So many male pundits and journalists have been taking to giving Rachel Maddow advice

[La Lioness Priyanka]

esp about the way she covers Trump and Russia, that I was delighted to find out that Rachel is now the top cable news program for people 25-54

http://theweek.com/speedreads/688894/rachel-maddow-show-dominating-cable-news



Good for her. Glad she didn't listen to stupid advice.

[OnDoutside]

1. I love her opening monologue, though I know others don't, including my wife. I do think the

portrayal of Trump's 2005 taxes was hyped too much, but she has been so good in piecing everything else together when it was easy to get lost in a maze of names.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. agreed. though i also think she sent two tweets, a lot of the hyping were by other media figures

[oberliner]

3. They had a "countdown clock" running on MSNBC during the show before hers

They definitely hyped it.

[bettyellen]

20. To be fair - MSNBC was doing that countdown clocks for speeches also as well as "specials"

They were running - including a stupid show all about Melania. They were getting really heavy handed with the dumbass clock at that point - I had wondered if it was a ratings week or something? Anyway. Meh, she used the time to educate people about the taxes. Which are important.

[LisaM]

10. I think her openings are too repetitive...

and that she doesn't give her audience enough credit for keeping up or connecting the dots as she goes. She could trim them a bit, and maybe give the extra time to her guest.

[forgotmylogin]

21. We're not used to "long form" journalism anymore (n/t)

[LisaM]

26. Maybe not, but that wasn't my point.

For example, a month or so ago, she was doing a piece that tied in with a New Yorker article about a Trump hotel in Baku, and she had the author as a guest. The opening just went in circles. Pictures of the hotel, a video of Ivanka (shown at least twice), maps of the town, repeating the same phrases over and over - all interesting, but repetitive. It was more like listening to radio in the car, where they kept bringing the audience up to speed. After the opening, she had the author of the piece on the show, and it felt (to me) as if that segment was rushed and short of time. I would really have liked to have heard a lot more from him.

Here's a link to the piece, if you're interested (I did read it in the New Yorker later on):
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal

[2naSalit]

52. I see it as a kind of

consideration made with recognition of the vast number of citizens who have little to no clue about basic civics and how our government is supposed to work. I think she takes it upon herself to educate her viewers and that takes some doing to keep a diverse audience from getting lost in all the mire that surrounds many of the complex stories she covers. I get a little anxious about where she's going occasionally but I am willing to overlook my personal information desires to have her educate those who need it, it's only a few minutes after all.

[LisaM]

53. It is almost a quarter of her show.

I think it causes her to rush her guests. I listen to Canadian radio a lot and they have expert guests on and they give them much more courtesy as far as airtime.

I do like Rachel Maddow. I don't want to give a wrong impression. I just think she could give her viewers a little more credit.

[2naSalit]

54. I think that there is too much

"giving viewers credit" for knowing how and why the story is important and why it matters. If you allow assumptions, which seems to be a staple in news these days, then your message can be easily distorted and undermined. I see too much ignorance of the issues and their actual reality because too many assumptions are left unchallenged by the media in my neck o' the woods. So I actually appreciate that at least one journalist is going a little further in her commitment to real journalism. Currently she's in the early stages of setting a standard that I hope spreads like wildfire.

[LisaM]

55. If you get a chance, listen to the CBC.

The other day, I heard a round table discussing the book and Netflix series of "A Handmaid's Tale". Male host, three women guests. I heard him at the beginning and end of the segment, but the discussion platform was given up to the panel.

[2naSalit]

57. Oh, I agree that

international news is far more appropriate and substantive than ours, by a loooong mile. Rachel is the best we've got, and since we are so special, here in 'merika, that a major portion of our citizenry is ignorant and, IMO. require that someone inform them of what is really going on, and not talk down to them so their feelings aren't hurt and so that they actually listen to her. She probably could give more time to her interviewees, but I'm willing to give up a couple moments in trade since she actually makes the effort to educate those who will benefit from it by giving them the few moments. I see it as a worthy trade-off. 'merika is special in that way and if this is part of the remedy for what ails the electorate, then I'm okay with it since those of us who are informed can also go to international news to get what we need for additional info - we're smart, we can handle it.

