Best show this morning is Joy Reid. Covers it ALL!

[glennward]

She will probably be gone in a month.

[brucefan]

1. I agree!

On both points.

[uponit7771]

2. Why would she be gone? tia

[DURHAM D]

3. She is smarter than Chuck Toad and

the other decisions makers.

Where is Melissa Harris Perry? Alex Wagner? Same answer.

Oh... and then there is the female POC issue.

[emulatorloo]

4. Bet you a dollar you're wrong about Joy being fired.

IMHO this MSNBC = Fox fad that is so popular these days is a big exaggeration. I see some attempts by the network to counter charges of bias. (IMHO misguided)

Fwiw, Daytime news coverage on the network has always swung a bit right. Andrea Mitchell. They used to have Imus in The Morning in the olden days, that was replaced by Morning Joe.

Despite what you read here, Maddow, Hayes, O'Donnell are not 'sell out corporate whores.' Reid is is in that same tradition.

[DURHAM D]

6. Did you watch MSNBC this past week?

Well... actually they were not watchable. Tweety was off his meds, Maddow had a nervous breakdown over Bill's speech, Toad was the official spokesperson for the RNC, Lawrence ticked up his snotty level and Chris could not get a word in edgewise. Same with Joy but she kept trying. Meanwhile, every segment started with a Jill Stein supporter who was a "Democratic" delegate and apparently there were few Clinton supporters or Bernie supporters in attendance.

In short, Joy was insubordinate to the Power Personalities. They can't have that.

[romana]

7. Painful

Watching Reid, as the only woman at the table, try to talk while Matthews and the other men ignored her or talked over her was horrible and painful to watch.

[emulatorloo]

8. Yes, I did watch MSNBC this week. I have a different take on it than you do.

- Maddow on Bill Clinton:

Most every panelist pushed back on her bizarre interpretation, including Steve Schmidt. Exception was unrepentant Bushbot Nicolle Wallace, who attempted to exploit Maddow's weirdness. I found Rachel's reaction to be weird, uncharacteristic of her usual thoughtful analysis, but I am not gonna throw her under the bus for one uncharacteristic statement vs the body of her work.

- O'Donnell 'snotty level':

I will say that O'Donnell has relentlessly pushed back on Trump since the day Trump announced. I very much enjoyed his fact checking of Trump's convention speech.

As to Hayes, he said plenty on Matthew's panels that were on after each nights convention coverage. Same when he held the anchor desk now and again during daytime.

- interviews with Bernie or Bust delegates:

This is what I saw. Seems some producer had the idea that they would interview three Sanders delegates after Bernie's speech at the start of the convention, and then re-interview them at the end. With the idea that they would be able to show a transformation from their initial position to a conversion to supporting HRC at the end.

So they wanted to tell a conversion story. The best laid plans of mice and men.

I'd say the majority of Sanders delegates did get on board w HRC. Witness how few Bernie or Bust neon green t-shirts there were at the end.

IMHO they made a mistake choosing those three. But if anything those three came of as ill-informed about Bernie!

And you may have noticed there was no end of convention follow-up.

I will point to another interview. Forget the name of the male reporter w the glasses. Apparently the majority of delegates were enthusiastically going wild over HRC's acceptance speech. He interviewed one of the sanders delegates, but as soon as she started into Buster rhetoric he cut the interview short.

I think it is also incorrect to say that they did not interview HRC or Sanders delgates (as opposed to the stein/Buster delgates. I saw many great interviews w both HRC delegates and Sanders delegates who where very fired up and ready to go to elect a Democratic President.

- Chuck Todd as 'official spokesperson of RNC'

I can't stand Chuck Todd. That being said Todd gave a lot of positive feedback on many of the speeches. He compared and contrasted Dem convention and GOP convention and the comparisons were accurate. Goper's negative and incoherent. Dems positive and coherent.

Will also note his facial expressions re Rachel's odd reactions to Bill's speech. Face said 'I think this is nuts.' Then he calmly refuted her.

- Chris Matthews 'off his meds'

Gave tons of airtime and constant praise to Joy Reid during his panels.

Was like a kid on Christmas Day when reporting from the convention floor. He's a Tip O'Neill democrat. He's a JFK idealist, his service in the Peace Corp is s testiment to that. He's a political junkie like you and me. He had some problems with Bill Clinton during his admin. Trust me, he's not the only Democrat who did. He also understands that Hillary is not Bill, and has heaped plenty of praise on her.

He's been angry at Trump ever since Trump became birther in chief. He found any attempt to paint Obama as 'alien' as 'the other' and his presidency as 'illegitament'.

Yes he was erratic sometimes. I think there is some truth in the notion that he was 'off his meds' in a way.

He is a type II diabetic. I am a type II diabetic.

The schedule all of these personalities was brutal. His panel discussion show started at 2 AM.

