Rachel Maddow is the Walter Cronkite of our times.

[Tommymac]

Just had to say that as the thought struck me as I am watching her opening tonight.

Best damn news anchor out there bar none.

Makes that woman on CBS Prime Time news seem like a hack.

[hunter]

1. I'll respect her more when she quits Comcast.

.

[brooklynite]

3. And what broadcast entity would meet you exacting standards for news ethics?

[hunter]

5. I'm sure she could support herself on the internet.

Hell, if I can do it anyone can.

[brooklynite]

8. On the evil Comcast MSNBC market, Rachel Maddow has an audience of 3.6 M viewers...

...and she gets paid to provide her program. An internet audience would be a bare fraction of that.

[Hekate]

13. Sure, and a whole lot of people would never get to see her again. Thanks but no thanks. nt

[JohnSJ]

4. Where would you suggest she go? AT&T owns CNN, Disney owns ABC, Viacom owns CBS

[JohnSJ]

2. More like Edward R Morrow

[Tommymac]

6. I'll accept that. She is a professional descendent.

Murrow.
Cronkite.
Brinkley.
Walters.
Rather.
Shaw.
Maddow.

[dem4decades]

7. Seriously? Walter didn't beat around the bush, he got to the point.

[Tommymac]

9. Seriously. And yes he did when appropriate. I watched him every night for decades.

Rachel rocks. SHE is the pinnacle of her profession today BAR NONE.

[uponit7771]

10. ... and never built the story like RM does. I'd rather watch her, mo information mo bettah

[lastlib]

21. Walter C. had half an hour to cover 6-8 stories.

And he did every one of them concisely, intelligently, without immature circus/cheerleader histrionics.

Rachel has an hour to do 3-5 stories. And she fills air time with tediously repetitious and childish commentary and histrionics that should be a serious turn-off to anybody with a valid high-school diploma. I have little doubt that she would've been kicked off my high-school debate team if she conducted herself the way she does on her program.

I watch her for the depth of exploration she gives her stories, but it's damn tedious to listen to her conflated, dragged-out and repetitive explanations. I regard much of her speaking to be insulting to my intelligence. She has a PhD--I wish she would respect her viewers enough to talk to them more like adults, not like a junior-high civics class.

[OnDoutside]

26. Not everyone is as well educated as yourself, clearly.

[chillfactor]

11. i am 79 years old and have watched the great ones before Rachel

she was brilliant tonight as she set up her lead story. The smile on my face was a mile wide when I understood where she was going with it!!!!!

[Tommymac]

12. Yes. It was awesome.

I sometimes think of her as the Columbo of News.

Biggest thing is I trust Rachel. I don't always agree with her view of things, but I ALWAYS trust her.

Very few journalists I can say that about.

[Hoyt]

14. She helped get me through bush years, but Cronkite didn't take forever to

to make a point or connect dots. And everything was not a bombshell with Cronkite and when it was, it panned out.

[Frasier Balzov]

15. And she has a great staff of researchers.

Which she conscientiously credits all the time.

[left-of-center2012]

16. Oh pleeeze !

Not everyone is a fan of Rachel.

Her dialogue in which she rolls her eyes, shakes her head, and makes faces ...

Not my cup of tea.

Just my humble opinion of course.

[Tommymac]

17. Fair enough. She is definately My cup of Tea

I enjoy that aspect of her presentation.

She reflects the emotions of many viewers who are not well informed, who are not rocket scientists.

Who are Jane and Joe Sixpack trying to figure out the Truth in a complex world, and show their frustration and puzzlement in just those same ways.

Kinda like the regular (and sane) blue collar working class people I would chat with at the pub I frequented before the Pandemic.

[left-of-center2012]

18. I just want the news without the drama

It's as if the teleprompter tells her
roll eyes here
shake head here
grimace here.

Like the old TV show Dragnet
I just want the facts.

[relayerbob]

19. No. Having seen him in action, she is not

First off, she's a commentator, not a news anchor. She doesn't report news, per se she reports the parts she wants to focus on. She is also highly biased, which is, of course, part and parcel of being a commentator. She also doesn't command the respect and authority from all corners of the country as Cronkite did.

None of this means I dislike her, nor that I think she is a great reporter and broadcaster. I watch hre all the time. But there really is no comparison to Walter Cronkite to be had.

[Upthevibe]

20. I think she's in a league of her own....

I'm not saying that Cronkite and Murrow weren't amazing. They absolutely were.

What I love about Rachel is what seems to bother a couple of DU'ers every so often. Without insulting them, what I mean is that they aren't into the context that she provides when leading up to her point by way of a story - in IMHO, 9 times out of 10 the story to me is incredibly interesting. It's actually what makes her stand. She's like an amazing teacher.

I LOVE it when she starts her broadcast with something like, "In 1969, John Smith was a Jr. Senator from......then she fills in the details and brings it back to the importance or the impact it has on an important issue today.

Rachel's not "just" a broadcaster. She's an exceptionally talented and brilliant storyteller that's provide the context and the importance of that context that can't be overstated....

[JI7]

22. Agree,I love the context and I think it's lack of this which is a problem

in this country.

[Raine]

23. NO she isn't. Cronkite gave straight news, Rachel takes one side and does commentary and

advocates. Cronkite didn't do that.

[FakeNoose]

27. I think I have to agree with you

Rachel is the best there is, given the current climate of "sponsored" news. However Walter Cronkite's career spanned the time of unsponsored news, he rarely gave his opinion on anything. When he did voice an opinion he made it clear that he was speaking separate from the news function.

To me Rachel is the college professor for most of us who don't have the time or money for college classes. I value her opinions and I think her research staff are among the best in the industry. She does give a slant and she voices her opinion on many (if not most) topics, but she also brings outside professionals onto her show for balance. That's not the same thing as both-siderism like Chuck Todd does, she's willing to open up to different perspectives.

As for her style, Rachel is not to everyone's liking. It has been discussed a lot here on DU at different times. Personally I can appreciate her manner of speaking, somewhat repetitive but so is teaching. Many times frequent repetition is what it takes to get through to people. Long story short, Rachel is awesome but she's not Walter Cronkite. She'd make a terrible news anchor.

[Dem4Life1102]

24. LBJ once said

“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.” The best that anyone could say of Maddow is that if they lost her, they lost the upper east side of Manhattan.

[malaise]

25. She's the best by a distance

Great program last night. Those. racketeering charges should be frightening that former guy about now