Steve Kornacki, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow: Promise Kept

[Tom Rinaldo]

I, like millions of other Americas, have watched the emergence of this new generation of television journalists with delight. Like the whole political world, it seems, I am glued to their collective coverage of the assorted scandals that the Chris Christie administration (and the Port Authority) are now embroiled in. But the sentiment I want to express here is only tangentially connected with that, or more accurately, their Christie coverage is an illuminating example of a promise finally kept which suddenly dawned on me this morning while watching Up with Steve Konaccki.

Their kind of in depth reporting is what I long ago expected would become much more commonplace after the explosion of new TV channels that cable TV opened up, after decades of Americans being limited to television programming provided by three major networks and a handful of independent stations. This is what I once thought CNN would evolve into, and if not them than someone else after hundreds of new channels became available to viewers to choose between.

Yeah I know that for the most part we live in a vast corporate media wasteland but even so there was always daily in depth investigative journalism provided by many newspapers throughout the United States. True it didn't always make above the fold front page coverage, but in depth reporting did make its way into print and could be found by those diligently inclined to look for it. I once naively believed the same would be true with cable news. I didn't expect an ABC, CBS, or NBC news anchor to walk viewers through nuanced webs of circumstantial evidence in a search for smoking guns. I didn't expect the major networks to devote their precious few minutes of prime time national news on connect the dots exercises through the murky backwaters of government agency filings. But I thought someone would, probably someone found on a station with not one, but two or even three digits attached to it. Cable TV could make that happen, I thought to myself back then. But it didn't, not with any dependable regularity anyway.

But this morning I remembered those long ago expectations about the type of TV news coverage I expected would soon be reliably available to those who chose to seek it out. All those hours in a 24 hour news cycle, all those hundreds of channels, it should be possible to find it. Today it suddenly struck me that I was watching exactly that, not hours of video of a smoking airplane crash with recaps every ten minute of what was currently known, or an incessant parade of talking heads speculating on just how juror X would relate to the latest revelation in a newly minted celebrity murder trial.

These three fine television journalists in particular ; Steve, Chris, and Rachel, are fulfilling the promise that I long ago had forgotten once seemed so promising. Painstaking details, a dedication to fully inform the public of whatever relevant back stories were in play. What a joy to see that live and kicking on my TV screen in America.

[Justice]

1. Agreed 1000+. In doing so, they also reinforce the need for print journalism, by always

featuring print journalist - both national and local - in their programs.

[liberalmike27]

5. I would put it this way

MSNBC is the corporate left, the defined left edge of what you can report on, in the corporate media.

Weaknesses, by design are--you aren't allowed to point out the Class Warfare the rich have regularly been perpetrating on the poor, to suggest the "direction" of the attack. Yes, they allow you to obliquely reference it, but you couldn't say something like "I hear people complain about Class Warfare, but they never say 'stop attacking the poor and middle class' to the rich." It's always "Oh we don't want to endorse class warfare," and it is always directed at the poor and middle class, the people on the show who are advocating for the poor and middle. It boils down to saying "Don't fight back poor and middle class, at least not with any real verve."

Then there is the MIC--they once again might be able to imply the wars are stupid, and wrong, or mistakes. They will never be able to say "Hey, the real reason we're in debt up to our ears is because of decades long, vast spending on the military, to the tune of 1.2 Trillion a year." Or "We just need to cut the defense budget back to about 100 Billion a year, get out of wars, close hundreds of bases of the 800 we've got open, and combine the two departments of defense, then use it to actually DEFEND America, and stop attacking other countries and bringing their revenge down on our heads." Never could say that bit of truth.

For decades now, globalization has been ignored, and "protectionism" has been called the work of the devil. Nope "We can't have protectionism." It's almost a media mantra. They will talk of our vast unemployment, yet they won't point directly to the thing, and associate the problems. Add to that, the jobs leaving, estimates running at about 30 million manufacturing jobs since this all started in the 1980s, is also a HUGE cause of our debt. We had 30 million people, working here, paying good taxes into various levels of government. Associated jobs also paid taxes, that serviced those jobs, at grocers, mechanics, and such. When we spend money on products with that money, since we once made the product, it required us make another one here--now it's like sending money out of the country. Nope, not much talk of how globalization and not protecting our workers, has destroyed this country, and its tax base.