[IndianaDave]

34. Exactly - Our news format has come to be dominated by sound bites -

but, personally, I enjoy her use of contextualization. She provides real and usually helpful analysis. So what if she sometimes spends extra time in that analysis? She has a right to her own style, and I really enjoy her process. And, incidentally, her show is my favorite for getting in-depth political news on cable, and I'm older than the target group. Rachel is the best!

[PBass]

23. I think she can be repetitive too, but some of the topics are

hard to follow, and also viewers can be distracted, or tuning in late, etc. Not everybody watches TV the same way.

[womanofthehills]

32. I don't watch tv, so I just get her free podcasts

Listening to her often reminds me of listening to a book with all the detail she gives out in the first 20 minutes.

In fact, the other day I was listening to some Ann Patchett essays and I was reminded of Rachel - lots of side info. Last night was definitely a roundabout - trying to figure out - "where is Rachel going?" I like it.

[alwaysinflux]

41. Exactly - I appreciate the repetition

it almost always helps me, given the distractions I sometimes have to deal with.

[LisaM]

51. I would prefer more in-depth conversations with the guests.

I think she spends too much time polishing her intro and then gives short shrift to her guests. I was listening to Canadian radio last weekend and the experts are given much more of a platform than on US shows.

[rickford66]

38. FOX repeats over and over and guess what ?

Their viewers get the message, even thought it's misleading. Rachel is getting the truth pounded into some thick skulls.

[Beartracks]

58. You make a good point. n/t

[randr]

56. She always covers and exposes very important news

I am not sure how many in congress are listening or take any action on her investigations
As for her repetitive manner, and I repeat, it drives me nuts. Not in the way I like some nuts but you know the ones I will tell you about that I love the most other than the ones I don't like which will be included in what am about to tell you of all the nuts I have tasted. Nuts like going crazy or possibly just a little bit off the rocker, not the rocker I sit in, but the other kind of rocker, you know, like going off the deep end of a pool or just not feeling myself some days.

[LexVegas]

4. Men always love to give women advice. For example, reproductive rights. nt

[irisblue]

12. :::SNAP:::

[tblue37]

22. That's not advice; that's orders. nt

[we can do it]

28. Usually its bad advice.

[ismnotwasm]

5. K&R

[Raster]

6. I love Rachel. Everything. She's one of the BEST BROADCAST JOURNALISTS...

...working today. She has her own style. The work she is doing around 45* is, imho, Pulitzer worthy.

Thank you, Rachel!

[calimary]

15. She connects the dots like NO ONE ELSE does, on TV or cable.

Like her a LOT! I feel like every time I watch her, I'm really attending a master class in politics, history, sociology, international relations, and economics.

And note, the story in the link was written in late March, BEFORE Bill O'Reilly's ouster. I wonder how Little Tucker Carlson will fare in his new time slot.

[Raster]

17. Yep, I agree... and I sincerely hope bow-tie boy fails miserably...

...no good wishes toward him at all... nothing but a tool and a fool.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. After John Stewart single-handedly destroyed Crossfire, you'd think they'd have learned that

Tucker Carlson is an empty suit with nothing to offer, but I'm happy to watch them fail again.

[Orsino]

7. Ratings aren't usually a good measure of quality...

...especially considering who she dethroned--but in these times, her actual journalisming seems to be paying off. It's heartening, and I hope that others in the field will have to start listening to her stupid advice for a change.

[Doreen]

8. Rachel rocks!!

[Phoenix61]

11. Yes she does!

[niyad]

9. you KNOW that she is making the boys in the club nervous. imagine actually doing your job!!

[Hekate]

13. This is extremely pleasant news!

Rachel -->

[irisblue]

14. I am very sure Dr Maddow intelligence

causes shrinkage & shriveling among many male pundits.😉

[Raster]

18. there was show recently where one of the guests slipped and said "yes, sir"...

...Rachel gave a little chuckle and commented "I answer to that too"... clever, classy and oh-so comfortable in her own skin. There are very few of the on-air pundits and commentators that I'd like to have a sit-down and a cocktail with... Rachel is the top of my list.

Damned decent human being, brilliant woman and out-and-proud Lesbian.

[annabanana]

24. And

She will make sure it is an excellent cocktail!

[Raster]

35. Oh yell yes! I can hear the *clink* of well-frozen ice cubes ready and waiting...

...to be adorned with elixir of choice.

