPDATED_Appropriations_Provisions_of_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act.pdf?CFID=4043629&CFTOKEN=40573040 . In addition to -- http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf , along with -- http://www.readthestimulus.org/ . Final version, Feb. 13th, 1500 pgs. worth -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ , more details on the final version -- http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1913&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS , including spending -- http://cbs4denver.com/national/Web.government.accountability.2.937188.html

[MADem]

3. Uh oh...

There are some who swear by her. They'll be out to yell at you soon enough, maybe...

i just don't have patience for talking heads. I find their opinions...tiresome. Besides, MSNBC has gone up into the higher tiers on my cable, so I can only see it on the "box" tv. I often use a smaller tv that uses less energy, rather than the grand behemoth in the living room with "the box."

Eh. I don't need people to tell me what to think.

[Cleita]

56. That's because the media that is 90% owned by RW corporations who take

their orders and talking points from the RNC. They are trying to drown out liberal voices any way they can by making it harder to access them like putting them in a higher tier or making them broadcast on the weakest signal radio stations. They own the propagandizing of the American people, which is the reason this country is in a downward trend toward becoming a third world nation. They want it that way and have found complete control of the media with their message has been very effective in getting the gullible to vote for Republican obstructionist, just say no party.

[MADem]

62. Well, that didn't work out for them too well this last time, thank goodness!

Actually, what they'll do is drive me to the competition, eventually. I did point out to the company that the station was too high on their tier and that was one of my reasons for my being dissatisfied. I called up to tell them I was leaving the "cable family" (our family manse has been on "the cable company" since 1980--it's changed company names but it's always been the same old cable bringing the signal in...!) for greener pastures like satellite or FIOS and they offered me an obscene discount and a load of preferred channels through July, so I took it. However, I'm going to be one of those obnoxious people who pinches pennies and goes to the trouble to get the best deal. Times are tough. I've got family members who could use the help, so I'm going to be cheaper than usual.

[Cleita]

64. I have satellite and it's far superior to cable.

You can also get LinkTV as part of the package (no extra) which airs Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" and Mosaic, which is news from the Middle East from stations throughout there like Al Jazeera as well as Israeli news. Actually, the higher tiers on satellite are for movie channels like HBO, sports channels and foreign language channels. It also has about 20 XM radio stations if you just want to listen to music.

[Raine]

5. I like her

she's on our side. I admit I'm not too fond of the silliness but I just filter that out, she has plenty of hard hitting stuff.

[swag]

6. She's v. smirky. Whatevs. Some people like that.

I don't like Keith sputtering from his high horse either, but I think I just hate TV.

[glowing]

7. I love her.. I like the jokes and the quirks.. I guess it takes a dork with

humor to like the show. If you prefer boring, droned on news, then, no, you won't like Rachel... but I like the fun she has with some of the strangeness that is politics.. same type of jokes and things I think when I hear these things... I think that she reserves those for that commentary type style.. but the interviews are fabulous.. I've seen many clips repeated during the news cycle the next day. You won't get that kind of news out of people because many newsies don't know how to do journalism.

[Cleita]

58. Actually, what they like is everyone shouting at each other and no one

being able to make their point except the RW talk show host who gets the last word, carefully crafted by the RNC. Remember Crossfire? That's what they like.

[renate]

90. I adore her... it's not good for the soul to only watch angry people

During the Bush years, when there was so damn much to be angry about, her show was like a palate cleanser--real, but lighter. And now, when the economic news is nuthin' but bad, it's good to end the news night with a dose of humor.

(What I really don't like is Keith's last story of the show when he interviews comedians {with the exceptions of people like Harry Shearer who have been well informed about politics for years}. Keith asks these people questions about politics or the news as if they had any special insight. They don't. It's overrehearsed and a waste of our time. Rachel, on the other hand, does know about the news, obviously, so her use of humor in that context is refreshing.)

Not only do I love seeing someone genuinely nice on a show about contentious issues, I love her enthusiasm about dorky stuff like infrastructure. And her interviews, once the quirky or silly introductions are over, are serious and draw serious information out of her guests.

I think she's perfect. :loveya:

[Thrill]

8. She just needs to tone it down a little. The sarcasm gets old.

[progressiveforever]

9. It's Rachel--it's what she does--I'm cool with it

But I can see where some would not like it---hey it beats the shit out of anything the others have to offer.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. It's not just that; she and Keith are just one long sneery snide snit

They're constantly rolling their eyes at the RIDICULOUS idiocy of the conservatives. It's all just sooo pathetic what obvious inferior dolts they are. Over-inflected slowing down of the dismissive adjectives and pointed superior eye contact is only amplified by the fact that they actually ARE pretty sharp. The only relief from this is Keith's occasional frank snorting dismissal, sans twinkle. It simply comes off as mean after awhile.

One of the constant screeds that reactionaries have against leftists is our superiority and intellectual snottiness; this plays into their hands to such a degree that no sensible person watching these two shows back to back more than a couple of times could possibly think of MSNBC as anything other than the left's answer to Fox. That's no help.

