In this day and age the better part of us have forgotten what real journalism is, ie. lumpy hannity. We are barraged with opinion journalism which is just that, worth little more than the quality of the person expressing it.
So, in this day we lump the opinion of a Paul Krugman with his
PHd in Economics from MIT and his Nobel Prize in Economics with the likes of a lumpy hannity and his prize in used car sales and carnival barking.
We lose our appreciation for the likes of a Rachel Maddow and her staff and their love of facts and research and how closely that might have compared to a Walter Cronkite and the News staff at CBS. That would be actual, real, journalists.
Cronkite will be remembered for laying the fiasco that was the Vietnam War into our living rooms on a nightly basis. Maddow for informing the American public of the fiasco that is donald and his crew.
I applaud real journalism. Reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine."
Put the hannitys of the world back to selling used cars. Stop propaganda for profit and bring back real journalism.
1798
@KC If Edward Murrow were alive, he'd be pigeonholed as part of the liberal elite.
56
@KC
Journalists are free and fully capable of being back "real journalism" any time they choose to.
11
Thanks to Rachel Maddow who respects and delivers intelligent news. I applaud her show because I can hear in detail all the features of a news store, the history and the facts. I enjoy her ease, her compassion, and her humor. She is a serious woman who shows us her comfortable and dedicated work work. Her subjects often call forth a rich understanding. We need that in the news. I felt touched when Rachel was given a last minute news feed about the little migrant kids in cages. Her emotional take on this was real and needed. It induced in me a wish to help others. She is a role model of what women can be and do. I was so pleased to hear that her shows about the disabled young woman who was at first was ordered to be deported immediately resulted in the kind of public attention that freed her and others like her.
131
Rachel is all things the Fox "news" people are not. Rational, well-read, logical, open to facts and objective analysis, well-spoken, etc.
She is hardly mainstream media. I get lost in her opening block sometimes, but here's something I thought I'd never say, I feel like Tucker Carlson at those times. It's a long road to get to the store, but it's worth the trip. Always interesting.
Long live Rachel and her merry band of FactoNauts! And my thanks for the insightful, thoughtful analysis of what is happening everyday. I get so angry watching Trump stomp on our country and all its ideals, so by 9PM it's good to have someone that helps calm me down and look at the day with more rationality and less emotion.
132
I stopped watching her as she became an un-hinged conspiracy theorist during Russiagate. The lame tax returns, truly a Geraldo Rivera-Al Capone's vault moment. The absolute Red Baiting, wondering if Russia would turn off our heat during a polar vortex. I don't think I've seen that kind of hysteria since the height of the Cold War in the 50's. Ignoring the respected investigative journalist Richard Engles telling her that the pee-pee tape did not even rise to rumor, yet Rachel still wondering if a U.S. president was a Russian mole. Unbelievable. She use to do really good work on issues that affected peoples lives, but she, as well as the entire network at MSNBC has morphed into a corporate shill. So sad to see my liberal friends still talk about her and MSNBC as if it is some kind of liberal, lefty savior. It may have been back when but no more.
16
An educated commentator with extraordinary bad judgment. A laughable parody, in fact, of fake news.
5
Had this been written by a dedicated journalist rather than a pop-journo careerist, I might have been able to get at least half way through it.
3
"it’s not good for you to work incessant long days, five days a week, 50 weeks a year for 10 years.”
lol welcome to the real world rachel. at least you have two days off a week and don't make minimum wage.
4
She should have been fired long ago for her insane ramblings on Russiagate, and her loony conspiracy theories, all that were proven false. She is the lefts version of Sean Hannity, unhinged, and prone to insane exaggerations.
12
@dbw75 "Her loony conspiracy theories." That's rich.
7
In 2008 I became an ardent fan of Keith Olberman, who had a political talk show on MSNBC, a newish network--at least to me. And I had learned that his background was as a sportscaster and yet he was such a fine intellect that I thought he had stepped up to the world of H.L. Mencken and suchlike. And on occasion, he would have a night off and on two occasions, his sub was a young woman named Rachel Maddow. The first time, I was in awe; the second time, I wrote a letter urging the network to give this Maddow a show of her own. And then, to my sorrow, Keith was dismissed--and I later learned he and Rachel do not speak. That made me quite sad. But I find her simply compelling, her definitive research skills that build a segment on her show layer by layer until you ask, "Where is she going with this?" And then she gives us the finished product which is so often simply brilliant work. It's how her mind works. And the writer here chose not to report that on a couple of occasions back in Dec/Jan Rachel beat Hannity's ratings, much to the chagrin of FOX News Sty. And this had to have gone to press before Tucker Carlson broke the trance he'd been under at Ailes' Airheads to condemn Trump for the phone call oath-breaker. Carlson may be comin' round. Rachel is a national treasure. Great reading.
7
Maddow does a valuable service by offering a liberal counterpoint to bonehead conservatives like Fox News. However, I often wish she could do it with a little less repetition. She really doesn't need to ask the same question half a dozen different ways or take forever to get to the point. We already saw it coming down Broadway.
5
Rachel Maddow is an excellent blend of : facts a'plenty, insight, and foresight. She is not hysterical but blends gravitas with humor even on days when most patriotic Americans are feeling outrage due to GOP-Trump government's evil incompetence.
And she diminishes my need for too much Scotch most days.
14
Maddow is an entertainer and a crowd pleaser. In seeking out an explanation for the debacle of 2016, establishment Democrats would rather identify scapegoats than reckon with the vast failures of neoliberalism. Maddow's "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative fits the bill perfectly and wins her renown and high ratings.
30
@Ann Your description sounds like a mirror image of Trump rather than Maddow.
The very same Trump who incessantly projects his own flaws upon others. Traitor anyone?
38
I've been a fan of Rachel Maddow since she subbed for Keith Olberman and try to never miss her show. I record it if I can't watch live - wonder if that gets picked up in the rating.She's smart, articulate and passionate and makes me think. This from a 69 year old retired woman who recently relocated to Ohio. She helps keep me sane here, although I'm heartened to have met a dedicated bunch of folks working to turn this place around
10
In the past, I've avoided TV pundits, and, rather like Rachel's father, preferred to gather news through other methods (usually reading). I find much of the 24-hour news programs to be that odd combination of tedium, anxiety, and urgency.
My husband introduced me to Rachel's show a year or two ago, and we generally watch it together. It's the only news program that I DVR. I like the 30,000 ft flyover, putting things into perspective before making connections. I often like her guests, as they are usually clever, and experts rather than pundits. I especially like her regular use of other news outlets' stories while crediting them. It grounds her analysis in a way that others' views aren't.
That said, she went too far with Mueller, Mueller, Mueller - analyzing it to death. I'm concerned that she'll make the current impeachment investigation overly complex and linked to things it need not be linked to. As her guest stated (and yes, I watched most of that episode), it isn't complex. Trump asked a foreign leader to do a personally political favor for him, rather than something that would advance our nation's agenda. He asked Ukraine to interfere directly with our upcoming election.
Rachel and her show really shine, however, when she reminds us of other issues, forgotten issues - immigration, kids in cages, inhumane treatment, failed tax cuts, growing income disparity, the loss of the middle class. Please keep reminding us, Rachel! We need your sanity and your pulpit.
11
We're to counting on Rachel "to make anything happen"; rather, we count on her to put it in context and provide insightful perspective on what it all means. Nobody on TV does it as well.
9
Greta is all that matters. As we all die of heat and floods,, lead melting, there will be no Maddow to passively watch. We cannot even go out in style, trying.
1
I like Rachel, really, but it’s not just about Trump. It’s really about the entire Republican Party and their evil intentions with policy and reversing rules and regulations which were in place to protect our environment, our civil rights and liberties, and our money. There is something much more sinister that has been going on with the Republican Party (other than Trump) over the last few decades.
It will not get better if President Pence is in office.
13
Rachel has charisma along with a sparkling aura, it's delightful to know she's out there.
6
I laughed when I saw the comment from her Mom about the velvet jacket. I thought the same thing when I saw her wearing the jacket all summer long.
6
Some love her, some don't. I'm one of the ones who do. Rachel is a powerful personality because she lets herself be real and follows her gut, not in spite of it. Reading her story has made me like her even more. I'm grateful that she stays focused on issues that still deserve attention but might have been swept aside in mainstream media simply to follow Trump's latest narcissistic distraction.
10
I never used to follow the politics of the day, and as elections neared, would literally turn off the TV and the radio, so as to not hear the endless rhetoric, regardless of orientation.
I don't have access to cable, and have recently discovered that one can keep up with the news (sometimes even get shows live, pirated - shh...) on Youtube. I first discovered Rachel's show while letting the "next up" run. She talked about a Trump hotel that had been built in the middle of nowhere, with confusing access, that had little patronage, and wondered what was the point of it being there. By the end of the story, I realized, "Wow - money laundering!" She didn't have to say the word, you just knew that was what was going on.
Her show was unlike anything I'd ever heard, and I couldn't wait to watch it again. Now I never miss it, still catching it on Youtube.
I expect her ratings would be much higher if the pirate audience was taken into account. If MSNBC could be accessed on streaming without a cable account, I'd be first in line.
6
"She does not see herself as a leader of the left or an adversary of Trump in any way." I am all for Rachel. But not an adversary of Trump? If you say so. Maybe like the rest of the world, she's just fixated on the chase of the scoundrel, the pursuit of truth.
2
I have a feeling she’s not going to be crazy about the photos you chose.
That being said, great article. Seeing her in person in LA tomorrow night. Can’t wait!
4
What I love about Rachel Maddow is that she can put anything in context. If it seems like something that fell out of a clown car, she's right there to explain how it links to Paul Manafort or to a wealthy donor to the bully-in-chief who is now our Ambassador to X country. If you haven't been paying attention Trump is the Quid Pro Quo President. His whole life is about transactional exchanges. He's incapable of thinking about other people in any other way. Such a person never has to actually mention the this-for-that equation. Every person is another opportunity to WIN! Rachel finds a way to make that the underlining frame for whatever travesty we're witnessing at the White House.
7
Maddow, along with her colleagues Lawrence O' Donnell, Chris Hayes, et al, are the Edward R Murrow of our times, courageously calling out the vile corruption and insidious moral failing of the current administration. Hooray for the First Amendment and its defenders.
13
This is an observation that I have seen while living in different parts of the United States. I think that unfortunately for liberals they still dismiss the Americans that don't live within their circle and believe in their mantra.
Hilary Clinton called them the deplorables. Whether or not this effects the election and the Democrats lose again, I have no idea. But these people that liberals despise live in our country as well.
Why don't you try to find common ground instead of doing everything else to alienate them?
5
I was hooked on Rachel Maddow by her coverage of the Fujika Nuclear reactor mess. Her reporting was the only complete, accurate, non-hysterical news. (Only IEEE Spectrum, the magazine for professional Electrical Engineers came close to the same knowledgeable and thorough coverage.) I wish she would do more of these science-tech stuff on subjects like Climate Change, or MCAS, for examples.
She actually seems to care more about the facts than about the sensational or argumentative. For that I watch BattleBots.
She does sometimes make you crazy with, as described in the article, her restarts after getting one fact in, to add a second, then a third,... Still, there is nothing else on the news that is consistently good--often better segments than the papers or magazines.
Thank you Rachel.
6
I adore RM for all the reasons mentioned. But don’t be fooled, you incensed, intellectual liberal (as I am too): this TV program is part of the Trump industry of staying before the public eye just as much as Hannity and all of Fox. If Trump wins a 2nd term, NBC, MSNBC and Maddow will continue making money off you by your consuming her show.
4
I watch Rachel's show especially when something critical (i.e. whistle blower) is announced but I can tire from the density, interwoven stories and backgrounds she brings forth. Her narrative can be dense and exhausting. Still I go to her for important responses to our pitiful political shenanigans.
5
Dear Ms Maddow
Being famous can be very tough sometimes. If you get tired of the constant crowds and really want to get away try Stanford Sierra Camp. You'll find that folks are nice but NOBODY will bother you. Alas, the fishing at Fallen Leaf Lake is awful - oh well, can't have everything.
Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
2
Rachel Maddow’s combination of erudition, sincerity, and guarded optimism enables her to talk us down from the ledge even as she informs us of each day’s events, regardless of how bleak they may seem. The context she provides is more often valuable and necessary than repetitive (though at times it is that, albeit in a comforting-that’s-right-you-mentioned-that-earlier kind of way). Assiduously avoiding the distractions viewers often fall prey to in other news broadcasts, she provides the opportunity to focus completely on her carefully prepared broadcast that leaves a viewer feeling not just informed, but educated. Her knowledge of American political history is encyclopedic in its scope and enables her to provide viewers the full story, every single night. I am grateful.
14
Amanda, what a fantastic piece. Loved the blend of humanity and history you provided of Rachel. Thank you!
2
There are but a few new sources that have allowed me to keep my sanity since November 8, 2016. They are Rachel, the NYT, the Post and HuffPost.
I have loyally watched Rachel since she took over Keith's show, whom I watched as well. Some may criticize her smarts and her uncanny ability to connect the dots, but to me she is a genius that takes the madness that is the news everyday and succintly encapsulates the day's happenings.
11
It must be recognized that Rachel has a staff why is highly competent in helping Rachel form her opinions on her looked-for 9 o'clock hour as well as her later hand-over to Lawrence O'Donnell and, if either is not on, I feel quite deprived.
Especially in the age of Donald Trump who I consider the biggest disaster to have happened to our country in the current era, I get the hope that someday, even this will have an end.
Even if Rachel takes time to get to the point, I always feel that it is time well spent!
11
Pro: she connects all the dots in brilliant, original way. Con: takes her a while (with much repetition). But almost always compelling ... a hard decision each night whether to watch ... because once I've tuned in, it's hard to turn off.
10
Outstanding among Rachel Maddow's talents, is her facility to talk directly to the viewer. Sometimes I feel that I'm the only one she's talking to and I love it. I love her ability to start out with some seemingly insignificant news item from the 1940s and weave it into a narrative that culminates in what just happened. Her guests are chosen wisely and what she chooses not to include reveals her high standards.
17
I use my television as a radio. I work on my art projects while listening to the news. PBS News Hour, then a recording of Special Report on the Trump News Network (Fox), then Chris Hayes, then Maddow. It's a tribute to her that after the latest big story has been reported all day that I still look forward to it reported on her show - it never feels stale. That's because she provides the historical context, going as far back as necessary to tell us why it REALLY is important. I'm an avid student of history and I learn a lot from her.
12
I'm one of those folks who never ever watched the teevee - not for entertainment, not for news - until after the 2016 election. At that point, I happened to see Rachel while I was at my step-daughter's house, visiting the baby granddaughter. I liked the way she puts things together, takes time with a story, including putting it into context (something a whole lot of commentators have an issue with) and doesn't focus on the "shiny thing of the day." Sometimes I watch Chris Hayes who comes on before her, but it's usually just Rachel. (I've stumbled on Chris Matthews a couple of times, and even if I didn't hate him from Shrub giving him "tingles up his leg", I would still hate him since apparently the only person he can bear to hear speak is himself.
9
One of the most important, interesting, eye-opening pieces of history I have learned this year came from Rachel Maddow: her addicting podcast called Rag Man. It should have been mentioned in this story. The way it has been paralleled in this administration in various ways is a warning. The things we didn't know then are a foreshadowing of what we will know about our current situation fifty years from now.
Other than that, great story; great profile. Great subject! Thank you for this article.
6
Maddow is a brilliant critical thinker and communicator. Regardless of party affiliation, I can objectively say she can hold my interest, and I always learn something, as well as coming away with a much better understanding of current events. As surreal as they are, this is a valuable commodity. Fox news is the exact opposite. BTW, does Fox "News" have any Rhodes Scholars on any of their programs? NO!
15
She certainly is brilliant. Tediously fair. Remarkable work ethic. But, guess who wins?! Fox learned the game is money along time ago. That money is mined from the inherent ignorance and prejudice of the American people. That’s America! Love it or leave it!
1
She was the one crying the night of Trump’s election. Who can believe her ? She is not an impartial source.
7
Rachel Maddow is a national treasure who deals in facts and does her homework. We are all better off for her brilliance, tenacity and insight.
23
Society often puts the smart girls through a gauntlet, trying to trip them up, throwing barriers in their way. To answer these naysayers, Rachel Maddow builds and conquers her own gauntlet every single night on TRMS. She serves notice that nobody and nothing will get by her. In her black uniform, she suspends ego, and transcends the fog of partisan directives, peering into the core of the issue or interview guest. She's making the world safer for smart girls, becoming iconic in the process.
17
Rachel Maddow is the Walter Cronkite of our age and who didn't love Walter back in the day. Her show is not to be missed.
17
Discovered that I belong to a crowd of Rachel Watchers. But then I watched Walter Cronkite too. In troubled times, we need newspersons with moral compasses and large intelligences to keep us informed. And yes, I learn from Rachel every newscast, if only how to relax a bit from the stress of Trump.
10
Amanda Hess used a lot of words and took up a lot of inches to describe Rachel Maddow's day and style, but almost none of what she wrote related to why I watch and listen to Rachel Maddow.
I trust Rachel Maddow.
She does not lie to attract an audience.
She does not exaggerate to attract an audience.
She tells us things that even some of us political news junkies often do not know.
On air, Rachel always knows what she is talking about; and if she doesn't, she finds out before explaining it to us.
And, of all the current TV commenters -- under the age of 60 -- Rachel Maddow knows the difference between the circumstances of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment episodes.
And that signifies a lot to me.
20
She is the smartest of all the tv babbleheads and rarely stumbles having the good fortune of having truth on her side and not having to lie like a Hannity to attract viewers. We need many more people like her!
13
Strange, that this young reporter would claim that Rachel Maddow "flatters" her audience with some pretend intellectualism. Au contraire: She KNOWS her audience, which is capable of following her intricate dot-connecting (the reporter doesn't watch Maddow regularly, so she had a hard time with the program she did watch, which required a bit of RMS background knowledge).
I'm a late-comer to the RMS, one of those seeking intellectual refuge in the post-2016 Trump era. I'm a PhD with forty years of college teaching behind me. Rachel Maddow's presentation--repetitious and circular in a wide gyre that piles facts on facts and connects them--is a professor's pedagogy. You don't say something once, if you want a large class to grasp it. You demand attention ("active audience") and build up a conceptual structure. She's great at it. And her stories have elegant form, which I envy.
I've learned a great deal from her style of NOT having screaming heads arguing on her show--useless noise on CNN, Fox, and even Chris Mathews on MSNBC. She brings experts whom she questions and then carefully listens to, so now I know a lot about Constitutional law, how our courts and government agencies work, what the D. C. "swamp" really is like, how getting the facts out there can, indeed, bring down the corrupt in our system--eventually. Her story-telling fascinates and engages. Rachel is a showman, but she's a fact-obsessed newsperson first. Brava!
23
Rachel Maddow is perhaps the most brilliant news analyst I've ever followed. She obviously researches her reports carefully and thoroughly, and we, the listeners, are the beneficiaries. She assimilates all the tangled threads of the actions of a corrupt Republican party, and elucidates all the ways that they impact our country.
She narrates the story of Trump calmly and without vitriol so that her audience understands the complexities of our current situation. I am grateful for her integrity, intelligence, humor and humility. Brava Rachel!
13
Rachel Maddow burrows into a subject like an old school investigative journalist and then some. She is a Rhodes scholar. That’s a level of intellect that cannot be challenged. Of course she’s not perfect. Who is? But this woman is brilliant. We are very lucky to have her.
13
One of a limited number of TV journalists who consistently digests the nations' current events with a sharp, witty, often somber - yet somehow uplifting - view. I'd say Maddow for President, but we would be a much more hapless bunch without her daily dose of goodness.
7
I'm what used to be called "a knee-jerk liberal," but Rachel Maddow gets on my nerves. By the time her show airs, I already know what's happened that day. She usually doesn't have new info, so her take on the day is her schtick. She frequently meanders around, and then delivers her message in a sarcastic tone, looking at the camera with an "Aren't I clever?" expression. Her demeanor detracts from what she has to say. She isn't nasty like Bill Maher, but she rivals him in sarcasm. A little of that goes a long way.
11
I have watched Rachel Maddow on and off for years. I am always I’m always impressed by her distinct misunderstanding of the political process that brought Trump to office. Clearly, she is clueless. Yes, she has her adherents, but they are surely clueless as she is. What I find most unnerving about her is she has few guests and I cannot recall a single guest who truly debated the issues with her. She simply brings along guests who Agee with her. Hannity, not the most lovable person on the planet, constantly brings guest who argue against him and he is one tough nut to crack.
5
If tucker Carlson has a difficult time understanding her monologue or the subject matter that she is discussing there is zero chance that any of his audiences would have a clue as to what she is saying.... and most are happy to be that way
5
"Last year, Kee had a Maddow-themed birthday party, at which her friends and her two young sons put on big black glasses and slicked their hair to the side. Also in attendance was a life-size cardboard cutout of Maddow, which is now in storage so as not to startle guests."
I love Rachel as much as the next liberal wonk fanatic .. but reading this part of the paragraph was really cringe... yikes
3
I love Rachael and I really miss "Cocktail Hour"
4
I don't have cable so don't know Maddow. What I do think of when I hear her name is her comment to Chris Hedges, (my own beloved "preacher" so to speak), is her "Death by algorithm" tweet at him and others. I think less of her for that.
3
Rachel Maddow has a lot to answer for, smarts notwithstanding, though I doubt she will ever deign to do so. Her full-throttle embrace of the Russiagate grand conspiracy and her consistent disparaging of Julian Assange, whose persecution is the greatest menace to freedom of speech, and the journalism which she practices, since the John Peter Zenger case in the 17th century, is more than, as some have put it here, "shameful." It's sad and vile at the same time. Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, Caitlin Johnstone have the details, e.g., https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/. For unknown reasons that only be explained by cynicism, she has committed herself, and her professional credibility, to spurious pandering to desperate liberals with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and she has succeeded because of the commensurable extent to which liberals have become unhinged after the 2016 election. It is not an exaggeration to describe her as the liberals' Glenn Beck.
7
TRMS is a podcast on my Apple iPhone and iPad. I don't have cable so this is a great way to get her show.
4
She connects the dots. I have never seen Trump connect the dots, at least publicly. In private with Vlad, I think he has.
Yes, free will is great, for us. But the rabble are not worth bullets.
Trump and Vlad would gladly take you or me out. They care for themselves and NO one else.
They do not live forever. Not Popes, presidents, despots.
3
How good could she be? She's never beat her competition. She's never been proven right with a proclamation. She's consistently wrong about how she predicts things will work out. She's changed no one's opinion. She's barely reinforced her own. Those stories she tells drone on and on. They always in with her asking the audience a question. (It's an opinion show, you dope, don't ask the audience to come to its own conclusion -- tell them what you want them to believe -- No wonder Hannity beats you, he understands the medium.) Maddow is consistent in one thing: Mediocrity.
5
I love Rachel because she says the things other news casters have the sense not to say.
2
I wouldn't watch her show even with a gun to my head. Her motivation is only to make people of all political stripes upset and angry and pit them against one another which prolongs her livelihood. That's why all media exists today no matter which side of the aisle they're on. The NYT appears to prefer publishing only long-winded diatribes from liberals and socialists who are sycophants of the ultra-liberal deities they hold high. I'm not one of them. So here's mine: If you're not part of the club they don't welcome comments about any conservative topic no matter how respectful the tone. The political right and left continue conversations amongst themselves, and we quickly reach stalemate in the ongoing political dialog which is unproductive and headed nowhere. It's nothing more than a primitive fist fight. We don't need the media to influence what or how we think. News organizations espouse biased political views which means not reporting what happened in a journalistically responsible way. Smart people couldn't possibly care less what anybody in the media thinks. I say just report what happened today and keep your divisive opinions to yourselves. But I suppose that's just unrealistic, wishful thinking.
3
Rachel Maddow validates FCC original chair Newton Minow when he stated, “When television is good . . . nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse . . . Keep your eyes glued to that set . . . I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.” Keep your eyes and ears glued to Rachel Maddow and let’s all hope for better days to come!
5
This history nerd watches Rachel to help keep myself sane. She is brilliant. Am listening to her read Blowout from Audible. I appreciate all the facts and her presentation that occasionally has me laughing out loud at the idiocy of our world. Her Podcast, Bagman, was compelling. I was a single mom, raising 3 daughters at that time and barely aware of the corruption. Love her to bits.
9
Rachel Maddow is the only newscaster who presented facts about the oil catastrophes -"crude by rail accidents" 2013, in North Dakota. She is one of the few newscasters who presented news on a school located next to a dangerous chemical factory in Texas.
Though she has dogged stories such as the Fort Lee Bridge Incident/Scandal in New Jersey, if that can be stated, she was a bit repetitious, she does present new stories that are worthy of our attention.
Frankly, I would never have known about crude oil transportation dangers if it wasn't for her and her team's reporting.
As a note, the RR for my NYTIMES name stands for Rail Road. I lived right next to a rail road which transported such crude night and day by train.
5
Fox viewers hate her because she uses complete sentences, connects the dots and uses facts. Most of what she says goes way over their heads.
Most can't handle Rachel and her complex explanations of how things work.
14
Rachel Maddow is a wonderful news analyst but she will not influence the straight talking bigoted bar room joes who listen to the loud lying bully that is clearly presented by Trump.
Pedantic cultured responses by professors to Trump's wild lying are never heard.
Trump supporters say, ""Trump doesn't lie, he just exaggerates sometimes."
Nazi Germany in the 1930's is a prime example of a system that won out over reasoned educated commentators, like Maddow.
1
If I had the intellect of Rachel, how I wish I could story tell like she does. How I admire her tenacity to report the story to the last detail.
If I could do it all again, and if I had studied harder....nah, I still couldn’t be Rachel, but how I appreciate her each evening.
