Which is it? Was today's hearing a big nothingburger as some promised or SO important that MSNBC's

[StarfishSaver]

and CNN's decision not to run it live was irresponsible and suspect?

OR was the hearing important but two cable news channels not showing it live really doesn't matter in the scheme of things?

[Xipe Totec]

1. I'll let you know after I watch TRMS. nt

[Irishxs]

4. Agree. What RM says matters to me.

[onecaliberal]

2. VERY IRRESPONSIBLE.

[emmaverybo]

9. +1000

[Turin_C3PO]

3. I think the media likes stories like the helicopter crash.

That’s why the hearings weren’t really covered by cable news. It’s not a conspiracy or anything like that, it’s just business and ratings, IMO.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Neither. I would have preferred that they showed it, but

there was a helicopter crash in NYC and more people are interested in air accidents (especially when they crash into buildings in NYC) than in Congressional hearings. CNN and MSNBC follow the principle that if it bleeds it leads because that attracts eyeballs and pays for advertising. That's just the way it is. However, it wasn't irresponsible because the people who were interested would have watched it live on C-SPAN or some other streaming service or will catch it later somewhere on the Internet. I'm sure Rachel Maddow will cover it thoroughly. I think what's at least as important is that Dean's testimony might have educated some of the dim bulbs in the GOP House who are too young (and/or stupid) to remember how Watergate got started and how it finally went down.

[cwydro]

19. Yes.

Bad day for that crash (not that there’s a good day for a crash).

[mucifer]

6. newspapers did a crappy job of covering it too except for WaPo

[Irishxs]

7. I listened to contempt hearing on c span.

GOP hated suing for contempt but I think it passed the committee and now needs whole house vote.

[emmaverybo]

8. Important. Very. The Republicans as usual filibustered and used Trump's obstruction, firing of top-

tier counterintelligence officials, as proof that the investigation needed investigating. They went off
on the dossier, Hilary, FISA warrants, and said the biggest threat to Americans was not Trump’s
obstruction and collusion, but spying cause if we tolerate spying on this president, every American is at risk.
So Republicans definitely tried to turn the hearing into a nothing by refusing to participate in any of
the actual issues at hand.
They did not succeed.
Ms. McQuade and Ms. Vance were so well prepared, sharp, and composed in their presentation that they made Repubs sound hysterical.
John Dean appeared unfazed by Jordan and co. personal attacks. Cable news lets Trump pollute the airwaves with inanity, self-absorbed histrionics, and hateful insults. They should have broadcast
this most educational and crucial event.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Great recap

Do you think the fact that they didn't show the hearing live today will make any difference in the long run?

[emmaverybo]

21. I am hoping that its significance and obvious public interest sinks in enough to persuade

media to get on board.
I do think what happened today would have more legs if it had been broadcast to a wider audience, but hope the specifics Vance and McQuade in particular picked up on from the report will continue to be sounded. They set passages in relief in the context of crimes, pulling together “the
footnotes” with the main sections. Their succinct rendition reminded me of how a really good law professor can make accessible and memorable dense and complex points of law.
Shirley Jackson put it all in an articulate nutshell today on MSNBC.
I don’t think their commentary is going to get buried, They delivered a guidebook to the report I don’t think, given the grilling he’d have to field and the nitpicking, that Mueller himself could give, and their voices felt objective. Well, they are law professors.

[stuffmatters]

13. Throughout my impression too. Repugs tantrumed & bullshitted.Dems actually quoted/illuminated Report

And that Heritage/Federalist Soc/Koch product("expert&quot was predictably a professional haughty, obnoxious, RW shill.

[emmaverybo]

22. Illuminated, great description for what they did. Lifted to the light. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

14. +1

[hlthe2b]

11. well, NBC nightly news didn't cover it. I don't know if the other two did, but I doubt it.

Which means only those who read major national newspapers like WAPO, NYT, LATIMES, etc. are likely to know about it, except for those who watch MSNBC or CNN.

Still, it is a start and if we get Mueller and McGahn in there, I suspect there will be some retrospective coverage of this hearing.

[EffieBlack]

12. The hearing was important

but it’s no big deal that cable news didn’t show it live. Probably everyone who wanted to see it and had access to a television or computer could watch it (it was live on CNBC and PBS) and online. I doubt there was anyone who wanted to see it was stopped from doing so because it wasn’t on MSNBC or CNN.

The carping and moaning about two cable channels not going live to a hearing they’re spending most of the evening covering and discussing is more the result of people being frustrated and wanting something to yell about than any actual problem arising from the timing of the coverage.

[emmaverybo]

25. Ah, good. nt

[Kurt V.]

15. I'm not able to watch it but my trusted sources tell me two things:

this (relatively) new brand of republican is scary af. Minority rule is very real when an elected official will obfuscate with no conscience. also, this isn't an episode of a tv show. dems need to bring their constitutional right of an impeachment inquiry to the fore. even if it means nadler defying the speaker.

[DeminPennswoods]

16. Hearing was worth covering and so was the helicopter

crash. But, the crash was not worth 2+ hours of repetitious, no new news coverage since the cable news networks knew pretty quickly it wasn't anything more than an unfortunate accident of a chopper trying to make an emergency landing. They could have showed the hearing and monitored the situation in NYC breaking in if necessary.

Notice that MSNBC dumped the crash coverage as soon as Nicolle Wallace's show came on and there has been no mention of it yet on any of their prime time shows.

OTOH, this is what the cable news channels do, coverage of some tradgedy with no new news to report for hours on end and nothing but the same video played in an endless loop. YMMV, but it's highly annoying to me.

[Kaleva]

17. Haven't watched cable news in years so it didn't matter to me that it wasn't aired...

by MSNBC and CNN. But that's just me.

[panader0]

18. I view the hearing as a preview of coming events.

Nadler hasn't got the guys he wants there yet, but this gets the ball rolling.
John Dean, in particular, adds a special flavor, a historical perspective and
he's very sharp and well spoken. The R's looked like asses (which they are).
The hearing was available on line, the way most people younger than me
view things these days.

[blue neen]

23. Oh, the R's did, indeed, look like asses.

They had nothing of substance to say, just trying to discredit John Dean. They did not succeed at that.

[StarfishSaver]

26. They certainly looked foolish.

[emmaverybo]

24. Good points. nt.

[cwydro]

20. Doesn't really matter.

This administration is getting away with whatever it wants.

With impunity.

[Thomas Hurt]

27. I did not get to watch it, but it sounds like it was expert testimony only?

If so all it does is lay out some history and set the scene.

Don't know if they are approaching this like Trump is the frog in the cooking pot or what.

[StarfishSaver]

28. Yes. But in this instance, expert testimony that lays a foundation and framework is critical

People often say the Democrats need to lay out a narrative. But a narrative needs context and this was an important part of providing that.

[lordsummerisle]

29. As a few posters above have noted

I also rely on Rachel to distill news like this to tell me what's important to take away from it...

[GeorgeGist]

30. Only Two choices?

[StarfishSaver]

31. There are three choices

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. If it was the first hearing of an impeachment inquiry, they'd have aired it gavel to gavel nt