They're smart, they're fun, but the schtick wears thin. It's like watching Henny Youngman or Rip Taylor for more than a few minutes at a time; in limited doses, they were some of the funniest people who've ever done comedy, but for any length of time, one wants to just run.

[Doctor_Horrible]

12. that's a list of all the reasons I love them... gah! what does that say about my personality? :)

[Jane Austin]

19. It says you're just like me!

I love Rachel's take on the news, and especially the light-heartedness.

Her timing is perfect!

[ClayZ]

43. Me too!

[Unsane]

13. agreed

Keith can get pretty grating too. I actually prefer Hardball out of the three to be honest.

[Doctor_Horrible]

14. i still love his show - but the fact that he didn't/doesn't vote annoys the HELL out of me

[mwb970]

45. Now that the election is over, I no longer need a 3-hour daily news fix.

I usually catch at least part of Hardball, but by the time the other two shows come on I have usually switched to DVDs of Monk or Mission: Impossible.

[NoPasaran]

47. When Hardball is good it's very good

When it's bad it's just two or three people competing to see who can talk the loudest and the fastest.

[Cleita]

60. You like people shouting at each other and Tweety cutting them off?

To each his own. Harball is as honest as fake boobs.

[ginnyinWI]

23. I hear ya, purity.

I've watched Keith since the 2004 election, and listened to Rachael on the radio since then too, and then watched her tv show. And I'm tired of it all, really tired. I'm especially tired of the cartoonish parts of their programs.

Now that they don't have Bush to kick around any more, (and that was fun, of course) their complaining about the rest of the bunch gets a little strained. They have to amplify every little thing, unlike when the last occupant was here and topics for outrage were low hanging fruit.

The snottiness does show through--and I just can't listen to Rachael anymore because of her sarcastic, superior tone. I don't want to be that way myself so why would I enjoy listening to it? Keith's main tone is anger and frustration, but he has less to be mad about so it gets kind of silly, superfluous. Smart people can still be compassionate, although it probably doesn't make as many fireworks on TV. People in my family were sick of them a long time ago, and it had gotten to the point where I could only watch when they weren't around!

I've also been a consumer of PBS Newshour, but have often been bored or impatient with it, because it is really slow paced and goes really into depth compared with Keith or Rachael. Funny thing though: since I've stopped watching Keith and Rachael this week, I have gained more patience with PBS and am learning stuff every night. I'm also watching "Worldfocus" which comes on before Newshour and is even more slow-paced, if that's possible. It's got world news, and tonight Dan Rather weighed in with some commentary.

Someone in this thread mentioned Tweety--and yes, I'm actually going back to his show for a small dose of politcal commentary now and then. Less schtick. I hope he doesn't camp it up with stuff--he's beginning to.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Everything's in flux these days

Thanks for the post.

Matthews is actually a bit toned-down and trying to chart a sensible course these days; yes, he's still full of himself, but one can actually hear him listening more and eliciting opinions in a less leading way these days.

Sensible people are a bit out of sorts right now; fools are certain.

At heady times like these, people are cocksure and full of piss and vinegar, so it's really no time to go talking sense to people. How can such a historic triumph end badly?

Sadly, in the same breath, it's time for drastic action, while the administration is charting a cautious middle-of-the-road course, wandering into a war that's becoming entanglement in a religious civil war in Pakistan, too timid to dispense with the genius of private enterprise to employ people directly with maximum employment projects, and sucking up to the fraudulent and tottering financial giants.

My vengeance has been slaked, and I really don't want to revel in the disarray of the reactionaries right now. I'm more in the mood for constructive and bold moves. The only thing of the retaliation variety I'd like to hear right now is a resounding chorusing of how this is a repudiation of the greedy stupidity of Reaganomics and to firmly define this as the undeniable fruit of deregulation that caused greedheads to run willy-nilly. The administration won't do that, though, because too many of its economic team had a hand in the looting, and they're still sucking up to the right. Our President also won't say a word against Saint Ronny or firmly affix the blame where it deserves to be out of some oblivious Clintonian belief that if he's nice to the trogs they'll come around and be his friends.

I hope we have the oomph left in our economy to power out of this given the justifiably lack of confidence in everything, but I'm a bit grim at the moment.

[Cleita]

61. Oh yes, I forgot how elitist progressives are. Is that what you are saying?

The snottiness? The superiority? I frankly don't see it, but I was once called an elitist by a freeper for telling the truth. Are you sure that's how you want to characterize them like that when they tell the truth?

[ginnyinWI]

76. no, not elitist.

It's just that old divisiveness coming into play that I've seen for years and am tired of. The cable nets seem to want us to remain divided into "us" v.s. "them". We have a list of pundits who are on "our side" and then the righties have theirs, and they spar with each other on TV for our amusement. We have Keith, they have Billo--and on and on it goes.

In these terrible times, I find unhelpful, to say the least. I've absorbed Obama's message of unity, I guess.

[Cleita]

80. Unity is fine as long as it is accompanied by truth and compassion, two

qualities you won't find on the right and becoming rarer on the left. As far as I can see, unity to Republicans is following their leader, not ours, in lock step even if it's over a cliff.