8
The reality is that we have a divide in perceptions, and also a divide in how to check out and evaluate and perhaps modify these perceptions. We have three large types of perceptions of what is going on -- the trumpsters, the anti-trumpsters, and the moderates. Global warming is a plot of scientists who really follow an agenda, or a dangerous reality that the scientific method has uncovered, or somewhere in the middle.
The reality is that we have no way to get to reality and must bargain and fight political fights on what we say it is, what our problems are, and what if anything we should do about them. eality is whatever the winner of a political battle says it is, which means that in itself it is unknowable. Since whatever perspective we take on it is a perspective, reality is forever beyond our reach.
One perspective sees corruption where another sees none. The moderate thing to do is to investigate a bit but not too much, levy fines but not too high, maybe put a few people in prison to send a warning but nobody too big. Moderates look for ways to deal with problems without trying to change the big picture (which would by definition not be moderate).
The War on Poverty was moderate. The War on Drugs is moderate -- a decades-long concentration on methods that we have found do not work very well, and an avoidance of methods that might upset Big Pharma, doctors, or those that want drug use condemned. Not moderate -- World War II.
There are many reasons for Rachel Maddow's success but one rarely mentioned is her excellent grasp of the importance of storytelling.
Many of Maddow's shows begin with what is effectively a cold open of some long forgotten news event, narrated as a fully digestible story. These stories create a context for understanding the lead news of the day, all of which she takes great pains to connect to other stories previously covered. It's a brilliant technique and it usually succeeds in elevating her news segments above the endless Point/Counterpoint muddle we are all now living in.
We are all hungry for story because, by definition, story organizes events in a way that gives them meaning. There are themes, lessons and above all else, understandable consequences of people's actions. With story, what may seem like random events in a sea of emotionally numbing chaos, takes on human dimensions that we can actually digest and then do something about. Rachel Maddow gets that.
Trump's success is reliant on his ability to create non-stop chaos, a firehose of daily nonsense and outrages. The antidote to this overwhelming chaos is clarity, focus. And these, quite clearly, are Rachel Maddow's superpowers. No wonder a large segment of our traumatized population finds shelter in her show. Behind the scenes, she is parsing the chaos for the stories that actually matter and delivering them in a manner that both soothes and informs.
13
Right on point. And she is brilliant and trustworthy. She doesn't offer catharsis only but also clarity amidst a sea of obfuscation.
7
TRMS has great reporting. Rachel and her team do a great job of getting to the bottom of the story and letting the facts speak for themselves.
8
I’m straight, married, and right of center politically. But I have a giant celebrity crush on Rachel.
She is brilliant, driven, and tenacious, among a multitude of other admirable qualities. The USA is better off for having her around.
Go Rachel!
59
I watch TRMS nearly every night. I am transfixed by her ability to weave historical narratives into current events. Sometimes she “editorializes” a bit too much for my liking. But part of the draw is her quirky personality.
She definitely knows her stuff and doesn’t spin conspiracies like the Fox gang does. She in no way undermines democracy, where Fox appears to be the forerunner.
I have much gratitude to Rachel Maddow and all she is doing during this time of national crisis.
39
"...Waiting For" I don't think so. No, this brilliant woman has applied her extra-ordinary mind and worked hard for this. She's a national treasure working for the best of America. A true American in heart, mind and soul. She's deserving of this and more. Could someone ask her to run for president?
26
She's over qualified.
Declare Rachel Maddow a Living National Treasure! Long Live Rachel!! Rachel Maddow Forever!!!
23
I keep watching, over and over, her YouTube where she waves her arms , one left wards the other right wards and even crisscrossing describing how the election night outcome will be giving several possible scenarios of how states could vote, so excitedly spittle flew and at the end of it all says, "Trump still won't win." It's a shining example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
7
Since I'm not a "quick study," I spend several hours a day reading NYT, WaPo, The Atlantic. I tape Morning Joe and watch the first half-hour, tune in Shep at noon just to see how Fox is covering things, may watch Chris Matthews, read the afternoon opinions on line. By the time I get to TRMS , I've pretty much figured things out for myself. I like that she doesn't rehash what I know but comes up with new angles to think about. Oh, Rachael, thanks for not showing pix of Trump all the time like the others do.
28
I salute and thank Ms Maddow, she is a national hero.
26
I try to catch the show every night. And if I can't, it is aired again at midnight. She is responsible for much sleep deprivation. If I had a knock on her delivery, it would be her habit of repeating herself repetitiously. But she puts the news in context, a gift in the sense that not everyone can (or are willing to work hard enough to) and her show is a present I give myself. If you work your way through the whole A block, you come out the other end better informed and maybe a little smarter.
15
@Dumb Engineer
Catch up on your sleep, Rachel Maddow’s Show is also a podcast, it works great as audio. Few if any commercials, too. 40 minutes, it’s how I keep up. I feel deprived if I miss it. I also listen to Lawrence O’Donnell’s show via podcast. But last night (Friday) I watched his program since he had Rachel on for a segment or two to promote her new book Blowout. (I also dvr both programs in case I need to watch it!)
Her habit of repetition is a little annoying to me too, but I think of it as a way for her to create the path we’re walking along together, she doesn’t want to dash off and leave us in her dust. That’s how I see it and try to appreciate it. But I feel ya.
3
Rachel has a mind formed by academic inquiry. She has successfully completed the work required to select an appropriate question that leads to an inspiring dissertation. She has eaten the humble pie they serve at the dissertation defense (as have I) and thanked her committee for being stringent. I am sure that she often gritted her teeth during that process but afterwards thanked her "torturers" for the lessons they taught her.
I highly admire her thoroughness and watch her program because 1) she doesn't try to tackle too many unrelated subjects in one hour; and 2) she does it all with a slightly ironic, sarcastic twist so that the listener can even laugh at some of the most horrible things that she has to describe. On top of that, she remains humble herself.
She invites guests, not to corroborate her narrative but rather to gain additional information and not just opinions.
I would have been honored to have a colleague like her at the university that I taught at. She is a team player and not a back stabber.
We are lucky to have her show on TV. She is a good role model for any college students who want to understand research and presentation.
25
I always feel a little smarter and more knowledgeable about my country after watching her show.
18
The hours from 7p CST to 9p are the only live television I watch. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell are all excellent, but Maddow’s show is by far my favorite. I am the MSNBC soccer mom in the suburbs, with the exception that I’ve been obsessed with politics since the late 80’s. Since Trump’s election, it seems like it’s essential to hear what happened that day deconstructed in an intelligent way. I can’t stand Chris Matthews show. I have no desire to watch people screaming over each other. I want someone to walk me through the history of how we got to this point, because it’s nearly impossible to keep up with it all.
I admit to being almost completely burned out during the summer. I didn’t watch the MSNBC golden hours at all. Now that Trump is finally going to be held accountable, even if only with impeachment and not removal, I’ll watch Maddow every night, on the DVR if I can’t catch the initial broadcast. Her monologues are always worth it, and she was absolutely right about Russia. There’s no way that Ukraine-Gate isn’t a continuation of that first scandal.
18
Thanks for that - excellent article. This ackground on RM makes me appreciate her work even more. 5 hours to write her piece each day - amazing work ethic.
24
I enjoy Rachel's shows when I hear them, and agree with other commenters that she does an amazing job of analysis. But, I also agree about the repetitiveness: saying everything 3, 4, or 5 times gets tedious, Rachel! However, I've been a teacher, and I know that you can't say something just once and hope the listeners will get it. You need to paraphrase and repeat. Maybe, though, not quite so many times?
10
@Clement Kent
The repetition bothers my sister so much she can’t watch the show. But I don’t mind it as much, even though I’ve noticed it, too. I think it’s because she writes it and delivers it on camera. If it were an edited “package” with graphics or video, a lot of the voice over would be left on the cutting room floor for being repetitive, and it would be made to fit a certain amount of time. This way, it’s free form, bullet points getting repeated for emphasis whether we, the audience, appreciate it or not. Sometimes I try to think ahead of where she is likely going to end up. And I like how they dump to black when she delivers her last line. Like the mic drop. Boom.
1
I was a mega fan. And I am still grateful Rachel Maddow is on every night to speak pedantically to a huge audience of adoring fans. Her messages are complex, but clear, and that makes her audiences attentive. But she repeats herself over and over again, as a teacher might do to a classroom full of receptive students who maybe needed to hear things multiple times to get the message. I am still a fan. I tune in for about the first ten minutes of her show. And then I tune out knowing that I heard the night’s parable. If a guest I am interested in has been announced, I might catch that as her hour winds down. For me Rachel’s show has a beginning, and sometimes an end that is informative and entertaining. I have become a micro fan.
6
An opinion host as biased as one can possibly be. How liberals who watch this show don't recognize that they too are stuck in the echo chamber is beyond me. Unwatchable, and annoying to boot.
6
@Keith
He said what he did and he did what he said. Not biased. Reporting the truth
Shakedown
Extort
Coverup
Repeat
Putin’s Puppet and a threat to our election process and our national security
5
Rachel Maddow gives of "an I-know-better-than-you tone" - that perception is almost always displayed by people whom she actually DOES know better than. Just the act of knowing makes lesser folks uncomfortable and they project that onto folks like Maddow who, for the most part - never had that
"tone" /attitude.
I don't call myself any kind of genius or sophisticate in any way. But I used to try to insert something new into my vocabulary regularly just to learn & grow. And inevitably you would get the nasty "Ooo, who are you trying to impress ?" attitude. "No.I would say. I'm just trying to grow a little once in awhile". "Do you actually want to remain the same your entire life" "Never change or learn or ...?"
It took several years but I finally realized that No, many many folks don't EVER want to change. A thing. Not one bit. Because I guess they figure they are just about practically perfect in every way. Especially nowadays. It's very sad.
5
She can be repetitive and belabor her points, but she gives me information and insight I don't get anywhere else, even though I read a lot of news, so I'll keep watching her. Like her, I'm obsessed with Russia and think Donald is just a puppet.
7
Congratulations Rachel ,you are my go to news broadcaster.
Looking forward to your book and your continued
Exposing of corrupt governance.
16
Can we please just sit still--- no words? There ae so many brilliant people on the job, trying to help us understand this and that. But how about setting an example for all of us by being quiet, or at least talking slowly--- without a trace of delight in watching Trump crumble. Can we please sit quietly?
1
How about the fact that Ms. Maddow pushed a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was a Russian intelligence asset for 2 1/2 years, and never admitted she was wrong when the Mueller Report showed that she had been wrong? What did her loyal fans think when this happened?
7
That never happened. And now the world knows.
1
@Charlie Reidy Wrong on both counts, but I imagine you know that.
7
@ Charlie Reidy
Many people understand that he is a Russian security asset.
I do not have the time to repeat all of the facts that demonstrate his allegiance to Putin, but WITHOLDING military aide (that was supported by and voted for by both parties in congress) from Ukraine, a country that was invaded by Russia, a country that took over part of Ukraine (Crimea) so that Russia can have a deep water seaport, is pretty great for Putin. The funds were released the day before Congress was going to pass a bipartisan amendment to FORCE the funds to be released.
Shakedown
Extort
Coverup
Repeat
6
This was a fun read. The only difference between rabid Maddow fans (anti-Tumpers) and Trump fans is that Trump fans are clued in.
3
@Curtis Dickson
Trump supporters must be so proud
Shakedown
Extort
Coverup
Repeat
Trump has been compromised
He is a threat to our election process and our national security
4
I don't care about ratings - I care about the truth. Rachel delivers every evening.
21
I should meet the definition of MSNBC Mom because I begin my day with NYT, WAPO, local news, and a smattering of other news that crosses my screen. I listen to NPR on my car radio, and when big stories break I check out FOX to see how they are handling it. As an aside, Fox newscast is surprisingly fair.
As much as I admire Rachel and her quirky approach to news, I just find her opening tedious, rambling and undisciplined. Because I am a voracious news consumer, I do not need her to tell me what I missed that day or any day. But I am glad Rachel is there because I appreciate that not everyone is like me. And Rachel is great at connecting the dots. But everyone, as they say, needs an editor and Rachel is in need of one. That may well be what Roger Ailes would have told her.
4
While I agree with RM's politics, I find her show to be lacking in facts and full of innuendo. In some ways, RM's show is an upscale version of right wing radio. It gives a very slanted version of a story and is in not intended to be informational as much as it is opinions. While I despise Trump and how the Republicans in Congress behave, I do not endorse one-sided version of RM. She's as much about entertainment of the left as is Limbaugh on the right.
5
Rachel Maddow offers cable news the type of programing that is needed thought cable news. It is thoughtful, informative, and historical in its approach. Particularly interesting is that after Rachel goes into a long explanation of some issue and then has the expert present to be interviewed, she always ask, "did I get that right...." This exemplifies her commitment to accuracy..I have never heard a guest make corrections but only to add something. Cable news shows that play back and forth or so scripted and unreal. Maybe they contribute to our severe polarization in this country.
8
I agree with almost everything Rachel has to say. But her presentations are tedious - however well developed and probably accurate. But as much as I "like" her, the show feels like a long entertaining lecture.
I would be more inclined to watch her if she had more guests. But frankly, by 9:00 PM my brain is already saturated with political punditry and the poisonous events of the day.
Of course, my opinion is worth little, as we don't watch any TV "news or commentary" - except Friday night's PBS Newshour. Mark Shields defies his age with pinpoint memories and analogies. And of course, David Brooks entertains us as he desperately attempts to remain a "Conservative" in the face of a complete redefinition of the word.
3
Rachel is my rock, I watch my Yankees to 8:59 and if she's on I watch...The best one in the business (IMHO).
8
She's cute.
She's smart.
She makes the complicated simple to understand.
8
Wellllllll, Amanda, if I did not know better, I would have sworn Rachel wrote this pretty impressive article. It was concise, informative, humorous and REAL. You both are in fact. Kudos to you both. I have added you both to my bucket list to share an hour over your favorite brew. I am not one to go heads over heels ( no pun intended Rachel) over anyone, but your writing style and Rachel's persona would make for an interesting exchange. We watch Rachel nightly, ignoring all other repetitive and slanted 24/7 news cycle for a recap of what is important to know. So thank you ladies, you are indeed gems. Thank you for being part of a history that brought some smiles and intelligence. YOU matter. Samm
8
This would be great with a cross-reference to the September 29th article about the owners. Since they control the programming and rants, when you talk about Fox, you are apparently talking about the the owners.
1
Here is my problem with Maddow and MSNBC in general—
I have a friend who is a faithful Maddow fan similar to others here. And he had no idea that the US was dropping thousands of bombs on various countries every year, both under Obama and then under Trump. I have seen people in NYT comment threads who love Rachel who didn’t know we were supporting the Saudi bombing of Yemen beginning in March 2015 under Obama. I saw a Maddow piece in the Fall of 2016 which mentioned the war in Yemen, but only because the Houthis had fired a missile at a catamaran warship ( Rachel spent minutes talking about catamarans) and because her point was that if Trump was in office we wouldn’t have a steady hand managing the crisis. She said nothing about the massive humanitarian crisis that we were complicit in causing. There was one twelve month period where MSNBC covered Stormy Daniels 455 times and the war in Yemen once. https://fair.org/home/action-alert-its-been-over-a-year-since-msnbc-has-mentioned-us-war-in-yemen/
There is no excuse for this. Maddow and her network have an audience and they never thought the fact that the Obama Administration and then Trump were helping the Saudis fight a war that has caused the deaths of over 85,000 children. This pretense that they are educating their viewers is a falsehood. They are a disgrace to journalism and the fact that Fox is worse is no justification for being as terrible as they are.
5
@Donald
And remember their coverage of the torture allegations, and what Obama's FBI did to Diane Feinstein's computers, i.e. removing evidence? Or how about Obama's user of drones to kill Americans, including an American child just because his dad was a suspected terrorist?
Yeah, I don't either because they didn't cover it. They did cover Obama taking pictures with lots of kids, though because that's very newsworthy.
If Trump had a drone kill list with zero due process or involvement from law enforcement, everyone would rightly flip their lid. If Trump was dragging magnets over WH servers, again that would be a scandal.
2
@Donald, Maddow has a show on MSNBC. One show.
She does not run MSNBC, or have any say in other programing.
Most, or probably all, of her followers would agree with you, 100%, in terms of the pathetic state of "the news" in this country, but that is not her fault.
At least, because of her, and a couple of others, we are more informed about some important things, than we ever would be, without her.
How much do you know about Air-America? What happened to that idea, explains a lot about what you are saying.
5
@Viv... he did.
3
I commented how gracious Rachel Maddow is to her guests and The Times never published it. Here goes another try.
Thank you Rachel Maddow for having class when interviewing guests on your show. We can sit back and always know the guests will be respected. A given. Then we can just learn what’s being offered, as we should from an interview.
Carry on. Congratulations on your book. Thanks for all your hard work in everything you do.
18
We have no other choice than to love her new book- otherwise be prepared to be labeled an enemy of the LGBTQ community.
1
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE black and white photos! Thank you, NYTimes for always having the best photojournalism.
4
Best time of my day is clicking on The Rachel Maddox podcast on my iPad. I put on my earphones and listen while Rachel talks to me for the next hour. She knows me, knows I'm worried, anxious and scared about my country. She gets it!
3
It disturbs me that the Rachael Maddow Show is termed opinion or punditry, which lumps her in with Fox News' Hannity and others on that network, who have only a passing acquaintance with the truth.
Journalists who have pundits from the right and left on cable news shouting at one another aren't necessarily providing much truth, not in the way reading a newspaper does.
TRMS does present news of interest to a particular part of society, but it is still NEWS. It doesn't get Pinoccioed for false statements.
If National Georgraphic had a news channel, about scientific news, it would appeal to a certain part of the public. It wouldn't be labeled opinion along with those who cannot seem to tell the truth.
It's not Rachael's fault that news has a liberal bias.
5
Rachel Maddow is a national treasure, and knows how to enthrall her viewers.
My sanity has been spared since before the 2016 election, largely due to her and her great staff's work!
Seeing Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton on her show the other night, explaining how the State Department (and government) theoretically and practically works, gave me hope again.
Hillary doesn't even need to be on the same stage with tRump to stalk him and to loom up from behind him to get under his thin skin. Enough reason to drive him pure batty, as we have seen lately.
Kudos on the new book for both the Clintons and Rachel Maddow...!
6
I’ve not had cable for several years, because am not a great fan of its reason to be, crudy, unimaginative, sing-song, tedious commercials.
I don’t recall Air America liberal left radio enough for
RM’s show, but recall when she began on msnbc, which was a treat with KO’s and RM’s programs.
Meanwhile for years I listened to Sean the hanitizer on WGST radio, and got my anger out in faxes as he
bashed WJC, and I justly wasn’t respectful about it.
Well, he’s buddy-buddy with potus, so this is my
claim to having a rendezvous with regression, and apology to Eric Goldman, who romanticized the New Deal even more than me only born in 1944, too
late for surviving the wretched Depression.
I’ll try to hear Rachel’s podcasts, thanks for article, and I didn’t catch the alleged condescension, naïveté is often
my less cynical mind, which is a relieving blessing.
1
Yup. Maddow is right to continue covering Russia and those who defend even its worst actions, and other countries that Russia influences, including Ukraine (and the US). As it seems Maddow points out in her new book, the destructive side of the dual nature of the oil and gas industry has been neck and neck with its productive side almost from the start, and as with some other countries, Russia has played a large role in this.
As Maddow has covered, in recent years as the oil and gas industry begins its slow wind-down, Russia's economy is still very dependent on it, and they also still find it a useful carrot-and-stick to get other nations to bend to its will for other purposes, including territorial aims, and so they're willing to continue doing some egregious things to keep their hand in it.
And while some other countries (including the US) have also long committed egregious acts to further their monetary and other profits from the industry, Russia's actions aren't dismissible using whataboutism, especially since those actions are becoming increasingly insidious and far-reaching.
5
Perhaps because I am a long-time history buff I like Rachel Maddow. She explains things by beginning at the beginning and walking us through all the steps leading up to the present. She explains not only how things are but how they came to be what they are. She stops short of "telling" us what to think or do about any given situation assuming that, as intelligent human beings, we know what to think and do. She is who she is and I like who she is.
11
You can't watch Rachel Maddow and let your mind drift. Once she slides into her chair and gets ready to launch, you have to be very attentive because she's going to begin telling a story that seems to be detached from current events -- except it isn't. You seldom know where she's going when she starts out. She weaves in apparently unrelated threads and then as she goes along, you begin to see the story emerge - and amazingly what you begin to see is very related to what she started out with. I don't know how she does it, but many times her story telling has totally caught me off guard and surprised. I think that's why I tune in. That's why a lot of people tune in.
18
Blowout is turning out to be a great book. (I'm midway through.) Prescient as to our moment. Highly recommend.
7
It seems that Americans like to have opinions, but are too lazy to inform themselves with facts. The average American has no real knowlege of history, geography, civics, the English language (!) etc., etc. and must therefore rely on an unelected pundit class to channel their prejudices into a semi-coherent world view.
Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda channel weaving conspiracy theories, slander, innuendoes and appleals to racism and xenophobia. Goebbels would be proud.
Maddow may be tendentious, but least she backs her arguments with facts and doesn't insult our intelligence (what little is left).
17
I have been a Maddow fan since Air America. I have also become a fan of Chris Hayes, a former journalist for the “Nation”, who was a frequent guest on Rachel’s show and who currently hosts “All In with Chris Hayes”. I like both of them because they are intelligent, well educated social justice warriors who treat their audiences like intelligent human beings and not marks. Before them I never watched cable news aside from the occasional Keith Olbermann view.
13
I was listening to her talking about her new book "Blowout" and she sums it right to the main point.
According to Putin's view, Russia without Ukraine is just Russia vs. Russia with Ukraine is the USSR...
Putin's big dream... he needs Ukraine that's what the fight is all about plus gas & oil rich territory for a humongous gas station like Russia, where economy is not existent, that's their only way to prevent big revolution and corrode European country to the submission.
9
I can't get past Ms. Maddow's appalling grammar on the several occasions when I have watched her show. If her ubiquitous. meaningless and inappropriate use of the phrase, "in terms of" were deleted from each of her broadcasts, the show would be ten minutes long. During one episode, my wife and I lost count after Ms. Maddow uttered the phrase ten times. A serious journalist? Maybe, but not a particularly articulate one.
7
My wife and I read the NYT, we are informed and lifelong Democrats. We are college educated with graduate degrees and read books and have at 85 a decent recollection of our nation's history during our lifetimes.
BUT at 9pm on every week day night, even if we had not finished cleaning up after dinner my DVR turns on Rachel and we are on our couch to watch it. We answer no phones.
We want to know what, we also want to know why, and often, how did they get away with that. At the end of each show I turn to my wife of 61 years and say, well honey did you learn something you did not know because I did. Often the only time that day that she agreed with me. Never miss TRMS and look forward to it.
28
@Sheldon Bunin
I wish you two were my in-laws. You sound very interesting and cool. One of my favorite memories is of my mother and me watching the DNC when Ann Richards delivered the key note speech, "Where was George"? It was our super bowl, and yes, beer was involved!
2
"Constructive survival value" is the reason I watch. She offers facts and leaves it to me to decide what I think.
All the things Ailes told her about point to the heart for what is valued, what is loved.
She can only be 'authentic' to herself.
Reporting on television has taught me journalism is, unfortunately, an occupation, not a profession.
Mr. Cronkite understood this which is why he never told us what to think. I believe Rachel understand this as well.
6
Rachel's show is very different from most cable news shows in the sense that it requires an active listener and last night's show was a perfect example of that. Last night Rachel Maddow made the clearest, point by point connection from Michael Flynn and his covert sanction discussions with the Russians to this most recent William Barr revelation and tied it up in a way that clearly and concisely connects all the dots and it all connects to Putin. It was the clearest summarization of what the Trump administration has been up to for the past three years and no one comes close to laying it out as well as Rachel does, if you're paying attention.
822
@HG Wells
"Rachel's show is very different from most cable news shows in the sense that it requires an active listener" -- which of course most people aren't, nor are they of open mind, nor do they know history nor care to be educated about it. They have already made up their minds based on personal preferences not substance or fact. Her show is intimidating to some people for those reasons. But not to me. Like you, I appreciate her thoughtful insights into history, her tenacity, her ability to ask the questions and connect the dots. And I often come away with questions of my own!
68
@HG Wells..operative being = if you're paying attention..many dont and no Trump supporters even see her show....this clear-minded, fact-based information needs to go in FOX...which is seeding the problem with endless propaganda on loop...
4
"By the time she cut to her first commercial break, she had zoomed out so far that Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine appeared to be just one little pushpin on a map of vast global corruption."
That's what she does, and that's why some of us love her to death. Yes, her monologues can be tedious (Get to the point, Rachel!) but always in the end, well worth it.
She manages to pack 100 pounds of news into a 5-pound news slot, weaving and integrating building blocks of understanding. It's truly amazing how she writes her openings, and yet, at a dime, changes them in seconds to meet the latest late-breaking.
I've never seen any media person like her, and consider her a rare treasure in a sea of repetitive pundits. She may urge us to watch what Trump does, not says, but in her case, I want to watch what she says, each and every night.
1330
@ChristineMcM
“I've never seen any media person like her.”
You might want to take a look at another MNSBC host, the Rev Al Sharpton. He hosts “Politics Nation”, weekends at 5pm. Great production staff and the Rev Al’s strong suit is education, voting, and criminal justice.
14
@ChristineMcM - “She manages to pack 100 pounds of news into a 5-pound news slot...” spot on. If one’s in a mood to be so schooled. I love it, but hints at why her viewership numbers pale in comparison to the Fox numbers. The question is - what might one infer about left-leaning voters’ inclinations for engagement in 2020? Should one anyway?