You aren't allowed to speak of how the Fairness Doctrine, struck down in 1987, was largely responsible for one-sided media, or how media consolidation is also a huge cause, because hundreds of various sources are better than 7 huge corporations that now control it all. Again, like globalization, it's often the "liberal" (supposedly) pundit on the show that jumps in and defends the media unfairness with something like "Oh no, we can't have fairness in the media, no government requirement that the rich people who own these stations actually show all sides." Well, it'd be some more hidden version of that, but in effect, that is what they would be saying.

So yea, MSNBC is better than FOX, for at least those shows that aren't entirely right-wing, like the morning. Then there are all those nighttime hours they fill with Prison-land. I don't know what's up with that, playing prison shows when people who work all week, might just tune into some reruns of the weeks shows they weren't able to see.

[broiles]

6. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I agree that MSNBC is "the defined left edge of what you can report on, in the corporate media."

No matter how anyone pushes there will always be some edge of the envelope to come up against when media is corporate owned. Largely I agree with you on where that edge has been, and mostly remains. However I will give some credit to some of the anchors at MSNBC for pushing the edge of that envelope because they deserve some credit for doing so. Rachel has pushed back hard against Citizens United and the toxic effect of allowing billionaires to buy our democracy. Ed has been all over the TPP trade agreement that benefits the 1% at the expense of most Americans, and he strongly embraced the Occupy movement and its message about income inequality. Steve steered the Christie Bridgegate coverage outside of the relatively safe boundaries of "political retribution" and towards classic big money corruption involving the hand in glove mutually self serving relationship between elected officials and powerful financial special interests seeking to game the system for their mutual benefit. I know MSNBC explored the origins of our current federal deficits following the Clinton surpluses, during their prime time lineup back when the Tea Party reared up, and charted how much of that deficit was caused by the costs of the Iraq war which was never paid for by Congress. There are some other examples also of some MSNBC anchors at least selectively pushing the envelope about what their corporate owners would like to see covered. I have no doubt that is why they tried to push Ed off onto the weekend not that long ago in a failed effort to isolate him.

Again, I don't disagree with your overall premise at all, but I wrote this OP because I felt some praise toward those journalists was legitimately earned.

[Enthusiast]

20. You have pretty much nailed it right there.

Thank you for pointing out, "MSNBC is the corporate left, the defined left edge of what you can report on, in the corporate media."

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Very true

They highlight their reporting and also have them do on air commentary. Most TV news shows prefer to pretend that they find their stories all by themselves while repeating exactly whatever news print journalists have uncovered. We need a strong press in this country, and it is good to see the cooperative relationship with print journalists that these MSNBC shows embrace.

[dmosh42]

2. I completely agree with your sentiments on this, and it prompted other thoughts.....

about other disasters in the past. This whole thing was inspired by an event on the GW bridge, and it took place where the media is most prominent, hence the awe inspiring investigations by these MSNBC shows. I can remember a few disasters in the not so distant past where huge amounts of money were supposed to help recoveries, and one in Fl in which I took losses and wondered where the accounting was. I guess we'll never know, but for now this NJ event has me glued to what and how all this happened, and hopefully all the rats will be exposed!

[dem in texas]

3. yes, I agree and one other I like is Ezra Kline

Sometimes Rachel is so good that she takes my breath away. She always comes at the subject in a little different direction that other pols and she finds obscure items that end up become big news, like the bridge closing.

I am sure there will some awards for reporting on the Christie scandal, just wonder who it will receive them.

I like Ezra Kline, he also has his own take on things in a very "wonky" way. I read that he is leaving the Wash. Post and forming on on-line news site. I look forward to seeing what he will do next.

[calimary]

4. And thank God for them! Because you're sure not gonna get anywhere with THIS guy:

michael isikoff. UTTERLY WORTHLESS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4426073

[joanbarnes]

7. At first when Rachel filled in for Keith, I didn't get her popularity...Now I can't tear myself away

[DirkGently]

9. Hated to see Keith go.

But I've got to say, Rachel and the others have elevated the discourse. Keith was a great polemicist, but he didn't have the depth of knowledge or the journalist chops of the present crew.

[CTyankee]

14. I couldn't get into her when she was on liberal talk radio with other liberal faves such as Stephani

Miller and Al Franken. It just seemed like she cackled all the time, trying to be ironic, with her male sidekick. She didn't have good writers and her excellent characteristics were not well displayed. TV gave her her wings...

[DirkGently]

8. They've got a world-class crew going. Wonder if MSNBC knows it?

Kornacki's not as polished a broadcaster as the other two, and they've got him dumbing down (telling his panel they'll be fined for using big words) and clowning (that ridiculous gameshow disaster they keep putting on at the end). He's the best straight-up journalist of the the three though -- he gets and tracks information expertly. His reporting on the Christy debacle(s) have led the country.