[PurityOfEssence]

92. Ya know what? Sometimes it helps to listen to what your detractors say.

The term "limousine liberal" comes from somewhere. It's not a particularly nice place, but it doesn't spring falsely from a skewed fantasy universe.

It's like the arrogance of hothead militant atheists: believers often feel that they're being insulted as stupid. Why? Because that's often what's being done. As a fervid non-religious type with a dislike of religious encroachment, I can't stand the nasty anti-believer sneering, and I speak out against it. It simply doesn't help the cause.

The above-it-all extreme arrogance of constantly smirking and sneering at the pathetic idiocy of conservatives simply wears thin after awhile. From a basic showbiz evaluation, it's just not a long-running bit of schtick. It's counterpoint. It's a spice, not a main dish. It's a flourish, not a melody. Do I have to go on? Overuse of it shows a meanness or the nasty specter of the vengeance of the dispossessed, which is one of the more off-putting aspects of leftist rhetoric. The occasional cupcake is a wonderful thing, but NOTHING but cupcakes every day, every meal all day long is not only bad for you, it's a real drag.

We owe it to ourselves and our beliefs to be decent ambassadors for a way of life. Saying that the other side does the same thing or worse or that the sneering is justified will simply alienate people. We're supposed to be morally good, so setting the bar at the Hannity level is a betrayal of ethics. Hell, listening to Maddow and Olbermann irritates the snot out of me and I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THEM. It's so bad that even when a really good zinger gets tossed out I can't really even muster the chuckle that it deserves because it's become an irritating white noise of self-congratulatory superiority.

Listen to what the enemy says; weird or bad though they may be, they're human beings with remarkably similar circuitry and sensory apparatus, so they often have some very important insights to the pitfalls of one's tribe that one doesn't hear if one only listens to those who agree.

[quiller4]

38. I enjoy her so that I sometimes watch her show twice in 1 night. n/t

[Cleita]

59. Conservatives are idiots and it's time someone pointed it out publicly and

coast to coast.

[MADem]

66. Precisely--It's simply the polar opposite of Hannity and DildOReally!

They do the same stupid shit for the other team.

I don't need a cheerleader to tell me how 'bad' the GOP are, but that's just me. It's Bread and Circuses. Some people need "affirmations" I guess...!

Henny Youngman....take my wife, PLEASE!!! :nopity:

Rip Taylor!!! He has a website now!!! http://www.riptaylor.com/main.html He posts updates and video blogs!

You do know most of these infants will have no idea to whom you are referring!!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

95. When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor slapped my mother.

(That's my favorite Henny Youngman bit...)

Nobody ever used Rip Taylor better than Cheech and Chong: they're lost in the desert and he picks them up while driving a big white land-yacht of a convertible, completely dominating the patter with sight gags using props, spazzing on hysterically and pulling into a casino where he's the headliner on the marquee. He takes them into the restaurant and tells the maitre d' to sit them, pulling rank by saying "I'm Rip". The maitre d' says "Yes, Mr. Torn" (paraphrasing here), whereupon Taylor mugs shocked outrage, gags, grabs for his heart and staggers off frame, never to be seen again.

A similar good usage of extreme acts is the way Jon Stewart uses Lewis Black: "Back in Black" is a short, occasional EXTREME rant that's a shriek. It's SHORT and it's RARE, and that's how it works: it's effectively punctuation. Watching Keith or Rachel is much like watching him for an hour, except without the real joy of his anger.

Thanks for the tip; I thought Taylor was dead. He's a scream.

[pettypace]

103. What an excellent well written post

My IQ went up 5 points reading it.

You must be an English major, no?

[inna]

110. you make some very valid points. . .

interesting insights, too!


what i'm curious about and what i don't understand is.... why many - if not most - people (at least, Democrats) seem to have much lower tolerance for Rachel than Keith... even though, as you pointed out, they got (almost) the same "schtick"...

[CAcyclist]

128. But, the conservatives *are* ridiculously idiotic

and I love to hear someone finally saying it

[annabanana]

15. Yeah.. I mean there's SO-O-O-O many other progressive,

intelligent television programs out there for us...

My (not very politically interested) Mother finds the show "very much to her liking" because she's always pleasant and amusing and nice to people. "It's fun to watch".

[jesus_of_suburbia]

16. I love Rachel, but I totally understand...... I can't watch Keith.

They both have mostly really good ideas, but they have different styles.

To each their own. Some might like both, some might like one, and some might like neither. It's not wrong or right so long as we work towards the same goal.

I'm a Rachel person, but I agree with Keith on most issues (I just don't like watching him.)

[Medusa]

130. Ditto. He's way too wrapped up in himself

It wears very thin, very fast.

I like Rachel and find her show more intelligent but to each their own I guess. :shrug:

[madamesilverspurs]

17. I prefer Maddow

to all the other talking heads combined. She's smarter than they are, and she totally lacks the vanity that oozes from the others. The moments of goofiness are as welcome as the genuine humility. Keith comes in second, mostly because he tends to take himself way too seriously at times. I look to both of them for commentary, not news. Not that my preferences have anything to do with where I live, mind you; two blocks from my home is a large billboard advertising the local radio station, which is fawning all over itself because it has added Fred Thompson to follow Limbaugh.