6
@LD Mark ...or perhaps the better question is why so many Fox viewers aren't engaged so much as indoctrinated [willing to accept a set of beliefs uncritically]? Intellectual curiosity describes the motivation and desire to learn and understand more about people, cultures, ideas, and concepts. This curiosity also provides the motivation to invest time and energy into the pursuit of knowledge. Rachel does a lot of the legwork to provide her audience this as well as the value of historical perspective and insights. On the other hand, I was stunned to watch Sean Hannity actually discourage his audience from educating themselves or seeking out new information or other points of view by telling them "you don't need to watch the Democratic debates because we'll do it for you" (and subsequently Fox viewers only received a highly spun version of what occurred).
So are there more people willing to passively accept what the Fox channel offers, than there are people who question, seek knowledge from a variety of sources to be better informed rather than indoctrinated? What do you think?
35
I never miss TRMS. Rachel is astoundingly brilliant and unlike any other news host. Rachel is more like a professor, connecting the dots for you and telling you things no one else will. If you don't watch Rachel, you won't know the whole story.
Aside from being smarter than anyone, she is also unfailingly modest and gracious and funny. I'm about to read her new book, Blowout, and I know I will learn a lot. Rachel is a gift and she has helped me survive the last three years.
1403
@CJ Rachel's opening segment yesterday (9/30) is a must-see for anyone trying to understand why Trump is obsessed with Russia. The importance of Ukraine's role is now also very clear to me.
37
@CJ I agree with you completely. But...the scary thing to me is that what you and I admire about her is exactly what enrages those who find fault with her. Her intelligence and ability to lay out the story in such a straightforward understandable manner infuriates those among us who rage on the other side.
31
@CJ Absolutely. She has helped me stay as sane as one can in this unbelievable time. I am 78 and would not have survived this corrupt world without her. Rachel Maddow for President!
26
I still record TRMS but lately may only watch a few minutes (or more depending on what she lead with and/or if she has a guest I want to hear from). Lately, her monologues are snooze inducing (literally), as she goes round and round, repetitiously, until finally making her point which was already obvious. Also, the reading of transcripts, especially during the Mueller investigation was more tiresome than informative. Lastly, I hate to say it but she's become a bit of a diva "technically I'm supposed to be on vacation", " had this great show written but something always breaks and blows it".
My absolute never miss show is Nicolle Wallace. She's honest, incredibly smart, has a dynamic personality, is humble and has a great sense of humor. Her guests are also very worth listening to. Maybe Rachel should have more guests rather than holding forth solo and reading to us. In the beginning I always learned something from her - now maybe not so much.
3
Although I usually agree with the positions stated on Maddow's show, I have stopped watching. She has become enamored with her own voice and repeats the same point three, four, five times. What used to be a show with good concise analysis has become a boring, repetitive exercise in leftist punditry. I like Rachel and would like to watch her again, if only she would return to her earlier style.
88
@Father Eric F
Perhaps what is boring and repetitive isn't Rachel's take on the news. Perhaps it is the never-ending Trumpian display of petty, childish absurdities that characterize his mis-administration. Whatever the situation Trump can be counted on to do the wrong thing. Reporting on Trump is boring and repetitive because Trump is boring and repetivite.
54
@Father Eric F: I agree that she restates a point several times which can seem gratuitously repetitious. However, I’ve come to appreciate that stylistic element to her monologue because it helps me to remember the main points and how the various threads that are being woven together relate to one another. The older I get, the more I appreciate the reminders.
51
@Father Eric F she is a teacher - they need to repeat repeat repeat until we get the facts figured out. She is beyond brilliant. She has never wavered from the corruption of Trump and his family and the republicans. She has exposed the criminal activities going on in the oval since trump walked in the door.
32
This is a snarky hit piece. Disappointing the Times would publish it. Given recent controversial editorial decision. I fear the NYT is sliding toward " Tabloidism".
As Stephen Colbert said, Rachel Maddow has an extraordinarily ability to explain complex events in an understandable manner. And she sometimes does cover stories that are not reported by other national news outlets. Sometimes, when important news breaks in as little as an hour before her show, she will say that she had to scrap the show she planned to cover the breaking news. I always wonder, How does she do that?
With regard to the Ukraine story, while most news outlets were focusing on Trump's request for an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Rachel analyzed the events in light of Russia's desire to have sanctions against it lifted, and Trump's still unexplained efforts to appease and accommodate Vladimir Putin. It made so much sense.
Rachel Maddow is a national treasure.
11
I couldn’t get through one program and don’t see what the fuss is about. She certainly does not compare to Walter Cronkite or anyone of his colleagues. Maybe in the heap of bad journalism on TV, her show seems to shine. But as a
veteran journalist, I am not a fan of opinion-tinged, biased news. I read rather than listen.
3
Have to laugh. Most of the criticisms of Rachel Maddow are from men, from what I can tell. What! Scared? What is it about strong, intelligent women that scares you so much, huh? Just listen to yourselves.
1
@HD
Intelligent, yes. Strong, no.
Maddow attacks easy targets. Christianne Amanpour is an intelligent strong journalist who is also courageous. Barbara
Starr and Doris Kearns Goodwin likewise. Also, the late Barbara Walters and Cokie Roberts.
The ownership of Rachel's Network, Comcast, and its CEO
Brian Roberts, want to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on most matters. Rachel is a perfectly "manageable and compliant" cable host.
Strong and courageous? Absolutely not.
1
Ms Hess you forgot to mention that Rachel pursues truth while Hannity lies for power. Quite a difference don't you think?
9
Racheal Maddow Forever!
4
"This Is the Moment Rachel Maddow Has Been Waiting For" Q/ Who says that she has been waiting?
1
William Safire, longtime columnist with the Times, would tell newly hired writers "don't kick people when they're down, kick them when they're up, it takes guts."
Rachel kicks people when they're down and then she kicks them again and again. A good target is a recording of some born again
"Christian" on the phone with his mistress. I'm thinking of a former southern governor. Rachel loves to play that recording and then put her face down on the desk in mock embarrassment while
her obedient staff laughs audibly in the background.
If she got on an airplane and went to Gaza or Teheran and did some real reporting or put Sheldon Adelson or Rev. Hagee on her
show I'd give her some credit. That's not Rachel's cup of tea. It's safer to do dramatic readings from court pleadings.
Keith Obermann was a risk taker and a hugely effective advocate for the Left. Rachel plays it nice and safe and panders to her base.
5
Rachel, I love you. Thanks for the huge contribution you make nearly every night. You are a lone voice of sanity in a sea of misinformation, hate and downright deception. I think it's odd the article did not mention your Air America days. Oh that's right, radio is pergatory for talent. But still, you were amazing back in the days of radio, say 15 years ago. Those of you unfamiliar with Air America, I strongly suggest you check it out. With republican double-speak dominating the radio waves of America, isn't it time we launch another progressive radio network? And Rachel, you are the perfect person to lead the way.
6
Ms.Maddow is my all time fav.I used to watch the MSNBC line up in it's entirety every night but as the illegitimate clown in the WH became more obviously evil,I had to reign in my viewing.First I couldn't stand the sight of his face, next the sound of his voice and what it was spewing,next my anger at the GOP and all the Magats.Then the horrid policies and now blessedly, silence.Except for Rachel,who addresses me as a person with a functioning brain.She will tell a story, wrap it up in a nice bow and let me open it.And nary a sight nor sound from the sub human in the WH that I loathe.Thank you.Rachel
5
Great article highlighting her obsessive pursuit of the Russia collusion hoax, leaving her with zero credibility. Zero.
4
William Safire, longterm columnist for the Times, would tell new writers to the Times "don't kick people when they're down, kick them when they're up, it takes guts."
Rachel kicks people when they're down and then she kicks them again and again.
1
A great orator. Love to see her go head to head with Hannity.
2
Did any one else skip the article and got straight to the comments section?
4
She has always been good, but she has been KILLING it lately! I am obsessively listening to her podcast. She explains extremely complex issues with ease and brings in just the right guest speakers to concisely add context. We are lucky to have her and her journalistic integrity during these unbelievable times.
6
I appreciate Maddow's intellect, thoroughness and committment to the truth. I know she can seem over exhuberant and redundant at times and I just need for her to get to the point, but in most cases when I watch I learn something that I didn't see in any of the any papers that I read.
3
It only takes about ten viewing to realize Rachael is a one note flute player. I find her "ironic" arguments to be a substitute for real intelligence and analytical ability. The fact that she left Stanford and Oxford after one year indicates that she has an opinion that she is not confident in or about, or just didn't feel like she was their equal. She's been on 8 or 9 years, yet only has 2.7 million viewers; some years it drops below 1 million. For that, she is paid $17 million a year for a four night a week show. Critics are a dime a dozen; people with viable ideas are like diamonds...rare. Her live commentary on debate and election nights reveal how shallow her ideas are. Her co hosts give her room because she's the most popular but "wisdom" is not how I'd classify her thinking. No where near Fran Leibowitz land She's cool and she knows it . The only group worse are ex smokers complaining about "what stinks"? Thank goodness she on the news and not running the country. She should loose the smirk and teach us all some better ideas than the ones we are being fed now.
3
While I am not a fan, I think she did graduate Stanford. I also don’t believe she makes $17M per year as even Katie Couric didn’t make that kind of money.
I have a Ph.D. so I appreciate Rachel Maddow's substantive journalism, and I respect the fact that Maddow is a very well educated journalist. I enjoy the fact that Maddow produces intelligent reporting and has a superior show, as a result.
I don't rely on any one channel or literary source for News.
3
I've been listening to Rachel Maddow since her Air America days and always look forward to her show. Here in France I can only have it as an audio podcast, but that's enough for me. I like the historical perspective she adds to her very thorough coverage of the mostly political news. For others who have been following her coverage of the trump presidency, I recommend another podcast, "The Asset". It very clearly lays out the whole story - with back stories - of the relationship between trump and Russia. I found it in the iTunes store and it's free.
5
I certainly agree with Rachel Maddow's political leanings and I watch her regularly. I do find her histrionics and emoting tiresome. Reminds of the laugh tracks on old sitcoms. I don't need the overt cues to understand the intent Just my subjective opinion.
3
@S.P.
Must agree about PBS, here. Maddow will give a timeline of factual events, combined well with history lessons, connecting much needed dots for our current times when too many have short memories. She is careful to keep what she doesn't know, posed as a question.
I too, left PBS after watching so many years. Last frustrating straw for me was when newscaster said, during Trumps primary campaign, "Doesn't someone need to tell him this is not a reality TV game show?'
Sorry PBS, but that seems to me to be exactly the question a Journalist should pose TO the candidate. ' how does your background as a reality tv show person lend any needed expertise to managing our country?"
Maddows humor is much needed refreshment.
6
I'm a fan. Yes, the long, long windup sometimes seems like a schtick, but any impatience or amusement it's capable of arousing in me is quickly counterbalanced by her mastery of the facts, her unerring ability to tease a deeper story out of the facts than the great preponderance of her TV contemporaries, and the brio with which she churns on and on, every fact-set carefully adjudicated and arrayed, the whole pattern slowly coming clear. "Voice of sanity" is a cliche, but she's no cliche, and she reminds us what sanity is: not just a quick take, not just "facts," but, more often than not, the ability to tell full and resonant stories in a way that delivers something like new knowledge.
The only thing the Times story misses, really, is the fact that her 25-minute A block monologues are simply a televised version of the long monologues she used to deliver on Air America. I don't know if those were scripted, but that's where she developed the long-form thing.
8
Sorry, but Rachel is the single-most annoying person on TV. She doesn't see a single thing from the other side's p.o.v., doesn't concede a single point, is rabidly partisan. I can't watch her for more than a few minutes. ONly the hyper-partisan would appreciate her.
10
Everything is partisan. At least she uses intelligence.
3
'A block' is genius - the rest I've already heard...
4
A good profile and a very good escape from hard news. Now I’m thinking, we might need a People magazine for thinking people. This kind of personality story would find its perfect home.
5
Vanity Fair
3
Listening to her during the A-Block is like sitting in on a seminar led by a learned professor. She is a fine, friendly teacher and clearly is not a preacher. And to top it off she has a great sense of humor and is always at the ready to make fun of herself.
One of these days the venomous loser in the Whine House is going to describe her as "low-IQ" (even though she is not African-American, the usual targets of his nasty barbs). Perhaps some media outlet will stage a debate between Rachel Maddow and the Mad Poisonous Pres. What a show!
14
My opinion is that Maddow is akin to a Rush Limbaugh of the left. Infotainment. Her breathless and obsessively melodramatic, conspiracy-laden, slow-buildup, hour-long seances detract from professional journalism and the credibility of CNN. Anybody can preach to the choir.
11
@Rocky Oops, MSNBC! And maybe that's part indicative of the problem of sensationalizing the news.
Holy Press Release! I don't mean to disparage Maddow or the writer here, but I've had enough of this cult of personality shtick. Look to the White House to see where it got us. To be clear, I likely agree with most of Maddow's opinions, but I think we'd all be much better off if celebrity fawning was relegated to the tabloids.
12
"She enrolled at Stanford at 17 and came out almost immediately, in an open letter she posted inside every bathroom stall in her dorm."
Wow. This acts reveals a stunning level of narcissism. She actually thought that everyone who lived in her dorm cared about her sexual orientation. I don't watch Maddow's show but I have caught a few minutes of it here and there. I also saw her on Real Time With Bill Maher where she embarrassed herself by standing up and talking over another guest in order to win an argument. Rachel Maddow seems intelligent but she is an egomaniac. Of course she has her own TV show.
87
@Phil
No, she doesn't seem intelligent. She is intelligent. Very intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. That's not narcissism. That's brains.
242
When a woman is confident, smart and uses her talent, she’s called narcissistic. If she is, she’s the best kind of narcissist - a truthful, moral and entertaining person. She’s just what the world needs. Thank Dog she is confident yet humble and persistent, doggonit!
166
@Phil
It's tv. It attracts boisterous, opinionated, telegenic people. Some very smart; many not. It pays pretty well.
Reality tv attracts the worst people, of course, and is watched by, generally, the dumbest viewers, who confuse it with actual reality.
An excellent 1950s movie, A FACE IN THE CROWD, showed the similar power of radio in turning a huckster into a somebody.
26
I am an unabashed Rachel fan - I watch her show most nights. I appreciate the truth, and I appreciate those who do the same.
11
Rachel has inspired me to learn more and become active in politics. I never had any real interest in history or politics before I started watching her show.
She is always prepared, even when the content of her program shifts moments before broadcast. Her ability to communicate is beyond anything I've ever seen from anyone. She is always thoughtful and humble during interviews. She doesn't sink to name calling and brutal chiding as seen most everywhere else. She always asks guests if she got the facts right and readily admits to any mistake she might have made. This is what you call integrity.
When she was on vacation, knee deep in a trout stream, she took off her waders and came to work to cover the Mueller report release. This is what you call dedication.
She's managed to write two books and created a wonderful podcast in her "spare time." This is called brilliance.
She wears $10 blazers and jeans under her desk. She only wears her contacts when she is on the air. This is what modesty is.
I don't know how I would be making it through this dark time in our history without her wit, candor, honesty and relentless pursuit of the truth.
And this is my attempt at appreciation. Thank you Rachel.
23
@Ruth Here, here!
1
I will now listen or watch Maddow every day.
What an interesting person!
7
Not having a t.v., I had wondered what the fuss was from people on Facebook, particularly since I caught her briefly a couple of times a decade ago and wasn't hooked. It is surprising, but pleasantly so, as it goes against so much current conventional wisdom, to learn that an intellectual approach can still work. I note the mixed views in the other "Comments," but think I will have to try again.
On a very different tenor, I have the same messy office as Rachel Maddow, although even more piles and lists here and there! Not being her, I was told by two different supervisors that it was hurting my career. One said it gives the "impression of disorganization," as well as not fitting in, which fit into my developing cultural learning curve about discrepancies between purported organizational pursuit of "innovation," and actual cultural innovation-killers.
But they were not the only members of the "office police." Some are in my own family. My wife once brought in a local fireperson with the aim to admonish me ("too wishy-washy" in my wife's view). I had only one colleague who got it, telling her stunned, visiting then-young daughter: "That's (the piles) are Matt's brain." I do hope the daughter wasn't traumatized.
My only successfully published letter-to-the-editor in the Times was a defense of clutter (although a bit tongue-in-cheek).
So, office-observers, unless our office styles are somehow really effecting your productivity or something, please leave us and our piles alone.
2
Maddow provides a very important function. She makes sense of an insane time in our history for one hour a day. There are three Americas now - MSNBC America, FOX News America, and those who watch neither much if at all. The third group decides most elections.
6
Thanks for this piece. It's good to know that there are other people out there obsessively needing a dose of Rachel every night. I love that she gets into details and angles that other outlets don't seem to cover. Her brightness gives me hope in the darkest of times. Keep it up, Rachel!
11
Trump's actions vis a vis Russia and the election were disqualifying enough without piling on unfounded charges of "collusion," which, unless Mueller is part of a pro-Trump conspiracy, did not occur.
But Maddow did that relentlessly, night after night. She doesn't have enough journalistic integrity to differentiate between reasonable suspicions and actual proof, and would still have her audience believe Trump and Putin personally hacked electronic ballot boxes in the Rust Belt to steal the election. Her irresponsibility makes it easier for Trump and his goons to reduce all criticism of his outrages as Democratic hysteria and media noise.
But it sure gets ratings!
You would think Maddow would have spent a moment in self reflection after being so radically, terribly, relentlessly wrong, but she just moves on to the next obsession. She is as much of a journalist as Hannity, and MSNBC is just as serious a news organization as Fox.
12
@Livonian But she wasn’t wrong. READ the report.
20
@Livonian
You have clearly never actually watched the show. However you have done a pretty good job of summarizing the right wing mischaracterization of it.
Ms Maddow has been very careful to distinguish the difference between what is known fact — as best as can be determined, what could be true but is not verified, what is questionable, and what is not likely in any manner true.
Also, if you had been watching, you would know that “collusion” is not a legal term. The legal equivalent is “conspiracy” and conspiracy can be very difficult to prove in a legal sense, even when it seems obvious.
Still, collusion is a pretty useful term, as in “no collusion”.
Odd how most Republicans now seem to be avoiding using that word, “collusion” at all, now.
23
@Livonian You might not like her, but she doesn't call up the president to see what kind of spin she should put on any given news story. That's what Hannity does. And as soon as Hannity disagrees with trump he will be thrown under the bus as all are who disagree with the creature that thinks he's God.
20
Obsessive is the key word.
4
We are all living inside a real life spy novel. A super crazy one where the Kremlin has placed a fully co-opted "asset" into the Oval Office itself. It's a novel so outlandish it was never written. I assume it simply wasn't plausible enough.
I don't wonder why Maddow is obsessed with this, it's a compelling story even if there is some innocent explanation for it somehow. I wonder instead how a nation that once destroyed random Americans for even a hint of association with subversive Moscow based elements has evolved into a country where a hard third think a murderous, anti-democratic, Kremlin based tyrant is our friend.
I wonder how intelligence, facts, science itself have become sneered at by a large political constituency. It scares me that this anti-intellectualism is happening, not in 1970's Cambodia, but in 21st century America.
Fault Maddow for her style, her biases, her attitude as you will, she's not everyone's cup of joe. However you can't fault her accuracy, you can't fault the way she asks her guests "did I get that right?" This is a person who, in a world of fake news and alternative facts, can largely be trusted.
That's huge in these times when critical thinking skills are at such a low ebb.
Thank You Rachel!
22
Well, I guess back 2010 or 2011 Glenn Beck had his NY Times Magazine cover puff piece. So the MSNBC equivalent deserves hers.
Submitted Oct 2nd 9:59 eastern
4
Remember when this Hack (Journalactress)
Was obsessed with “BridgeGate” Trump is not the only sickness going on in America... “ she is A One Trick Pony” now and forever .. ad nausea condescending .. like the college professor ( narcissistic and so boringly self righteous) who after the first class.. you want to jump out the window .. Cable News
Is Entertainment not Journalism
5
I like Maddow but I have to be in the mood: she wears me out.
2
Rachel sure is one creative powerhouse. I don’t see near as much mention as I would expect, of her recent terrific pod-cast, “Bagman”, about the fall of Spiro Agnew. (It made me a big fan of related podcasts, like frequent Maddow guest Chuck Rosenberg’s “The Oath”.)
And in “Bagman”, the true origins of the “custom” in the Department of Justice to avoid indicting a sitting president (or Vice President?!), that became hardened into a - “CUSTOM” - capitalized.
Unproven - regarding precedent, or constitutional basis, or subsequent law. What a curiosity.
Thanks Rachel!
8
@Dan Skwire Bag Man is a work of art. I consider it “comfort listening” for nights I feel depressed.
3
"...a news doula..."
I laughed so hard, I thought I had whooping cough!
Seriously, no other show has pointed out that Trump is de-funding ERI -- which is our assistance to Ukraine in fighting off Russian invasion. Trump is basically de-funding NATO, basically taking Russia's side.
Now we have Barr and Pompeo also taking Russia's side, by trying to get other countries to help prove Russia is innocent in the matter of interfering in our 2016 elections.
4
Love the comparison of cable news to Hieronymus Bosch’s “The Garden of Earthly Delights!“ Spot on.
I disagree with Ms. Maddow but respect her intellect. She seems genuine even if she is genuinely wrong. She is as biased as Hannity but not as annoying. My guess is that she and most of her audience hated Trump long before he became President Trump. His gaudy brand of boorishness is offensive to many, regardless of political persuasion. Perhaps Ukrainegate will finally take Trump down, but don’t bet on it. No matter what, Rachel will keep tilting at that windmill until Trump terms out or is kicked out. Makes for good television if nothing else.
One of my favorite moments this summer was a bunch of us -- all strangers who decided to share a house for a week on Fire Island -- making dinner together out on the deck of this beautiful house, and then gathering inside to watch Rachel break down Mueller's testimony to Congress, which had occurred earlier that day. I will never forget, as long as I live, these six strangers, gathered on this sectional sofa, nodding in silent testimony to Rachel's nightly soliloquy. I will admit to having the biggest girlie crush on Rachel -- me, the straight, academic geek nerd, I think it's those Buddy Holly glasses -- but her reporting is unparalleled. In these dark times, she is so often the voice of calm and reason.
8
I've been watching Maddow now for over 5 years. I'm a news hound that reads a half dozen newspapers on line daily.
What I find so informative about Maddow is how she is able to connect the dots. Last nights show was a wonderful example of that.
The dump campaign is slowly but surely attacking "sleepy Joe" (a disgusting term), but the play book for that attack was first used in the Ukraine against a female Lawmaker who attacked the gas industry and exposed its corruption.
The playbook was developed by Manafort and is now being used against Biden and last nights show showed how this is being done! Now that's informative.
I must admit, sometimes Rachel is off the mark, but most of the time she hits the nail squarely on the head, and her Mantra of "Watch what they do, NOT what they say" is the best advice anyone could have to try and understand the current cancer now infecting our democracy.
This article showed how she comes about shaping her show and her own philosophy about the craziness now occupying our news cycles.
The one outstanding fact about her show I appreciate most is that she goes directly to the source of the news, the reporters themselves...no spin...just facts! She tells the truth as best she can, and that is why I watch her show.
11
It's not really fair to compare Rachel's viewership with Hannity's. Fox News is free on every level of cable subscription. MSNBC requires a more expensive one. If it were free to everyone, hard to know how many more people would be watching Rachel each night.
4
Not true. If you get Fox News you get MSNBC.
1
I had to subscribe to a different level (more $) from my cable provider in order to access MSNBC. Fox was available at the most basic rate.
1
As someone who worked on B-47's from 1953 to 1957 and whose friends were in England and Germany in the Army to deter Russia I am all for Rachel. It was Patton who wanted to take out the Soviet Union and it is Trump and his cronies that will deliver us to Putin.
5
Maddow is insightful.
Hannity is inciteful.
Rachel's like a scientist and investigative "observer" analyzing the evidence, finding the hidden connections and explaining it to the rest of us who missed some of the pieces and connections in all of our daily reading fix. Hannity and the rest of his comrades are the "generals" and televangelist preachers of opinion-news culture wars spoon-feeding deceptive, cruel, mean, even hateful fantasies and baseless conspiracies and beliefs to their audience seeking their daily anger fix.
There is a reason liberal ideologies tend towards truth and facts while those on the right tend towards fiction and lies. Hence why scientists and journalists are always slammed as liberals.
5
I regard Rachel as a National treasure, a great teacher. She conveys information without being ugly about it. Fox is ugly about everything.
8
Maddow is a good interviewer but I can't stand her long drawn out stories. She can take 45 minutes to make a point.
And she might call herself progressive but she once called the Afghanistan war "the good war", comparing it to Iraq.
She's become a real performer.... acting manic at times. I prefer my news delivered a little more seriously. But at least we know she means well.
2
Rachel connects the dots like no other. Thanks Rachel!
4
Your perception is off by miles. Maddow is neither corrupt, nor dishonest. She always sources her stories and humbly asks her guests each time if she has gotten the story right. Fox would never do such a thing. She is the Cronkite of our age and then some.
405
@Ruth No, a million times no. Maddow is intelligent but she's liberal and her show is built on her opinion about topics of interests to liberals. Cronkite was a straight down the middle, old time news guy. No one at the time knew anything about his political views. Apples and oranges.
15
@Ruth An interesting thought... how would Cronkite handle the daily broadcast of the tweets and other statements of DJT? What pejorative nickname would DJT give him? How would he react to the "fake news" label, or being called a traitor for telling the truth?
23
@Ruth
Back in the 1990s, I said "Hi" to Walter Cronkite walking along the street at 53rd and Fifth. It was a real wow.
I'd be just as excited if I passed Rachel Maddow on the street today.
15
She reminds me far too much of the Clintons, always just barely hiding that she believes herself to be the smartest in the room. And so terribly predictable. After hearing the first few words of a sentence introducing a topic, I can nearly finish the sentence, the thought, the story and the bias of the story. And the anti-Sanders bigotry, it goes beyond mere bias, of MSNBC and her show is a complete turnoff coming as it does from "crowd envy". Our culture has enough "obsessed bullhorns" I shall continue my non-listening.
