i love Rachel BUT

[barbtries]

i'm watching her show from last night and she just asked the same question something like 5 times in a row with slightly different words.

this particular rhetorical quirk of hers annoys the crap out of me. i heard you the first time!

am i the only one?

for reference: it was basically maybe the House should begin impeachment proceedings right away if it will hasten the collection of information and documents that trump is refusing to provide.

incidentally this is not a new pet peeve of mine. i actually wrote to her about it a few years ago but apparently my suggestion to stop doing that was filed in the trash.

[LakeArenal]

1. Get to the point already, Rachel!

[Me.]

2. Hair On Fire Rachael

drives people crazy when she keeps repeating things

[vlyons]

3. not a problem for me

But if it bothers you so much, let her know. She has an email account, and is very open to hearing feedback.

[barbtries]

22. i guess you didn't read my entire post.

i did that a few years ago. got no traction. lol

[OnDoutside]

4. No 1 Cable news talk show host. I think she'll get over the loss

Of your viewership.

[barbtries]

23. i never said i would stop watching Rachel.

i said this quirk annoys me. i also said i love her.

[Solomon]

62. I actually did stop watching her because she annoys me so much the same. We start out trying to

watch every night, only to wind up rolling our eyes and yelling at the tv - "Jeeezuz, get to the frickin' point"!!!

[barbtries]

63. i do that too.

my sons are used to me yelling at the tv anymore. usually it's a clip of trump or some other equally annoying republican, but sometimes it's rachel. I got it! I get it! Get on with it!

[juxtaposed]

28. That seems a little mean.

[OnDoutside]

34. No it isn't. Every so often, we have threads like this, attacking

Maddow. There's a reason she's the no 1 Cable news talk show host, and if people don't like her, switch channels rather than gratuitous attacks. She has her style, and it is what got her to her no 1 position in the ratings. Don't like it, don't watch it.

[juxtaposed]

38. This is the first thread I've seen, and it's not that important.

It drives me nuts when Rachel gives her introduction of a topic and then brings on the expert and asks the expert if she explained the talking point correctly or did I miss anything. Of course she didn't, she has never missed a thing in the whole time she has been on. That part of her cast drives me nuts. I just mouth the response from the guest " No you got everything, No you are exactly right, No, we talked about this before we went on air.

[OnDoutside]

39. There's one at least once a month, and yet she is highly popular.

I like her opening monologue, and I suspect it is a large part of her success because you can be dipping in after having little knowledge, and get it.

[juxtaposed]

42. When she first switched and became the RMS, she was my opium on a friday night when I got home from

a week away. I still admire her for her competence, and hitting the nail on the head.

[OnDoutside]

43. She's my first listen as a podcast that morning here in Europe. I'd

Love to watch her live but it would be 2am here.

[juxtaposed]

46. A nice prerequisite for me is she seems to have become a true New Englander and enjoys Fly Fishing.

[OnDoutside]

61. She seems content with her private life, for an otherwise private person.

I'm glad she has a rock for a partner.

[treestar]

68. Yes, she does do that!

We don't need her to prove how smart she is.

Many times I hear her say "I'm not a lawyer but" and explain and then the guest says she got it right (though she is not a lawyer). Well I am a lawyer and yes Rachel, you are a lot smarter than me and smart enough to pick up a legal point quickly!

We know you are smart Rachel, that is why we watch you! You don't need the pats on the head!

[tazkcmo]

49. Yes it is mean.

Everyone here on DU respects the hell out of Rachel but she is not above criticism. You may simply adore everything about her but not all of us do but still have respect and appreciation for what she does. Your remark of "don't like it, don't watch it" smacks of "America love it or leave it." which is also a BS statement.

I doubt Rachel would be as callous as you were in response to the OP's minor irritation.

[OnDoutside]

64. That's nonsense.

She's worked her way up the ratings doing exactly the presentation style that some keyboard warriors attack her for doing ! If they don't like it, there are other channels. I don't see many of the same people attacking Hannity for his presentation style.

This reminds me of the constant shite Hillary had to put up with.

[Bradshaw3]

65. That's because people here don't watch hannity

This many people (who BTW otherwise like her) saying the same thing about her means there is something there. There is nothing wrong with pointing it out. But I don't hero worship her, or anyone else, for that matter.