[scubadude]

18. I love Rachel, but also wish she would tone down the cutsie a bit.

I think it impacts at least to some degree on her credibility.

That being said there are many who will watch her "because" of her cutsie.

In the end ratings will win out. As in all news these days her show is a product. If she sells, we'll be seeing her for a long time. I sure hope she does.

Scuba

[Unsane]

20. The credibility thing is an issue.

Pawlenty apparently went on Rachel's show yesterday b/c he finds her "funny."

Does that mean she isn't being taken seriously? I don't know.

[ginnyinWI]

26. and on the other extreme is Amy Goodman

I can't watch her because she is SO serious, SO deadpan that she's like a tragic robot.

So between Rachael and Amy, Goofy-silly and Zombie--you know who I like? I like Gwen Ifil and Judy Woodruff over at PBS. They are smart and warm and and friendly and don't condescend to their guests but still ask the hard questions. They get information like journalists should, and let the viewer decide what to think about it.

[Unsane]

28. good call

[scubadude]

32. Yes, there must be balance.

If we were in an ideal world we would have room for many types of journalism. We would have the "old" PBS, before the era of corporate sponsorship and right wing control. We would have the hard core journalism where the focus was on catching reality on the ground. Finally we would have the "cult of personality" based news, where we could go to enjoy our news as entertainment. Of course there would be many crossovers.

Unfortunately, we live in the "Profit Oriented" world. A world which is driven by the baser reality of our existence. It is as if we live in a huge infomercial written by a very small set of folks. People's existence literally incorporates entertainment as reality. War as entertainment. Gee, turn on the War Channel Daddy....

Ultimately what I hope we are able to maintain is the ability to find what is important.

Of course we have all of the above types of information available. What I wonder is if most folks can tell where the infomercial breaks off and the reality begins. That is where I feel our media fails.

Scuba

[Neecy]

33. lol

"...a tragic robot"

I love Amy but that description was perfect.

[Cleita]

63. I like Amy Goodman and watch her everyday, but I also appreciate KO and

Rachel attempting to make serious news at least a little entertaining. They are doing no different than Rush/Sean/Billo to keep people tuning in. For every snark against Rachel, there are ten people who probably like to watch her. I would like to see a poll done on it some time.

[MADem]

67. I am a fan of those two as well! nt

[Justitia]

96. nailed it! Amy is really good on substance, but man, her style just kills me. -eom

[JNelson6563]

89. To me the cutsie seems to be an effort

to not offend anyone, especially those most deserving of offense.

Quit trying to be nice Rachel! If you aren't one of 'em (Rethugs) they hate you anyway. Making nice, couching criticisms in cutsie subtle ways won't help. Shit passing winger type legislation doesn't even help, ask Bill Clinton.

Julie

[jillan]

22. It's funny - I feel that way about Keith, not about Rachel.

Keith gets on my nerves with his dumb jokes and always talking about himself.

I still watch him everyday.

I love Rachel's in-depth interviews. I've been a fan of Rachel's since 2004 when she had the Morning Sedition show.

[Unsane]

107. Keith's shtick works.

He was similar on ESPN as well. It's just who he is.

[AlinPA]

24. I quit watching when she got her own show. The acting coaches got her and

had her get too animated and goofy with an excess of facial expressions. She even acted animated and goofy on the Daily Show the last time she was on there. Too many facial expressions, it's uncool.

[elocs]

25. Nobody is required to all like the same thing.

Most of these ones like KO or Maddow are simply preaching to the Liberal choir in the same way that Limbaugh preaches to his choir and both sides exalt their wisdom in slamming the other side. Both sides are absolutely convinced that they are right and the other wrong.

[zulchzulu]

27. Rachel is busy chiseling away at what she will utimately become

She's not meant to be "serious", as in Edward R. Murrow "serious". She follows Keith and most viewers who are watching him probably watch her, so she can't be a "buzz kill" to Keith's generally funny take on the news.

She vastly improved from her initial days in AAR to be someone who got a good command at that media. TV is radio on steroids. She needs to bring her own "brand", which is even more difficult that just having endless comic gold material from the Bush years.

I rarely watch her whole show, but she can be infotaining generally...

[babylonsister]

29. Usually my two hours nightly, KO and Rachel. When I watch,

which is often, at least KO because he's on earlier here.

I'm so grateful to them both!

And Rachel is really growing on me. She talks about topics in depth more than KO, and has great guests.

[Enthusiast]

44. Agree, Sister. Grateful, I am. nt

[Cleita]

65. Yes, she does and I think once we break the RNC corporate stranglehold on

the media she will go on to greater things.

[DangerousRhythm]

121. Agreed...

I need to have my Keith & Rachel fixes. I've enjoyed her show since the beginning but I, too, notice that her show is growing on me more lately. I get a kick out of her geeking on various topics and the obvious joy she takes in the geekery. :)

[WillyT]

30. I don't think I can watch Amy Goodman anymore.

It's simply TOO serious.