I will tell you that I have mood swings if my sugars are low or high. I will tell you if my sugars are too low, I've become incoherent. I will tell you that my sugars swing wildly if I am overworked, overstressed, lacking adequate sleep. I will tell you that if I am on a deadline or away from home at an intense conference it can be very very difficult to eat right and care for my health.

- Brian Williams

You didn't mention Williams but I am gonna share my opinion of him.

He's harmless. He loves the sound of his own voice, and continuously bloviates about nothing. I've always thought he was empty headed, he continues to reinforce my opinion.

We know why he's on MSNBC. Face saving measure by NBC.

In my humble opinion, convention coverage and election coverage was much much better when Matthews and Maddow co-anchored. Those two had excellent chemistry and coverage was much more exciting. Williams in my mind contributes nothing.

---------------

Now here is my main complaint about MSNBC coverage.

This comes back to my initial statement about the misguided attempt to counter charges of bias.

Too damn many Republican commentators.

Schmidt and Michael Steele do contribute much to the discussion. They are rational, they are connected to reality. Yes they spin for GOP occasionally, but both of them have what I call a 'truth mode' where they can praise Dems and where they can be frank about the disasterous nature of the GOP.

Wallace is an unrepentant Bush/Palin flack. She has no substance to her. Same with Hewett. IMHO they need to go.

I will note that Schmidt pushes back on Wallace's bullshit when she goes too far.

----------------

Thanks for hearing me out. That's my take on MSNBC, and of course YMMV.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Why I turned off MSNBC coverage of the convention...

The commentators only allowed the viewers to see the speeches that MSNBC decided were important enough to watch. They more often bloviated about their own opinions, while speakers were literally on the floor speaking. This is partially how they controlled the message that viewers saw of our convention. Each personality on its own, may have been acceptable, but as a group, it lent for unacceptable coverage, IMO!

[emulatorloo]

11. Totally get that. Spent a fair amt of my time on C-SPAN for that reason.

Even posted a thread about it.

People who watched any of the networks exclusively missed some great speeches because of that kind of gate keeping.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Me too!

The "news" channels would even barely allow viewers to watch the entertainers peforming! And spent a great deal of time focused on the dissent of the few, while constantly harping on Hillary negative likeability numbers over and over again! I picked on that in my 10 minutes each day trying to give them a chance to do straight reporting, which never happened! It was horrid!

[emulatorloo]

15. Yep

MSNBC is def not immune to the false "horserace" framing that seems to affect all ad-supported news outlets political coverage.

[DLCWIdem]

19. yeah to put it nicely they talked overbits of speech somuch was missed

[workinclasszero]

10. I tuned out after Rachel's ridiculous meltdown

over Bill's great speech and I haven't been back since.

[emulatorloo]

12. she's not having ridiculous meltdowns now.

I give her a break. One bizarre meltdown does not negate the years of great analysis.

[Hortensis]

16. Agree. But IMO you're vastly underestimating

the widespread and chronic over years enmity to HRC on MSNBC shows. This last week may have been better, but the day of the FBI director's statement I scanned every show to see how they handled it, and coverage was almost entirely egregiously negative and dishonest. I even pulled up transcripts of the Comey's statement to confirm twists and distortions so bad they could only be considered lies, and even some flat-out lies.

Btw, I used to watch Imus because he came on before or after something I wanted to see, don't remember, Nightline? He was an amaziingly evenhanded basher, who cleverly used his "I just don't know..., seems to me...." (I'm just a semifried-brain country hick) schtick to get good honest information and explanations out to viewers of his show. Historian Doris Goodwin was on often. Conservative hick, my ass.

Regular viewers knew he bashed no one more badly than himself, and in all the time I watched I never felt malice and believe there never was any. Ever. That's why viewers weren't offended, not because he was a Rush drawing dittohead bigots to a nastiness they loved. This had to be a very different audience. His final "woolly-headed" or whatever it was, came a few weeks after he survived another bash that would have been absolutely over the line to me IF anyone else had said it.

Later I turned him on a couple of times on that ag station he showed up on to see how he was doing, and it was a crappy forced-into-a-mold show compared to one that probably was doing some real good.

[emulatorloo]

18. Pretty sensitive to pointless Clinton enmity, so I totally get what you are saying

Noted that about Matthews. Andrea Mitchell can barely hide her dislike of HRC and her sadness when something good happens in campaign. Agree on Comey day. They spoke before they researched. Definitely imperfect. They get things wrong. My feeling is they get more things right than they get wrong. Also correct things that they get wrong. I don't see much of that on the other news networks.

[Hortensis]

21. I'd like to believe it, Emulatorloo, but I watched them

cleverly state innocence to sound guilty and ignore proof of innocence to focus on the former. I noted the words, the twists of meaning. They weren't mistakes, and unlike them I had no professional analysts taking notes for me. Nor was my tuning in strictly to evaluate THEIR coverage a coincidence; I'd been there before.

