MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Has Huge Night, Hitting Fox-Like Ratings, Even Beating Glenn Beck

[jefferson_dem]

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Has Huge Night, Hitting Fox-Like Ratings, Even Beating Glenn Beck

» 1 commentby Mark Joyella | 6:17 pm, March 4th, 2011

Cable news ratings, March 3, 2011:

•MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, without the benefit of a buzz-booster like Charlie Sheen, quietly jumped to the elite levels of cable news ratings, outperforming everyone at CNN and MSNBC, and even beating Fox’s Glenn Beck. Maddow hit 452,000 viewers 25-54, easily dominating CNN’s Piers Morgan, who had 208,000. Maddow, who was without any Charlie Sheen-like celebrity guest, even came close to Fox’s Sean Hannity, who won the time period with 561,000.

•CNN’s John King had a tough night Thursday, failing to break 100,000 viewers 25-54, a cutoff that’s considered important for the long-term survival of a program in cable news. John King, USA was close, with 96,000 viewers, but was swamped by HLN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell with 134,000, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who had 269,000, and Fox’s timeslot winner Shepard Smith, with 487,000.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-has-huge-night-hitting-fox-like-ratings-even-beating-glenn-beck/

[flamingdem]

1. grrreat! nt

[Modern_Matthew]

2. And the pendulum swings a little more our way. nt

[johnnie]

3. "Even Beating Glenn Beck"

What a sad commentary on the American viewers that beating a goof like Beck is considered a milestone. :(

[pinboy3niner]

16. Props to Rachel--she just sent Beck to ratings BOAT JAIL!

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

53. Ain't that the fucking truth. nt

[eppur_se_muova]

60. I don't know -- I think a Glenn Beck beating video would go viral.

Oh, you're speaking figuratively. Never mind.

[valerief]

105. Ha! nt

[GoddessOfGuinness]

128. My precise thought...

Seems like that should be a no-brainer.

[Taverner]

132. Of course half of the folks watching Beck are just seeing how batshit insane he is

Same goes for Alex Jones, Art Bell, David Icke and - wait, didn't Beck steal his schtick from Jones, Icke and Bell?

[sasha031]

4. do they include the people who stream the shows

[Booster]

5. Good news. Rock on, Rachel.

[virgogal]

6. I'm no TV news regular but it looks like Fox is still way ahead.

[Gin]

8. how do they know how many people are watching which show?

[virgogal]

12. They extrapolate the totals from the sampling that they monitor.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Ratings journals and same-day DVR viewings. nt

[Dappleganger]

11. Fox is way ahead because most older, stupid people prefer to have their news spoonfed to them

from the tv, while younger people prefer to get most of their news from the internet from multiple sources. So just because the bubbas gather in one spot doesn't make them more reliable, they just tend to congregate to one mud hole in particular.

[virgogal]

13. Thanks(I think). I'm old. :-)

[Dappleganger]

39. I'm sorry, so am I.

But the demographic who watch Beck really are older. Folks like us tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Little Star]

38. There are plenty of young stupid FOX watchers. Can we please

stop with the ageism?

[Dappleganger]

40. Not trying to do that...

but Beck's audience does tend to have an much older demographic.

[quakerboy]

117. Apparently people not 25-54 just watch more TV.

by proportion they are 79% of Blecks viewers, by the numbers in the article, vs about 75% for Tweety who shares his time slop

72% for Hannity vs 70% for Rachel Maddow.

That does not seem to be a huge jump to me, 2-4%.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of numbers within the 25-54. That's a pretty big range, and I would also have guessed that there are proportionally more 50 year old's watching fox and proportionally more 30 year old's watching MSNBC. But who knows for sure, especially given that the other numbers do not seem that far off.

[Populist_Prole]

46. Gotta say you're right

I notice it too amongst my older friends and relatives ( and I'm not exactly a whippersnapper myself ) If they're on the internet at all it's AOL dial-up and sending idiotic e-mail forwards.