13
Looks a lot like Elvis Costello on the cover of the This Year’s Model LP.
3
If anyone ever needed any additional evidence that the left is insane, they've come to the right place.
23
@Dude Abiding
What do you mean by this statement. What in this article give you evidence "the left is insane"?
3
@Dude Abiding
And.... Crickets. Nothing. Lob an Ad hominem and disappear.
3
Rachel Maddow is a propagandist, not a journalist.
21
Her show is the left’s version of Tucker Carlson.
15
@JDK
Not even close. In the war between brains and sycophancy, I will take brains any day.
6
Rachel Maddow is living proof that the Left owns the mass media, as her conspiracy theories are as laughably evidence free and implausible as those of Alex Jones. Unlike Jones, however, Maddow has the likes of the NYTimes propping her up.
By the end of Trump's second term, these media entities will either face a reckoning or they will vanish.
9
@Jeton Ademaj
To compare Rachel Maddow to Alex Jones is such a stretch of distorted perception that any thing else said looses credibility.
My condolences...
8
Her show is an outlandish representation of the "news." Her middle name should be hyperbole. Her ratings cannot compare to her opponents at Fox. She is so full of hatred for the President she cannot produce a rational show.
11
@Donald
"She is so full of hatred for the President..." EXACTLY why I watch her show. But it's not blind hatred. It is an informed hatred - a hatred because of how he is tearing down our country. There is no middle ground with trump. Love him or hate him. I too choose the latter and look forward to the day that his wardrobe is as orange as his skin color.
13
Good for her, bad for the country. And I don't me Trump. I mean her ditto head show.
4
Just another in a long line of biased commentators(both liberal and conservative). Her lack of objectivity makes it very difficult to take much of what she says seriously.
9
I think perhaps more some listerners' lack of understanding, not Maddow's lack of objectivity that is the problem.
@Jeff Harrison
5
@Jeff Harrison
Switch channels - Fox could use better viewership!
3
@Jeff Harrison This comment lacks some serious objectivity. You just can't much more objective than producing an A- block that is highly detailed. But then words mean nothing these days.
Good times.
2
Just as before, this will go nowhere. For two years, Maddow pumped up her relatively small audience of obsessive Trump haters with the notion that the Muller Report would be his demise. There was an outbreak of mass depression among her following when this did not happen. The same thing is about to happen,again. There will be this fervent group that she whips into an impeachment furry. Given the makeup of the partisan House, it is likely that Trump will be impeached. The Maddows will shriek with excitement. Then reality will set in. Shortly after that joy, the Senate will unceremoniously acquit and the whole episode will be over with Trump still in office. The Maddows will elicit their primal screams and life will go on. It’s oh so predictable.
11
Great - another profile of a complete charlatan.
13
I’m gonna be a naysayer here.
I find this person and her show to be unwatchable. For the following reasons:
- She takes 15 minutes to say what could be said in 15 seconds by rephrasing a sentence over and over and over and over and...you get the idea. If you are a thinking person with a lot to do and little time, it’s infuriating. If her spiel was in printed form, at least you could speed read through it.
- This tendency of hers renders much of what she has to say into a rant. In this, she is the liberal equivalent of Tucker Carlson.
- pursuant to that, she can be just as unprofessional as Tucker. I remember when the ‘16 results were coming in and the election was called for Trump. She pulled out a bottle of scotch right on the air and whined for hours instead of analyzing how it came about (Michael Moore was the ONLY pundit who called it correctly: not Rachel, not O’Donnell, not Hayes)
- Which goes to the next point. Much of what she does is not original reporting. It’s just stuff picked up off the wires or WaPo or The NY Times, and she puts her spin on it, designed to keep liberals whipped up into a frenzy. This is no more responsible than what Carlson does.
- But it keeps liberal eyeballs glued to the TV set so the dozens of pharma commercials can keep the revenue stream going for GE and Microsoft. In the end, she is an entertainer masquerading as a journalist.
- I am a progressive, she fashions herself such. I find her to be a neoliberal. She is Clinton supporter.
30
@unreceivedogma
She also happens to be curious, highly qualified, well read!
Yup, I do agree she repeats and rehashes and repeats the stories. That part is irritating.
5
Highly qualified as circus barker for liberals? In that I’ll agree.
But just because she is qualified doesn’t mean she is effective at anything more than keeping liberals in a whipped up state of hyperbolic anxiety. That’s great for ratings. I prefer to get educated elsewhere.
Everyone points to her Oxford pedigree. So what. For that matter, I went to The Cooper Union. Yet Steven Jobs dropped out of school.
7
@unreceivedogma
The night before the election I remember her saying that just like Lincoln was followed by Johnson we could have one of our best presidents followed by one of our worst. She was right on.
7
No one likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they're the smartest in the room.
She's a big part of the problem of why we have Trump. RATINGS. People like her, and Chris Matthews (who I like), Joe S, Mika, Anderson Cooper, the too many to name at Fox (Tucker Carlson and those dolts in the morning), who gave Trump an OPEN MIC to spew and repeat his garbage.
It was great for these people and their networks. Ratings, money, money, money. They enabled his election and gave Republican primary voters their savior.
No thanks, Rachel. Being too smart gave us the current POTUS.
8
@Thomas Penn in Seattle I don't agree that Trump has an open mic to spew his garbage on Maddow. "Watch what they do..." Someone has to explain the garbage he does spew elsewhere. I have seen Maddow give BOTH sides of an issue, something that you would never see on Fox. Or even on another MSNBC show. Listening to smart people is how we will get out of this mess. Unfortunately, too many are eager to listen to people who simply regurgitate the spin, left and right.
5
@Thomas Penn in Seattle
Dearest Thomas,
Americans thinking education was a waste of time, getting hung up on reality TV and as a result becoming stupid and lazy - gave us DT!
Perhaps there's a tad bit of feminist envy ;-) in your observation.
5
@Thomas Penn in Seattle The funny about you, is you claim to be so smart that you blamed Rachel Maddow for the Donald J Trump's dirty rotten election victory in which he received 3 million less votes than his competitor.
You're so smart, Thom. Like, the smartest guy in the room. Way to go, Buddy!
6
Rachel "Russia! Russia! Russia!" Maddow, who fashions herself to be a journalist, is one of the worst offenders to true journalism.
Remember that time she speculated the Russian's were going to attack the energy grid during winter and asked the audience to visualize what they would do as their family froze to death? She's a conspiracy nut.
Is this what we consider journalism?
She's smart enough to know she's an establishment propagandist, a rich, neoliberal and neoconservative media mouthpiece that's lost whatever credibility she once had. But she doesn't care (30k/day!). Her interminable efforts at warmongering and promoting anti-Russian sentiment are as repugnant as her constant efforts to do everything she can to discredit Bernie Sanders.
Hannity and Maddow are bookends holding up the Encyclopedia of Amerikan Infoganda. Both push propaganda- one that benefits Democrats and the other Republicans.
Both are two caricatures of corporate media's presentation of what the right and the left ought to be, presented in the framing of a sporting event where two sides battle on the political playing field. Yet, here is little difference between both of these political impostors. Both are pro-war, and both represent corporate interests that are behind this modern morality play. Both represent the disintegration of profound political thinking as they herd the public into two corrals of political nonsense. A pox on both their nearly identical houses.
26
@Chris
"Promoting anti-russian sentiment" i.e. doing her job.
@Chris Couldn't have said it better!
5
How do you hurt your ankle fishing? I thought that was one of the safest sports available to the faint-of-heart.
No honest-to-goodness Republican would hurt his ankle fishing. Well they might, but they would then make up a story about how they just came back from a fighter-jet mission and tripped while exiting the plane. Or had a boulder fall on their leg while sighting their big game hunting rifle at a charging Rhino....
Only a bleeding heart liberal would actually admit they hurt their ankle while fishing!
11
Obviously you have never fly fished in a stream. Walking through hidden slippery rocks and fast current. Try it.
14
Now let's remember, this is the woman who bought the fake Russian hoax story hook, line and sinker. How can we ever believe her?
11
You mean the “fake” Russian interference detailed in the Mueller Report and in Mueller’s testimony before Congress?
17
She is dangerous and peddles a lot of false information. As noted by others here, she creates false narratives and keeps them going and going and going. And I repeat, they are often false. Russia gate for example; very little evidence for any of that nonsense of Russia "meddling" in our election. She makes millions and most of it is fake news. I follow it closely, I hate Trump, I have 3 college degrees in science so I study this stuff intensely. She is a phony.
14
@Frank
It's the science background that's trippin' ya up, Frank. Forget that stuff, go with what you know - "your truth". See how falsehoods are vanquished with no effort at all.
10
May I suggest you actually read the Mueller report?
33
@Frank
Which "false narratives" are you speaking about, list them for us.
False narratives just as the new Trump associated Republican's do.
12
An expose' on Maddow by the NYT
How shocking. NOT
All part of the plan from the Dems...the NYT, MSNBC, NBC, WashPo..all are extensions of the "party"
Yes, yes...enter noise about Fox doing the same for the Reps...HERE.
But Fox is one outlet...and the Left hates them because they cannot control their message and they hate that there is anything which could put "cracks" in their message...
But it's Ok...our President will win again in 2020 so have your fun.
At a minimum, you could at least share some of the profits from your propaganda with our President...you owe him that.
11
@DB
Individual 1 is trailing in the polls by double digit margins against the TOP 4 or even 5 Democratic challengers. In the key swing States that Russian hackers flooded with 100’s of millions of Social Media contacts during the final days of the 2016 Campaign.
How do you figure that Americans will fall for that propaganda a second time?
7
It’s refreshing to see someone unbothered by a bloated deficit from a tax cut that overwhelmingly helped the wealthy and unbothered by our new kowtowing to Russia and unbothered by corruption in government from ‘our president.’ God bless the blindly faithful.
6
@DB you mean the guy with a current a 37% approval? Keep sreaming. trump is toast. Burnt toast at that.
6
Maddow is terrific.
All life is serendipity. Jon Stewart’s decision to leave the Daily Show left a huge void and many from his audience have flocked to Maddow.
4
And her ratings are still in the basement. Maybe they should move her time slot so she doesn't have to compete with Fox's Sean Hannity.
@Melissa M.
This might interest you. She's far from the basement.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-beats-hannity-in-demo-for-tuesday-ratings-fox-news-wins-primetime-and-pelosi-speech/
5
Rachel Maddow has not been waiting for this moment.
Rachel Maddow has been preparing for this moment.
8
I miss Walter Chronchite. A professional journalist who presented both sides of the story. Too many people watch biased opinion commentators on cable news to form flawed opinions.
What’s the other side of “Trump uses Russia and Ukraine to get elected and re-elected”?
1
Very few who anchor a desk are as smart as Rachel Maddow. There are better readers, writers, and bigger stars, but I doubt they could pilot her hour with such aplomb.
I've often wondered what the likes of her interview subjects think of prior to sitting across from her. I doubt Hillary Clinton takes her lightly. She can make Amy Klobuchar seem warm and any rando Senator seem smart. My guess is they actually feel interviewed, rather than just talked over with teleprompter words.
I'm a little bored with the longform first block of her show, but hey, been watching for 11 years. Overall cool show for prog-nerds who don't need a testo-host to maximal-ize everything.
6
I wonder if Rachel Maddow is Joe McCarthy reincarnated.
I have not watched her show since Trump was elected.
Her anti-Russia hysteria was insane, though it has infected all Establishment media.
This insane hate/fear of Russia is way more dangerous to the future than Russia.
Thankfully, the US is becoming a less important country, with not particularly well educated citizens, lots of guns and violence, mediocre infrastructure, and lots of debt.
Hopefully, the citizens of other countries will remain sane, and work with together, adequately if not always harmoniously,towards a more peaceably sustainable future.
The US, with Trump and Maddow can fight to the end.
I wonder if Maddow has ever talked about who elected Trump and why... I am curious, but not enough to watch her show.
4
I have a relative that watches her show as obsessively as any "deplorable" watches any fox program. By the time it's over she's as worked up as if she'd been at Nuremberg in the 30s. There's something about the group think/emotional/gut reaction that is as scary and baffling as anything you see on the right. As a country we seem to be losing the ability to think critically and see facts unless they meet our expectations. Maddows smug, cocky delivery turns me off as much as hannity, but it finds an audience just like he does.
4
I don't have a lot of respect for her. She is very biased and speaks in half-truths. I want independent journalism, not someone with an axe to grind. I clearly remember watching her show and thinking, "Yeah he said those words but she took them out of context completely and has twisted it to serve her viewpoint." that was the last time I watched.
3
The most interesting thing about this piece-written stylistically like an overly self-aware People magazine article-is that Ms. Maddow was dead-on correct about the Trump Administration playing fast and loose with American law and being deeply entrenched with the Russians. The fact that she does not support any one candidate and votes as she pleases speaks to the lock-step approach of Trump supporters and the more diverse beliefs of virtually everyone else. I'm glad that she is-as the writer put it-"staking her show on Trump" (A silly thing to write but I read the article!) That her ratings are as high as they are when she doesn't run clips of his trash talking in our click-bait culture is telling too.
4
@D Agree.
Now we have Pompeo and Barr also going to other heads of state, trying to get them to agree with Trump that Russia is innocent of interfering in our 2016 elections. And Pompeo actively trying to get Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 elections.
Why do these powerful Americans take Russia's side? What possible good reason could they have for defending Russia while smearing our own FBI?
3
Every time the terrible "crime" she has been trying to assign to Trump and everyone around him is debunked, she is waiting for some event which she can spin to fit her bias, and lack of facts, or facts contradicting her story never stand in the way.
2
140 contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians/WikiLeaks is reinforcement of her views, not a debunking.
4
Brilliant, hardworking, funny.
A tonic of sanity in a crazy time.
Thank you Rachel!
10
MSNBC has been consistent in its battle against Donald Trump. No matter what time of day I watch, every show host follows the same theme as Rachel. This is not fake news.
2
God this is good. Great writing. Excellent subject matter.
1
Maddow deflated and semi-disappeared after the collusion debacle, after having primed her viewers into expecting the inevitable. Now the charges against Trump appear even shakier but enough for her to perk up.
Such a waste of talent, intelligence, passion and education.
2
@Kai A waste? Is that why millions of viewers tune in to her show every night? She is exactly where she needs to be, using her amazing mind to inform anyone smart enough to listen, what is actually going on in politics. You'd never get that from Fox news. trump's charges aren't shaky and never were. It's the GOP that is trying to convince you otherwise. He breaks the law daily and you'd have to be blind not to see that.
She has never disappeared and is in my living room every night at 9 p.m. When Fox news falls by the wayside, Rachel will still be here and will win the Nobel Peace Prize for her excellence in journalism and investigative reporting.
2
This is "the" moment? Wasn't the grab her by the . . . the moment? Wasn't the Mueller report the moment? Wasn't Russia Russia Russia the moment. Wasn't obstruction the moment?
Maddow and her fans never learn.
3
@Tickbouy Perhaps if William Barr told the truth about the report instead of brushing it aside, people would see it differently. Have you read the report?
2
I clicked on this article, as I sometimes do, out of curiosity about someone whom I know next to nothing about, but the name is vaguely familiar. She sounds like my kind of person, but so what. I already have a lot of my kind of people in my life, and I don't watch TV. But all of that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that 2 million, her, or 4 million, Hannity, is not a significant anything. The last time I looked there are about 325 million people in the United States, 252 million of whom are voting age adults (2016 saw around 130 million vote, 2012 around 150 million-Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million in 16, and if the turnout had been as high as 12, she might have won by 20). Those 6 million people could jump off the earth and nobody would even notice, except for her and Hannity, perhaps. Granted, the opinions of both surely get more attention than mine, and reporting like this does raise awareness that both of them exist, but really... Talking heads are probably one of the main reason so many people check out. Around 120 million in 2016: Now there is a significant number.
2
Nice to see “gotcha” journalism is alive and well
1
I enjoyed her intellectualism when I watched her occasionally beginning several years ago. Then virtually stopped except for a total of about an hour a week.
She belongs on cable as a conspiracy entertainment star but wastes much of viewers' time, leading them on in the cable news speculation and newsy melodrama sphere.
She is a very fine analyst and very fine "analyst."
2
@Dart I believe the conspiracy entertainment venue you are referring to is Fox news, which should have a disclaimer at the beginning of the show, explaining that it is not the news, but rather entertainment.
2
Spot On! Well Done! The Trump Play is at a v interesting plot twist. And we are captivated to see how it will all play out. Her book could not come out at a better time. Annie Appleby, ex-Republican.
4
I watched the episode discussed in the article and RM was on fire that night - the way she connects dots is brilliant. I hope the house intelligence committee is watching! They might learn - well, I did - That trump’s overtures to Ukraine were not just about political favors for the 2020 election, but also about trump acting as a stooge for Putin, a twisted plot to try to undo congressional sanctions imposed on Russia for its 2016 election interference. Amazing how she helped her audience see all these things.
22
Brilliant writing, brilliant subject, brilliant article.
And Rachel - you ARE changing the world, one intellectual soliloquy built upon the previous soliloquy.
And the Truth shall set us free...
17
The Republican party is epitomized by Sean Hannity. He is embedded at Fox News as a spokesperson for the White House in all particulars. He is symbolic of the Trump era and always will be.
The divide is not Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow, it's Republican or Democrat - and that is as it should be. Hannity is a reliable stand-in for Trump when he is golfing and not in the office (which has been approximately one third of his presidency). Maddow is a gifted news analyst for MSNBC. Hannity keeps the base entertained and distracted when Trump is not tweeting from his golf cart. Maddow reports hard news and corruption emanating daily from the Executive Branch. They both deserve high marks for expertise from their respective organizations... It's all about party preference.
2
Another reader mentioned that Maddow is writing a radio show for a TV audience and that's what I truly felt after reading how her father watched baseball games on TV with radio broadcasters doing the commentary.
I don't watch the show often because of Rachel's inability to just get to the point without meandering from station to station. The comedienne who recently hosted the White House Press Corps dinner mentioned this in one of her on point zingers.
3
MSNBC's very own Glenn Beck. In the last two years, she's completely lost me. She probably mentioned climate change for a total of ten minutes in that time, while dedicating entire shows to a Russian businessman who once knew a guy who knew a guy who once did business with a person who worked for Trump, but not during the election. To not notice how crazy this was is a real problem.
7
All respect to Rachel. I didn’t see anyone who looks over 30 in that production meeting. Disappointing.
4
Rachel Maddow truly "has a way with words." Watch how she carefully chooses her words on the fly and you will become a better communicator.
9
@Tim She utters words I've never even heard used
before. I like to write them down and look them up later. The clarity of her mind and her breathtaking use of language is a wonder. Especially when she's not reading them off of cue cards, but on the fly, as you indicated.
Rachel Maddow is the smartest and wittiest newsie out there. Always a treat when I catch her show.
16
Rachel is a woman who is not afraid to admit she has a faith. I thank God everyday for how she consistently witnesses truth to power, giving voice to the voiceless. Rachel’s journalism gives hope to those whose voices have been muted due to privilege, wealth and power. She truly is a prophetic voice.
8
On a big news day the viewer will see the same point of view, the same lines, the same "talking points" over and over again from each Cable News Show Host and their guests which is simply repetitive and self-aggrandizing. Maddow is different. There is so much effort that goes into her show, so much research, so much analysis, and she's always telling a story that is much much bigger than that day's news.
I like the term "active listening" to describe her show since "watching" definitely requires effort. I often like to imagine what the dry erase board looks like in her office with a tree connecting all the players on the corrupt world stage - connecting the dots. The organization alone is awe-inspiring. How do they do it?!
14
@Susan Murphy Well stated. I would love to spend a day in that room watching it all come together!
Being in Australia, I feel I have to search beyond the usual menu of pasteurised world news (except for our ABC where some great analysis happens). My search for great writing on world events, especially what is happening in the US, has led me to the NYT and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Of all the broadcast news, hers is the most informative I have found. For a non-American, she is the only voice really digging deep and reminding me of long forgotten history or cling me in on current characters with skin in the game. The other video news channels are dominated by shouty distressed people. Yeah we are all distressed about what is happening, but surely to keep broadcasting distress or moral outrage without really digging deep, reflecting, and understanding the reality we all face, is counter-productive? To me it just leaves one feeling distress-fatigue, bludgeoned and sad.
Maddow seems to respect us more. Giving us the long intros and shorter interviiews has more active thinking, building pathways of rational thought, which has a certain vitality to it, without the droning on and distress-mongering of other shows.
After watching Maddow's agile and smartly analytical broadcasts I feel I can think more constructively and pro-actively, instead of being swamped by depression and helplessness about world events.
In these troubling, gruelling times, Maddow is a joy on many levels.
20
One of the things that I like about Rachel Maddow is that when she finishes her detailed explanations, she always asks the segment guest whether her explanation was accurate.
22
I watch Rachel every evening. I am a history buff and I feel that she is teaching the history of our country. Thank goodness for Rachel!
27
@Ginger I never had an interest in history or politics until I started watching Rachel. I feel as though my life has been broadened and enlightened due to her diligent reporting and fascinating delivery.
1
I enjoy Rachel for all the details and passion she gives every story. I just wish sometimes, that she would just get to the point!! But, I can fast forward it to figure out what she is talking about as she always pulls it together in the end.
And, I think she is single-handedly responsible, along with the politicians of Mass., to get the Trump Administrations to allow the Medical Need Immigrants stay in this country. Wish she could do something for the families that the Trump Administration is still tearing apart....Keep up the good work!!
23
I very much respect Rachel Maddow's news program. She typically gives her watchers a fascinating history lesson that ties into the facts of current events. Her explanations are so clear and are backed up by original documents that may be found in court proceedings, policy papers, or solid investigative journalism. I especially appreciate that she has reported on Trump's failure to call out Russia's attack on the 2016 election, his bizarre praise and kowtowing to Vladimir Putin. This should be a big deal, as Russia has never been our friend or ally. If not for Rachel Maddow, the facts of Trump's misdeeds involving Russia might have been buried. For this reason, and many others, I see her as a real hero of journalism. (Plus, I love her refusal to have guests that just yell at one another, which obscures any news for me.)
24
Rachel is my go to news program. She presents and reports on news in a way we don't hear anywhere else. I like her in-depth news essays because I always learn something from them. She is one of a kind, no one else comes close to her unique style.
The amount of detail and research she does in every show is apparent. Her professional manner mixed with savvy and bits of humor is why I have listened to her for many years. And I hope many more. Can't wait to read the new book, I know it's going to be a good read.
12
Rachel Maddow does her homework and often introduces the non-obvious. I look to her and Lawrence O'Donnell to give me the obscure things that with the obvious, provide a full and clear picture. Thanks to them, both. Thanks to Amanda Hess for this wonderful bio.
16
I haven't had cable in years, and the only thing I miss about it is The Rachel Maddow Show.
Thank-you for the window into her program and her life.
6
You can follow Rachel via podcasts if you don’t have cable. My step-mom is a devoted Rachel follower and only listens to her podcasts.
7
Meg, I don’t have a television, so I catch her show on YouTube. There’s usually some unauthorized person who posts the whole thing (or nearly so) and then there are the MSNBC channel clips, which show up quite late and are not the whole show. If you subscribe to her blog, you can often watch the whole show through it, albeit a day later and with a lot of ads.
6
@Meg Conway
You can get her shows commercial free on apple podcasts.
1
Knowledge; critical ability; practical, worldly sense; and mature professional detachment-- to what degree, these are taught in journalism schools?
To what degree, these are practiced in the trade?
(I hope that the readers of this paper would agree with me that it does do a good job--thus serving US and the whole world.)
6
Her audience is NOT obsessive, rather hungry for highly intelligent analysis of our Byzantine political-lobbyist-billionaire-media-military-judicial-corporate-political system.
You can change the order of the words, but each sphere is dangerously intertwined and difficult for the average citizen, the average American striving to be a good citizen, to keep up with. Rachel does her human best to disentangle all of the spheres and then cogently put them all back together.
We need Rachel now, and in the future.
May she get some rest and come on the air as fresh and brilliant as ever.
27
She talks too fast and can be overly mean. I used to watch her every day but can’t anymore. That said, I appreciate what she brings to the conversation.
4
I like her show but I know that if I go do the dishes when she starts, she'll still be talking about the same thing twenty minutes later when I'm done with them... and I won't have missed a thing.
13
I used to watch Rachel because she was "family", she was smart and we leaned the same way politically; however, after six months of watching her I got bored.
It's not that she explains political situations in obtuse, PhD ways — it's that she says the same thing over and over simply by changing the structure of her SENTENCE.
I never felt talked down to. I felt as if I were listening to a vinyl record with a skip.
If she were a bit less verbose, I'd tune in again.
But, kudos to Rachel on her achievements.
11
She is truly the love child of Keith Olbermann, who birthed her to MSNBC. Her gift for storytelling must have appealed to a man who read Thurber weekly to his audience.
Fortunately for us all she has his talents without his hubris.
14
@Chuck Jones
I stopped watching Madow a few years ago. Unlike Olberman she doesn't understand how to write for or perform on TV. Madow presents a radio show that happens to be on TV. The fact that her father watched sports on TV while listening to radio commentary is revealing. I think if Olberman was still at MSNBC he would remind her that her audience is perfectly capable of reading the text she shows on the screen. He would also counsel her that belaboring a point is tedious and ineffective.
6
@Chuck Jones
I SO miss Olbermann. His show on the "Cages of Concentration" was by far one of THE most powerful things I have ever seen on tv, and I'm no spring chicken. His "rants" were always righteous, I often felt like cheering, as he GOT IT, where many others simply did--not. I now watch Rachel for the same sort of info, in a vastly different format. I do wish Keith would return, we need such voices. (And meantime follow him on twitter to help him rescue dogs, a passion for him!). The heat and fire of Olberman is a perfect counterpoint to the poised but sometimes just a shade goofy Maddow.
3
@Chuck Jones
Keith didn't sell out. MSDNC sold him out.
Rachel tells only parts of the story. She stays.