Yes, there are always honest points made, even for Hillary, just like Fox at least sufficient to maintain sufficient credibility among the credible. And, of course, in general the subject matters. If they are as dishonest on another topic as Hillary Clinton I just haven't been watching carefully enough to be aware of it. No matter what they might have been on their own, as a group they're mean, small unworthy employees who disgrace journalism, perhaps please their bosses, but it mostly seems like a nasty aging groupthink that most are involved in.

Your comment on Mitchell made me smile, though, because it's so right on. She may have to guard her tongue, but she can't be bothered to pretend when Hillary does well. I actually wondered if she could be ill when she was covering the convention, she was even "lower" than after Hillary won the NH primary in 2008, or if she was just overcome with depression about Hillary's success in spite of the DC insider crowd. She didn't end up in the hospital, so likely it was just a classless, self-involved funk about having failed again, and no doubt about the prospect of DC revolving around the Clintons and their people again.

[DLCWIdem]

22. My take on MSNBC

Last edited Sat Jul 30, 2016, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I kind of like Chris Matthews. Yes, he bloviates a little, he is a little too enamored of his own opinion. However, as you said earlier he is an old school Democrat and he does have some good insight. He was very pro Obama and he has does some problems with Bill. But IMO he likes Hillary more and he does become giddy or excited at conventions.

Lest we forget, it was CM who first got Trump to meltdown about abortion with his attack dog style. That was an amazing take down and actually started Trumps slide with women. Democrats would not have half the fodder we have on Trump if not for CM.

Rachel is usually even handed with HRC. I didn't watch her during the Comey stuff but when the Inspector Generals report came out she took the time to show how antiquated the state department system was. IDK why she melted down over Bill's speech except that maybe she was thinking about a boss talking about a women in a work setting as girl or something. She may not have realized that Bill's job was to sell Hillary as warm and caring and to see their relationship in a personal setting, not to sell her qualifications, because Hillary is seen as cold and calculating Some thing that may not be necessary if the candidate was a man. It's annoying but a male candidate wouldn't have to prove he had a heart. Maybe that is why RM freaked out, she went overly feminist.

LOD liked Sanders so hes been slow to coming around to HRC, and he doesn't like Bill. But as you posted he has constantly and snidely pointed out the tRumps flaws.

Chuck Todd, IDK about. I think he has been trying to be more evenhanded because a couple of months ago Obama confronted him on tRump and covering his falsehoods. But he has a Sunday show on regular t.v. that has been a institution and so he has to show that he is evenhanded.

I Don't get to watch Andrea Mitchell as I work during daytime. Joy Reid is the best as the OP states.

[emulatorloo]

23. Thanks for the post. We are in agreement.

Nobody dismantles a GOP'er like Matthews. Gets them to tie themselves knots, then pins them down on their canned talking points and all hell breaks loose. Agreed that he likes HRC.

Great take on Rachel's reaction. Also I give her a break. I don't remember exact time but it had to be around 1:30 or 2:00 am!

I missed Obama pushing back on Todd! Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy, lol. IMHO Todd was great when his job was crunching poll numbers and election results on MSNBC. He's way in over his head at Meet The Press.

Steve Kornaki (sp?) who crunches numbers now is very good at doing Chuck's old job However they gave him the desk a couple times, also was way in over his head.

[DLCWIdem]

24. well IMO he does .need seasoning (training) but he's great at the numbers.

Todd is trying to look like Russert and be unbiased. You might not have liked Russert but he could pin any politician down. He did pin down Cheney about a claim that Iraq eas linked to Alqueda. Believe it or not Russert loved Oberman when he was there he told the brass to lay off him when Keith was having trouble. That is why KO left after Russert died.

[Lil Missy]

5. It's all about $$$$$

[renate]

13. I've seen on this thread that Rachel had a "meltdown" or a "nervous breakdown"

... over Bill's speech.

No, she didn't; she simply thought it too Bill-centric for a speech that should have been about Hillary's own independent accomplishments. I don't understand the purpose of hyperbole like "meltdown." Anyone who didn't see her would imagine her flipping out on live TV, when in fact she simply had a point of view that the others on the panel didn't agree with.

[emulatorloo]

17. Not exactly, she said the first part of the speech was "weird and creepy"

She claimed Bill only talked in terms of HRC just being his wife, when actually he spoke a lot about her her independent political activism and engagement.

Yes he mentioned his political career, but the focus was on HRC's work on making people's lives better. It was not about his acheivements it was indeed about her achievements.

She was totally off the mark with those statements IMHO. But I give here a break while others seem to believe this was some kind of defining moment for Rachel rather that an outlier moment.

[oberliner]

20. She said she found the opening of his speech "shocking and weird"

And she went on about how "controversial" she thought it was for him to use the term "girl".