Classic TV media is getting less relevant amongst all but luddites. Stands to reason the demographic you speak of will be heavily weighted toward the right.

[Irishonly]

99. You are right

My husband and I are no spring chickens and we get our news from the internet, would rather walk through a bed of flaming nails than watch Faux and won't miss Rachel or Democracy Now. We come here to find people more like us. LOL

[tsuki]

59. This is the 25-54 group. nt

[Horse with no Name]

80. Not to mention it is on the lower tier of DirectTV

while you have to pay more for a package that includes MSNBC.

MSNBC used to be Channel 22 on my cable. It was put back to channel 60 in with fluffy channels while faux and CNN stayed in the 20's.

[Dappleganger]

102. That's always pissed me off...

although we are able to get MSNBC, LinkTV and FSTV on the very budget "Select Classic" package (it's not listed but only 40$ a month). No Current TV but we get that via Roku box. The cable and satellite companies automatically ASSume that everyone wants Fox, especially poorer people.

[Horse with no Name]

109. I just bought me a Roku box.

I'm excited.

[julian09]

111. They should break down rating for FOX by how many are on the

lower tier package; which is not available to MSNBC neither on Direct or Dish satellite TV; that is about 50 million subscribers that are not available to MSNBC on the basic tier package. Msnbc should try to get in the lower tier group. However the lower tier group is probably not the affluent group, advertisers want, but to the broadcasters bottom line, viewers are paramount to revenue.

[Duck]

91. Faux by the spoonful

To be fair, their viewers are used to artificial ingredients. Faux News includes artificial opinion, artificial facts, artificial stories and artificial commentators.

No real substance to upset their conditioned digestion.

[rurallib]

125. Fox is way ahead because they are on most cable & satellite basic systems

and MSNBC is usually an expensive add on.
With DISH you have to buy the 2nd or 3rd tier before you get MSNBC.
Ergo MSNBC is available on a lot less TVs.
So on a % of potential viewers watching MSNBC is kicking their ass.

[Bandit]

19. Spongebob Squarepants gets ten times the viewers than any show on Fox News

Just a little perspective....:shrug:

[virgogal]

23. I can believe it. My grandchildren loved it when they were young.

Good info to have if I ever get in a Fox News "discussion".

[eppur_se_muova]

63. Well, Spongebob is more rooted in reality, so that's justified. nt

[Randypiper]

103. keep in mind

MSNBC is on a high more expensive tier on many cable systems, so she's got a big handicap.

[speltwon]

7. She deserves it. I contrast her with Olberman

Because from the get go, I thought he was clownish and so mockable it was ridiculous. I could never understand the love that guy got. Rachel is the real deal - SO smart, well spoken, and has a great interview technique. She's good. I know rightwingers who watch her show, NOT because they want to watch an Olberman'esque trainwreck of rants, etc. but because she's THAT good.

She is what we need.

[musiclawyer]

33. Keith was the franchise for a long time

for good reasons. You may not like his style, but he was the one and only cable show personality who spoke truth to power during the dark Bush years. The dude had brass balls to have opined candidly and without fear, not knowing how GE/NBC would react. His special comments in the early days were spot on and a beacon of light at midnight. Perhaps there were too many comments near the end. But he brought in Rachel, O'Donnell, Chris Hayes, etc. He gave the mic to lefties normally shunned by big media such as Katrina V.D. of the Nation. He made MSNBC a player. He will do the same for Current. And he is on the progressive side of the issue most of the time. So denigrate Keith O in mixed company at your own peril. He has lots of love and millions like his style just fine.

[speltwon]

35. That's fine

I'll do it. I love Stewart but I saw the massive hate he got here for a while for some (imo) pretty silly reasons. And he's a comedian, not a commentator like Olberman/Rachel are.

Olberman DID bring Rachel on, but iirc Rachel got her start and pretty fair exposure from rightwing commentators, actually. Regardless, I don't think the clownishness was appealing on his part. But we can agree to disagree. I think people like Rachel are much more effective at spreading the word. They are also imo far more likely to convert people. I don't see anybody watching Keith and doing that. He's not convincing, he's just strident. Rachel convinces.