:wtf:

:banghead:

:crazy:

:argh:

[Unsane]

31. i am for a middle ground

[TankLV]

34. I love Rachel and Keith - the only NEWS shows I can stand to watch anymore...

and get the TRUTH and REAL NEWS...

They're the best things going...

[ccharles000]

35. She is great

[RepublicanElephant]

36. i prefer substance over style.

if ronald mcdonald had an unbiased, fact-based news show, i'd watch him,
with or without a happy meal.

[snowbear]

37. Kinda doesn't surprise me you can't watch it...

.
.

Just sayin'...



.

[sandnsea]

39. rotflmao

I need to learn to wait until a thread fills up and them just say, yeah, what she said. lol.

[Unsane]

42. huh?

[inna]

73. what am i missing?? i just don't get the joke!!

and i tried and tried.... spurs... dude peeing... is this a private joke of some kind??

:::curious, very curious::: ... cute gif though ... ~

[LittleBlue]

41. I agree. She grates on my nerves with the irrelevant rubbish

I stopped watching her after the campaign ended.

I'm frankly shocked she was a Rhodes Scholar, considering the shallow way she goes about her show.

[jeanpalmer]

46. I like them both

I like the fact they don't try to play the middle. They have principled positions and have no problem calling it like they see it. It's nice to see someone in the MSM take a stand against torture and war crimes. If everyone had been like Keith and Rachel, we might not have had the Iraq War. In the leadup to the war, I remember all the mealy-mouthed news anchors who were nothing more than megaphones for Bush's propaganda. That included Tweety who night after night hosted one panel of war-mongering generals after another, but not a single peace advocate. He has switched sides now that the political winds have changed, but I don't view him as a person of priniple.

The problem is that if the government is lying and corrupt, then the news anchor playing the middle trying to be "impartial" becomes a co-conspirator pushing a corrupt immoral viewpoint. And that's what they all did during much of Bush's term, especially on the war. That's how the people became brainwashed and it was sickening to watch. That's why Keith and Rachel are so refreshing. Too bad they weren't around in 2002. They would have been voices of opposition.

[DailyGrind51]

48. What works on radio doesn't always work on television, ask Rush!

[old mark]

49. Usually a good program, but she does get a little too cute at times...

When she is seriously worried about an issue, she is great.

mark

[farmbo]

50. Finger puppet theatre isn't goofy, but Rachel's tele-strator is?

Rachel's monologues are sometimes eccentric, but always well written and insightful. And Kent Jones is a hoot on the end piece.

I think she's growing into her role rather nicely.

[samplegirl]

51. I think she tends to get a little juvenile herself at times...

unbecoming of a road scholar.

[denim_kittens]

138. In my town a road scholar is known to scrounge change and drink under a bridge.

What is the proper behavior of a, "Rhodes Scholar?" Is the alternative to being yourself projecting an affected tone and furrowing your brow in mock seriousness?

[DevonRex]

52. I think she's better when she's a hard-hitting interviewer. I also think

that since Keith does a lot of funny/sarcastic stuff, it's just too much for 2 shows to do that in a row. And I think Keith does that stuff better.

Rachel is a good enough interviewer to be able to do a News Hour or Bill Moyers type program, which is surprising since she really hasn't been on TV for very long.

I don't know if it's the producers who are calling the shots or if it's her call. Either way, the format doesn't do Rachel justice. As a serious journalist, she could be a powerhouse. Comedy-wise, she's one among many.

Edit to add the s to Moyers.

[littlebit]

53. I tried watching her for the first time last night

It was the most boring show I have ever seen. She is one of the reasons I quit listening to Air America.

[Cleita]

54. I like the goofy part between the serious segments.

There is a lot of serious in her show especially her advocacy for the rank and file military and anti-war stance. I find she gets better guests than KO and her interviews are hard hitting, but she does them respectfully so as not to embarrass her guests. Now KO does plenty of similar, humorous segments to balance out the serious, but you don't seem to object to him. Every week someone comes along on DU and says they don't like Rachel Maddow? Perhaps we should go back to the days when there were no liberal voices on TV. Would that make you happier? Thanks but no thanks. If you don't like her, you know where the remote is. There is no need to bring it here because you are on the wrong message board.

btw I don't care for NewsHour on PBS because it leans too RW for me. They deliberately seem to ignore stories that make the Republicans look like the losers that they are.

[Top Cat]

55. I agree Rachel has become a big joke.

She started out with a bang but maybe her head got to big and she has lost another viewer

[NorthCarolina]

57. Rachel's great...too bad, your loss.

She is not only hard hitting, but she's honest. There are SO FEW places in broadcast or cable news where you can get as accurate picture of what is going on as you can with her show, and intellectually she sits high above her crowd of *peers*. She is youthful, and a product of the LGBT community in the N.E. US. Her mannerisms, and and style of *goofiness* are very much characteristic of the LGBT community in that region of the US.

[ginnyinWI]

78. but if you watch no other news, you are missing a lot.