2
Thank you, Rachel. You have been a light in the trump darkness. i appreciate your connections between today and yesterday. I appreciate your intelligence and belief in our country. So refreshing, especially in this age of trump-love which comes at the expense of decency and intelligence.
34
Reading this I must assume that if Trump resigns or is impeached or is defeated her show will fall off a cliff in ratings. She and Morning Joe live to go after Trump every minute of every show. . Many folks on all the cable networks also may be off the air if Trump goes away. A price I am willing to pay! Well worth it to move on from a Trump.
4
@david Her show was just as interesting before trump and will be after.
Dr. Maddow is brilliant! We are grateful for her wisdom, her steady stream of FACTS and humor! Rachel’s show has kept my husband and I sane through the drama, chaos and crimes of Donald Trump!
Brava, Rachel! Goo little class with your new book!
18
@Mari Totally agree. I know she deserves time off and takes very little, at that, but I'm always bummed out when she's not on. I usually exclaim aloud "Rachel we need you" on the rare day she gets a rest. While I often get worked up over the subject matter, I still find her presence to be calming and reassuring. What a treasure!
Reminds me of a story of the Supreme Court saying that labor unions could not collect dues if they are used for political purposes because some union covered people object to how that money is used.
Well the story goes a follows: I went to a few stores that support right wing and conservative religious views politicians and "My Money" spent on a hobby, or repair of my home went to politicians I disagree with.
I want my money back!
Oddly the labor unions support social and economic programs and candidates supporting those programs also support better lives for all employees and all people. I can't say the same for the billionaires who hide behind phony claims that their religious beliefs are the reason for their positions, all of which lead to increasing their wealth.
Whatever happened to Christ's statements to love, forgive and respect others, even those whose beliefs are different? Or whatever happened to the division of state and church?
Rachel has answers and certainly many questions about the Satan now abusing both. Freedom of the press should be encouraged along with love and respect of all while keeping the Elmer Gantry types at bay.
5
Maddow has wasted her profound education and intelligence chasing conspiracies....
8
@Cathy What conspiracies are those? Care to elaborate?
I love Rachel M.
16
Really, really smart and laser-eyed is like a back rub
while living in the 2nd year of whats-his-name.....
We, just might learn something....we certainly will have something to mull over.........
and btw, Russia obsessed? Where do you think the eye of the storm is?
17
I love her and agree with her. But I think: if Rachel were covering the rise of Hitler and the first years of the Third Reich, say from a safe location like London, would she still be laughing it up and mocking Hitler as a fool? America is in serious trouble, and it is no longer a laughing matter. For that reason, I stopped watching Rachel for the last six months or more. Stop laughing, Rachel.
5
@Kevin If we can't laugh we'd be crying. When she does use humor to compensate for the tragedy that is donald trump and the whole of the republican party, I see it as a relief. And it's certainly not hateful as we see on Fox, when they are mocking everyone and then laughing about it as a group, when most of the time it's not even true. The shame is on them, not her. I happen to think she's hilarious.
I am so devastated by the meanness, hate, chaos and hopeless world we now live in, the only news I can bear to watch (I still read actual newspapers) is Rachel. Her humor, wit, and intricate piecing together of history and connecting of vastly scattered but critical news bits makes it bearable. She makes me laugh, feel hope, and amplifies ways we can all make things better.
Someday in my lifetime, hopefully when villains have been brought to justice, democracy restored and sanity regained, I hope to see Dr. Maddow be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Her journalism will have not only helped save our democracy and shine light on atrocities like the Flint water crisis and concentration camps on our borders--but helped us survive and still be able to laugh and see goodness, even heroism, in America.
Thank you, Dr. Maddow.
48
Ben Bradlee, always proclaimed "tell me a story." Man can she tell a story. Bradlee would be in absolute awe of her. She will, in the end, be proven right on all aspects of her reporting. Sooner than later I hope.
38
Several years back on MSNBC, TRMS used to have a Friday night quiz at the end of the program. She posed questions on topics that were covered the week before. After a lucky contestant would be selected, Usually via Skype, they'd take the quiz. The winner would be given some memorabilia from her office. I never missed it and almost always had the correct answer.
It was then I realized that I was taking college level Government and Politics 101.
All I can say is no one who knows me well dares to call weeknights at 9PM EST !
34
@Jay I miss the silly giveaways, because the prizes were so bizarre and random. I also miss the Friday night cocktail moment. Good times!
2
I find watching her show painful. Her affectations are beyond annoying and she gets on my nerves so bad I could scream. . . and the mind numbing commercials that never stop make the show unwatchable.
14
good thing you don't ever have to watch then
12
Too bad, you’re missing out! And if you record the show you can skip commercials!
14
Some of these comments are ridiculous. True facts aren't partisan folks, even if they bring shame to your side of the aisle.
I guess some people want to shush the canary in the coal mine just because it's not singing their tune.
36
A 30 minute show cramed into 60 minutes. Repeats the same point over and over. We get it first time. Maybe she is convincing herself?
14
I agree. I’ve read books that can be condensed in to a pamphlet. Do they think we didn’t get it the first 88 times?
2
@Commander I love Rachel but I do think she repeats herself too much. My need to understand is so great that I get frustrated when she explains the same things she explained on the previous show. Because there is so much more that needs to be explained.
2
Or the message bears repeating for maximum coverage to the masses (and slow learners).
1
I abhor Trump, Fox News, Repugnantcans who still defend Trump. etc., but I essentially stopped watching Ms Maddow after the Trump Tax Return fiasco. One because she bled the story dry in the lead up, and two because it was as big a nothing burger as Rivera and Capone's Vault. She lost me with that one. It was as if she either did not see the document before she aired it, or knows nothing of tax returns, or both. Either way, her credibility suffered immeasurably with me at that point.
11
@Tom
Do you abandon your new car if it gets a flat tire? Yes, the tax paper was over done, but the POINT was-- there are taxes of his out there, and, if pursued doggedly enough (Rep Neal, are you listening?) we MAY get to see what absolutely terrifies this megamaniacal dictator we have occupying our Peoples House. Will they show Russia is his chief lender, and he is underwater to the tune of billions? The House of Saud, what part do THEY play in his finances? The taxes may not be the "smoking gun", but they may be the bullets we use to stop his insane takeover of our democracy.
3
@Tom
Individual 1 paid no taxes on $980,000,000 income. We know that because Dr. Maddow showed us on the TV machine.
How is that a “nothing hamberder”?
The high graduate entertainer Sean Hannity has never been bravely honorable and patriotic enough to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
Sean Hannity could have been invisible at Charlottesville. Hannity is the favorite of bigots, misogynist, racists and xenophobes.
Rachel Maddow in every meaningful repect is the antithesis of Sean Hannity.
Neither Rachel Maddow nor Sean Hannity are Fareed Zakaria or Christiane Amanpour.
Neither Fox News nor MSNBC are PBS or BBC
10
Elevating journalists to celebrity status does nothing for honest and truthful reporting. These are the days of multi-million dollar contracts.
However these cable news shows are for profit. Every single one of them.
16
While I find Ms. Maddow a valuable corrective to the inanity of Hannity, she is not without her faults. She could get a lot more content into her show if she would stop repeating the point she just made. I find this habit annoying and more than a little condescending in tone. I got it the first time ...and the second ...and the third.
15
I loved her on election night telling viewers with certainty that there was no path for Trump to win, LOL.
12
Please stop with all the unoriginal false equivalencies!
The thing all these people criticizing her both for being a know-it-all, and for being the mirror image of the Hannitys of the world, miss is that the first words out of her mouth when she is about to interview a guest after a long expository piece are...
"Please tell me if I got anything wrong? Did I describe the situation correctly?"
With all the research and work that she and her staff put into the monologues, the first thing she asks for is to be fact checked. On the spot. And she is not pandering. The question shows a sincere interest in learning additional facts and/or gaining greater understanding. It's the opposite of what a know-it-all would do.
Tell me who else on the other (supposedly equal) side has the integrity to do that?
33
Well that’s because she holds a PhD in Political Science.
Hannity on the other hand is a college dropout who specialized in bricklaying and wallpainting.
3
What Maddow does from one side of the fence, and Carlson from the other, is hectoring with a heavy dose of eye-rolling and ceiling-staring entertainment. Selected facts slither in to give iit the appearance of journalism in the nightly matches for ratings and winning soundbites. WWE bouts without the bulging muscles and only verbal dropkicks. But I learned much about Ms. Maddow's clothes. all of which I have forgotten as I reach the conclusion of this sentence.
9
I guess I have lived too long. I remember William F. Buckley, David Brinkley, Harry Reasoner, Howard K. Smith, Galbraith. . .even Brokow. It seems that the bar for good journalism, intelligent discussion of issues (beyond one or two minutes for talking points) and TV editorials have reached an all-time low. (have you heard this before?) Which is why I don't understand why Rachel Maddow (or Sean Hannity for that matter) rates a an article on the front page of our newspaper of record. Is it because I am not smart enough to get it?
9
I am sorry Tom Brokaw, Harry Reasoner?, really. They were simply “news readers”, they just happened to be good “newsreaders” and men.
Rachel Maddow is incredibly bright, articulate and diligent, and the show, albeit at times lengthy in discussion, is the UTTER ANTITHESIS of Trump-clone, Conspirator, wanna-be Army sergeant, Hannity, who never served, in anything, by the way!
There is simply no comparison!
17
Whether it's on the left or the right, I really resent the entertainment/personality-driven aspect of this kind of "news." I'll stick with print journalism read once a week in order to understand the world as it moves. No matter how you slice it, TV news (especially the op-ed sort of show like Maddow etc) thrives on stoking outrage and fear and we'd all be better off without it.
12
I am to the left of Maddow. But I don't watch her, just as I don't watch Fox n' Friends. That Maddow relies on a corrupt republic for the wellbeing and stunning success of her career is just as depressing to me as Hannity relying on bubbas and racists to nod in unison to the latest Barack conspiracy theories. Both personalities, though they may be fun house mirror opposites in education, intelligence, and general moral decency, feed off the notion that a pre-existing agenda is nothing to question.
I understand they are not journalists but talking heads on the TV. But how many Americans agree? What percentage of those who fawn over Ms. Maddow turn to research papers, policy reports, in-depth journalism in order to try, at futile as the attempt any more might be, to get at some sort of trail of factual history?
In this age of destruction and nativist stupidity, I have gallows humor and my own extremely biased views. But I save the blessings of those views for Colbert.
As intelligent as Ms. Maddow clearly is, how I wish she might lessen her ambition and strengthen her resolve to just... see.
9
Appearently, Amanda thinks Rachel's ship has come in. Maybe so, but I still get the impression what Rachel really wants isn't a large following. There is that large empty space on her trophy wall that needs filling.
2
@Tom
I’ll be glad to flush the game for Dr. Maddow. Teamwork brings home the trophies.
1
@Tom
I’ll be glad to flush the game for Dr. Maddow. Teamwork brings home the trophies.
"she moves her viewers to see themselves as storytellers, too. “I hope that if you watch my show,” she told me, you’ll acquire a set of “good, true stories about what’s going on and why it matters.”
This is where the Mueller Report failed and why I have hope in this impeachment inquiry. Following a story is how our brains operate. Keep it simple, straight forward, and accurate.
10
@Mary
If you want to gather a firm grasp of the Russia report try listening to the podcasts on the report on Lawfare, they do an excellent job of boiling down Volume I to about 7 hours and have 2 podcasts online relating Volume II so far.
2
From my perspective I feel there is only one thing to be said. Thank you Dr. Maddow for bringing your academic acumen into my living room at 9:00pm. Thank you for bringing clarity to the blurred vision of disinformation, distraction, and disingenuousnss coming from the White House and Trump's obsequious, feckless sycophants. I look forward to the evening where I have the privilege of sitting in your classroom learning something useful almost every evening. You are a tonic for what ails us most. You are an educator not an evangelist. So again thank you.
19
She presents a detailed, compelling view...of exactly one viewpoint of the issues, monotonously and predictable.
In other words, she's a wonderful propagandist.
When her conspiracy theory collapsed with Mueller, so did her audience and ratings.
Well, on to Ukraine and Impeachment! Although she doesn't explain how Democrats will ever get 20 GOP Senators to convict, but hey, that's a problem to deal with down the road. In the meantime, I'm back!, ratings baby!
6
@Jj
FYI
Page 1 Paragraph 2;
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.”
Thanks Bob Mueller.
4
There is a stark difference in what you hear from Ms. Maddow compared to most conservative commentators. She lays out her arguments with careful logic and factual evidence. Whereas the conservative commentators spend most of their time just blathering on and on about why the liberal media is all fake and based on lies. This theme is repeated over and over with virtually nothing to back up their claims.
9
That's a terrible picture of her. She really looks elegant on her show.
12
I find that Rachel invests much of her on air time promoting establishment politics. I find her reporting less helpful to the progress of our nation everyday. With the recent news of Joe BIDEN’s campaign telling the media not to interview Rudy, one can imagine how our political duopoly instructs who should get air time while offering up the guests. I miss the Rachel of Air America and the Rachel who appeared as a guest on Keith OLBERMANN.
2
Maddow is my favorite TV Professor. I want to sit in her "class" every night, and want to meet her for drinks afterwards.
Thanks Prof. Maddow!
15
I watch her show because she is honest, intelligent and delves into current issues further than other journalists. She finds information before it is front page news and helps me connect the dots in complex stories. She is genuinely interested in the real news of the day and it shows. I also love O'Donnell, Melber, Joy and other MSNBC shows. They really get at the heart of the current matter and they do their homework. I watch a lot of it from youtube videos and see that 100s of thousands other people do. So, I would not be so sure that more people are watching other news shows just based on ratings. Some of us watch tv from our computers and phones via uploaded videos from others.
10
This article just spins all over the place. I don't know whether it's intended to imitate Maddow's style or if it is inadvertent. She has the showmanship of PT Barnum, which was on full display when she was allowed to "moderate" the Democratic debates.
7
I never watched Rachel Maddow a day in my life until November 2016. Heck, I don't think I ever heard of her until then. I am a naturalized US citizen and, while interested in politics, I was not obsessive about it. Until Trump's presidential run, that is. I was desperate and anxious after Trump won, and my husband introduced me to Maddow's nightly show. I have watched it every day since then. I do not know why, but she has provided calm reassurance that things can still be made right and our politicians and voters will eventually regain their sense of decency. She made it easier to survive the daily flood of Trump's obnoxious and inane tweets and TV appearances. Thank God for Rachel Maddow. Also, hats off to Stephen Colbert. These guys provide invaluable public service every day.
17
I am always amazed when I speak to folks about Rachel Maddow and if they have heard of her but never seen her show, they assume a liberal talking points machine. She is an excellent historian, a Phd from Oxford no less and really a great teacher for our times.
16
To have RM paired in anyway with Tucker Carlson is something I did not wish to know. More to the point by tracing that friendship or whatever it is in the same piece with extended profiling of how Rachel Maddow works and what is unique about her research, her exciting, dot-connecting delivery is a disservice to her network and her own avowed independence.
3
What I enjoy is her ability to relay a story that connect the dots of the fire hose of information craziness coming out of this administration and the GOP.
She helps you to see the 'big' picture more clearly. Thanks Rachel!
8
TRMS reminds me of the old BBC series "Connections" with James Burke. He once detailed a line through time starting with the gin and tonic and ending with scientists calculating the size of the universe.
7
I like watching Rachel Maddow - especially the video of her reacting to the 2016 election returns.
7
Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert have been keeping me sane since Election day 2016. They have blessed me with information, insights and laughters. Thank God for both angels.
10
I know so many liberal Democrats who have really mixed feelings about Maddow and, if they watch her at all, watch her only in small doses. The big problem, I think, is that she is 150 percent on everything, and it really gets tiresome.
7
It can be simultaneously true that her audience has grown and it's still the kind of "reporting" that's destroying the country.
2
I think Rachel Maddow is for dummies. Although I am a progressive I find her delivery style to be cloying and repetitive. She makes a point very dramatically and then beats it until it is twice dead. She speaks to her audience like none of us has a brain or is willing to use it. She is over dramatic about most things each night and when there is bigger news she is down right obnoxious.
These things are hard for me to write since I am basically on her side on most issues. I just find her hard to watch. If she left the drama and theatrics out her news her show would be about 15 minutes long in total. Since it is a one hour show she drags it out and repeats things ad infinitum. To sit and watch her nightly you have to be somewhat dim or far more tolerant than I am (and I admit I am not very tolerant of being talked down to).
That said, there is a place for her show and I am glad she is doing it and has gained a large audience. I am also thankful her audience does not include me. Her histrionic delivery is far more like Hannity than her audience (who never watch Hannity I trust) would believe. With all the facial grimaces and vocal high notes she is just the Tucker Carlson of the left.
However I defend her right to be on TV and congratulate her for the large audience of progressives. She is just not my cup of tea.
7
Maddow is *exactly* the kind of person faith-based people hate, because she challenges a pillar of their self-esteem. That applies to liberals as well as conservatives - more to the point, the narcissistic and the co-dependent.
Of course it's the Right that's used Fox News, following the success of AM radio RW hosts, to create an incredibly effective propaganda machine that has brainwashed a huge number of Americans, appealing to various tribal-class-gender-religious resentments (And I do mean brainwashed - the repeated Big Lies, like "Deep State." Is "The War on Xmas" a Big Lie or just a Medium-sized one? You decide).
4
I never miss Rachel's show. By the time the Mueller Report came out, Rachel had covered every one of the topics in the report on her show. (However, the report delved into the more complicated Russian interference part in greater depth). So when the report was published, I was able to follow it with a much better understanding than non-viewers. There's no doubt about it-----Rachel's show is not for people who are looking for entertainment (they should tune in to Fox Fiction for that). It is, as one comment has already pointed out, a Poli Sci class. So when I watch, I devote all of my attention to it --- no talking on the phone at the same time, no texting, no writing e-mails. Just watch and absorb. I'm thankful that I can turn to Rachel for the full, truthful story with background info in order to get the whole picture. What impresses me most is the amount of evidence that she always has to back up her stories. She's not spewing opinion, she's giving the facts with evidence. I also love Chris Hayes and Lawrence!
11
She’s brutal-
Narrow focus, way too liberal.
She actually helps with Trump’s re-election... she’s polarizing.
4
"Increasing the amount of useful information in the world " should be bipartisan in focus.
Otherwise, it's about revenue and nothing else.
She, like her counterparts on both sides of the media aisle, is part of the problem.
The solution is to apply the original intent of media to a ruthless search for the truth, on both sides and in all matters.
6
I don't watch her so I wouldn't know. The producers and executives that make decisions should be very wary about a 1 hit wonder like this. That's what she is.
2
@John S. Your letter makes no sense. First you don't watch her and then you say she is a one hit wonder. She had high ratings before Trump.
12
I love her and I'm a 69 year old straight male. She's incredibly intelligent, polished, eloquent and more. We have on one hand a male Rhodes Scholar, gay, polished eloquent candidate running for President in Pete Buttigieg. If he makes it, I have just the Press Secretary for him.
18
How many other cable news hosts ask their guests if they've represented their work correctly when introducing them. Trying to get things right; that's integrity and humility.
I don't agree with commenters who characterize her style as condescending. She is passionately curious about the subjects she covers and the repetition is just a part of that.
Go Rachel!
42
@Isabel
That really stood out to me too, the way she always asks if she got it right when speaking to a guest. Here is a woman whose integrity and clarity of reasoning both informs us and lets us share in a higher plane of inquiry.
Go Maddox!
10
Ms Hess, your article is very appreciated and enlightening. Your topic - Rachel Maddow, I consider a National Treasure.....
Thank you.
22
It’s impossible for anyone to be completely objective. We all see the world through our own lenses.
Rachel tries harder than any other cable news personality to be straightforward and honest.
When Trump was elected I wept for a week. I felt as if this country that my ancestors fought the American Revolution for was no longer a place for me.
I was a Republican.
She may not be perfect, none of us are, but she has ETHICS and works hard to be true. She also has a sense of humility which every politician/show host should learn. Especially those public persons who spend their show time yelling.
62
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
10
I absolutely love Rachel Maddow. She is a fresh voice, and gives me hope that seeing things clearly, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans are ethical, and right will win out in the end. She draws me to connections that I may otherwise not have made. I had my cable disconnected after the 2016 election, but I found that I could listen to Rachel online, without hearing Trump speaking. I think that she is incredibly smart, upbeat, and up to job of shining light into dark matters. I'm disappointed when her show is over. I always want more. Keep it up Rachel!
41
The irony in all this is I watched her show from the very first broadcast for many years. Then her introductions or soliloquies were a lot shorter. But as they got increasingly longer and she made interesting guests sit and listen to her 14-20 minutes intros instead of spending more time interviewing them, I started fast forwarding the first 20 minutes to just get to her interviews, and began watching the show less and less. The past two years Trump’s been in office I have hardly watch her at all and have found Ari Melber’s “The Beat” much more informative and interesting since he, a lawyer, can examine the news from a lawyer’s perspective and get right to it plus he also has a sense of humor.
That said, I’m glad more people are watching her as she is very smart, her shows are educational, and so few Americans know history, but sadly I rarely watch her now. And I do think it’s disrespectful to guests to have such a limited amount of time to talk to them (unless guests don’t want long interviews) because she spent so much time comparing current events to something that took place decades ago. — And by the way I am a history buff, but there is a time and place for it.
5
She may not like me saying this but I am *thrilled* that an intelligent, affable lesbian stands in the town square five nights a week and calls truth to power to our "leaders" so us plebeians have a fighting chance of understanding the horrific level of corruption, disenfranchisement, rot and dishonesty that is going on daily. Even Shakespeare couldn't have created a better foil for our mad, decadent, amoral "king." Brava, Rachel. Brava!!! Our democracy needs you and your staff to peel back the curtain so we can see what's really going on.
51
Rachel Maddox and Brian Williams...and that’s how it is!
12
Aside from her brilliance, honesty, communications skills, humor and grace, Rachel is a powerful voice for human rights in her subtle and understated way, I greatly admire her for it.
47
I hate that the fans want a piece of her - all this hugging and selfie-ing is too much. I like her particularly for the courthouse reportage. And she does abate the Trump-depression for an hour a day.
16
Rachel Maddow needs to stop repeating herself three or four times whenever she's trying to make a point. In her interminable monologues at the beginning of the show, the constant repetitions are demeaning to the intelligence of her audience. In addition, her obnoxious, condescending lectures about the past (especially Watergate), give the impression that she thinks her audience is a bunch of twenty-somethings who never paid attention in History class and never took Civics. Stop talking down to your audience, Rachel! She even condescends to Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell. Her ratings have gone to her head.
17
She will even repeat something a guest just said two minutes earlier as if she’s talking to hard of hearing grandpa. I don’t know if she’s padding the show with long intros and endless repetition or she thinks her audience is as dumb as mules and can’t comprehend what she’s saying unless she repeats it a few times. She did not use to do it as frequently as she does now and, along with her long 20 minute intro which cover history remotely related to current events, I hardly watch her anymore — and I watched her almost every night for years from the very first show. She’s very smart but needs to treat her audience as if they’re not ignorant Fox News viewers who don’t know any history and need things to be repeated again and again to understand it.
6
She certainly has a moderating effect on happy hour.
4
@Tom Daley I agree...can she co host with Greta Thunberg?
1
"Moment she's been waiting for" you say ??
How about the moments from the Mueller inquiry, 2y at least of constant and ludicrous banging about that? Forgotten and forgiven now of course.
She is a danger for US democracy since she is apparently intolerant, completely biased, has a very clear agenda which is dissociated from truth and objectivity, and is unbearably arrogant, which all sits well with those watching and admiring her unconditionally, and you may think what the other side thinks of her.
14
@ss
too bad you are so locked into the fox side of things that you can't see reality.
danger to democracy?? for stating the truth?
intolerant? because she states the truth?
biased? because she states the truth?
please explain how telling a story with the facts to back it up, is any of the things you have said.
8
@ss 'intolerant, completely biased, has a very clear agenda which is dissociated from truth and objectivity'
Oh, the irony.
3
"...carries her viewers along on a wave of verbiage, delivering baroque soliloquies..." Out here we call that "liking to hear yourself talk". Chris Cuomo is on opposite her and I prefer his Street Fight tone to her monologues. (Save me from Block A.) I am relieved at the top of the hour when O'Donnell comes on with panels full of (former SDNY yeah) prosecutors, judges, diplomats, journalists, senators, generals, presidential hopefuls, and last but not least, editors of esoteric journals I've never heard of.
7
She has truly become a Conspiracy theorist and mouthpiece for the elite. Gimme a break. Just as bad as Glenn Beck at this point.
24
How dare you compare Ms. Maddow to the inimitable Glenn Beck. When she has 20 chalkboards filled with conspiratorial nonsense and sells gold medallions to frightened seniors only then will the comparison be apt.
13
I first heard Maddow on Air America during the Bush years which was basically an 8 year ode to the oil and gas industry. I found her immediately mesmerizing and smart, smart, smart.
She rose quickly in accordance with her skills and I have followed her career avidly. I enjoy watching her show specifically because it's not dumbed down with catchy, stupid phrases like Dems in Disarray. She also spares us the never ending clips of trump speaking and tweeting. Essentially every other show is clips of the president watched by a panel who then "discuss." How about let's not? I'll watch Rachel instead.
33
Great article. But I’m left with one question, how do you wreck your ankle fishing?
10
If the ground was uneven and she stumbled and fell, I’m guessing.
3
Most Republicans and the alt right dislike her because she’s smart, intelligent and a woman. In my culture we say ‘the against will die for nothing’. Maddox please keep on trucking
22
I like Rachel Maddow very much. I would love to have a beer with her and NOT talk about politics. I am trying to wean myself off politics since this spring when i began wondering if my lilacs would bloom. Would Trump allow it?
After watching her show i feel like i need a Xanax. Go Rachel, go.