[Enthusiast]

54. Stewart was clueless

on the false equivalency issue. I was a real fan until then. Our side was factual while the right wing side was pure fabrication -he could not see this at all. Or, he claimed he didn't see the difference. Imho this is unforgivable.

[JHB]

62. Any port in a storm syndrome...

The reason Stewart was so disappointing on that (or KO for his "out there" moments) is because there's so damn few in these high-visibility, high-accessibility spots. If there were a dozen or more like them or with a range of views, then they'd be part of a spectrum and any failings of an individual would be compensated by others.

Instead there's only those few, a couple of relatively sheltered atolls in a raging sea, so when they drop the ball on something it's all the more noticeable.

[speltwon]

123. I thought it was forgivable and it was a matter of opinion

as to what extent there were commonalities and differences. I think our side is more frequently factual, but there are clearly errors and lies on both sides. What's more similar is the rhetoric used by both sides. This has been true throughout the entirety of recorded history and no ideological group, or for that matter any group is entirely factual, evenhanded and unbiased when discussing anything. It's not possible to be so, nor is it a practical reality. I think the fact that he so clearly struck a nerve with so many people actually spoke to the underlying veracity of some of what he was saying. It made people uncomfortable for that reason, imo. Regardless, Stewart is a comedian. I judge him differently than I judge a person who is supposed to be reporting news, albeit on a commentary show. Keith does not have a live audience that is expected to crack up every other phrase.

[Enthusiast]

138. But the rhetoric isn't similar.

And that is the point. Our side doesn't promote violence and our side doesn't lie. If you don't know this you are from the other side. I can think of no other explanation unless it is willful ignorance.

[whathehell]

65. I always saw Keith and Rachel as complementary to each other..

sort of like "bookends", with neither being able to be replace the other.

I see you haven't been here very long...It might surprise you to learn that huge numbers of people

here adore Keith, finding him witty,ironic and fun.

[speltwon]

124. It doesn't surprise me at all. It was clear in my OP that I recognized it to be so

I thought. That was my point - that many people lavished praise on him, but I think he's a clown. If there is some sort of rule here that one must respect him, sorry, I don't.

[whathehell]

127. So why do you keep repeating yourself?

No one is stifling your opinion,

I believe this is about the third time you've

called him a "clown"....Couldn't you at

least "vary" things a little, or even show a

a bit of intellectual "talent" by explaining your negative perceptions

rather than mindlessly repeat the same term?

There are no "rules" here regarding opinions, but common sense

which seems as if it might be escaping you at the moment,

might make you wonder why, at this point in time

you need/want to keep alienating so many here.

Are you just in need of a attention?

[speltwon]

129. Wow. I'm seeing some pot/kettle'ism here.

I merely expressed an opinion and only REPEATED it because I was (how do I put this delicately. I would not say "attacked"... maybe "opposed" ) challenged because of my opinion. For pete's sake. He's one man. He's not a secular saint, and among other things the cult of personality surrounding him (which kind of isn't HIS fault) is something at least as annoying as his (insert another word for "clownish") persona. Otoh, I wasn't a big fan when he was a sportscaster either. I will give him credit for some relatively encyclopedic sports knowledge, though.

[whathehell]

130. Wow. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you would see it that way...

and do forget the "delicacy". we're all quite used to the "indelicate".

I'm sure you felt, and perhaps continue to feel "attacked"

even though you were, in fact, "challenged"..

Having confirmed that observation, someone should probably tell you that you can expect

to be regularly "challenged" by the opinions of others here

if and when their opinions run counter to yours.

Again, we know you're opinion...Most, it seems, don't share it.

Repeating yourself endlessly will not make them do so.

Have a nice day.:hi:

[speltwon]

131. I don't feel attacked. That's my point, again...

which seems to get lost or misconstrued. I need to talk to Paul Simon about that. Moreso, I find the Keith worship amusing. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm merely expressing my opinion because it makes me feel warm... like peeing in a wetsuit.