[MineralMan]

16. Mansplaining, eh?

I'm glad she pays scant attention to such nonsense.

[MFM008]

19. and she ignore them

and goes on her merry way.

[lostnfound]

25. If they aren't Rhodes scholars, they ought to STFU. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

27. Thank you, Lioness

Her coverage of all things related to the sociopath in our WH has been on target. I watch her show when I can.

She also did a great job detailing the Koch Brothers and all the organizations they own or support, including CATO. This was some time ago.

I am hoping she covers the rump's announcement on reviewing the status of Federal lands for future business explotation. Coal and other mining, cutting down all the forests, chemical pollution. Rachel knows where the Koch Bros. have invested in these profit centers, like Georgia Pacific and the production of chemical formaldyhide

[redstatebluegirl]

29. She is smarter than most of the guys trying to mansplain to her :-). I love a smart

woman who doesn't take their crap. She is fabulous! The ratings are great so this is about being jealous.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. YES!

[uponit7771]

36. +1

[IronLionZion]

31. Congrats Rachel!

And yay for ignoring stupid advice.

[BrooklynTech]

37. Rachel is an outstanding journalist...

...when she wants to be. Prior to the primaries, I never missed her show. But she was SO in-the-tank for one candidate (all of MSNBC was, not singling her out, except to the extent I thought she was special and above that kind of crap) that I stopped watching her, and I've never returned.

It's heartening to hear she's returned to form and fighting the good fight. I hope she's giving them hell, and I applaud her efforts. But I'll never get the bad taste of her primary "coverage" out of my mouth, and I doubt I'll ever watch her (or tune in to MSNBC) again.

[JudyM]

39. Felt the same way. I check her out once in a while now though it's not with the same enthusiasm.

Or trust in her objectivity.

Welcome to DU, BrooklynTech!

[BrooklynTech]

40. Thanks, Judy :)

[Justice]

44. sad to hijack this OP. Let's move forward

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. She was very pro sanders and interviews him multiple times

Till he dismissed abortion as an unimportant issue at which point her reporting on him changed

[melman]

42. Only males of course

No women have ever criticized her.

[Roy Rolling]

43. I love Rachel Maddow and never miss a show

But to single out "male pundits" and praise Maddow for not listening to their "stupid advice" is troublesome on so many levels. Rachel is an excellent journalist and example for all, and shouldn't recklessly add "anti-male crusader" to her repertoire. It would be a PR disaster and contrary to her true views.

[Cha]

45. yeah, they look like idiots whining from the sidelines.

[SHRED]

46. She is driving those over at The Intercept...

...batshit.
A few of them anyway.

[Mike Nelson]

47. Yay, and...

...the critiques about Rachel I read above are all true, but that's the way it works, now. her report today about Jared's shady dealing reaches those who did not read the NYT article. I got it in an email, but many people do not and would not read a long article in the newspaper or anywhere. And, the repeating gets people who don't pay attention to news anymore... they do homework or text while watching Rachel. And, the crass hyping gets viewers... none of this is my preference, but you have to play in the field you're given; that's what she does.

[JCanete]

48. to be fair, I'm pretty sure a lot of that advice has been coming in even with knowledge of the

ratings, and that some of the criticism had nothing to do with whether she should take a different approach to getting ratings, but in fact whether or not this has been a ratings calculation. There are reasons to disagree with that criticism, but it shouldn't be made to be about something it isn't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. Lol ok.

[JCanete]

59. I'm saying "I'm glad she didn't listen because look at her ratings" has nothing to do with the point

of the criticism, nor does it offer justification in and of itself of Maddow's coverage.

For my part, I hope we aren't beating the drum too hard without utter confidence that there is a crime here. I hope that where there is smoke there is fire and that we can show it. Chomsky, just as one example who was recently being quoted as a voice of reason in the liberal wilderness regarding voting for Clinton, is among those who think we are making fools of ourselves.

I'm currently more in the middle. If we can damage the GOP with this, and better, if we can link Trump and his campaign directly to collusion with Russia, that is a win. Do I think Russia had any power to flip our election, particularly with fake news? No, no I do not. When somebody covers them hacking our machines...not "our elections" which is not actually talking about the machines at all, then I will absolutely change my tune.

[ehrnst]

50. 'splainers gonna 'splain... (nt)