Straight Dope Message Board

[septimus]

My 10th-grade English teacher taught us how to write an essay: Tell the reader what you're going to tell him. Then tell him. Finally, tell him what you've told him.

Ms. Maddow carries that too far. She tells us that she's going to tell us about a secret recording. Then she tells us a little about the secret recording. Then she tells us what she told us. Then she tells us that she's going to tell us about playing the secret recording. Then she tells us she's going to play the secret recording. (At last! .... No, not yet. ) Then she tells us again that she's going to play the secret recording. Finally at the 5:17 mark she plays the recording. That's over Five Minutes. With an F. Just to tell us she's going to play a recording. (Good news is that less than 3 minutes of my life was wasted — I always play Ms. Maddow at double speed.)

The recording is ... a stunning let-down. In the "secret" recording, Representative Devin Nunes admits that some of Trump's tweets make him cringe. That's a story??? It only proves that Nunes is more sentient than a banana slug, something that many of his detractors already suspected. That Ms. Maddow or her ilk find this scandalous confirms my fears about the stupidity of the left-wing bubble. Maybe there were more exciting revelations in the secret recording, but I found a convenient X to click. Bye bye, Rachel.

Yes, I see the YouTube is from August 2018. Don't blame me; Google recommended it; I don't know why. "Hey Google! Stop trying to be helpful. And stop showing me Rachel Maddow altogether."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the topic of playing a video at 2X speed, I have a question for any 'Web gurus who read this. I have my own webpage with an html <video> tag. When Firefox displays that video (not a Maddow video!), it also provides a menu with a "Play Speed->Ludicrous (2x)" option. I want the playback speed to default to Ludicrous! Is there a way to do that, e.g. with simple Javascript?

Can any gurus help with this? Don't me ask in GQ! 1

[Ambivalid]

She's endearing. I love Ms. Maddow. 2

[panache45]

I stopped watching Ms. Maddow years ago. Even when I agree with her, I find her constant condescension unbearable. 3

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by panache45

I stopped watching Ms. Maddow years ago. Even when I agree with her, I find her constant condescension unbearable.

The spectrum of perception is amazing to me. For someone to find Rachel Maddow condescending is truly hard for me to wrap my head around. Many things she is but condescending I do not see. 4

[septimus]

By the way, I love and admire Rachel Maddow! I just can no longer tolerate her repetition.

(I'm afraid I have the same speech pattern myself. People look at their watches when I go off on a diatribe....)

Originally Posted by septimus

On the topic of playing a video at 2X speed, I have a question for any 'Web gurus who read this. I have my own webpage with an html <video> tag. When Firefox displays that video (not a Maddow video!), it also provides a menu with a "Play Speed->Ludicrous (2x)" option. I want the playback speed to default to Ludicrous! Is there a way to do that, e.g. with simple Javascript?

Request for help withdrawn. Solution shows up immediately at StackOverflow Googling "html video play speed." (Ludicrously, I'd been Googling for "Ludicrous" ) 5

[asahi]

Originally Posted by panache45

I stopped watching Ms. Maddow years ago. Even when I agree with her, I find her constant condescension unbearable.

This.

I only watch MSNBC if I'm in a mood to get pissed off, and since I'm usually already pissed off, there's no need for me to intensify that feeling by watching MSNBC. 6

[BigT]

If it's just the repetition that bothers you, I'd suggest going to the website for the clips--maybe after typing her name into Google to see if she's reported on anything big.

I don't watch because I have to fight some depressive tendencies, and hearing about Trump all the time doesn't help. Plus I already know enough to know I support his impeachment.

Plus it's enough work to not get worried about how anxious I'll be next year. 7

[Bijou Drains]

I'm liberal but I don't watch her , she is very full of herself. 8

[septimus]

Originally Posted by BigT

If it's just the repetition that bothers you, I'd suggest going to the website for the clips--maybe after typing her name into Google to see if she's reported on anything big.

She's always reporting on something big! Often a big something I didn't know about. I also click on Al-jazeera, (Alternet*), Reuters, Seth Myers's Closer Look, Stephen Colbert, etc.

But by "repetitive" I do not mean she tells us on Thursday what she already told us on Wednesday. I mean that on Thursday, she repeats each sentence, with slightly different wording, not once, not 2 or 3 times (which would be good for me, slightly attention deficited), but 10 or 12 times. (I just pulled "10 or 12" out of my hat — maybe it's even more). I have to select YouTube's 2X speed option, and still get bored by the repetition.