[whathehell]

137. Of course you do...

and you're now trying to cover it with affected condescension.

But keep pissing yourself, dear...That's an image we can all find amusing.:P

[demwing]

112. You toss out that word "clownishness"

as if were an established fact, not just your opinion.

[speltwon]

122. considering that it's by it's very nature a word that represents subjective opinion

and in no way could be considered a "fact" in that sense, I don't need to qualify it. It's obvious.

For example, no libel or slander suit could ever be successful based on one person referring to another as clownish. You can't libel somebody by expressing your opinion. If I said Keith was a convicted felon, that otoh would be a statement of fact. It is either true or it isn't.

Similarly, if I say somebody is stupid, ugly, funny, bothersome, lovely, etc. I am expressing opinion, and I am not going to waste time qualifying it with "I am merely stating my opinion. I am not saying this is objective truth" because only somebody looking for an argument, or somebody wholly unfamiliar with language would think I was talking about established fact.

[demwing]

134. "I am expressing opinion, and I am not going to waste time qualifying it "

Thanks for clarifying that

[speltwon]

135. qualifying it AS opinion and not as objective truth

was the point, and again you know that damn well if you read what I wrote.

[Lucinda]

49. Agreed.

I like Stewart too.

If there is an online option, I will check KO out when his new show airs...but I wasn't a fan. Maybe the tone will be different.

[Faygo Kid]

69. Keith was "clownish?" He was - is - passionate. And speaks truth to power.

I love Rachel. I see no need to try to advance her by tearing down Keith Olbermann, who was often the only voice in the wilderness on television for a very long time about the Bush Administration.

I will refrain from further comment because the more I consider the rank injustice of your comment, the angrier I get.

[Plucketeer]

74. I love them both

In fact, I like ALL the regulars at MSNBC (even tho Keith's no longer among them), save for Chris Matthews. Chris is SO rude to guests or others of MSNBC. He inerrupts and never lets anyone answer the questions he asks of them. I try to avoid his show because I find myself saying: "God damn man - shut up and let them get a word in!"

[PatSeg]

101. Same here

He must drive his guests crazy. After all these years on TV, he doesn't know how to ask a question and wait for an answer. I found the title of his closing segment amusing, "Let Me Finish", as I figure that is what a lot of his guests are thinking most of the time.

[lark]

75. I love both Olberman and Maddow

Olberman is passionate and gets to the emotional heart of the issue, Maddow is more cerebral and nice - both are very much needed. I can't wait for Olberman to be on Current TV and see what he does there.

[whathehell]

96. +100

I agree with your assessments of their styles, I would only add that

I find Olbermann hugely entertaining and I miss his great sense of humor.

Props to both for bringing their different, complimentary styles to progressive television

[valerief]

106. +1000

[Liberal_Dog]

9. Hooray For Rachel!! nt

[Snoutport]

10. I just turned to msnbc for the first time

OK...your posting just made me turn on msnbc to see what I've been missing. I have CNN on all the time and can't believe how little news and how pro-business and subtly conservative it is.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Hi Snoutport!

Cenk was just on MSNBC so I guess that's who you saw. He's decent but a bit too loud-mouthy for my tastes. I encourage you to tune into the Rachel Maddow Show (9 pm) when you get a chance. She's their ace ... never fails to educate.

Oh, welcome to DU!

[bigwillq]

22. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Snoutport]

42. Thanks!

She's on now here on the west coast. My partner, who usually has no political comment keeps agreeing with her. Lol...she might have made two converts tonight!

[krkaufman]

86. If you miss her show ...

... you can watch clips online, or download the whole thing for viewing, at: http://podcasts.msnbc.com

[tsuki]

64. I agree with Secretary Clinton. We are losing the information wars.

I turn on local news in the morning, then switch to Al-Jazeera. I am very interested in North Africa, but so far I have seen two news special each on North Korea and China, a special on the 6th of April, a round table on Empire with Amy Goodman and Carl Bernstein, several David Frost shows, world news including Madison, WI and what is happening in Kathmandu. 600 reporters worldwide, few multimillionaire celebrities with views.