Try this: watch Rachael (or Keith for that matter) and jot down a phrase for each news topic she covers. You'll probably get about four topics. Note how many facts you actually learn about each if you want to. Note how many of the topics aren't really news but fall into the category of gossip--entertaining but irrelevant.

Then tune in another news program on the same day. Make it PBS Newshour, or BBC World News, or even a big three network broadcast--something that gives you straight news w/o commentary. You'll be surprised at what else happened that day.

I'm just saying: think of Rachael or Keith or Tweety as dessert. Get your main course somewhere else.

[saltpoint]

68. The particulars of the program notwithstanding, Rachel is the most

refreshing soul to appear on a tv screen in some time.

I have a lot of respect for her smarts and hope she continues to make an impact on public discourse.

[Barack_America]

69. You don't think that Olbermann is goofy?

Personally, I find Maddow's show to be more more informative, even if it is goofy. Her show is far more informative and thought provoking than Olbermann's, who actually thanks his guests for being "entertaining". Blech. I still watch his show, but I dislike the emphasis on entertaining, rather than informing his viewers.

[inna]

70. i still like Rachel, but.... i TOTALLY hear you

i decidedly prefer KO at this point.

moreover, just a few days ago, i was shocked by own realization that i was even starting to find Tweety (Tweety!!) more "watchable".


(and btw, i miss Dan Abrams! what the heck happened to him, i wonder? i haven't seen him in ages.)

[inna]

71. OT - but what REALLY annoys the heck out of me about MSNBC....

... is their odd and creepy preoccupation with/fixation on "prison shows" and crime documentaries.

wtf?? i used to think MSNBC was "the place for politics"!!

:shrug:

[Gregorian]

72. MSNBC's producers SUCK!

I love Maddow. And so do some of her highest profile guests. That speaks volumes.

But beeping noises, people shuffling across the studio in the background. Highly annoying.

I knew last night Rachel's antics would annoy many. I can overlook and even enjoy aspects if there is substantial substance. She has that.

[inna]

108. what did she do last night?? i'm curious now. :) nt

[Gregorian]

123. Trivial. She made some silly face, and laughed "funny".

But that's because she's human, unlike the rest. I'll admit it's not like Cronkite and his generation. But we live in a different dimension now. Actually, I like her a hell of a lot. She totally speaks for me.

[jefferson_dem]

74. A little bit of Rachel goes a long way.

I gave up on her a while back. She leans far too heavily on snarky sarcasm to make her points.

[cherish44]

75. I watch Rachel and Keith every night

They're just trying to make things a little more entertaining. Neither of them seems to have a huge ego and can laugh at themselves. A show that was just a bunch of intellectual blathering would tank. Considering how few programs are out there for liberals, I'm grateful to have Keith and Rachel.

[incapsulated]

77. Maddow over Keith any day

She may seem goofy but actually goes into more depth than Keith ever does, to me.

They could both lose the cutesy and the smirking a bit.

[ecstatic]

81. There may be a gender gap in play...

I don't watch either show much anymore (due to my TV schedule)--but when I do, the only time Rachel irritates me is when she goes on her misguided Talk Me Down rants. Also a lot of times she is very shortsighted despite her brilliance and thorough knowledge of history (i.e., if doing something backfired on a democratic president in the past, then give Obama a little wiggle room to not make the same mistake and to be more effective when he tries to get that same thing done). I like the goofy parts. Now KO gets on my nerves when he tries to live his dream of being a sports anchor. Get over it, you're not working for ESPN!

[Berry Cool]

100. KO is is "trying to live his dream of being a sports anchor"?

Isn't that kind of a silly accusation, when he actually IS a sports anchor?

And "Get over it, you're not working for ESPN"? Don't you mean "You're not working for ESPN anymore?"

[terip64]

82. I love the goofiness. I'm a big Stephanie Miller fan, too. I need to laugh! n/t

[NorthCarolina]

83. Curious about why you felt a need to even Post this?

If you don't like Rachel then fine, don't watch. Just curious why the need to post that you don't like her? Is it simply a backdoor way to slam a progressive thinker?

[ClassWarrior]

84. Good call. Just look at the graphic in the OP's sig. A photo of an assassin character?

Not exactly a Progressive role model.

NGU.

[incapsulated]

86. Jesus, the humor level on this forum makes the Freepers look friendly

wtf, it was a fictional movie character of an award winning film and it's funny, goddamn.

[LittleBlue]

87. I hope that's a joke

Otherwise, it appears DU has an Inquisition.

Let's aspire to put every critic to the question!

[Forkboy]

101. Nice post, Friendo.

[Unsane]

104. You don't enjoy Coen Bros. films based on Cormac McCarthy source material?

[AtomicKitten]

85. The Rachel Maddow show is hands-down the best progressive TV cable show. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

88. she is the best interviewer on MSNBC

But I am really tired of all the sarcasm and cutesy shit. I rarely watch her anymore.

[truebrit71]

91. I think you are all fucked in the head...

Rachel and Keith were the ONLY voices speaking truth to power in the waning days of the previous criminal administration and y'all are here bitching about their styles.....????