* - Alternet would be a good site to learn what's consternating the ultra-left. EXCEPT they've got some Javascript or something which slows down the machine. Open 2 or 3 Alternet tabs and the laptop crawls. Open 4 or 5 tabs, and I may need to reboot! ETA: Yes, the laptop gets so hosed (busy) I can't even click X. 9

[Twoflower]

My take on Rachel is that when there’s a significant story that needs explaining, or important backstory that needs to see the light, nobody does it better. The problem is that when the news is more ordinary, her repetition and hype can be a bit over the top. I watch her selectively. 10

[E-DUB]

To smart people, which many folks here are, trying to explain things to a mass audience made up of many people who aren't as smart, can seem condescending. 11

[amarinth]

Like the OP, I find her show (and most like it) really repetitive. The few times I've watched it, she's had maybe 3 minutes of information, but her show is an hour long. I don't have the attention span or interest to hear that same info repeated that many times. 12

[Chefguy]

I agree with most everything said here. I don't understand how she is still on the air. We gave up in frustration several years ago. And the guy who fills (or perhaps past tense) in for her uses the same format. 13

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I agree with most everything said here. I don't understand how she is still on the air. We gave up in frustration several years ago. And the guy who fills (or perhaps past tense) in for her uses the same format.

I can venture a pretty likely guess as to why shes on the air: airtight ratings maybe? The only other programming that knocks her out the #1 spot for all cable news programming at the top spot in prime time (9 p.m.) is that bastion of independent journalism, that stalwart and ever-present check on goverment propaganda, Mr Sean "Trump has the healthiest puckered butthole ever-EVER *too*! Hannity". 14

[elucidator]

Stop picking on Rachel Maddow! She works so hard, she tries so hard, and all you want to do is drag her down!

A swan's neck, a girlish giggle and a mind like a steel trap, what's not to love?

Also, she notices shit. Remember the Republican Platform? Course you don't, nobody ever does, you wait for paint to dry, you don't watch it! I was reading about it, and just in passing, the reporter noted that the platform plank about supporting and arming Ukraine disappeared, went poof! gone! No mention of who said so, or why, it just went to the place the candle flame goes when you blow it out. No one seems to have noticed.

But she did. That same night, she pointed it out, how strange it was that there were no fingerprints, nobody could say who's idea that was, who brought it up. She gave us her side-eye look and asked us who? What the fuck? Why? Huh? This ain't normal.

I also like how she introduces the subject at hand, outlines the facts, then brings on the guest who knows more than she does and first thing she does is defer to said expert: Did I get that right, any corrections you need to make? Chris Matthews just starts writhing in agony that somebody else is talking. (He worked for "Tip" O'Neill, did he ever mention that? Well, he did....)

Also, generous. Keith Olberman pumped air into the balloon of her career, she did the same for Nicole Wallace and Joy Reid. They couldn't do anything for her, its how she rolls.

Don't want to watch, don't, doesn't mean shit to a tree. What she says tonight somebody else will say tomorrow, you won't miss much.

One odd thing: she has a great sense of humor but can't make a joke to save her soul. Maybe she's enjoying it too much, maybe she's having too much fun about the grimly serious business of how fucked up everything is. But I don't need any grim, got plenty of that all on my own.

Kinda like her. 15

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

I can venture a pretty likely guess as to why shes on the air: airtight ratings maybe? The only other programming that knocks her out the #1 spot for all cable news programming at the top spot in prime time (9 p.m.) is that bastion of independent journalism, that stalwart and ever-present check on goverment propaganda, Mr Sean "Trump has the healthiest puckered butthole ever-EVER *too*! Hannity".

Well of course it's ratings. I just don't understand the 'why' of the high ratings. She's certainly personable and smart, and I wouldn't want to try to debate her, but she panders and meanders and takes an hour to get to the fucking point. If I want that, I have my next door neighbor, the retired pharmacist. 16

[Fir na tine]

Originally Posted by Twoflower

My take on Rachel is that when there’s a significant story that needs explaining, or important backstory that needs to see the light, nobody does it better. The problem is that when the news is more ordinary, her repetition and hype can be a bit over the top. I watch her selectively.