9
I am progressive and a former journalist who cannot stand to watch Rachel Maddow. I find her polemics the mirror image of what I detest about Fox News. And I find the 20-minute soliloquies she makes out of a two-minute story undisciplined and overwrought.
34
@Edward I have to agree. I am a liberal and I find her incredibly annoying.
3
Maddow lost me forever with the episode where she claimed she had obtained Trump's tax returns. MSNBC heavily promoted the "scoop." I tuned in.
Turned out that she only had a single front page from a single year, and it looked extremely favorable for Trump.
This episode taught several things about Maddow:
1) She is a shill seeking a larger audience. Nothing wrong with that, but some people see her as something greater.
2) She grossly oversells the information she has.
3) She is either a sucker who was played by Trump, or she didn't really care about helping him in her quest for more visibility. I'm not sure which is true but neither is flattering.
26
@Wolf
The show about the tax document was very likely the very worst TRMS ever. Cringeworthy stuff.
The one program you use to draw your conclusions is only one among hundreds. The overall body of work Maddow has brought to the screen, which follows the endless grifting of this lawbreaking crooked administration, without giving Trump tweets yet more publicity, speaks for itself.
4
Now that I think about it, that was about the time I stopped watching her regularly. I was so upset and disappointed with the misleading ads and her misleading intro. I didn’t think she would do something like that or could be so dumb as to think her audience wasn’t going to think that if she said she had them, her audience would believe she had an entire recent tax return. It was intellectually dishonest and after watching her for years on a fairly regular basis, I stopped.
4
So here's my vote to put more over-educated, under-paid lesbians as political commentators on television and cable to espouse not only our political views but also to explain the world to just about everyone else. I love Rachel, but her commentary isn't much different than my wife's over coffee most mornings. Here's to more lesbians on TV, or, how about a closed-caption lesbian service or app that can provide commentary for any channel!
2
Maddow is not a journalist. She is a commentator and commentators are expected to have strong opinions. If you don’t like hers there are other news outlets to go to. Expecting her to be fair and balanced is a fools game in which you will always be disappointed. As for myself, I watch both objective reporting and Maddow’s brand. I find her informative and refreshingly witty. I always learn something and don’t feel depressed while watching it. So if you don’t like her, don’t watch her. She won’t mind losing your patronage among the millions of viewers.
25
“If anyone’s counting on me to make anything happen in the world,” she told me, “I am a bad thing to count on.”
Ms. Maddow might want to read up on quantum theory’s explanation of how observation affects reality if she believes that she’s not making anything happen.
7
She’s a talking talking talking talking head...just nonstop
She often goes over her time slot into the next show, sometimes by 4-5 minutes
13
@MB
if this is the worst thing you can say, why bother? of you don't like the talk, just don't watch or fast forward that part.
if you don't like her why read an long story just on her?
3
I have been a fan of Rachel's since she subbed for Keith O. I could tell even then that she was special and I guess I've been proven correct!
Watching her show is one of the things in my life I rarely miss and if I happen to not see her at 9:00pm I catch up at the rerun at midnight. The way she weaves a story from, say, the original Watergate up to the present dumpstergate is one of the best things about her show.
That A-block of her show is like a mystery tour. You're not sure where you're going to end up but you know it's going to be a great ride getting there and sometimes you're really surprised at the connections she's able to make.
Rachel Maddow is a true gift to those of us who love the news and love the truth. Thanks for a great article about her!
26
I have some regard for Rachel Maddow's intelligence and the degree to which she is scholarly and does her homework. Watching her and listening to her raises one's blood pressure. It is like reading prose without paragraphs or punctuation. Exhausting. I prefer watching PBS, and the sober and level and even reportage in their news coverage. An absence of hype and hysteria.
Living in Canada gives one an appreciation of hosts who listen respectfully without interruption, and without needing to insinuating themselves in the discussion. Rachel Maddow does not interrupt nor do Brian Williams or Lawrence O'Donnel. Chris Matthews is unbearable to watch.
Watching the Cable news has become exhausting and too painful to watch. Give me the NYT anytime.
14
There are times when I like Maddow, but often it feels like, "Wait until you hear this thing I'm about to tell you, because here's the thing i just told you, one more time, and then one more time, because I'm going to tell you something huge in a second, but just remember that other thing I just told you..." It's like, dude, please stop the theatrics and just tell us what you want to tell us. I agree that she softballs the questions to liberal icons like Hillary. For my money, Chris Hayes is the best talent at the network. Brilliant, even-handed, relatively objective, and he doesn't dumb things down. You either know that 20 dollar word he just used or you look it up.
11
I think a lot of viewers today (whether they watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or a network channel, have no understanding what news is vs commentary. I get so frustrated when people talk about the news, but really they are talking about someone editorializing. The line is blurring and I don't think most people realize it.
24
@rainydaygirl Agreed, but I would add a third category, which is analysis.
In theory, news should be fact-based reporting - what happened today. Analysis creates insight by drawing together the news with other relevant facts. Commentary is opinion, which might be drawn from fact or analysis, but not necessarily.
3
@Peer Gynt Excellent point about analysis vs commentary. I appreciate a good analysis whether it is on the airways or in print. Sometimes the most important content is given by an expert analysis.
1
We need more individuals like Rachel Maddow diligently researching for the truth - and then being able to explain it to the oft-times clueless American public. May she continue to expose the fake news and alternative facts constantly streaming from Trump & Co. Go, Rachel! We're behind you!
15
No doubt she's smart. Her book of a decade ago, "Drift", was an excellent, balanced overview of how US foreign/military policy has lurched blindly in the post-Cold War era. It says something that even at her peak on TV, her book tour was poorly attended.
Did that experience turn her into the current red-meat purveyor? The pressure of changing media economics has led her and many other formerly respected faces to morph into just another hysterical conspiracy theorist desperately seeking clicks and eyeballs.
I guess we must conclude she is successful at this as Comcast pays her more in one day than the median American household makes in an entire year. She is, after all, just a grubby capitalist like the rest of us.
8
I love the Ally Sheedy / Emilio Estevez love child reference. Brilliant.
1
“What Maddow provides is the exciting rush of chasing a set of facts until a sane vision of the world finally comes into focus.”
Right. She also predicted South Carolina was leaning toward Hillary.
5
I don’t watch Maddow to see her “make things happen.” I watch her to help me make sense of what OTHER people are making happen. And she does that magnificently. I’ve also learned & re-learned a fair amount of historical facts. If you want ranting, raving & conspiracy theories, she’s not for you.
19
Actually, this is the moment we've been waiting for Rachel Maddow - to make sense of this massive criminal and corrupt national disaster coming.
This would also be the moment for Bill Moyers to clarify the current mess our country is in. It would be nice if PBS brought him back for the next critical 13 months.
8
I like her but distrust her because of her acrimony and antagonism that is so palpable. She is an antagonist counterbalance to Fox News.
6
I love that Rachel - and Nicole Wallace, too, at 4:00 PM - have a long uninterrupted presentation before a commercial break. They are two of my favorites along with The 11th Hour and Morning Joe. (Nicolle is a Republican but not a supporter of the President.)
I love watching Rachel because I know that she is not going to dumb-me-down - a white woman of a certain age - as happens on another channel.
I love that she is smart, analytical, and yes, nerdy. She does her homework and her research.
I love that MSNBC and all the honchos just let her do her show.
15
I am still searching for a mention of Amy Goodman and "Democracy Now!" - am I missing something?
4
She has good points but her snickering cynicism gets in the way.
4
Rachel Maddow is living proof that the corporate-financed duopoly and its liberal minions are in almost as crackpot-crazy--manipulated by the likes of Maddow into paranoia and empty political posturing--as those on the right. It sells soap.
Light middleweight intellects like hers are, sadly, what the corporate media saddles us with.
We need real change. She is here to help prevent it.
10
Thank you NY Times for this engaging piece. I've been waiting for it and I will most definitely read it after I make my comment because what I really wanted to read was The Comment section first to orient my head space. Yes, Rachel is wonderful. She's nailed Trump and by default every other crime parrot in the syndicate. In many cases she's relying and reacting to in the moment research and investigative work by this illustrious paper and our brethren down the I-95 turnpike, The Washington Post. Now, in my youth, I'd be starstruck by the bonanza of Pulitzer like reporting and in the end, considering what Rachel does in the modern age, I'd hold her in the highest of the high, however, I only kind of do because of much of what is being echoed in the comment section. Rachel is getting all of it in a very robust and sophisticated way with the value add of beautiful instinct. You now what she didn't get? Everything that ultimately made much of now possible with much of the same ingredients. Is Rachel a genius nailing the dumbest stooge in Presidential history or is she something different for missing everything else?
Dilemma: I love how Rachel Maddow presents politics to the viewer. But I stopped watching her show (and that of Chris Hayes) because of the constant sensationalism of how Trump had finally jumped the political shark and impeachment was imminent!!11! even though it clearly wasn't.
12
I admire and respect Rachel Maddow, but I admire and respect Judy Woodruff of PBS's New Hour a lot more. A whole lot more. Why? Because Ms. Woodruff pursues a much more balanced approach to the news than Ms. Maddow. And more importantly, like Maddow, Woodruff is super intelligent -- but she never condescends.
16
@Jackson
I like Judy Woodruff, too, but she's not as sharp and as quick as Maddow. Nor as sharp or as quick as Gwen Ifill was. Sadly, youth may offer a few perks. Nobody fears Woodruff, not quite in the same manner as they feared Jim Lehrer. Unfortunately, none of the PBS bunch has what CBS has always had: Mike Wallace, Morely Safer, Bob Simon, Steve Kroft, Ed Bradley, and Lesley Stahl.
Nine o'clock Pod cast of the show every night for a little bit of sanity in an increasingly disturbed world. Very often this floats across my mind; why hasn't print media covered this, it certainly rates distribution.
3
My problem with Rachel's coverage of the Mueller "probe" is that night after night she and her guests reminded us of what a "great guy" Bob Mueller is, and how he'd get to the bottom of everything.
Out of retirement came Don Quixote Mueller and just as his role model he went chasing after windmills and ended up discouraging most of us.
Be wary of trusting Directors of the FBI. Most of them from J.Edgar in his dress through Comey and his election meddling weren't all that good.
7
Since the beginning of the Trump Era, Rachel Maddow had been one of the people responsible for keeping me sane and informed without making me feel overwhelmed by the tide of disastrous news, and she has done it with humor and a piercing intelligence. Rachel Maddow engages in real time long-form story telling and dot-connecting with little camera cutting in a way that flies in the face of everything that our ADD disordered media is supposed to be in the 21st Century. And any comparisons to the likes of Hannity or Glenn Beck is ludicrous; never has she engaged in the histrionics, bellicosity and rhetorical bear baiting that those exemplars of Righ-Wing Media Trump Think engage in. She is, in the eyes of this (let's be kind here) middle-aged white guy, the finest purveyor of news on a granular level in the history of Television.
10
As Trump administration was busy 'dismantling administrative state' and news of corruption was widely reported Maddow's was obsessing about minute details of Russia probe revelations for weeks at a time. I feel that she should have better balanced her reports at the time.
6
Although I agree with her positions, I never watch. I don’t want to be lectured, ala Keith Olbermann. She’s too full of herself. Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd are much better hosts.
2
@Mary W
Geez how our perceptions differ. Chuck Todd is utterly unqualified for the chair he occupies, chosen precisely because "he is not too smart" and Chris Matthews talks over his guests. Both unwatchable.
14
@caljn
Chuck Todd's staff is good at coming up with 'gotcha clips' to show interviewees, always an entertaining activity. But while Chuck will let people he agrees with talk, the minute someone dares mutter a different point of view, Chuck verbally jumps all over them, to the point where they are forced to just shut up. That is very rude and annoying and unfair.
1
Why doesn't Rachel Maddow ever interview conservative guests on her show? Does she refuse to invite them? Do they refuse to appear? Does she fear controversy?
Similarly, why doesn't she interview more progressives, who would criticize the Democratic Party from the left?
It seems that Maddow is comfortable only with garden variety liberals, and refuses to deal with opinions from the right and the left. That may be good for ratings with her liberal viewers, but it hardly makes for intellectual stimulation.
8
She used to say she invited people on the right and they didn’t want to be on her show. Perhaps that’s still true.
2
Article is spot on. I am the "MSNBC mom" viewer described in the article. The 2016 election was as shocking and jolting as everything that has happened since. I read more news than ever before and its still not enough. I look forward to Rachel's commentary every night. It somehow makes me feel like I am no longer drowning in the insanity and that there is just no way this can continue. He can't literally "shoot somebody on 5th avenue" and get away with it just because he vocally and unapologetically says he can.
5
Does Rachel Maddow have a Twitter account? Seems she is the ideal pundit to tweet about Trump on a daily basis? If her tweets go viral, she might actually enlighten some of Trump's supporters?
2
In a media world afflicted by shallow bothsiderism, her dogged quest for the facts and the truth is more than a breath of fresh air.
It's essential to informed voting public.
She is a national treasure.
11
It ain't Huntley-Brinkley or Walter Cronkite, and it certainly ain't Edward R. Murrow. Murrow could effectively do a Rachel show in 30 minutes and give you some time to play with the kids. C'mon Rachel, practice a little economy and tell us more about what's really going on out there.
5
@HRD
Murrow had WWII from London; Huntley/Brinkley and Cronkite had Viet Nam. Those were compelling world events. Rachel Maddow has to cover global hot spots and Trump's foreign policy; she makes as much sense anyone can under the circumstances. Trump, Putin, the Saudis et al are corrupt heads of State in a world we are are forced to contend with every day. She doesn't have an FDR or Truman. She no longer has Obama. Give her a break.
4
@Linda Miilu
My concern is the inefficiency of her delivery. I am not accusing her of speaking nonsense.
1
Watch the show regularly and enjoy/appreciate the depth, but do not enjoy the book pitches (Hayes, Matthews guilty of this as well), which just have to be gratis plugs. Many nights we prep by saying "Let's see what Rachel has to say." Typically, however, the copy -- while highly credible -- goes a couple of thousand words too long. We often record the one hour for viewing later so we can blow through the commercial breaks.
Amanda Hess is an excellent cultural critic, but this essay, like Janet Malcolm's 2017 New Yorker article on Rachel Maddow, is a disappointing puff piece. As Neil Postman observed, television news must be entertaining in order to succeed in the nightly ratings battle, and Maddow's show is nothing more than infotainment for liberals. Maddow fails to ask Democratic politicians challenging questions, and positively fawns over some, including Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Her rambling, repetitive monologues are, well, let's just say inefficient. Her jokey delivery of the news is more suited to a high school cafeteria than a serious analysis of current events. I often watch Maddow's show, and I confess that I do find it entertaining, but I don't mistake it for journalism. Let's be plain: Rachel Maddow has become an extremely wealthy celebrity by offering liberals a smug, reassuring nightcap in the age of Trump.
10
Rachel Maddow is doing 'real' American honest journalism.
She states very precisely the checks and balances, etc.
4
Haven't missed her show in years, no hysterics just reasoning which I agree with.
5
I don’t watch the boob tube, so appreciated this article (which confirmed my choice.) I found it disturbing that Maddow and Carlson, two sides of the same coin, could never think to ask each other: Are we helping this country?
3
Whether one likes the show or not, one cannot dispute that she works very hard on research and pulls together a cogent narrative. One of the things I like best is that she keeps her eye on state politics, too, which are often where the real action is.
12
I wish a show like Rachel Maddow's was on the air once a week. Then it would be an event, the way Meet the Press used to be. (Now MTP daily is a repetitious boring affair.)
A once weekly show would give Maddow the chance to do a deep dive and cut out the superfluous material that can irritate. Still, I watch her a few times a week because she is unique, respectful, witty and sharp. Rachel, I wish you the best. When the time is right, request that once weekly show. I would make time for it every week.
4
I adore Rachel Maddow and never miss a show - I feel almost gypped on those rare evenings when someone else substitutes for her. She provides history lessons, makes us laugh, makes us think, fits the disparate pieces together. My brain feels better after watching an hour of Rachel. She is our own chicken soup for the soul.
14
@Karen Cormac-Jones
Hear, hear... well said, thanks
4
I greatly appreciate Rachel's education and grasp of history. She puts the days events into the larger picture. She is not about "sound bites," but rather about larger patterns. These patterns will probably be in the history books 100 years from now, but right now, one way to see them, is to watch Rachel Maddow.
14
I watch TRMS every night with my 10 & 16 year old kids while we make dinner. She sparks great discussion, my kids ask lots of questions, & my teen has even become a pundit on her Snapchat & Insty pages (& gets very harassed online as a result in our purple county). Glad there is a voice & teacher for us!
23
I am compelled to admit that I never tune into Sean Hannity nor any other FOX newscast after trying to watch them on several occasions in attempt to understand their appeal to millions of Trump voters. They insult my intelligence and my ability to discern fact from conspiratorial fiction. In turn, I am certain that their viewers never have their channels set to TRMS. Her well-analyzed and intelligent reporting provide me with informed perspectives where I am challenged to think critically and establish my own conclusions. It seems that those solely dedicated to FOX will always adhere to the great propaganda myth that all MSM is fake news. In the final analysis, both shows have the right of freedom of the press and the viewing public has the right to accept which to regard as their standard bearer for their beliefs and informed opinions. In the end, however I am certain that the bridge between the two groups of aficionados will never be reached without a majority of the public being schooled in civics, the Constitution and the American government. As a final word, I thank Rachel for teaching me more about those vital bastions of a healthy democracy every night.
30
I thought I would join in on the fun!
I was a resident of western Mass. for many years and a daily listener of WRNX from Northampton, including Rachel Maddox at the time. She was quirky and funny on her show, great entertainment every day. I still miss Rachel spinning Amy Winehouse!
13
Watching Rachel is like going to class to learn something new. It's not a panel of pundits giving their opinions. She delves into a subject and explains it, then has an expert who can add to the story line. She didn't always discuss Trump. In fact, for a long time she avoided the subject and instead investigated a little known or not widely circulated report from other parts of the country. She makes me smarter. I like that!
42
@SM And man was she ever right about Manafort -- she just wouldn't let that one go and I remember thinking, what do you know Rachel that the rest of us don't? Turns out, a lot.
8
I'm a fan. Maddow represents "The Good Fight" more than any examination of her television persona might sum her up. Throwing the covers off GOP raiding the treasury every chance they get demonstrates "...watch what they do." as the rational means for defining the lay of the land, not what they tell you. IOW's , believe your eyes not inoculated Faith. They tell them the plan is "Supply Side" and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of you as a by product. And they've done it every time they get close enough to the treasury,our treasury. The issues she does surgery on isn't non invasive as much as the opposition would like to induce any pursuit into a coma. The Right exercise the opposite of "watch what they do", they tell their supporters, have Faith in what we tell you they're doing. That spoon feeding of course will be effective with those who believe how and whatever they want the Truth to be at the expense of Reality. The GOP would have democracy fade away towards Theocracy and Oligarchy while we're the frog in the simmering water. We need all the Vigilance and of a high quality equal to the challenge as we can get as the goal posts have moved away from the rights and interests of the majority. That they've even succeeded in removing the popular vote as how we elect our Presidents should send red flags everywhere. "The Good Fight" Maddow is at its Vanguard.
18
Rachel Maddow is a brilliant, bright light in this country's current darkness. She puts together the fragments of the day's outrages until it makes some kind of sense and doesn't go over the line in her conclusions. A singular voice I never miss. No, not one single night.
55
I disagree that Maddow has "staked her show on Trump." For the past 11 years, Maddow has been doing amazing reporting on her program on a whole host of issues. She has staked her career on being a smart, passionate and compelling media presence going back to Air America in the early 2000s. If she comes across as repetitive at times, I would bet it's because she has a Ph.D. in Politics, which means she would very likely have had experience as a graduate teaching assistant. As a high school teacher myself, I know that things often have to be repeated several times before my "audience" finally "gets it."
103
@Kay
I am not sure what it is, but is isn't reporting.
5
It’s also amazing to check her Neilson ratings over time, she seems doing well when she bashes Trump, ratings took a dive after the Muller report, she ran out of gas but now she’s tanked up again. You can look it up.
1
I can use scientific history to talk about her
Trump & the Rightwing conspiracists keep having to add more farfetched layers to their theories as new facts come out,like the ancient astronomers who kept adding circles upon circles in order to explain celestial motion based on an earth-centered universe.The conspiracy needs to become more elaborate in order to maintain the idea that Trump is innocent.The system doesn't even cohere anymore because they keep having to add ad hoc explanations
Copernicus cut through the confusion,applied Occam's razor,put the sun at the center of the solar system and the system became amazingly simplified & easier to understand.With fewer circles to plot,the system was not only easier to grasp but easier to predict events & test.
Maddow is like Copernicus or anyone who has a good theory. Assuming there was a collusion with the Russians in the 2016 election, due not only to Trump but the sort of people who act as he does, really simplifies any explanations of what has & will occurred.And it has been successful in predicting new events
Maddow takes in new data & sees if it fits in with the theory of the case so far. If it doesn't she will say so & not add an ad hoc explanation
The theory of Trump's guilt is tentatively held as the best to fit the facts as they keep coming in.It could be given up if there is evidence that it is wrong.Unfortunately Trump keeps adding new facts in support and none to contradict it.
The earth moves around the sun.
22
I watch Fox once in awhile just for a different slant. The differences between Maddow and Chris Hayes on one end and the Hannity, etc. group on the other is like night and day. The MSNBC group always provides historical context and in depth expert commentary. The other side usually consists of talking points and vague, general conspiracy theories. Day vs. Night.
104
@Joe
You are saying Maddow does not stoop to "talking points"?
3
My understanding of the English language is very reasonable. When anchors start mumbling or fall back on their local twang, I get into trouble. Rachel is speedy, but very clear. I love that.
Aside from this mini issue: her show is addictive.
41
@SF
Curious: you see the show in Vienna, Austria? (Great monicker. )
She finds interesting angles on many stories often overlooked. But she is too long-winded, repetitive and rambling for me. I'm surprised her ratings are as high as they are. I can't listen for very long. I'm an active liberal and prefer print to get my information, to get alternate viewpoints. I listen to O'Donnell at 10 more than any other MSNBC host but not daily.
11
@Jim
I write off her ratings to the assumption that Trump haters simply like to hear from a bigger Trump hater. It's their comfort zone, if not drug of choice. I don't blame them, but it's mine. Is it too early for a Scotch, or too late?
5
A truly successful journalist would be watched by people on the right and left about equally- think Walter Cronkite or Gwen Ifill. It seems Maddow is less a journalist than a cheerleader of The Resistance. The article suggests that most watchers of Maddow are people of her demographic (highly educated white leftist women) who already agree with her about almost everything.
I'm curious how many neutral or right wing people she reaches with her reporting. Would her watchers even consider this a worthy goal?
6
@keith: "It seems Maddow is less a journalist than a cheerleader of The Resistance."
With respect, I strenuously disagree. As the piece makes clear Maddow thrives on healthy debate & would invite more conservatives on her show BUT, those willing to sit with her are not the voices she seeks to engage. She tried that on with Kellyanne Conway. I watched that interview & Conway took every opportunity to spew "alternative facts."
I get why Maddow refuses to allow that level of discourse on her show.
9
@JDV: "She won't do it though because her show is all about her perspective."
If you're not a part of the Maddow production team you're in no position to say what she won't do. For all you know, any of those three you mentioned could have received and declined an invite to sit down with her.
2
Rachel's show is a sanctuary where I go every night to escape the reality of what much of my beloved country has become, a cesspool catering to insane fools.
63
Very tedious woman. Part of the blabosphere like Hannity and the rest. I don't get why folks watch these people.
15
Ms. Maddow, get rid of the false eyelashes. They make you blink too much as if they are an irritant.
12
Fine article but Rachel is beautiful as well as brilliant - photo you selected is so unflattering. Why would you use it?
19
For some reason it was deliberately made with a lens which isn't very flattering. This style intends to be incisive but seems to me to choose a stereotypical pose which is considered to be unattractive. Not to reflect a deeper reality, which would be a different portrait.
2
@Nate Roth
Photos do not lie...unlike talking heads on TV, politicians and teenagers.
Roger Ailes was a brilliant, high functioning Narcopath.
There, I figured it out.
SMH.
2
America's Conspiracy Nut. Fox Mulder chasing The Smoking Man.
She can say something in 55 minutes that anyone else on TV can say in 5. But with such breathless anticipation that The Truth is out there, somewhere. Just not on her show this evening.
14
To me, Rachael is like Daria would have been had her creators allowed her to grow up.
2
Same as Fox and friends - just different color. Unwatchable.
9
Big Rachel fan, I am, but a fishing accident? Tore ligaments? uh, I need the story behind the story, please.
9
@A guy from Georgia
There are numerous good fishing streams and small rivers in rural MA. I can only guess, but I suspect she twisted her foot or got it caught on the uneven, rocky stream bed of one of our beautiful rivers. It happens to the best of us.
5
Obsessive? No I think they are more likely suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don't like Trump but I do have a life which, apparently, these viewers do not. Get a life, there is an election in 13 months, and go vote.
7
@Thomas Smith Sorry, some of us are outraged by lies and corruption.
53
Christopher Griffith’s accompanying headshot makes Dr. Maddow look especially bookish - handy since she has a book out today.
3
I am a huge fan, but I can't watch anymore. I need to know what the non-liberal middle of the country is thinking so we can bring them into the tent in 2020. I agree with Rachel and Chris, but it's too much confirmation bias and lefty navel gazing. Thanksgiving is coming. I need family talking points.
5
Having met Rachel Maddow once, Rachel is as welcoming, accessible and down-to-earth friendly as “seen on TV”. The fans described in this piece are probably more thoughtful than the yarn collectors-like they’re paint out to be.