[GemDigger]

5. It doesn't bother me at all. When she is finally done with all that, she delivers. nt

[hlthe2b]

6. Yes.I don't mind if they restate the point once, but after that the repetitiveness is tooth-grinding

I don't know if this is a "rhetorical device" meant to reinforce the point (if so, it is soooo overdone) OR if it is merely a time-filler technique.

But, yes, I find it annoying. Often by the time she finally does get to the point, I've unintentionally mentally tuned out. Then, I'm just pissed that I missed the entire reason for watching.

But, none of that will keep me from continuing to watch.

[barbtries]

24. me either.

she is on balance the best game in town, for historical perspective.

[earthshine]

72. It's definitely time filler.

The first segment before the first commercial is especially tedious.

Back when she did her show with Olbermann following, she never wasted any air time.

Nowadays, many a time, she could be cut back to half an hour with no loss of material.

[PoliticAverse]

7. This is what happens when you have a 5-minute story and 60-minutes to fill. n/t

[mitch96]

29. "5-minute story and 60-minutes to fill"

Exactly... Filler.. That's why I record it. .blast thru the filler.. Her show, if you watch the whole thing is only 40 min w/o the commercials.. Less if she repeats her self..
I still think she is the best.. Her explanations of things is top notch.. Even I can understand it!
m

[misanthrope]

37. I agree

I'd love see a transcript of her show and edit it down for concision and clarity. I'm betting it would still be as informative and she would have room for more stories.

[Raine]

82. You're totally on point. nt

[wasupaloopa]

8. I think you have to take her as she is to get the good stuff

I get bugged by the way she leads you on and on and on then makes her point.

She goes about 20 minutes when I could have made the same point in about two minutes.


Also how she tells you what will be coming up so stay tuned but it is not the next topic. You have to wait through another break.

[spooky3]

9. It was annoying, but she is otherwise so wonderful,

And times are so stressful—surely for her as much as anyone—that it’s ok.

[hlthe2b]

11. That's why we keep on watching... n/t

[empedocles]

15. Rachel also keeps an eye on the big picture.

An important and valid long term theme of Rachel's, - is that the processes are moving forward.

[manor321]

10. The show needs more time with experts

I want to hear from legal experts, congressional experts, historical experts, etc. more than I do from any host.

[spooky3]

27. Specialists are helpful, but remember that Rachel is

A PhD in political science and a Rhodes scholar IIRC. So she also is an expert.

[blueinredohio]

58. Exactly, I love Rachel the way she is

I don't want to hear from a panel of talking heads.

[2naSalit]

44. But every other show on

msnbc has a panel of experts and if they don't they have more than one panel of experts. I like that she spends time providing information we need to understand what she's going to tell us and why it matters. She is an expert so she can tell us a lot before she turns to others for more perspectives. Besides, it's nice to have a change in format from all the other shows.

[Polly Hennessey]

12. I'm happy with Rachel.

Repetition helps me remember. Just like my dogs, I remember things after five or six repeats. 😁

[treestar]

71. That's what I was going to say

I can follow easier because it gets into my head.

[Bradshaw3]

13. You definitely are not the only one

It's one of the reasons I rarely watch Redundant Rachel for more than a few minutes, or at all. I think she used to be a grad assistant and it's like she thinks her viewers are a bunch of dumb students who need something repeated over and over and over. Or maybe it's because she got her start in radio and this was a way to fill time, or it's a nervous tic. I used to keep count and sometimes she would say the same words or a slight variation four or five times in lesss than a minute.

It just got to be too much for me, so she's lost at least one viewer thanks in large part to it. And for those who think you can write to her - she doesn't listen to even constructive criticism, as the whole episode about promoting she had trump's taxes and then it was basically nothing. She didn't back down a bit from that. Too bad because she has done a great job in illuminating several subjects.

[shanny]

80. That tax return broadcast was the last

I ever watched. I'd been tuning out for some time, but that was really the final straw.

[empedocles]

14. The slow intro and the repitition bother the quite informed DU types.

However, my wife, who keeps up with political news several times a week, appreciates the clarity - and the style. I know a few who only watch Rachel. There may be many more.

And, she comes up with perceptive scoops, key guests, and news that needs amplification in the rapid news cycle. This is all key to her ratings.

Remember the size of her megaphone and her influence are great.

[hlthe2b]

16. Yes.. you probably have a point there... n/t

[barbtries]

25. definitely.

i'm watching her show! it's important what she does. it's just this thing that grinds on my nerves.

[dewsgirl]

17. I could watch her do the news all day and all night.

[Hoyt]

18. RM helped me during bush years. But repetition, over-hyped bombshells, painful connecting of dots,

etc., are just too much for me nowadays. Glad she's doing well.