Thanks to the DU'ers who taught me how to stream ALJ to my TV.

[PatSeg]

95. I gave up on CNN a long time ago

and I used to watch them all the time. CNN has started to look like a parody of cable news, whereas I can find more serious reporting on MSNBC as a rule (they have their moments too however). They recently added Martin Bashir to their lineup and I'm really enjoying his show. Now if they could just get rid of Contessa Brewer, that would be a real improvement.

Welcome to DU!

[valerief]

108. Subtly conservative? It's sledgehammer conservative in my mind.

CNN is the channel that brought us the Rapture Index Report just a few short years ago.

[SoCalDem]

14. Rachel is the one who deserves a 3-hour bloc of time

at a time of her choosing:)

[leftstreet]

15. Whoa. So these pundits are getting less than 600k viewers?

:wow:

[pacalo]

18. Way to go, Rachel! I'm proud to be in that number!

:toast:

[Nancy Waterman]

20. She is the only one I regularly watch now

with a few bits here and there of the others, and a bit more of Chris Matthews than the rest.
But only Rachel is not-to-be-missed, for me.

[calimary]

21. So cool! Keep going, Rachel!

Soon enough, somebody will get the idea that there should be more shows like yours.

[liberalmuse]

24. Wonderful! Love her.

She's one of the few intelligent, well thought out, informative voices of reason left on tv these days.

[whathehell]

98. She's a national treasure. n/t

[PufPuf23]

25. Maddow is the most well reasoned and polite voice on cable TV.

Props to Rachel. I hope she is real and stands and gains ground in the future.

[pintobean]

26. 25-54 numbers matter to advertisers

55 and up really matter to us, because they vote in greater numbers. The older people are watching faux.

[oldhippydude]

45. please don't kid yourself..

there are plenty of progressive seniors out there... admittedly in the minority of our demographic, but like our conservative brethren we get to the polls..im glad about the good news in the "key demographic".. but viewers are not voters

[ProudProgressiveNow]

48. 57 and liberal

as hell///// lol

[lark]

76. I'm 58 and about as far left as they get in this country

Hi to a fellow progressive

[TicketyBoo]

81. Politicians expect

the Baby Boomers who marched for civil rights, protested the war in Vietnam, burned their draft cards and their bras, to all of a sudden turn conservative?

Not any time soon.

[kurtzapril4]

97. But they did.

And it didn't happen all of a sudden, either.

[TicketyBoo]

120. There are still

a bunch of old hippies right here on this site.

Me? I got more liberal as the years went by and I saw what conservatives were doing to this country.

[Faygo Kid]

94. 59 here and me, too.

I have a long memory. That's why I'm a progressive (take that, Beck).

[juajen]

116. 69 and bleeding heart liberal always. NT

[Matariki]

27. With a little luck, she'll set the new standard for real news.

[glinda]

28. Carry on Rachel! Shout it loud!

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Aren't they on at different times?

:shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

32. Yes.

He's on at 5:00 pm. She's on at 9:00 pm. Still, a remarkable turn.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. Not diminishing her increasing sucess by any way, but this isn't exactly apples to apples. nt

[Politicalboi]

30. And MSNBC isn't

Playing in Sam's Clubs or any other right leaning establishment.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. But I don't think that they keep Nielsen books at Sam's Club

:shrug:

[Enthusiast]

55. This is a key factor many forget.

It certainly changes the ratings -big time.

[Left coast liberal]

37. She is so rock solid and thank god no C. Sheen. Enough already!

[fishwax]

41. way to go, Rachel!