Calling Rachel’s “A Segment” “baroque” is misleading and not the case, The initial segment is like a graduate class for all that begins with a simple concept or example and is systematically crafted into a more complex digestible thesis. Oleg Derispaka’s role the Trump Administration is a case in point. Most news outlets have covered this Russian oligarch almost in passing, while through Rachel we saw connection to the Trump Administration, its lifting of sanctions against this man and his subsequent outreach to Senate Majority Leader,” Moscow Mitch” through Deripaska’s investment in Kentucky. No one seems bothered by it. Why? Equally baffling was how quick the press was to accept AG Barr’s manipulation of the Muller Report’s findings. Why? Whose interests are being protected and advanced?
No wonder, the initial segment “sometimes” eludes Fox’ Tucker Carlson’s understanding. All cute anecdotes aside, the fact is that we don’t get straight reporting anymore, nor do we see more diverse opinions in the media writ large. Even MSNBC has a troop of Commentary magazine editors representing the “conservative” point of view. The commentariat absence in her show is a draw
21
@Ted Rachel's initial segment is not "The initial segment is like a graduate class for all," but rather a remedial course for people who flunked history.
5
@Ted
"The initial segment is like a graduate class..."
More like a remedial or ESL class for those who don't read the news.
1
Oops, Sorry Rachel and readers in an earlier post, got Rachel's new book title wrong. It's called "Blowout" and I can't wait to read it
4
When the big TV networks report a story, I heard it from Rachel a week before.
42
@Jim
...and on the WSJ or NYT the afternoon before RM's show. I like her, but I really don't need to watch her show for 50 minutes to have her "explain" and add her political bias to a story that took me 5 minutes to read.
4
I freely admit I have a love/hate feeling toward Rachael.
I love that she does real in depth and relevant journalism.. on a cable "news" channel.
I love that she knows which rocks to turn over in politics and which grubby insects underneath to focus her bright light of analysis on.
What I hate (and this is a friendly form of hate, that is actually impatience on my part) is that it takes her forever to get to the real punchline in a topic being presented and anlalyzed. But you know what.. she does this better then almost anyone else (with the possible exception of Lawrence O'Donnel) and she does it extremely well.. so I usually manage to check my patience and stay attentive.
I hate that she gives Trump so much air time. I get that it is a necessary part of presenting the corruption and crimes that ARE Trump to the core, but I just wish I did not have to listen to his nonsense over and over again as the case is made about who he really is.
All that said... Rachael.. you keep doing what you are doing.. and I promise I will find ways to cope with what I dislike, and embrace even more what I enjoy about your approach to bringing actual quality news to a cable news channel. You belong on the main NBC network... but I get it that for your personal style and skills... you need a full hour show of your own each weeknight.... and that relegates your to a cable news channel.
19
@Chuck
Agree, but not completely, you understand. I think some of what you dislike could be avoided on the show if she had a segment once a night that was not about politics. Take ten minutes away from that opening monologue and interview a writer, a poet, an artist, a fisherman.
Or really taper down by using the last 20 minutes for topics other than U.S. politics...do the world, do the EU, do Japan or Indonesia or Australia. Open it up; air it out.
1
I like Rachel. I despise twitter. I miss Keith. And Ed.
16
I miss Keith and Ed, the old Ed. I caught him a few times when he had a spot on RT. It seemed as if he had sold his soul to the devil. There was no spark in him anymore. Or, was it because he was ill as he died not long after at too young an age? Combination of both? I’ll never know for sure.
Dear Rachel Maddow. Love you. But less snark please. It drives up your ratings (maybe) but is an irresponsible choice, as it drives centrists crazy and makes them think you are looking down on them.
Love,
A fan who would never stop you for a selfie
7
See? I love the snark! As snark goes, it’s very gentle.
3
"Obsessive audience." Guilty as charged.
21
@Tom
Every morning I read the headlines in three papers and maybe a story or two in full before going to Rachel.
Living in Europe, I have come to depend on her for substantive reporting on the issues that matter back home. She often surprises me, taking up a story that the rest of the press will take another day or week to dig into.
She's bright and appears genuinely interested in the subjects she examines. Her passion is contagious, even though she can, at times, be a bit long-winded.
I'm very grateful for Rachel Maddow and wish her continued success.
3
There was a time I could keep track of national news myself, and I enjoyed following the occasional story down the rabbit hole of related stories. Now, it’s impossible.
No, I’m not going to watch MSNBC, or any station, all day.
So, I read during the day off and on, and watch Rachel Maddow’s show in the evening, and maybe some of this crazy whirlwind of disorder and destruction at least makes sense. There is some — precious little these days — comfort there.
But, the fact that the people covering the news who have taken the care to present the facts with as little bias and as much coherence as possible, should become branded, even by this paper, as somehow too partisan to risk too many links, speaks volumes.
Instead, unlike Maddow who made the decision to not let her corner of the media become a bullhorn for lies, readers of the NYT must suffer such unedited lies on your opinion pages to support a distorted delusion of “fairness.”
Maybe editorial powers at the NYT should revisit some of their policies. Truth is not a partisan value.
11
Rachel Maddow is a competent cable TV host. She speaks in grammatical sentences that make coherent paragraphs.
In my opinion, she lacks courage. A courageous Cable Host must, every know and then, criticize a person or organization that is popular with the Host's core audience.
An example of a courageous Host is Chris Wallace of FOX. He is willing to be hard on guests that are popular with people who are loved by FOX'S loyal followers.
Rachel is incapable of saying anything that is remotely critical of Israel or anything that is positive about Iran. She picks on easy targets. A gentleman named Nadler involved in the Trump scandals is always identified as a pediphile...sometimes two or three times in the same story. The man is sick. Taking pleasure in his torture is cruel and unnecessary.
Some people get no mention from Rachel. Tulsi Gabbard for instance. She's capable of calling out Netanyahu by name. Rachel can't let that happen.
Another, Sheldon Adelson. Rachel's people don't want to hear about him. They'd prefer to engage in the fiction that he's not that important. Not so. He may be the most powerful private citizen in two countries...USA and Israel.
Last, with truly great Cable Hosts, like Brian Williams and Chris Wallace, the story is paramount. They get out of the way of the story and let the story speak for itself.
Rachel hasn't figured out how to do that.
5
This sentence threw me off " When I picked her up from rehab...."
until I realized the writer meant 'physical therapy." For celebrities, going to rehab seems to be as common going to the grocery store.
3
Things I got out of this article:
1. Why is the first photo of Rachel Maddow so unflattering? Who picked it and why?
2. the author seemed to have missed the point of Rachel's opening monologue. The popularity of Rachel's show stems from her opening in which she gives a background in words the public can understand (except perhaps for the author of this article who states she stops listening to them half way?) Thank to the framework provided by Rachel, the news she is discussing are not haphazard bits and pieces each floating by themselves without visible connection.
3. the author totally disregard the empathy at play in Maddow's show (and her life helping people suffering from AIDS). I would have thought the author might have mentioned Rachel breaking down into tears so that someone else had to take over the show when she tried to talk about refugee children locked up in cages.
4. I'm sorry that Rachel Maddow hurt her ankles so badly... I wish her a prompt recovery even though unfortunately that sort of very painful injury takes a long time to heal.
22
That last line tho. How about "I just report the news, I don't make it." Boom.
3
She lost me on the "I have Trump's tax returns" nonsense. Just like Jimmy Fallon lost me on his "let's make Trump look fun" interview. She may be smart, she may be on my team but she's a master manipulator just like the rest of them. #considermeexhausted
8
Rachel is everything that Trump is not: insightful, educated, humble, authentic, philosophical, accomplished and utterly brilliant. Trump and his minions HATE it when women are all of those things.
33
Anna - this is not a fair comparison of apples to oranges.
I don't get that a lot of folks who describe themselves as liberal and/or progressives don't get Maddow. I've never caught an arch or superior attitude from her or any sort of elitist snobbery. Just makes me wonder about some inborn inadequacies or insecurities people feel in regards to her. She IS bright, and yeah, you could definitely toss in "obsessive" though I prefer "diligent." Witness her A block. The research is incredible. It's like a puzzle waiting to be be solved. She states her opening line and I'm thinking 'OK girl, where are we going with this?' Then she weaves all these seemingly disparate pieces together and there's that aha! moment which she segues into the nub of the night and I'm going, 'Ohhh, OK, I see it now, Rachel.'
Good stuff. Pay attention and you'll learn something.
P.S. I must admit I'm not comfortable with all the on-air cues to buy her book and attend her tour. Looks to me awfully self-promoting (and unnecessarily pecuniary). But she's not alone. Seems everyone at MSNBC has been peddling a book lately. So it goes...
15
"It feels participatory.."
I supposed one being executed by an electric chair can be considered "participatory".
3
Maddow is highly intelligent, articulate, and a exhibits a strong work ethic for doing the research that good journalism requires.
She is the antithesis of the sloppy, dumb, conspiracy-theory propaganda rants of the FOX news commentators.
There is no equivalence here.
40
I discovered Rachel's podcast earlier this year when I came back to work after maternity leave. I would put on the podcast while I took pump breaks! I listen to her several times a week and I appreciate the way she breaks down complicated stories in a digestible way, and weaves in historical context.
17
Nobody lays out thebackground, the reasons and the direct cause and effect consequences of a story better than Ms. Maddow. Not in print, not on tv or the internet and no one I know personally.
He show is an education in how facts matter and that there is always a reason for the unreasonable seeming actions of the world's bad actors.
It's still refreshing to watch her show after so many years. She is an expert level reporter and her delivery is is plain and intriguing and honest and fairly full of common sense. I lookl forward to reading her second book out today!
21
The Russians did it leaves out the profit Trump has made from his financial interests while president, his attacks against immigrants and immigrant children, his racism and anti-Semitism, his misogyny, and his attacks against protest in the US (including the protest of the "Ukraine" whistleblower).
The Russians did it line of reasoning leaves out the important fact that just as Trump has benefited from his financial dealings while president, so has war profiteering benefited during his administration and previous administrations. This is not about national defense, but rather choosing a target such as Russia that allows for more money to be spent on armaments than on programs of social uplift, jobs for those in the US, and addressing the climate catastrophe.
Getting rid of Trump through either impeachment or the 2020 election is a great idea, but who or what will then reform the economic and political systems?
3
her intelligence, dedication and eloquence are unquestioned, her passion can light tinders.
her grinding schedule and indefatigable investigation to the corners where she sheds light is unique. she stands amidst the few woman journalists who drill down, a bloodhound on a scent. Maddow's connecting the dots cannot be copied or mocked, especially as a solo voice she eschews the talking heads. While the absence of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and company will never again be achieved, Rachel rolls out with the facts, while not satire, become satire with 'you cannot write this stuff' of our current 'reality'. She is the narrative of a unimaginable sci-fi presidential reality show, now in escalation as the rocket fuel slowly ignites towards the big burn and lift-off.
9
She is the Alex Jones of the far-left. Her nonstop monologues and perpetual fascination with the current President drove me away from her show. While I used to find it witty and engaging it is now stale and mothballed. Kudos to NYT for trying to prop her up but overall the informed Independents have left her show in droves; myself included.
10
Ms. Maddow is quite possibly the most unappealing messenger for the left I can imagine, except maybe Eugene Debbs.
She is just another IV league grad tuner talking head, and has absolutely no compelling features or stage presence.
7
I found this an interesting piece. It provides one of the only discussions I know of about what goes on behind the scenes of a major news program.
However, the use of stark, poorly framed black and white photos and the worst possible image of Maddow makes me think there is a hidden message here from the author and editor who approved this piece. Together, these images amount to a picture of Maddow's personality that is totally inconsistent with anything I have seen during the years I have watched her shows and read her pieces.
So, what is going on?
No clue, but I am reminded of the days when Nixon was under siege. When it became clear that Nixon was on the ropes, reporters, editors and TV producers began publishing the most unflattering pictures of Nixon they could find.
So, my guess is that the author and editor of this piece have a problem with Rachel Maddow. Most likely it is small minded envy.
5
I sincerely hope Rachel continues her success long after Donald Trump is gone from the news. She is an educator.
12
I too am a huge fan of Maddow and watch her every evening but that doesn't keep me from yelling at her when she goes on and on and on, telling me the same thing three different ways. It's how you make a 15-minute show last an hour.
3
@Barry Moyer
You do realize that she can't actually hear you when you yell at the TV?
3
Uh...maybe Ms. Maddow "obsesses" on Russia because...there is good reason to? Even setting aside the interference in the 2016 election - and the intelligence community's unanimous assessment that they are still doing it toward the 2020 election - and even Mr. Trump taking Mr. Putin's word over that of his own intelligence community, there are now at least half a dozen cases of private conversations and/or meetings between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin which may very well hold the "smoking gun" of the former's corruption, and further impeachable offenses. Indeed, a friend of mine suggested to me that if conversations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin are released - like those of Mr. Trump with Messrs. Zelensky and Morrison - it will be the equivalent of the "Watergate tapes": the final nail in the coffin of Mr. Trump's presidency.
Ms. Maddow may be obsessive, wonkish, even unintentionally condescending at times. But she is also wildly intelligent, a brilliant political historian, and one of the most important interpreters of the news that we have ever had. She deserves our gratitude for the time and effort she makes to help make at least some sense of the myriad threads of our current constitutional crisis.
13
More than any other journalist, Rachel projects her humanity in her voice, on her face and in her heart. I detect vulnerability, buttressed by intelligence and a searing desire to get to the truth. She is a gem in this age of unending nightmares plaguing our nation.
10
@A Goldstein
Perhaps she is most vulnerable to fishing?
1
It's preaching to the choir for her followers, largely pointless for everyone else. I stopped watching long ago given the complete lack of balance.
6
Frankly, I appreciate her step by step explanation and comment on the daily political happenings.
To Rachel: please tell me more about Pompeo's refusal to cooperate with our House of Representatives' committees' demand for documents and depositions per their subpoenas.
7
I love your show. You can explain the most twisted news so I can understand them. It's clear how passionate and talented you have been for for many years about the news and the world that you present every night. Thank you for the great service you do helping us people out here in America to understand the what going on in our world. Can't wait to read your new book, "Blocked".
7
Oops, sorry Rachel and readers, got the book title wrong. Rachel's book is "Blowout".
I believe that cable news is great for understanding the political climate and understanding real-time events, but no matter which network you watch including CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News, it becomes a political game. Real information is left out and “culture wars” are talked about to lure viewers. I thank the New York Times and other newspapers for being the most analytical and fair way to digest today’s politics.
3
Love her content and opinions but she's become unbearable for me to actually watch. What the article describes as meandering soliloquies are in fact her speaking to the audience as if they were Kindergartners. She could put all the content of her show into 30mins if she just spoke to her audience like they understood phrases such as "global trade" and "executive order." I mean come on Rach!
2
She must have a great staff. She and they scour various public judicial outlets for a lot of her "scoops".
That's attention to detail and we all know where the devil lives.
Attention to detail is the hallmark of professionalism.
12
Folks, let’s get an honest grip about Rachel. Rachel desperately needs Trump it’s her only way to keep an audience. Deep in her never spoken psyche she does not want Trump impeached, if he were impeached she would have nothing with raised eyebrows to report. What would she report on?
Rachel has followed every speck on Trump’s suit breathlessly reporting on it and repeatedly flaming out. This time around will be no different. Rachel knows it. So folks enjoy the ride, if this one flames as it surely will she’ll sell you another one.
6
Anyone who fly fishes has my respect, no more humbling a pastime, good for the soul and you are usually alone, making it even better.
3
Rachel is my "safe space" for news. I know she's not going to subject me to extended clips of the Liar-in-Chief, which do nothing but drive my blood pressure into dangerous territory. The history lessons she weaves into the current news are invaluable, in my opinion. Her show is the only hour of television I consider must-see on a daily basis.
8
She and her staff work at doing the research. Grateful to have a voice in this era of Trump insanity. My lack of power and the inept Senate would bring me down but she gives me hope that someone is watching and speaking truth outloud.
9
Rachel Maddow is basically Joseph McCarthy for liberals in an age where the democrat establishment are the favs of the intelligence community, and pushing the idea that anything meaningfully to the left or right of her, especially if it's anti-establishment thought, is Russian influence or something else nefarious. I'm a leftist, and frankly political actors like Maddow will probably get Trump re-elected with all these unfounded accusations about Russia and whatnot and the hysteria they're presented with. The normalization of conspiracy theory styled thought is having very bad consequences for not only the politics of those leaning toward the left, but even their mental health with this rampant paranoiac thought being promoted. There is so much to hate Trump about for the average American, but instead of taking him on for those topics, the lib-left media is making the reaction to Trump irrational and ridiculous.
4
I've been listening to Rachel Maddow since her 5:30am slot on Air America. She frequently asks her guests the most humble question possible: "Is there anything I got wrong in what I just said?"
6
My only question is: how does someone who has to prepare an hour long, daily autopsy of Trump's slaughter of American democracy have time to write a book?
4
A role model for women everywhere, in my opinion.
6
She's too biased. I detest Trump but like to see both sides of issues. Rachel does not provide that.
2
We gave up on Rachel because we can’t listen to that night after night after night and be able to have a healthy life. I pray this era of reality tv ends soon. It has brought us to the brink of disaster. Listening to another expose about it on a daily basis is overload. Plus, ya know, we’d rather read. Novel, I know. (omg it’s an unintended pun)
4
I frequently watch Rachel Maddow. I feel, many times, I'm attending an adult civics class-learning about our American institutions, checks and balances, laws and politics. I appreciate America and democracy even more after her lessons. I am also more fearful that corruption and greed can destroy this system. Last night after all the breaking news alerts, I watched her show for another reason-to feel hopeful. She's passionate about our democracy and I hope there are other passionate, honest, intelligent people working in our government and institutions. People who will call out misdeeds, stand up to corruption, protect our democracy. Oh wow....a whistleblower....a spotlight on activities...maybe our system will survive! Thanks Rachel for the civic lessons!
1052
@LR
Are you serious? Anyone passionate about their democracy would certainly display more objectivity, and not be on the fake impeachment news bandwagon.
5
@Sady
Maddow's show is political news and opinion. She is not supposed to be objective. No one on TV is objective anyway.
Also, she is one of the few progressives on MSNBC so we do need her to keep doing what she's doing. Most of MSNBC's hosts and guests are Republicans and they even admit it.
9
@Sady
Are you serious "fake impeachment news bandwagon"? Trump clearly asked for a personal favor from a foreign government to "look into" an American citizen and political rival. If he truly believed Biden/ Biden's son were doing something wrong he would have gone through proper channels.
Grifting for personal gain and breaching the Emoluments clause violates the oath of office. In America, presidents are directed to serve the people, not themselves at the expense of the people, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat. Critical thinking and studying civics can help clear up some misunderstandings of how our democracy is run.
46
What I like most about Maddow is her ability to discover a new insight or angle to a story that has otherwise been neglected, exhausted or trivialized by others.
BUT, her rambling, repetitive speech pattern is maddening for me. I am a Senior with a fair amount of patience —I don't need quick sound bites. However, I find myself exhausted before she gets around to making her point.
If we all stipulate that she can turn a beautifully articulated phrase, might she agree to tighter editing of her material?
3
My teacher in high school used to say : "If you can't think for yourself, other's will think for you"
So pick your choice, who do you want to be thinking for you ?
Maddow,
Carlson,
Hanity
1
@Angelo Think based on what?
Rachel is very good, but Chris Hayes is great.
Rachel always repeats her points, over and over, in getting to a story. I know many people need to have things spoon fed to them in order to understand even a small bit, but for most of us Rachel is just too slow and too repetitive in her broadcasts.
Chris Hayes tells it like it is. Just the facts. Ma'am. He's the best of the current crop, by far.
I really do like Rachel but she could cover the same stuff in half the time if she just didn't repeat her main points over and over again and again.
7
@William W. BillyYou are so right. I've stopped watching her show because I can't stand the repitition and the agonizing delays in getting to the point.
3
@Alley
I have found a good way to watch Rachel. I record her show, then watch it with liberal (no pun intended) use of the 30 second jump button or fast forward.
That enables me to omit much of the repetition and get all the real info in less than half the time.
Plus I get to skip the commercials.
2
@William W Billy
I just can’t get hooked into Chris Hayes, even as I respect the work he does — especially his coverage of the detainment of children. I find the multiple talking heads format just too frustrating.
The repetition is a strategy for dealing with station time restraints and it works for me, anyway. I was that student in college who kept asking the professor to repeat what she or he just said. My husband, however, finds it as annoying as you do.
I started listening to the Rachel Maddow podcast at bedtime. Then at a hotel I saw the show air on TV. I appreciated seeing her delivery -- but wow those commercial breaks were such annoying interruptions!
7
The commercial breaks are my main beef as well. The first 20 minutes of the program are good, but then the commercials start with ever-increasing frequency until, near the end of the hour, I just turn it off and walk away.
2
Check out Rachel's podcast. I subscribe to the Rachel Maddox's podcast and it's virtually free of commercials with exception of few short breaks.
1
Nightly North star. I watch every day/night that she's on. Clearly she has a talented staff. Paul Harvey but more trustworthy.
6
Rachel is one of the smartest people on TV, her evidence-based presentation does not compare to anything else on TV, particularly FOX. However, I find it difficult to watch Rachel’s show because of her redundant rhetorical method. I find myself counting to three throughout her presentation as she almost exclusively repeats her main evidence or conclusions exactly three times. Sometimes the set of three is repeated. This method is useful if one is teaching new material to a student. I suspect most viewers are like me and come to the show with enough awareness of recent history and news to get the point without the redundancy.
10
Rachel has a way of breaking down a news story and showing how it ties into other stories or event. She has a very smart and fresh way of showing us how some news stories are sometimes part of a bigger picture. So what may seem as repetition is actually her connecting all the dots or all the parts of a story for her audience.
4
My wife and I have enjoyed Rachel for several years. One night, she started her show off talking about the movements of the continent of Pangea millions of years ago but then brought it back to what she was discussing that night. Since then, when she starts talking about something seemingly totally unrelated, we say, well there she goes again to Pangea. Always fascinating.
9
The difference in the vocabulary used in TRMS and just about any FOX product is indicative of the difference in their target audience. That audience, however (post-30something college-educated) needs no convincing of the dangers of the Trump cabal. She does a great job for those of us with patience and critical thinking skills, but we need to find a way to appeal to the dispossessed who voted for the Trump clown-show in 16. Lacking that appeal they'll simply rail against 'the elites' in the future. Mind you I believe she's the best TV journo out there, but sometimes I feel like she's preaching to the choir.
5
I hate to think of what would have happened to the country in the last two years if we didn't have Rachelle. She, despite the often tendious build up of a story and the repetition of details, has drawn connections few others have seen, has showcased the work of a range of journalists so their important work is not lost. Absolutely no one on TV is as thoughtful and respectful of her guest journalists as Rachelle.
12
I'm a liberal, but I no longer watch Rachel Maddow's show because it's become a nonstop monologue by her -- reminds me of what the right-wing 'talk show hosts' on Fox News do. I don't like their propaganda shows and I don't like Maddow's either. I like to hear both sides of an issue or, at the very least, hear other voices besides hers.
22
She is a patriot doing what was right. I wish most folks would have the same courage.
14
I started listening to Maddow back when she was on talk radio in the mid 2000s and immediately loved her approach and intelligence. Even when her take on a story or issue is in conflict with mine I can respect her (well articulated) thought process. Even though I quit watching cable news in 2017 to preserve my happiness and sanity, Maddow's show is the only one I miss.
3
I admire Rachel Maddow and highly recommend her show. She does so much research for us lazy, complaining (previous comments) viewers. Her reporting provides context, which is essential at times to get what is going on.
Rachel Maddow helps myself, my family, colleagues and friends feel less bonkers during this dark, scary period for our country. If a man did as much service as she is doing and has done for our country, few would be as judgemental.
34
MSNBC is not the opposite of Fox - just as WINS is not the opposite of WABC.
One is a news station; the other is a news *talk* station that riffs on the news as reported by others.
6
She is brilliant. My only criticism is that she tends to repeat herself in order to draw out the time she takes to get to the climax of her story.
22
I don't think Rachel repeats herself but instead I feel she's trying to explain something complicated in different ways so we, her audience, can understand it. I like that she helps me, her audience, understand world new events that often are twisted and convoluted. Rachel keep up your great work!
10
@Jon Doyle I feel that way too and it is my only criticism.
Read the news, don't perform the news.
Only Jon Stewart can get away with that.
1
The repetition is seriously annoying and she sometimes talks to her audience like they’re 10 year olds, other than that she’s great. I’m a fan.
2
The Robespierre of cable news commentary who just so happens to physically speak from the side of her mouth.
5
I'm the first to admit that in my youth I routinely dozed-off while attempting to watch Jim Lehrer read the news with sober, drowsy, no-frills clarity... but I miss those days.
Rachel Maddow is extremely smart and engaging, but like all others these day, she sells the news, she doesn't tell the news.
She is my Coke to Hannity's RC Cola. That is troubling, all the more so because we can't but the genie of infotainment back in the bottle. It is up to all of us to always take a step back and think about what we are hearing from our personal drug pusher of choice.
4
The difference between Hannity and Maddow is not the difference between RC cola and Coke . The difference is Hannity lies with abandon, and Maddow does not.
5
@Independent Voter I was trying to make a consumer joke: "the real thing" and the cheap imitation. Sorry about that, bad analogy. Maddow doesn't lie, but she tends to play connect the dots and peddle in hyperbole from time-to-time.
@Independent Voter
She lies just as much, and is just as manipulative in terms of what stories she presents, and what viewpoints she allows to be represented through her guests. Most of her fans, just like most of the Hannity fans, are too lazy and naive to figure it out.
3
I absolutely love Rachel -- to the point when she's not on, I turn off MSNBC. I love her wind-up -- it's like sitting at a cozy bar with a really smart friend who majored in histroy. I admire how she can keep her cool, when the lies and corruption from the administration can seem so overwhelming; she just laughs at the absurdity. And finally, if Manafort doesn't get the pardon Trump seems to be trying to line up, I think we'll learn someday that Manafort is indeed the missing link between Russia and Trump. Or maybe the taxes will provide that link. Either way -- Maddow and her chipper, brilliant self are a balm in these times. And PS, her mother is totally right -- save the velvet for Fall and winter.