Hit the nail, right on the head. I do love it when she has the segment "Liar, liar, pants on fire!". 17

[davidm]

I don't watch her every night but I do like her.

As someone already posted, she's trying to reach the lowest common denominator and that can make her seem repetitious. Also, she needs to fill an hour and even when there's some big new news item, it may still not be easy to fill an hour with interesting material.

No doubt some stories are over-hyped but that's due to the realities of capitalism and the need for ratings. It's similar to the clickbait phenomena.

What recently pissed me off about MSNBC was a recent Morning Joe episode where they had as a guest some doctor pushing his quack nutrition book. (Lectins are poison! Don't eat nightshade vegetables or grains!) I can't say for certain that it was a paid commercial as part of the show's content but I don't know why else they would have had him on. 18

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Well of course it's ratings. I just don't understand the 'why' of the high ratings. She's certainly personable and smart, and I wouldn't want to try to debate her, but she panders and meanders and takes an hour to get to the fucking point. If I want that, I have my next door neighbor, the retired pharmacist.

What do you mean "the why of the ratings"? Looks like you need to try to figure out what you are missing and what value all these millions of other Americans derive from her program that you dont understand. Obviously, many, many other people have a very different and id say more thoughtful and serious relationship with the issues highlighted on her show. For these people, Maddow's exhaustive, comprehensive and sometimes unavoidably tedious surgical deconstruction of issues represent the gold standard in instilling appropriate awareness and understanding of issues that those in power can work to obfuscate. 19

[Sunny Daze]

I love her. She does her research, she connects the dots, and she talks about things that other people aren't talking about. I learn more from her than anyone else. It's fascinating. 20

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Stop picking on Rachel Maddow! She works so hard, she tries so hard, and all you want to do is drag her down!

A swan's neck, a girlish giggle and a mind like a steel trap, what's not to love?

Was her neck always that thick? Delicate it ain't. It's the neck of a fullback.

Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with that. But I tune in for the first ten minutes for that steel trap. After that her selfsatisfaction wit now deucedly clever she is starts reaching Jimmy Fallon territory. 21

[RioRico]

Broadcast media will only rot your mind. Don't watch any TV personalities. They only sell you to advertisers. 22

[JackieLikesVariety]

Originally Posted by Twoflower

My take on Rachel is that when there’s a significant story that needs explaining, or important backstory that needs to see the light, nobody does it better. The problem is that when the news is more ordinary, her repetition and hype can be a bit over the top. I watch her selectively.

could be -

I do think her explanations are excellent but it's been awhile since I've seen her. this is a good reminder to look her up on youtube. 23

[Tastes of Chocolate]

I always watch Rachel with a DVR. That way I can pick up the info the first time, skip over the repetition. I agree she is good at connecting together bits of news that I would have missed connecting, but when there isn't big news the hyping of small bits drives me nuts. 24

[Ulf the Unwashed]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

What do you mean "the why of the ratings"? Looks like you need to try to figure out what you are missing and what value all these millions of other Americans derive from her program that you dont understand. Obviously, many, many other people have a very different and id say more thoughtful and serious relationship with the issues highlighted on her show. For these people, Maddow's exhaustive, comprehensive and sometimes unavoidably tedious surgical deconstruction of issues represent the gold standard in instilling appropriate awareness and understanding of issues that those in power can work to obfuscate.

Looking at number of viewers is a tricky business. Maddow's current viewership is about 2.5 million, which means that many, many more people do not watch her show than watch her show. She's currently a couple ticks behind Laura Ingraham's show. I'm going to guess that you're not a big fan of Ingraham's . Would you argue that Ingraham's viewership numbers make it incumbent on those who don't watch her show to find out what makes her so very popular among other people?

My wife watches a lot of MSNBC. Maddow and Chris Matthews are my least favorite of the hosts. The OP is exactly right about the annoyingly and unnecessarily repetitive repetition--the OP's second paragraph is right on--and while I wouldn't necessarily call it condescension, Maddow definitely gives off a rather smug vibe of "I'm smarter than everybody." Chris Hayes, Katy Tur, and several of the other MSNBC hosts are able to explain the same kinds of things in a way that is neither so repetitive nor so smug, and they do it much more effectively.

Maddow's not terrible, don't get me wrong. But I don't get the hype. 25

[Ca3799]

I love her style.