:kick:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donheld]

44. I hope like hell this continues for a long long time.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

47. Super cool! nt

[SleeplessinSoCal]

50. Now that Comcast owns NBC, does that mean they'll allow MSNBC in more markets?

[paulkienitz]

51. I had no idea the big name cable pundits had such small nightly audiences

[Enthusiast]

52. I haven't watched since Keith left.

I love Rachel but I hate MSNBC (Comcast). The Youtube clips of Rachel I have watched recently have been excellent. I sometimes wonder how many hetero guys wish she would change sides. :cry:

[TicketyBoo]

68. You do know

that her show is available via video podcast? I'm subscribed, and her podcast downloads to me the day after the show airs. Plus, no commercials.

I can't agree with anyone who doesn't like Keith Olbermann. He got the evening lineup off to a rip-roaring start, and I miss him. I fear that the new show will suffer from the loss of people with MSNBC consulting contracts. (Like Gene Robinson, Howard Fineman, Jonathan Alter, Clarence Page, Chris Hayes, etc.) We'll likely see David Shuster again, though.

[Enthusiast]

107. Thanks for the info, friend. nt

[TicketyBoo]

119. You're welcome. n/t

[paulkienitz]

140. Keith is a loss, but Rachel is the better host

because she's more civil.

[TicketyBoo]

141. I think it's pretty much

a tossup.

Keith makes me laugh while I'm thinking; Rachel makes me think, and then smile.

Without Keith there would have been no Rachel on MSNBC.

There is a need for both of them.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

136. I'm a straight female.

If I ever decided to play for the other team, Rachel would be the one!!

She's so damned smart that she's very attractive to lots of people.

[mmonk]

56. My sister in law used to be a rightie. Now she watches MSNBC

and never misses Rachel. It's like more and more people that never watched are now discovering what MSNBC has to offer.

[Enthusiast]

66. That is encouraging.

Go thee forward and recruit more Rachel watchers.

[mmonk]

139. Aye aye.

[deacon]

57. Well, CNN is just garbage. Fox is not news. Rachel is the best on the airwaves. People are waking up

. n/t

[Chipper Chat]

61. CNN is wall-to-wall Libya with a little Charlie Scream thrown in.

I feel very sorry for Jon King and Anderson Cooper. What a waste of talent.

[Inuca]

73. Do you think that "wall to wall" Libya

is a waste of air time? It's an exageration by the way, but yes, CNN has had, on an average, a good and thorough ME coverage, and that's why I am watching them now much more than usual.

[Chipper Chat]

87. I just dont like crowding out everything else for Libya.

When they start commenting on Kaddafi's clothes - it's over the top.

[Inuca]

88. I did not hear that

over the top, I agree

[myrna minx]

58. I'm sure more people are watching her because of word of mouth via FB

People I never would have thought would watch her (politically indifferent) have posted links from her show on their walls. Covering Wisconsin amid a media blackout has been a boon for both her and Ed. Good for them.

[lonestarnot]

67. Woooodamnwhoooooo Rache!

:applause: K & R!

[DCofVA]

70. Go Rach! The awakening is gaining momentum

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Mosaic]

71. Compare the amount of viewers

Compare the amount of viewers these boob tube shows get, on all the corporate media, to visitors and even better page views on popular Progressive web sites and I'd say we're growing and surpassing those numbers you cited. With this amount of power corporate media may soon be obsolete, at least to any of our concern, as we vote for people we target on web sites. As we vote for people who represent our Progressive democratic values.

[reformist2]

72. It's good to see that people are attracted to quality reporting.

I hope she keeps doing what's she's doing!

[Slit Skirt]

77. fantastic job considering in most areas you have to pay for

msnbc and fox is free...do they take that into consideration doing stats?


also, we need to support the progressive shows..or they will replace them with right wing crap or maybe put someone like scabby back on

[Reader Rabbit]

78. This is exceptionally good, because...

...Rachel is one of the only news sources still covering what's going on in Wisconsin. Every other news channel has a news blackout.

[Faygo Kid]

82. When it comes to covering Wisconsin, don't forget Ed.

Kudos to Rachel, but you can't leave Big Ed's bulldog reporting and commentary out of the picture.

[Reader Rabbit]

83. I would never forget Ed!

He's been the spearhead! Hopefully, Rachel's numbers will lead to an increase for Ed and Cenk, as well.