[hannah]

19. Rachel

Rachel is perfect. Keep complaining and you will get Chris Jansen or Kristen Welker. Both are used to rehabilitate Trump.

[barbtries]

21. aargh

i don't know who either of those are. and i did preface my gripe with "I love Rachel" - i recommend her show to anyone who will listen. she brings the history.

[spooky3]

26. Chris Jansing is no fan of Trump's.

Are you thinking of Kelly O’Donnell?

[womanofthehills]

20. Doesn't annoy me - It shows she is super into it

She really puts out on the news - so she has some small quirks- who doesn’t? I love that she is not one of those emotionless news people.

[StarfishSaver]

30. I don't mind. But Adam Schiff quickly shot down her main point that an impeachment inquiry

would make it easier to get information right away when he said that an impeachment hearing was no different than oversight proceedings when it comes to compelling testimony and documents. At that point, her argument lost its steam.

I was surprised that she had tried to push this particular point because she's usually much better better prepared. This is something she could have known with a little research or by talking to people experienced in Hill procedures.

[Caliman73]

31. I don't watch much TV but get the recaps on You Tube.

My wife and I were saying the exact same thing this morning. Rachel is one of the most intelligent, well versed, and entertaining editorial journalists in the business. However, the repetition of questions, the set up to the upcoming guest, is one of those things that she does that make us cry out, "OKAY Rachel, we got it! Get to the answer already!"

"Is it advantageous to the Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings to get information? Will this help the Democrats to get at the information they need? Is impeachment going to be something that improves Democrats ability to gather information? Will the Democrats have access to the information Trump and his lawyers are trying to block by going to impeachment? .... Will they...?"

ALRIGHT ALREADY!!

Still, I would rather watch an ENTIRE hour of her doing that, than one minute of ANYTHING that the idiots at Fox News have to say, ever.

[barbtries]

32. oh gawd yes.

never watch fox. i get annoyed when their clips are played by others. i watch rachel on msnbc.com or youtube also. no cable.

[lunatica]

33. My mind tends to wander when she does that

I try to stay alert because she’s really good, but can’t.

[happy feet]

35. No, you're not alone

There have been times when I want to hear what she has to say, but after hearing her leadup said five times in 100 ways...I just turn the channel. It's annoying as heck since most watching her are intelligent enough to get it after the 1st if not 2nd time she says it.

[JB in A2]

36. Get to the point already

Yes, Rachel is brilliant but I think she treats audience as if they are really neophytes.

Also, I assume part of this is to fill the hour.

[Jarqui]

40. She's the best and we're lucky to have her but I too

lose patience sometimes.

The babbling about how much news there is tonight ... just give us the news
or
Reading the court transcripts can be a little much some nights - get to the point!!

Small price to pay though for her integrity, intellect and diligence, etc.

She's probably the closest thing to Walter Cronkite that we've got.
We need more like her at moments like this.

[RealityBasedNewYorkr]

41. Same here

Can only watch on DVR time delay where I can blast through the first 20 minutes of “Department of Redundancy Department” loopiness to get to the good stuff.

[barbtries]

45. it's always good to know i'm not the only one.

like i said, i love her but i wish she would dispense with that particular schtick.

[FakeNoose]

47. I agree with you, and I love her too

She is repetitive sometimes, and I think it's mainly when she really wants to get a point across. Also it seems there are times when she has to fill 60 minutes and she only has 50 minutes worth of material.

But Rachel has other nights when she's running a mile a minute and I can't keep up with her. I DVR her show at night and usually watch it the next day, and sometimes I have to replay segments. She's talking so fast I can't always follow, and I might even put on the closed captions.

But like another poster said, Rachel always brings it.

[tazkcmo]

48. Bugs me. too.

Fortunately, she's worth the irritation of that particular quirk. Best program on all television, imo.

[meadowlander]

50. Meh... the morons who most need to be watching her show probably benefit from it being repeated.

Trump repeats his bullshit 6000 times each, so Rachel repeating a complex and thoughtful question 5 times is probably not excessive.

I watch her while I'm doing something else at the same time (like cooking dinner or reading DU) so it doesn't bother me that much.

[stopbush]

53. It might be different were it a complex and thoughtful question, but it never is.

It’s verbal masturbation serving as a place holder until she decides to finally, FINALLY ask the complex and thoughtful question.