Yes, the repetition can be annoying to those of us who are 'fast thinkers'; who are up-to-date on the issues and connect the dots easily. But not all of of us are like that and I appreciate her clarity. There really isn't another newscaster who can walk you through a story point by point the way she does. The cases she builds are as clear as they can ever be made to be.

I also appreciate that when she introduces someone who has written a book or a news article, she gives an overview and then checks with the author to see that her presentation of their view is an accurate one. I rarely ever see anyone else do this.

I just spent the holiday with some "New World Order/Conspiracy Theory" relatives. If course they don't like or trust Maddow, nor do they watch her or listen to her, but the differences between the way she thinks and presents and they way they do is why I think Maddow takes such great pains to be very, very clear in her presentations. Why these folks will believe some random guy with a YouTube video ("Research!") over Maddow I just cannot nor ever will understand.

Also, she's such a prude! LOL! 26

[Dallas Jones]

She is all clickbait and no news.

She staked her whole journalistic reputation upon the Mueller hearings, and lost. That was her entire show. Any talent as an investigative reporter is now laughable. 27

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

{...} Also, she's such a prude! LOL!

It's true. It's funny to watch her get all flustered over bad language in transcripts and so on. 28

[JackieLikesVariety]

when she introduces someone who has written a book or a news article, she gives an overview and then checks with the author to see that her presentation of their view is an accurate one.

yes, and she is excellent at interviewing them. 29

[BigT]

Originally Posted by septimus

But by "repetitive" I do not mean she tells us on Thursday what she already told us on Wednesday. I mean that on Thursday, she repeats each sentence, with slightly different wording, not once, not 2 or 3 times (which would be good for me, slightly attention deficited), but 10 or 12 times. (I just pulled "10 or 12" out of my hat — maybe it's even more). I have to select YouTube's 2X speed option, and still get bored by the repetition.

My point was that, if it's in online video, you can just skip the repetition and jump straight to the point, and then stop once you know the point.

I do this all the time with some more clickbaity videos where the title asks a question I'd love to know the anser to. I skip until I learn the answer, then I stop.

That's all I'm suggesting. I did that with Maddow a few times back when I was still watching. 30

[septimus]

If I just want a summary of an important news item, I can usually find it at Reuters, SDMB, or Aljazeera. (Unfortunately, Google, Bing, and Yahoo News Homepages all tend to be too frustrating these days )

But more than just getting the brief gist of a story ... I like Rachel's commentary! I just want her to stop repeating every single sentence five times.

ETA: While idly Googling a few weeks ago, I saw that Rachel's salary is $7 million. I was slightly disappointed: I liked to imagine her as a fellow peasant, making just $2 million or so. :-) 31

[mjmlabs]

If you're devoting 100% of your attention to TRMS, you're doing it wrong.

Watch the opening segment. 1st commercial, go make a cocktail. Come back* and sip that cocktail for 2nd segment. Maybe open up a browser tab to check a story mentioned, or weed out some emails from the Inbox, while the rest of the class gets walked through why what we've just learned means what it means. Skim the AP or Reuters headlines. And so on.

*Bring pie. 32

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by septimus

But by "repetitive" I do not mean she tells us on Thursday what she already told us on Wednesday. I mean that on Thursday, she repeats each sentence, with slightly different wording, not once, not 2 or 3 times (which would be good for me, slightly attention deficited), but 10 or 12 times. (I just pulled "10 or 12" out of my hat — maybe it's even more). I have to select YouTube's 2X speed option, and still get bored by the repetition.

Not everyone watched on Wednesday. And that's how news works.
I slavishly follow the Hong Kong news in the Times. Every single article has the same few paragraphs on the background of the crisis cut and pasted from the article the day before and the day before and the day before that.

I love her, but she is still on the air to sell soap, and if blowing every story that day into the crisis of the century, blame commercial TV, not her. Ditto for cliffhangers before commercials. 33

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Dallas Jones

She is all clickbait and no news.

She staked her whole journalistic reputation upon the Mueller hearings, and lost. That was her entire show. Any talent as an investigative reporter is now laughable.

She is on at the same time as Hannity you know. Just think about that. Maddow and Hannity in the same field doing their thing. Now who has a problem? 34

[carlb]

I am generally appreciative of the long wind-ups she gives but, yeah, sometimes I have to skip ahead a bit. I do think it's helpful to the people who don't tune in every night, or follow particular stories super-closely.