They are the ONLY two that voice ANYTHING other than the official MSM corporate media lies...If they both did their broadcasts standing on their heads wearing clown make-up and luminous wigs I would STILL watch them because they tell the truth...

Like I said, you're all fucked in the head.... :eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

94. have to disagree with you on that point.

I have watched Jim Lehrer ask a guest all the questions I or anyone else on the left would ever like to see asked. I was really amazed--and he will take it to the most powerful people. The interview in question was with Cheney--and he didn't hold back anything at all. He and Bill Moyers are the two best interviewers the left could ever want.

[MessiahRp]

119. That's great and all

But nobody watches Jim Lehrer. And if nobody watches you it's safe to say the general public is not going to know what you asked and the response afterward.

What KO and Rachel do is appeal to the masses and draw younger crowds who by the way happen to enjoy a bit of snarky sarcasm with their news. That demographic is critical and skeptical of what is going on in the world around them and also let's face it a negative demeanor with topics as serious as the ones that they have covered is warranted.

I think someone mentioned that they seem to be picking over smaller details now that Bush is gone since he was an easier target but that sounds like sour grapes to me that Obama, who is our guy, is also being called to task for some of his decisions as well. Considering some of the already poor decisions he's made, he deserves criticism as well. We shouldn't live in a vacuum and pretend that there's nothing there just because he's our guy.

Keith is well known for his angry rants but his entire show is not angry. He's just very serious when it comes to important topics...

Topics by the way that if they weren't shown on Keith's or Rachel's shows, wouldn't get an ounce of coverage in the mainstream media. Hell even the rest of MSNBC will ignore serious news issues that Keith and Rachel talk about and usually all of these media outlets do it out of sheer protectionism to the corporatocracy in power.

So as much as you may not like their style, they are incredibly necessary to our cause and I think have probably had a very strong hand in swinging a lot of younger voters back in our direction.

Rp

[ginnyinWI]

122. it's true that Keith and Rachael appeal to a younger audience.

My point is that it would be a bad thing if it were the only thing people watch at night, because it is more entertaining commentary on the news than an actual complete newscast. And it is biased toward the left. As long as people realize that, it's fine. But there is a bias. If nobody watches any other source of news, they will not be getting the whole story and won't even know it. And that's as dangerous as somebody only watching FOX, or only listening to Limbaugh.

But back to your first point, that "nobody watches" Jim Lehrer: according to Wikipedia, Newshour gets 2.7 million viewers a night (2004 stat), while Countdown gets 907,000(2008 stat). MSNBC's market share isn't really all that large; it is in the upper tier on many cable or satellite systems, and a lot of people still don't subscribe to anything and get their TV off the air for free.

I see nothing wrong with watching Keith or Rachael. Just be aware of their limitations and how they are targeting a particular audience and maybe that is why they will talk about particular issues like, say, whether Rove will be indicted. Other news programs might not think it newsworthy unless he actually does get indicted, but Keith and Rachael know that their audience likes any scrap of information on a topic like that. Again, that's fine--as long as you are aware of what is going on.

p.s. The notion that Obama is "our guy" goes back to the partisan divide that Obama himself is trying to erase. As long as "we" are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys, this country will continue to be hampered by excessive partisanship. I'm a solid Democrat, but I get what Obama is trying to do and applaud it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

126. Rachel and Keith were not the lone voices speaking truth to power

There were many in the media doing the same thing. Rachel and Keith were just the most visible. There is nothing wrong with having problems with the way they did. I have no problem with Keith, I just can't watch Rachel although I did say she is a great interviewer probably the best on TV it's just too bad she circumvents the message with cutsey shit, she is much smarter than that.

[Kixel]

93. I need the goofy

I get so frustrated-the goofy helps me focus on the issues without becoming totally annoyed. To each their own-there are plenty of shows that I rarely watch because they are too serious.

[Hamlette]

97. I hear you, the props is what dive me nuts

goofy hats, megaphone, ack. She does do great interviews because she's so smart, she asks the right follow ups. She needs to lose the props.

I get home from work late so I TiVo Schuster, Tweety, KO and Rachel. I'm at the point now where I only watch Schuster.

[Justitia]

98. Maddow is probably the BEST INTERVIEWER on TV. I really like KENT JONES - just enough, he's funny.

Sure, Rachel can be a bit too much "goofy", but her interview style / skill is superb.
She is always totally prepared, has all the follow-ups ready, is firm but never rude and allows her guests to make their points.
I think this is her very best attribute.


I really like Kent Jones, I think the guy has great timing & inflection. And the bit is perfect for the show "just enough" - it truly is just enough and a great way to wrap the show.

[ChiciB1]

99. FWIW... I LOVE Rachel Maddow... If I Decide To Watch MSM It Will Be Her

and KO... and Tweety more now than before. Mostly though I watch "alternative" TV, but I REALLY, REALLY like her show. I will admit, last night was kind of out there!

Just ONE MORE THING... I may be the only one of this earth that happens to think that Blago has VERY NICE HAIR!! I'd bet there are a LOT of "baldies" or close to that who would "die" for some of it!


JMHO!