[whathehell]

93. Yes, he started it, at least on his radio show and then he took it to MSNBC.

[Horse with no Name]

79. no matter WHAT rw'ers would like everyone to believe

People are afraid and are looking for the truth.

Watch Rachel to be the next casualty of truth in this war.

[Shagbark Hickory]

84. That's surprising because for the first time ever, I wanted to shut her off early.

Seemed like an 'off' night to me.

[Overseas]

85. I've been watching. K&R!

Glad she's been beating those others who ignore so much of our news.

[Joey Liberal]

89. Rachel Maddow is the best! nt

[Roy Rolling]

90. kudos...

She is one smart chick. Now before someone gets upset, that is a joke. Maddow is perhaps the smartest and insightful broadcaster on television nowadays bar none. I watch her every night and end up quoting her endlessly the day after. :yourock:

She is intelligent, her opinions are well-researched and she has an equally deep sense of humor---even though she is at odds with Jack Donaghey on "30 Rock"---"I have to talk to Rachel Maddow, because only one of us can have this haircut." - Jack

And no, I am not a paid actor from Premiere On Call . . . :rofl:

[Kurovski]

92. Gov. Walker is helping to put a big dent in all things Repubbish.

[JeffersonChick]

100. k & r

[valerief]

104. Woo hoo!

:applause:

[Dave From Canada]

110. How can you compare ratings between a show on at 5pm and a show at 9pm?

[julian09]

121. Rachel is in prime time

her main competition is mindless commedy, sports etc from the major networks. All the competition from the other cable channels combined amounts to little of the overall TV audience. That is not from where she will grow her audience but from the mainstream media, not FOX, CNN. The only two shows CNN has that are must see, is Candy Crowley and Fareed Zakaria on Sundays, who play it straight down the middle. That reminds me msnbc needs to revamp their weekend programing big time. We can thank Keith for Rachel as she does, they are friends who complement each other, all of FOX hosts combined couldn't reach their IQ and that is a fact.
Right NOW you can see Keith BLOG on foknewschannel.com. Friends Of Keith is what FOK stands for, Rachel is one of them and I'm sure Keith is very proud to call her his friend and is just as happy for her success as she is.
She will be rooting for him on current of which he will be part owner and a good friend to have.

[quakerboy]

113. I love the Maddow

But this is misleading. She is in a different time slot than Bleck, and beat him only in the 25-54, not the total numbers. Which I would argue makes a big difference as the older crowd seems to vote. Hannity, who is in her time slot, had bigger numbers. And Beck had bigger numbers overall. Or O'liely who spanked everyone else hands down, with apparent viewership of more than any 2x other hosts on any station including his own.

That said, it seems pretty clear that MSNBC has taken hold and that there is a liberal audience out there interested in news that is not biased against their understanding of the world. Or just arguably not skewed against facts.

[WCGreen]

114. I just saw that this morning...

Rachel is far better and more substantive than Keith ever was.

You learn something when Rachel is on her game...

[electricfarmer]

115. Rachel should run for office

I cannot understand why this brilliant woman isn't running the White House political machine. Oh yeah, I guess she would be wasted there. One of the few people on this earth that I would bother for an autographed picture.

The hard work she puts into her show is one thing, but the way she presents herself on air is truly mind bending. She can look straight at the camera and rattle through statistics, throw in a few asides and stay on message better than anyone in the biz.

Why oh why isn't she a weekly fixture on Meet The Press?

[greymattermom]

118. 64 and clean for Gene

But I only watch MSNBC and get most of my news from the internet. It's my 89 year old mother who's watching FOX.

[girl_interrupted]

126. K&R Love Rachel!

Hope Glenn Beck has a good cry. Rachel is just awesome.

[Corruption Winz]

133. While I consider this great news...

It's still sad to see that FOX continues to dominate ratings. They should not be at the forefront of ANYTHING as they simply don't deserve it.

I urge anyone who has the time to leave their television on MSNBC simply to support a relatively decent news channel.