I learned two things about Maddow recently; one that was just mildly amusing and one that increased my (already high) esteem for her. First, she dropped more f-bombs in her recent book ("Blowout") than I would have expected given her on-air prudishness.

As to the second, I recently finished Ronan Farrow's book, "Catch and Kill," about Harvey Weinstein, Black Cube, and NBC's failures in covering and sending out the story. Farrow talks about how, after his story was published by The New Yorker, he began to get suddenly uninvited as a guest from NBC-produced shows. He reached out to some people at NBC that he knew, and found out that edicts were coming down from on high that he was not to be interviewed. Quoting from the book:

Originally Posted by Catch and Kill, Chapter 59

I called Maddow, who listened, and said no one tells her how to run her show. And so it came to pass that, all through the two years after the Weinstein story, I appeared on her show, and never again on any other NBC or MSNBC program.

I admire that kind of backbone. 35

[Snowboarder Bo]

I can't stand watching or listening to Ms. Maddow. She's awful. Nearly content-free IME, but she does repeat herself endlessly; I agree with that. I've tried watching her many times and have no idea why people enjoy listening to her or watching her or relying on her for information. 36

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

The spectrum of perception is amazing to me. For someone to find Rachel Maddow condescending is truly hard for me to wrap my head around. Many things she is but condescending I do not see.

A lot of it has to do with face expressions. She has this constant ever-present smirk and sneer. 37

[elucidator]

Yeah, she put a tarantula in Mr. Rogers' sweater once. 38

[dba Fred]

And the tarantula became Mr. Roger’s friend; whereas Rachel didn’t because she took too long and was too repetitive in explaining to Fred (I like that name) why she should be his friend. 39

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by RioRico

Broadcast media will only rot your mind. Don't watch any TV personalities. They only sell you to advertisers.

Are you ME??? 40

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by septimus

My 10th-grade English teacher taught us how to write an essay: Tell the reader what you're going to tell him. Then tell him. Finally, tell him what you've told him.

Ms. Maddow carries that too far. She tells us that she's going to tell us about a secret recording. Then she tells us a little about the secret recording. Then she tells us what she told us. Then she tells us that she's going to tell us about playing the secret recording. Then she tells us she's going to play the secret recording. (At last! .... No, not yet. ) Then she tells us again that she's going to play the secret recording. Finally at the 5:17 mark she plays the recording. That's over Five Minutes. With an F. Just to tell us she's going to play a recording. (Good news is that less than 3 minutes of my life was wasted — I always play Ms. Maddow at double speed.)

The recording is ... a stunning let-down. In the "secret" recording, Representative Devin Nunes admits that some of Trump's tweets make him cringe. That's a story??? It only proves that Nunes is more sentient than a banana slug, something that many of his detractors already suspected. That Ms. Maddow or her ilk find this scandalous confirms my fears about the stupidity of the left-wing bubble. Maybe there were more exciting revelations in the secret recording, but I found a convenient X to click. Bye bye, Rachel.

Yes, I see the YouTube is from August 2018. Don't blame me; Google recommended it; I don't know why. "Hey Google! Stop trying to be helpful. And stop showing me Rachel Maddow altogether."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the topic of playing a video at 2X speed, I have a question for any 'Web gurus who read this. I have my own webpage with an html <video> tag. When Firefox displays that video (not a Maddow video!), it also provides a menu with a "Play Speed->Ludicrous (2x)" option. I want the playback speed to default to Ludicrous! Is there a way to do that, e.g. with simple Javascript?

Can any gurus help with this? Don't me ask in GQ!

I would watch a Rachel Maddow special but the 1 hour format doesn't work well for her.

One of the things she's really good at is distilling ideas into concise mind blowing arguments. She has a hard time filling up an hour a night with high quality arguments without getting really repetitive.

She needs more filler and fluff but she's just not that good with fluff. Half an hour a night (including international and sports) is more than enough time to get her point across and if there is significant news, she can cut out the weather and sports for the substantive stuff. 41

[Ruken]

I've never watched her. Does anyone have a particularly exemplary/dastardly example I should check out? 42

[wahsahzii]

Like almost all of the other entertainers proposing to be political commentators, i find them uninformative or entertaining. At least a couple are up front about what they really are. Surely you can find a better source. 43

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed

Looking at number of viewers is a tricky business. Maddow's current viewership is about 2.5 million, which means that many, many more people do not watch her show than watch her show. She's currently a couple ticks behind Laura Ingraham's show. I'm going to guess that you're not a big fan of Ingraham's . Would you argue that Ingraham's viewership numbers make it incumbent on those who don't watch her show to find out what makes her so very popular among other people?