[comradebillyboy]

54. Well put.

[comradebillyboy]

51. It's why I don't watch her show.

[stopbush]

52. I and other DUers have remarked on this annoying fault many times

over the years. A real channel changer, as it was last night.

Extreme laziness on her part.

[greymattermom]

55. It drives me crazy too.

And sometimes you see the guests listening carefully to make sure that there is only one question. Rachel talks like folks who are paid by the hour to talk (lawyers, professors) rather than like folks who are paid by the procedure to solve problems (surgeons, plumbers).

[barbtries]

57. that made me laugh

and think about a person i used to work with as his medical/legal liaison. We did record reviews and medical examinations for lawyers involved in litigation. he was a brilliant man but when it came to writing, I always thought he'd never recovered from grade school and thought the longer the report the better the grade. fact is, lawyers and judges don't really want to wade through 50 pages when the salient points can be made in 10 or 20. after I was not working for him anymore he basically had to give up the medical/legal part of his business because his best customers quit using him, and it was because of his verbosity.

[Farmer-Rick]

56. I'm glad she is so repetitive

I record her the night before and watch first thing in the morning. But I'm also usually doing something while she is on in the morning, making coffee, feeding dogs, watering plants, washing dishes, reading. So, I lose track sometimes of her comments. Her repetitiveness keeps me from rewinding so often.

[barbtries]

59. i'm glad it works for you.

that makes sense too.

[csziggy]

60. Does she get new information with the repeated questions?

I've seen this in TV hosts and instructors. If they don't get the information they are trying to elicit the first time around, they might restate the question in a slightly different way in order to gain more details or to push the person being interviewed to think differently about the subject.

[barbtries]

70. no these aren't questions she's directing to a guest.

this is prior to the guest showing up. it's only for the audience.

[Raven]

66. She's one of, if not the only, intelligent people on TV. If she says things

twice or three times, it's probably necessary for some folks to hear it more than once. If people want to watch bs, they can listen to Tweety.

[WeekiWater]

67. I can't watch her show.

Really don’t like it.

As for the suggestion, she is kind of kicking ass in the ratings.

[barbtries]

69. yes,

because (for me anyway) she delivers the news with real insight and especially provides historical context. i wish she would stop with the repetition stuff but still a huge fan.

[Talitha]

73. Did Rachel ever teach?

The reason I'm asking, is that her repetitiveness reminds me of Professor Alex Filippenko's lectures in an astronomy course I bought from The Great Courses. He's wonderful, and I can understand what he's talking about the very first time he explains it. But then he proceeds to cover the subject matter from a number of different angles, and sometimes it can be a bit much. But sometimes I NEED to see things from another angle in order to learn the subject matter, so it all works out in the end.

Rachel and Alex are both excellent teachers, and their enthusiasm is amazing. Rachel's repetitiveness can sometimes annoy me but TBH, it depends on the mood I'm in on any given day. She's taught me a lot, and her clarity and depth helped me immensely when I first got into all of this political stuff.

Rachel and Alex both LOVE what they do for a living. And let's face it, how many of us can say the same thing? So here's what I think: Bless 'em - warts and all. If they can manage to keep teaching me things, I'm going to keep watching. And I'll probably say more than a few times: "OK, I got it the first time".

Thank heaven they won't be able to hear MY annoying little voice.

[barbtries]

74. i believe she has a PhD (not certain)

but if so, she would have definitely taught at some point.

[Wounded Bear]

78. She's a Rhode's Scholar...

[lanlady]

75. it annoys me too

You're not the only one, barbtries. I listen to the podcast of her show on my way to work and find myself yelling at her when she goes into Roget's Thesaurus mode. It's super annoying. Does she think we're thick or don't understand English? Then again, I keep listening because no one has been covering this disastrous, traitorous administration as well as Rachel.

[saidsimplesimon]

76. Reminders are always in vogue.

I'm not a regular viewer of any newscast, so take my opinion with a grain of sugar.

Yes, Ms. Maddow doth protest to much and in repetition. Pass it on.

[shanny]

77. No you are not the only one.

I stopped watching because I got tired of having things explained to me 3+ times. I am not 7.

[greyl]

79. You may have picked the worst day to post this, since

her show this evening was strikingly excellent and timely.

[barbtries]

83. thanks for the link!

i'll watch.

[Raine]

81. You're not alone

I can't stand the way she drags things out and the way she keeps repeating and repeating and repeating. I quit watching her, couldn't tolerate her any longer.