[Awsi Dooger]

102. I handicapped that one poorly

I was confident she would thrive with her own show. I didn't anticipate the incomparably boring "ya think?" attitude.

I love arrogance when it's combined with original thought and intelligence. Therefore Rachel should work, but her presentation in that format is the most tedious hour I can recall. As someone else posted, count the topics and you'll struggle for a handful. Yet there are dozens of sarcastic dismissals awkwardly forced around every theme. Sometimes I'll literally count the seconds, maybe 30 tops, before she launches another pathetic snobby dig.

Keith is more natural as a pompous jackass. That's what separates the two shows. I get the feeling Keith could come up with 25 different formats and he'd play every one of them in virtually the same tone he features now. Maddow would be all over the map. Wheel her out as a pinch interviewer or instant rebuttal to GOP talking heads.

[and-justice-for-all]

105. I dont mind it...

It is a breath of fresh air as far as the M$M goes. KO uses some goofy shit too and is a real smart ass, which is great..but i'm just sayin'

I get the real deal from Democracy Now and Grit Tv.

[Hutzpa]

106. This has got to be a gotcha thread

you'all have been PUNK'D


:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

109. I watched a show called, "30 Rock", last night with my wife, we were both laughing out loud.

"No you don't Opera."

[Mr. Sparkle]

111. Her goofiness is getting out of hand. It's time she reined it in. Otherwise it is a really enjoyable

Show!

[Zomby Woof]

113. reined

Baseball games rain out, but nothing rains in, unless the roof is leaking.

[Mr. Sparkle]

114. Pardon me, your Majesty

:D

[Manifestor_of_Light]

117. They used "rein" properly.

As in the strings you use to control a horse with.

"Rein in" is to control an impulse, analogous to controlling a horse.

Maybe you are confused because of folks misusing "reign" as "reign in".

Kings and queens reign, NOT rein.

[vaberella]

112. No probs...it's understandable. I'm fine with it. It's her negativity that grates. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

115. She is callow to think ...

that politics is a game that the players will end.

[blue_onyx]

116. I enjoy Rachel

Keith is actually the one I sometimes can't watch. There have been times when he gets really preachy and intense which I don't enjoy. Rachel provides the news with humor and I like that about her. I also like that she's willing to admit when she wrong and goes out of her to correct info (that wouldn't happen on many news shows).

[BlooInBloo]

118. Seems like she tries to be The Daily Show...

but she isn't a comedienne.

I still like her show, but I know what you mean.

[pollo poco]

120. People likes their lesbians goofy

Of course Rachel must appease and not appear threatening. She is a member of America's most despised minority! Big surprise. Where would she be if she was angry,confrontative, or too serious? For all her brilliance, she wouldn't even be on the news if she was even slightly "unpleasant". Like Ellen DeGeneres, she has had to tread softly, and always be super friendly and cute. Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald and other great African American entertainers of the last century (and sometimes today!) had to toe the same line to keep their majority audience comfortable. Nobody likes their Lesbians angry! She has to yuck it up. I admire her, and I am sorry that she has to couch her obvious brilliance in the "humorous approach." But she has succeeded against all odds!

It wasn't too long ago that I read a poll that progressives disliked lesbians even more than they disliked republicans. Sorry- no link. But think about it. We are gay, and we are women. When we get angry or serious all we get is ridicule and further marginalization. Many of us must resort to humor at the expense of being taken seriously in order to appear non-threatening enough to be allowed into the game- even in everyday life. Don't expect Rachel to open a can of whup-ass any time soon. It would be a career ending move.

[ecstatic]

124. hmm... this is the first time I've heard of this phenomenon

you speak of. People are threatened by angry lesbians? I can't think of an example of an angry lesbian who was shunned. :shrug:

[MasonJar]

125. Rachel is a very incisive interviewer; she gets many powerful voices

to come on her show; she is brilliant and does quite well extemporaneously when necessary; she keeps much of the tone of the show light-hearted, which is a plus in these times. She gets her serious agenda and message across while finding just the right venue to make it appealing and memorable IMHO.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

127. She is a great interviewer

She got Blago to admit he was looking for favors for the IL senate seat. All the other interviews with Blago were pretty bad. She knows how to set up a question and get an answer out of a politician which is an art in itsself.

[anonymous171]

129. I like to watch her after KO. Calms me down a bit. Keith can be a bit bombastic at times.

[okieinpain]

131. wow, I was just thinking that the other day. glad it's not just me. n/t.

[raysr]

132. So instead of Rachel

who? I personally think she's great and she's come a long way fast.

[Unsane]

136. why does it have to be who? we're just giving our opinions here

[bunkerbuster1]

133. I still think she's the best pundit on the commercial TV machine.

She took what had been a splendidly researched, artfully scripted radio show and turned it into a similarly bright, nicely paced TV show.

There have been a few goofy bits that have missed. Big whoop.

[Lilith Velkor]

134. So don't. n/t

[marshall]

135. She's got to compete in a tough market

It's all razz-matazz these days. Nobody wants to see a talking head drone on like Walter Cronkite from 40 years ago.

I do find the graphics distracting, but that's found everywhere.

[Unsane]

137. yeah