I like Rachel Maddow. My biggest objection is that she’s very repetitious, repeating the same point 3 or 4 times. (She partly compensates for this by speaking quickly. 
)
she is a woman with short hair
Where can I find a conservative leaning message board that has more substantive debate than drive by snark?
I’ve asked this before and even started a thread about it and never received an answer.
I like her well enough, but I don’t enjoy her show. I’m not even sure why.
I haven’t watched it recently so maybe my criticism isn’t accurate, but I remember being a bit annoyed with them teasing a story for way too long. Holding a story to the very end when you’ve teased it at the start and at every break for an hour just pisses me off.
Thanks for that valuable insight.
Check out the Shakespearean head on Lobohan!! 
You snark, but for PSXer, that counts as deep social commentary.
Maddow is an acquired adult taste. Not adolescent like the blonde bimbos of Faux News.
She tends to get into stories in a round about fashion.
She also makes almost a fetish of her “department of corrections”. Her corrections are presented with great fanfare, but they are made.
Edit:
I always watch the show from my DVR so I can skip the ads. I’d get too impatient watching her round about approaches to stories plus having to wait through ads.
Shhh, guys, quiet down, Bricker is composing his abject apology for error. Almost done, he’s just putting the finishing touches on the part about how this proves how open minded and honest he is, compared to us lefties.
Why he would start now? As I recall, this isn’t the first time he’s been told about this.
MSNBC releases the audio of her show the day after it airs as a podcast. I usually listen on Stitcher but they’re on itunes as well. They also do a video podcast of the show but I think they’ve started cutting that after the first 20 minutes.
I like Rachel Maddow but I’m also nakedly partisan.
This is my main beef with her. Sometimes I wanna shake her and yell, “Get to the freakin’ point!” Her roundabout delivery makes it difficult to sit through an entire show.
I do not have the same problem with Chris Hayes. I like his show much better.
Not to completely hijack this into a discussion about Bill Maher, but a few things come to mind:
-
One of the reasons I like him, despite his smugness, is that he’s outrageously funny. Once in awhile his show flops, but more often than not he has me in stitches several times during his weekly show. And he usually has at least as many conservative as liberal guests. But again, his show is as much a comedy show as anything else, so it’s not quite a fair comparison.
-
I think I noted this once before, but I find I like Maddow just fine when she’s on someone else’s show,* like Bill Maher’s*. She’s bright, funny, and much more relaxed. I’m always happy to see her as one of his guests, and I think she’s been on his show several times. Again, this is not something unique to Maddow, at least for me. Almost all those folks with their own talk shows turn me off after listening for a few minutes. It’s like the shows become more about them than anything else.
-
Septimus, above, mentioned here tendency to talk really fast, and I think this is part of what makes it hard to watch her show (although he said it more in jest). I have a few good friends who are like that, and as much as I love them dearly, sometimes when we meet casually I find myself relieved when the conversation is over. It’s just too stressful listening to them! Maddow is undoubtedly very intelligent and very well informed, but she needs to relax a bit and just slow things down. When you job is public speaking, you have to be really good at… public speaking. (On the conservative side, I find Tucker Carlson to be similarly challenged in the rapid fire speaking department.)
I listen to the podcast every morning on my drive in to work. I enjoy the context she gives to stories, finding some interesting historical thread as an introduction. For instance, to discuss the endorsement that Jeb! got from Bob Dole, she went back to talk about the serious hate that Dole and H.W Bush had for each other back in the 70’s.
I’m strongly liberal, but I have not historically liked partisan shows (e.g., Ed Schultz). I love Maddow’s show because she aticks close to the facts (and provides corrections and retractions whenever necessary). I think MSNBC is puttting together a great set of hosts with Maddow, Hayes, Kornacki and Lawrence O’Donnell, although I tend not to watch O’Donnell’s show very often.
I do agree that Maddow sometimes gets repetitive, both within and across shows, but not remotely bad enough to make me want to turn it off.
I too am looking forward to Bricker’s retraction. I wonder what the experience makes him think more broadly about Maddow and media sources as well?
Well, good for her – and bad for my search skills!
I would note that in 2006 the Times reported that they declined an off-the-record interview opportunity with the President, saying that they weighed the benefits and thought that an on-the-record interview best served their readers – making her claim that Bush shut them out during the second term at least worthy of a bit of nuance.
But I was wrong in my supposition, no doubt about that.
Remember back in 2009 when a soldier opened fire at an army base in Texas and killed a dozen people?
And do you remember his name?( Hint: it ain’t John Smith)
I happened to be watching something else on TV when the story burst on the screen as as “Alert!!!” “Breaking news!!!”, so I switched to a news channel.
Now, on my cable box, the channels for Fox News and Msnbc are adjacent numbers, and I really enjoyed flipping back and forth between them, comparing the two networks covering what should have been exactly the same story, but wasn’t.
Fox, of course, openly played up the Islamic angle: they splashed his name on the screen in big letters. (just what you would expect from Fox…no surprises here)
But Rachel Madddow was worse.
She simply refused to say his name out loud. She spoke of “a soldier”, “a gunman”, an “attacker”,–any description she could think of , except to say “a man named Nidal Hasan”.
No need to tell us the facts if they don’t fit her political agenda.
It was such blatently unprofessional journalism that I still remember it years later.
Well, she runs in the same time slot as Sean “The Big Giant Head” Hannity. So, really, that’s not a fair comparison, her and the most professional and truthful journalist evah! I mean, that’s a guy who sets the golden shower standard for veracity and strict honesty!
I think not mentioning Hassan’s name part of her not wanting to give spree killers celebrity.
Either way, I don’t think it’s fair to rag on her for the name thing. If she refused to acknowledge the ties with what’s-his-name radical cleric in Yemen, then that would be pretty damning. But not saying his name on the first day? Yawn.
Looks like she said his name 5 times in the first six paragraphs of the show that day. Talk about someone spreading fucking bullshit in service of a political agenda, chappachula. What’s with the lying?