34
Maddow is the Buckley of the left - erudite, well-prepared, Socratic-challenges to guests but without Bill's condescension.
33
And many media outlets such as this have also benefited from Trump. And would any of you trade it for a non-Trump presidency, I wonder.
Happy for Rachel, I guess. But I would rather not have Trump as president no matter how great a career move it has been for the many who berate him as their bank accounts grow.
8
She needs a stronger producer to edit her soliloquies. She repeats herself, saying something three times when once would have sufficed. Her narrative bogs down and find myself hoping she will get to the point. But the riff her signature has become the extended riff so I don't see it changing.
8
If you listen closely what Rachel what she is doing is tying all the loose ends do many seemly unrelated news stories into coherent picture. What she delivers from all this is the big picture and often it's missed because there is so much coming at us.
I am not a liberal, but she has a very interesting way of explaining things. She is interesting to listen to. She is the anti Hannity, who I listened to a few times when Alan Colmes was still with him. She puts the story together, and leads you to a conclusion as a good attorney would if you were a juror.
25
Ms. Maddow would be my favorite commentator if she didn't talk to me like I were hard of hearing or slow on the uptake.
9
@Brian Pottorff
Well, she does have to cater to her audience.
2
She is clear and straight to the point. But for me the most important thing is that she is honest and brings you to face the FACT.
22
Though I am a Democrat, I deplore the fact that Maddow and other extremely biased opinion hosts, on both sides, whose job is to use information (not necessarily facts) which support their one-sided opinions, simply entertain in a way that fosters more divisiveness in this country and hand the the public more ammo to claim the media is biased and deals in fake news.
17
@Rich
I actually watch the program daily. I have never once seen Maddow push an opinion.
If she has, provide actual evidence.
5
The evidence is in her framing, the stories she chooses to cover and the simpatico guests that she selects.
2
@Chickpea
I refuse to believe that there are adults out there who are this naive.
2
I tried. Hard. Just couldn’t take the affectation. The last straw was when she talked about having “Trump’s tax returns” for 30 minutes teased around endless commercial breaks only to end up being absolutely nothing.
20
@GSL
Frankly, most days it seems all Maddow has to offer ends up as absolutely nothing. But she often does itwith glee, which may be something. Or is it?.
3
@GSL Completely agree. So...Much...Talk! I'm a liberal and can't watch her. She's the only one on MSNBC that I don't watch.
3
Ms. Maddow should have been a lawyer. Every night she makes her case by giving us background information. Sometimes she drags out her points too long where I scream at the T.V. "Okay, Rachel, we get it, now get to the point!" (judges can be so impatient)
7
@Matt586
"Ms. Maddow should have been a lawyer." Well, she skipped that part and when directly to judge and jury.
4
I've been around a long time and Americans have an undying love affair with people with whom they like to identify. It can be football, politics, business, religion, charity, alma maters, cities, towns etc. What I've learned is to take everything I hear with a grain of salt and probe the motivations of the sellers. Our leaders and influencers too often turn out to have feet of clay.
3
Rachel gives context to the news and outlines the connections, even history, behind what might look like disparate people and events.
This is what TV news sorely needs, especially now.
19
Since the Ukraine phone call, I've taken to watching all three cable networks to see the style of presentation and content they emphasize.
It's interesting - amazing.
Rachel has good journalistic standards.
She keeps it rational most of the time.
(One can sense a hype-job in most things, whether it's a news program or roofing contractor pitching a job)
Tuning into Hannity (deep breath- hit the remote!) the Ukraine story is 180 degrees different from every other major media outlet. Even from The Wall Street Journal, owned by the same people as FOX.
It's amusing to watch - for a while - then I have to bail. I have to say, it lacks intellectual rigor a lot of the time. But, I'll keep checking in.
Yesterday, I thought of a meme I'd like Democrats to emphasize amid all the rancor.
Envision America post Trump.
Let it get in your heart and soul.
Envision a decent, moral, uncompromised person as president who uses calm words to show our common purpose and the strength of our unity. To help us see that we Americans agree on almost every issue - from background checks on gun sales, to humane immigration policy, to the environment and a fairer shake for the middle class after decades of favoring the wealthy.
I want to hear this above all the Trump noise- It's OK to leave him behind. To move on. To renormalize and have lawful, honorable sanity in the White House again.
We can move past the madness.
Imagine that.
Believe that.
That's what I'd offer Americans.
16
@Paul King
Well, we can at least agree you have a particular definition of "good journalism". On your description of "rational"? Not so much.
Formerly someone who couldn't bear to listen to a talking head, I have become a huge fan of Maddow. Her intellect, sense of humor, breadth of knowledge and appeal are mesmerizing. Her show on Monday, Sept. 30, was one of her best ever: a cogent, factual and very persuasive summary of this adminstration's immense corruption and its dire consequences. She is a very bright spot in these times, an Anchises to lead me through an underworld that becomes darker and more threatening every day. Thank you, Rachel.
36
Rachel is everything I love: smart, articulate, tall, self-possessed, and almost as liberal as I am.
That said, I can’t stand to watch her: her habit of over-explaining is, to me, patronizing. Yes, Rachel, I know the words, I got what you said the first time. Please don’t say it again. Please don’t say it another way to make sure I got it. I GOT IT THE FIRST TIME!
But I do love that girl. BTW, this post is heresy in my family. Please don’t tell them what I wrote!
6
@Weshallovercome
Rachel may be everything you love, but apparently you don't love everything about Rachel. In other words - she's a bit much, even for those who profess to love her. For myself, I find her very entertaining..for the first three minutes.
2
All these comments show that Rachel Maddow doesn't need to be universally loved--she's just being herself, and enough people appreciate that so she doesn't have to cater to people who want sound bytes and "neutrality." Rachel has beliefs! She cares about things! If you listened to her through the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq war years, you know she is going to stick to the main story of the day, satisfied that the rest of the news will also be covered.
For all those who think she got the Russia story wrong, you're not paying attention. As she notes each night, several people are indicted and in jail for lying and covering up, as well as for other more serious crimes, including cheating on taxes, corruption. Ultimately, the Russian government has a singular goal to get all the sanctions lifted so they can grow their mafia-esque economy, and they have used the President, his family, the NRA, and the Republicans to do this. That's Rachel Maddow of the last 3 years distilled. The interesting details of how they are doing this and getting away with it keep me watching.
I also love her style -- a contrast to other female journalists' with distracting hairstyles and clothes. It's right to compare her with Amy Goodman. They're both true "mavericks" of the industry.
35
@alcatraz
You've nailed it. It's about the sanctions getting lifted as she pointed out in her show last night.
While others like Hannity are doing their best to make Binden out as some criminal they are looking past the fact that Trump is doing the bidding of Puntin to get the sanctions lifted.
Trump obviously believes there is a pot of gold at the end of the sanction rainbow waiting for him and his family if he manages to convince Congress to undo what they've done. Perhaps that Hotel in Moscow he has so long desired.
2
Wow! What a beautiful documentary (?) portrait by Christopher Griffith. Really stunning.
2
I don't have cable so I listen to TRMS as a podcast. I know Hannity's viewership numbers are always cited as being higher than Maddow's, but his podcast numbers certainly cannot be. Why is this never considered when the size of their followings are compared?
7
The best thing that Rachel ever did was when she aimed a bright spotlight at the Flint Water Crisis and made a crusade out of it. That was Doing God’s Work..
18
Great long lead! This is what magazine writing should be. Saving the rest of the piece for later.
4
@Sam Moses
Amanda Hess one of New York Time's more accomplished writers. Engaging, fair-minded. More like her, please or more articles from her, please. She's got that Ailes sauce herself: authenticity, trustworthiness, likability, humor, gravitas. Wish the NYT would get a Miami-based writer like her to fairly report/analyze the news.
2
I am not a regular viewer of Rachel but I have been closely following the impeachment news on You Tube, Washington Post and the New York Times, to name a few. I have been obsessive, really. Rachel's show of 9/30 was staggering, so much so that I sent it back to myself and re-watched it again, immediately. It seems to tie together some of the loose treads of the recent Trump impeachment probes, broadening the scope and explaining in an entirely rational way, a bigger, much uglier problem in Trumps actions. I put it on LinkedIn to see what others thought of her show of the night and received so far answers seemingly from either burnt-out viewers or Trump supporters. All I can say is that I find her opinions on this matter illuminating and important.
13
To date she has not had to retract or apologize, at least not that I have seen. Nor has anyone pointed out that anything she has focused on is wrong. It is insightful and in depth, not a rehash of news that has been on all day. Keep it up Rachel.
14
I’m old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow and I grew up watching Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid.
Rachel is from the same cut of cloth.
You go girl!!!
34
@winthropo muchacho
Murrow was as good as it got.
Cronkite was a shill for NASA. I never trusted him.
The only show I never miss, I learn something every show.
17
Even Republicans acknowledge that Rachel Maddow tells the truth.
12
I have had a recurring dream for ten years that Rachel Maddow is my best friend. I’m not joking. We have a hoot together!
5
@EmilyF
You sound like like a 7 year old. Except they dream that Taylor Swift is their best friend.
1
"Trump is rarely quoted or shown onscreen" - Thank you so much for this. Every time I hear his voice, I feel like there should be an automute function for it.
18
I have not heard anyone seriously challenge Maddow's facts or sincerity. No one outside the Fox fantasy bubble, that is.
Maybe some credible organization has accused her of being untruthful. I just haven't heard of it.
By contrast, Fox News has been shown countless times to have broadcast false information and to have altered news narratives to support their far-right agenda. Just about every day, in fact.
I'm sure Maddow has made mistakes. I don't know of any, but I'm no expert and I'm not a news junkie.
Her famous news narratives do, however, link past events in a credible, meaningful way.
Most news outfits just forget or ignore previous, related stories.
Mostly, that's just the old habit of trying to make the latest iteration seem like a big scoop. But ignoring pertinent facts and events just because they happened a month ago is stupid and a huge disservice to viewers and readers.
Rachel has an interesting and informative show because she and her staff do the work and try hard to make some sense of the repugnant, scandalous sagas of our day.
19
@Bill Banks
Yes Maddow has made mistakes now and then BUT she always acknowledges them... She also always asks the people she is interviewing "did I get this right?"
3
MSNBC was and is non-stop free advertising for criminal Trump. I do respect Ms Maddow and her reporting however I no longer watch cable tv and don't miss it in the least.
I don't need to see criminal Trump's face and his latest Tweets and or his nonsensical blabbering 24/7. The majority of Americans knew the entire Trump family were criminals for decades.
I'd like to know how much media has profited off the Trump reality tv show the past years. I know our country has suffered, that's for certain.
8
In a perfect universe, Fox would have the same ethical standards as Ms. Maddow.
8
And so there it is; an obsessive audience as a way to stay relevant.
4
You had me at "News Doula" (over veggie enchiladas...)
5
She pushed the Russia collusion theory for years, and was proven totally wrong by the Mueller report. Why is she being celebrated and not held accountable? How about journalist who actually got it right? Like Aaron Mate or Glenn Grenewald?
8
How was she proven wrong? Because Congress didn’t impeach Trump after Mueller said he couldn’t exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice? Because Mueller showed how Trump enjoyed Russia’s interference, but couldn’t prove there was a conspiracy there, admitting that some of his inability to prove conspiracy was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Trump and some of his team? It is sad how Trump supporters believe all that is told to them by their leader, or their leader’s propaganda team, Fox “News”. Yes, he did not get into trouble over any of that. However, it definitely was NOT anything close to complete exoneration or proof that he did nothing wrong. He skated by, with help from Republicans who did not want him punished.
7
Will-did you happen to read the actual report and see Mueller's testimony or believe what Barr said that it said?
2
So Maddow's appeal relies upon "flattering (liberals) sense of intellectualism?"
Give me a break.
This country might not be in this mess if Fox News gave its viewer a little more credit for having a brain.
She's got a good thing going. It's great entertainment for liberals.
Rachel this is for you: be careful with that boot. The medial metal flange managed to sever a nerve in my calf and now I walk with a cane. Don't mess with that sucker. Just because it gets to feel comfortable: don't be tricked into putting weight on that foot.
2
Having tuned into her show by mistake, I was mesmerized by her leaps of of illogic, speculation and ignoring any fact that called into question her assumptions. She adds nothing,in my view, to any debate.
7
Mostly, I read newspapers. When I do watch cable news, it's Nicole Wallace or Rachel Maddow, sometimes Chris Hayes. I'd watch Brian Williams more often if he were on at an earlier hour. MSNBC is partisan, but there's real information to be had. The trick is not to watch cable news all day (or all night). If you weren't an obsessive before you took up that habit, you soon would be.
3
You write that Maddow has "staked her show on Trump" implying that her reporting is somehow less than legitimate because her show's fortunes depend on this. I don't that's fair. I mean, really, for any show that is dedicated to American politics, how many can you name that do not "stake their show on Trump"? What else is there to talk about?
3
@NYer
You're so right and I would add that it is trump who has staked his regime into our being.
Maddow however covers lots of other ground, among other things the water crisis in Flint, etc.
1
I enjoyed Maddow's segment much more in the early days, when she wasn't so perkily "on" all the times. Avoid her at all costs now.
4
I love Maddow. She is the smartest political talking head on TV. I have never found her to be even remotely dishonest or to lie about anything. She has a progressive POV, but she is excruciatingly careful about facts. Unlike Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and most of the other Foxies, who lie, distort and fabricate with abandon, Maddow can be trusted. And yes, she is obsessed with Trump, for the simple reason that he is the most cancerously corrupt person to ever sit in the Oval Office. He is a profound danger to the country, and any journalist who is not obsessed with his endless, snarling depravity is not doing his job. We are lucky to have her.
52
I am addicted to watching the "Rachel Maddow Show".
I'm a former Lincoln/Ike/Reagan Republican. My GOP deserted me during the G.W. Bush admin, when the Tea Party Evangelicals & Neo-Cons took over. Now I am an Independent, seeking the truth in news.
Murdoch's Fox News is a mix of pure far right wing propaganda and conspiracy theories. The normal networks are lightweight babble. CNN offers right wing - left wing pundits, screaming at each other.
But the Maddow Show offers pure insight, everyday. She is a cross between Edward R. Murrow and William F. Buckley. Watching Rachel is like being enrolled in an online graduate program in political science! She is really appreciated.
37
@Joe Miksis
Murrow and Buckley never ranted as much as Maddow. I can't even recall either ranting at all. I can't recall when Maddow does not rant and rant, but she can't help herself I suppose.
4
I love Rachel Maddow for many reasons but as others have commented, she doesn't need to spend so much of her show "sneaking up" on the main takeaways of her usually insightful, probative and forthright analyses, always asking her guests whether she presented her lengthy intros accurately. Rachel is a major asset in today's world of faked news.
I hope she recovers from her injuries quickly and completely.
7
Her reporting proves the value of a free press. If she did not exist, it would be necessary to invent her.
16
Although I share most of her views, I CAN'T STAND watching her. Actually, listening to her.
Why hasn't anyone ever told her that repeating herself over a half dozen times in the lead-up to revealing a tidbit of info is in any way a non-irritating way to communicate.
STOP RE-ITERATING, RACHEL!!
6
Someone said that Rachel Maddow is everything people hate about liberals: intelligent, well-informed, well-educated. Gosh. I always thought those were admirable qualities, and available to everyone who strives hard enough in a democracy. Guess I was wrong.
1709
@J.Sutton I think that this someone probably meant the smug self-satisfaction that liberals display so prominently.
17
@Nicholas I see that kind of "self-satisfaction" in trump and many of his cohorts. But in their cases, it is unwarranted.
182
@Nicholas "I think that this someone probably meant the smug self-satisfaction that liberals display so prominently."
I guess it is a feature of unintelligence, poor information, and poor education to not say what you meant to say when it would have been so easy to do so?
If someone tells you the truth, you're going to dismiss it because they were smugly self-satisfied? By all means be annoyed by the manner, but please don't dismiss truth because of it. That way lies folly.
99
I admire Rachel Madow However it is not uncommon for me to run out of patience waiting for her to get to the point on a topic. I’m aware that having some background information is important in understanding a topic but endlessly going on, with constant repetitions, taking ten times as long to make a point as necessary frequently forces me to turn the show off and watch something else.
20
@Warren Exactly why I stopped watching her.
3
@Warren
I watch her in part because she gives us the context of the news. What you think of repetition is the setting up of a framework so the news arent fragmented into bits and pieces floating by themselves without connection.
Such framework is invaluable. It's not repetitive, she is giving us several ways what appear to be the same things are connected.
But I can see from yours and other's comments and even from the author of the article further evidence of the drastic shortening of attention span in our time, and the sad fact that folks suffering from this ailment aren't even aware of it.
3
@Warren Maddow has to slow walk and break things down to a 2nd grader's level for her audience to follow along.
2
I stopped watching her when it was clear she was snubbing Bernie in the last election. I don't know if it was a directive from the network, but it became crystal clear that she and other shows would pretend he wasn't there, until they had to acknowledge him. I am no longer naive about what the MSM reports on - it's whatever they are told to do. They already ignore Pete much of the time, unless they have a chance to say something negative.
11
@Michelle so let me guess - you took your ball and went home last election and did not vote.
1
@Michelle
She never snubbed Bernie, on the contrary. You must be confusing her with some other show.
As for Pete, he has been on her show and that of Lawrence more than once and never a negative comment has been uttered.
1
I so enjoy watching Rachel Maddow.....it feels like I am back in my favorite professor's class discussing weighty issues with logic and intelligence. If I can't watch it, I tape it for later and find myself so engrossed that I resent the commercial breaks.
You are amazing Ms. Maddow!
82
@P R
Stream her show on YouTube about an hour later in real time. No commercials.
4
When news breaks I’ll listen to updates all day. But, I know that the only person who will explain it in a logical sequence, providing sufficient background, so that it’s clearly understandable, is Rachel. Her 'A' Block is a treasure and truly inspires a global & historical perspective that’s invaluable. After the trauma of 11/16, hers was the only voice I could tolerate and she continues to encourage the broad view required in this chaotic time. A brilliant priceless woman.
138
I confess I'm a fan. Sure, she can be irritable at times, but so am I.
She brings insightful, thought provoking topics that often will never see the light of day considering all the other distractions around us. Ones that pops to mind are the college students in Texas having to vote in their hometowns or voting places being shut down and how much it disadvantages certain groups. Rachel goes deeper than anyone else.
My dream dinner party: Maddow, Nicole Wallace, Carol Leonning, Gayle King and Dana Bash. That would be quite a fundraiser.
45
@JKN
If you would invite me, I would bring Ashley Parker as my date.
4
@John Madison Only if she does her Sean Spicer, "I can't believe I"m hearing this" look.
2
Rachel Maddow has done great background reporting on Russia, the lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, the attempt by Dodge City, Kansas to close the only voting location in the city and move it way out of the city before the election. Keep up the great work Rachel and staff! America needs you, and all the other free media, more than ever.
185
Watching Rachel's program gives you the equivalent information of reading 5 or more newspapers everyday from all over the world.
Furthermore, she imbues within the watcher to WANT to read 5 or more newspapers everyday from all over the world to not only get a sense of what is going on, but to WANT to understand different opinions.
There was a part of this story that I think people are not really noticing - which is since 2016, her popularity and viewership have expanded, but NOT taking away from other programs.
What that means is that there are millions of people out there that WANT to learn. They want to become smarter. They want to tune in and know where they stand - as to what they may do going forward - and of course to vote for or against the right issues and candidates.
This is why the next election in 2020 is going to be an EXPANDING of the electorate with the greatest turnout in the history of the United States. It is no longer the ''moderates'' or the ''middle'' that will dictate who will win.
It will be Progressives, Liberals and educated voters.
156
In your dreams. An entertainer of the caliber of Mz Maddow does as much to expand her base as Trump does to expand his.
2
@FunkyIrishman
Got to get past Biden first.
So when did you get the idea Americans want to pay higher taxes?
@unreceivedogma
She is not an entertainer. She is a news analyzer and she brings to the task her all her background including he PhD from Oxford.
News casters and commentators do not have bases. Only politicians do.
10
The only TV show I watch is The Rachel Maddow Show. I just can't get enough of her analysis.
41
@May and Bob's Burgers of course. But that's it.
2
“Maddow does not administer beat-downs or deliver epic rants. She is not a master of the sound bite. Instead, she carries her viewers along on a wave of verbiage, delivering baroque soliloquies about the Russian state, Trump-administration corruption and American political history.”
Her “wave of verbiage” is precisely that, verbiage, most of it unnecessary in the way that a bad but technically talented singer adds unnecessary notes, and as such, is a form of mind numbingly ranting that you say she is not.
10
@unreceivedogma
All said in far more words than necessary. Physician, heal....
3
What Rachel does in my world is connect all seemingly disparate and disconnected facts into a story of many facts that fit neatly together and helps us understand the current state of affairs in our country.
This week, for example, she came ever closer to telling us what is actually motivating Putin, Trump and all the President’s Men as follows:
1. Rachel informed us last night that the story of Trump’s presidency is all about rewriting the history of the Russian 2016 election interference, and to cast further doubt on the Mueller report, and shift blame to Ukraine for the 2016 election meddling for the purpose of making it easier for Trump to lift Russian sanctions.
2. Putin’s intense interest in doing away with the economic sanctions imposed on Russia after the 2016 election hacking and the ongoing invasion of Ukraine are the reasons for all of Putin’s behavior.
3. Putin scored a huge geopolitical win when Russia helped Trump reach the White House and now Putin is expecting a big return on the investment that Putin has made on Trump by having Trump lift all the economic sanctions imposed on Russia.
Rachel makes us smarter consumers of news.
138
@Truth is True ...And this all in one 60 minute show. Times 5 per week, times 50 per year (giving her two weeks for fishing,) Smart, researched analysis. Truth IS truly true. And Maddow is the best we have. Right up there with Murrow and Cronkite, Maddow speaks truth, not political word salad. A liberal, progressive, not connected to partisan politics but to liberal values. No surprise she is loved.
26
Every time I tune in, it seems that Maddow has dug up tons of dirt about Trump, that ends up coming to nothing. At last, those efforts are finally going to pay off.
4
She takes twice as long as necessary to make a point because she repeats the relevant facts over and over as if we forgot them from 60 seconds ago. Can't watch.
9
I think she learned a lot from Amy Goodman, another star in the firmament of truth.
5
I knew she was a star in the making 15 years ago, listening to her on Air America with Chuck D. and Lizz Winstead. She's a laser, builds all the architecture carefully under the night's main stories, which some don't like, but I love it. Real Life as we're living it right now, is far stranger and more unbelievable than any fiction and Rachel & Team keep up with it all.
43
Nice going Rachael from a weekly show on Radio America to the smartest and most informative person on tv.
38
The power of her show is the scholarship she brings to her reporting. Her broad knowledge of the political world and her clear ability to thread disparate elements into a coherent whole is the foundation of great journalism.
59
@Mark In PS Funniest post yet!!!
1
@dochi It is always useful to present facts. Maddow does so relentlessly much to the despair of the right that responds with ad hominem arguments or attempts at ridicule that leave them as flat footed as the arguments for Trump's innocence.
2
Previously her show dealt with a diversity of topics, often globally. Now it has become more one dimensional totally focused on Trump. Her style used to more academic starting her show with an informative deep dive into the background of her featured topic. I found a lot of honesty in her serious presentation. Over time she has been trained to be an entertainer, relating information with eye rolls and inappropriate jocularity while you hear her crew laughing in the background. What often makes her unwatchable for me though is her constant repetition of the same facts over and over. It’s like she doesn’t trust her audience to “get it” after the first five - ten times. Or like an unprepared teacher who has to stretch the day’s lecture with endless repetition.
10
I would love it if Rachel would on occasion talk about income inequality, peoples inability to put together $500 for an emergency, the ridiculous tax cut, the cost of health care...you know, things that bother people each and every moment of their waking hours. But like Bill Maher, Rachel's new found literal wealth has made her forget about such pedestrian concerns.
12
@caljn But she hammers away at Trump and the GOP, who ensure those very policies and consequences.
4
@caljn Maddow would NEVER offend MSNBC/DNC's biggest advertisers and funders!
2
@caljn
Obviously you havent watched her show. Those are things she has and is constantly talking about.
Rachel Maddow is certainly smart and takes positions I often agree with. Unfortunately, she epitomizes everything that most Americans detest about people with advanced degrees (I am one; I have a Ph.D.) and "liberals" in general: an I-know-better-than-you-because-I'm-just-smarter-than-anybody tone, a one-sided leftist slant on the politics of the day, and an overweening self-satisfaction.
As far as news, or even commentary goes, I much prefer the PBS News Hour. They even consider opposing points of view, something "Dr." Maddow doesn't entertain, knowing everything, as she does, and possessing no doubts about it.
215
@Wiltontraveler
I disagree with your "smarter-than-thou" appellation. Isn't coming off "too smart" the bane of all smart people? What I would like her to improve is her circumlocution. It drives me nuts. Don't like her arm-waving either.
23
@Wiltontraveler
As opposed to a Fox news style, which is an I-know-better-than-you-because-I'm-angry.
146
Stunned that this is a NYT Pick, and not at all surprised at how few recommendations it has received. The comment is not only hyper-critical but also represents an approach that Rachel makes it her business to avoid: sweeping and over-simplified generalizations free of context or evidence, ad hominem point-scoring, and no regard for adding value to the discourse. "Overweening self-satisfaction"? Have you ever actually watched her show? She displays more joy and creates more intimate connection with her audience in one hour—thanks to her love of politics, history, the surprising connections between facts, and the dwindling miracle of investigative journalism—than most news and current affairs programs succeed in doing in a year. Dr Maddow is never in the house, as far as I can see (and I, too, have a PhD). She is a human sponge in a nutrient-rich environment whose command of the oratorical arts is breath-taking.
205