Chris' style has become my favorite -- maybe because he's a long-form, magazine writer by training. He's a big-picture guy who can articulate all sides of an argument, and he's got a powerful, nuanced "take" on issues he can present reasonably but forcefully. He can get excited, but he never comes across as unreasonable. He's great at prying at others to get at what they know and contribute. He sometimes talks over my head on some bit of theory or process -- and I LOVE THAT -- there are so few shows in this news / commentary genre capable of teaching anything. Yet we hear him forced to beg for Facebook followers on a regular basis.

Rachel's the real broadcast star. She's an electric personality, and she's deliciously infuriating to the right wing. She's an advocate and a sly polemicist who coats her razor knives in a wink and chuckle that make them unassailable. Sometimes her intense delivery can be a little tiring, but she's brilliant and relentless. She never let up on "Governor ultrasound," who's now indicted. Her ratings must be the best, because no one seems to be making her screw around with the show chasing bored or ignorant viewers.

These three are building a halo around MSNBC that could elevate the entire enterprise. I keep hearing right-wingers desperately trying to draw a false equivalency to Fox, to dismiss them, but there's just no wild-eyed crazy talk, no race-baiting, no casual disregard for facts, science, or history. They are winning.

I just worry that MSNBC will dump them or mangle their shows for fear Americans can't handle intelligent discourse or the slightest bit of complex detail. Apparently someone at the network thinks Facebook "likes" and jazzy comedic bits are more valuable.

They've got a shot at changing the game here. Hope the network doesn't blow it.

[2naSalit]

26. I agree with you and the OP

but would like to add that Rachel leads the charge because she is soooo intelligent but also that her lead-ins are usually a brief primer for the non-wonks as to why the topic she's on is important and what it means that a certain thing has happened in terms of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. I've heard detractors call her "preachy" but if you are not a polisci major, there is a lot you need to know in order to understand why she is telling you about an event or news item and why it matters. That's where she shines, she is a civics educator as well as a very astute journalist. I think she is providing a path for the others and has raised the bar on the reporting in the evening news on her network. I'm glad to see the others adding assistance there and hope to see them come into their own as well. She also brings in good journalists who seem to exist in the shadows but who are talented and skilled.

I think Chris Hayes got some behind the scenes help from Danny Schechter after he was on when Mandela passed. Mr. Schechter has been a front-runner in news delivery since the early 1970s and I can see it in Hayes' newer style since then with his music during lead-ins and having some fun with subject matter to attract attention. I can't help but think some of Schechter's style has rubbed off on him.

Kornacky is up and coming and a serious journalist as well and I hope to see him move up the ladder, he's breaking some serious ground on this Jersey thing and it will put him in a place of high regard by the time this is over. Maybe an award for journalism. That would be nice to see.

And Ezra Klein should not be forgotten, another rising young star.

And lest we forget Big Ed, he's a force of a different and older generation who is pretty good at what he does too, I wish he'd bail on his friendship with fmr. MT Gov Schweitzer though, he's not national material and already has baggage that can make him look like a Christie mini-me.

I, too, hope the network keeps growing with these folks and adds more for its daytime programming because that end sucks... sorry, Andrea Mitchell, but that break away for the Bieber story was your death knell.

[Frustratedlady]

29. You don't do a bad job of getting your point across, either. Are you in some form of media?

I like many of the new MSNBC shows and particularly those three. Rachel still irritates me by repeating her point in 3 different ways before she truly gets to the interesting portion and I find myself switching channels. I hate it when I do that because I truly admire the job she does. There's a word for that type of delivery, but I can't force it out of my brain at this time.

I will say that I admire her for standing up to the likes of the Koch brothers and their lawyers. I just fear for her safety...actually, for all their safety. Now, with all the controversy over Bridgegate, I'm especially concerned. Rough treatment seems to be the norm. Then, again, Rachel has proven to us that she isn't afraid of bullies.

[gordianot]

10. Those you have listed have and are doing a great job I have one major fear.

Republicans still have not recovered from Nixon's demise. They went so far as to create Fox News to counter real journalism with lies and propaganda. If Steve, Rachael, or Chris makes ONE mistake they are in danger from the corporate wrath of MSNBC. At this point ratings and rating threat are the only reason MSNBC tolerates them.

[question everything]

11. Agree. I would add Karen Finney, Alex Wagner and Melissa Harris-Perry

all great ladies with a laser eye focus on what is important and a great way to articulate the issues.