Fuck no. Ingraham is not a journalist and Fox News is a nothing but a propaganda tool for the Republican Party. I also don't feel that people should find out why Hannity gets so many viewers. There is no journalism taking place on Fox and no honest reporting of the news. MSNBC has *plenty* of faults and its share of biases but there is absolutely no comparing the journalistic integrity of it and FOX News. The people who watch MSNBC are much more likely to get their news from multiple sources, whereas FOX viewers almost exclusively rely on the bubble created by the corporation for the entirety of their news information. 44

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Fuck no. Ingraham is not a journalist and Fox News is a nothing but a propaganda tool for the Republican Party. I also don't feel that people should find out why Hannity gets so many viewers. There is no journalism taking place on Fox and no honest reporting of the news. MSNBC has *plenty* of faults and its share of biases but there is absolutely no comparing the journalistic integrity of it and FOX News. The people who watch MSNBC are much more likely to get their news from multiple sources, whereas FOX viewers almost exclusively rely on the bubble created by the corporation for the entirety of their news information.

I have a theory. Fox news gets ratings, at least now, by sensationalism. That cuts both ways. I watch Hannity a lot, but I'm not a supporter in the least. Fox is a reality TV operation. They are not stricly conservative or trump. They work even when trump is hurting. Notice they run trinp stump speeches a lot, instead of having to get on air and defend him. If sensationalism demands the head of donald trump then it will happen, no matter what the polls say. There are large arcs and karma involved.

It's good and intersting right now, for me, but only because the prefascist types are doing their hardest work of their lives and it's great tv. It's really extraordinary to watch the media become so polarized about what reality is. How could anyone not be interested in watching this?

Anyway Hannity having high ratings does not say to me that he has support. It says he is the most interesting thing on at the moment. Until the next ad break. 45

[elucidator]

I don't follow it much, but I heard recently that Tucker Tucker Bug Fucker was nibbling on Hannity's lunch by going a bit further than he does. Hannity. The moderate guy. 46

[Guest-starring: Id!]

From what I gather Tucker is the biggest white nationalist at Faux.

I'd like to see Maddow share* her show with Olberman so they can get all snipey with each other.

Originally misspelled that as "sharte" - almost kept it. 47

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Fuck no. Ingraham is not a journalist and Fox News is a nothing but a propaganda tool for the Republican Party. I also don't feel that people should find out why Hannity gets so many viewers. There is no journalism taking place on Fox and no honest reporting of the news. MSNBC has *plenty* of faults and its share of biases but there is absolutely no comparing the journalistic integrity of it and FOX News. The people who watch MSNBC are much more likely to get their news from multiple sources, whereas FOX viewers almost exclusively rely on the bubble created by the corporation for the entirety of their news information.

I have to agree. For all its faults, at least other outlets aren't the Trump Party's private bureau of propaganda. They don't get it wrong or make errors, they flat out deliberately LIE. 48

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by wahsahzii

Like almost all of the other entertainers proposing to be political commentators, i find them uninformative or entertaining. At least a couple are up front about what they really are. Surely you can find a better source.

She is not an entertainer and that is the problem. 49

[AnalogSignal]

If you watch any of the CNN prime time shows, the host does a 5 minute news recap and then fills the rest of the hour with guests and panel discussions. That kind of show is very easy to do. The producers book the guests and prepare some questions and the host can do the show with minimal preparation if desired.

Maddow is doing something very different and a lot more challenging. She spends at least 30 minutes, and often more, talking into the camera usually giving a unique take on the news. I think she is best when she does a deep dive on a particular topic and draws on obscure information over the decades. For example, she has done entertaining shows on how Trump values his golf courses wildly differently every year depending on who the valuation is for.

Her weak area is doing a straightforward news summary of various events of the day. She loses the forest for the trees.

I think Lawrence O'Donnell, who follows Maddow, is pretty good. He does a more conventional guest-heavy show but he has good insights. I wish he was on earlier. 50