[CTyankee]

15. I just LOVE those three and for very different reasons.

They are all whip smart but they project well in their formats. Alex is very interesting...she almost projects sexy slyness that is very provocative. Karen is extremely strong and smart...she has gravitas. Melissa projects her outrage in a very classy, but endearing, way. I just love watching them go gleefully about their work!

[BuckIA]

27. Let's not forget Joy Reid!

[question everything]

28. Of course! Starting after the Olympics! Thanks

[Hekate]

12. Two thumbs up. Be sure to send this eloquent piece to them and to their corporate boss.

Everyone likes an attaboy, but the bosses in particular need positive feedback to reinforce their backing of these fine journalists.

[Cha]

16. Kick

[malaise]

18. Keith Olberman set the standard when he took on Bushco

when it was 'unpatriotic' to do so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. He was fearless

His strength wasn't ground breaking investigative journalism but his commentary was piercing in the very best sense of that word. He played an essential role.

[Enthusiast]

21. +1 a significant amount.......nt

[DirkGently]

30. We needed him so badly then.

People forget no one was really saying what he was saying except Jon Stewart. Those two got me through some fist-through-wall anger when Bush / Cheney were dismantling the country as fast as they could.

I wish he had adjusted a little better after Obama's election. He's a great broadcaster and plenty smart, but once Bush was gone, the big, brash, snarky delivery wasn't as good a fit. Rachel, Chris, and Kornacki have things in a progressively more journalistic direction that's both more effective and harder to dismiss as lefty polemic.

Still, I assume KO will land on his feet and find a good fit for his considerable talents somewhere.

[malaise]

31. I hope he lands on his feet

He does have problems working with others

[Bluenorthwest]

22. You think millions are watching those shows?

Rachel can draw 7 figs occasionally, but the other two sure don't. Cable news and commentary shows are a tiny niche market. The actual reporting done by Steve might draw new audiences, but the bulk of MSNBC is people bleating opinion, they have no field reporters, no investigative anything, Rachel asks for more money but never for more reporters. It is what it is. I have better things to do than watch that East Coast Collection of Rich Sorrowfuls.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I'll just discuss Maddow for the moment

It's easier for me to recall her work over the years off the top of my head than it is for me with the others.

Rachel Maddow was all over the astro turf aspects of the Tea Party back when the rest of the media was talking about the breathtaking emergence of this "new populist movement". She went behind the curtain and charted the interlocking front groups. She smoked out the Koch
Brothers when their names were known only to a relative few. She followed the money.

She was also all over the story about the overthrow of democracy in Michigan with the Republican Governor there taking over city governments with emergency fiscal managers. Rachel was the first major TV news person to extensively cover the role that ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) has played to spread reactionary legislation through out the nation. She also bore down deeply covering what the new post 2010 Republican majorities in state legislatures was doing on a number of fronts, but their assault on freedom of choice reproductive rights was a particular staple of her coverage. Rachel trail blazed giving media attention AND CONCEPTUAL LINKAGE to a number of assaults on women's rights that collectively became known at the "war on women".

Rachel was also the first news anchor to extensively cover the aborted Republican move about two years ago to change how Blue states allotted electoral votes in Presidential elections, so that Blue states would no longer give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in those states. The list goes on and on.

[DirkGently]

32. Her incredulous tone has been spot-on.

When things get really outrageous, it all starts to blur together after a while, especially with the Fox wingdings screaming about made-up outrages like FEMA death camps and whatnot.

Rachel's "Are you kidding me?" vibe and her ability to simultaneously accuse and laugh at the absurdity of American conservative politics cuts right to the point. These are absurd times, and absurd people are doing absurd things.

She's the schtickiest of the new triumvirate, but it's usually good schtick. As someone pointed out above, sometimes she hits her punchline a few too many times, and her righteous glee can grate just the slightest bit.

But she's the leader and the breakout star of the network, to be sure. I think what Chris is doing maybe has more potential to hold an audience, because he goes broader -- his panels are fantastic. But apparently his ratings aren't everything MSNBC would like to see, and he's under constant pressure to spice things up.

[Jamaal510]

23. Nice to see someone on here

crediting other TV hosts besides Rachel Maddow sometimes. Don't get me wrong--I like her, but there are plenty of other hosts on MSNBC who do quality work, yet they don't get discussed or mentioned nearly as much here. Both Steve and Chris have definitely been on top of their game covering Bridge-gate, and this recognition is well-deserved.

[musiclawyer]

25. Without Keith there is none of this

Never forget .....