When will Rachel Maddow ever get to the point-again.

[Boxerfan]

22 minutes she has absolutely wasted on Clown Car Christies bridge closure.

Today.

While a madman paces the office & disobeys the laws set by the constitution.

We need to hear about bridge gate why?

Oh sentencing?


Get your show on track you waste so much time with your history that we probably already know segments that could be used for-news?

Like current news-

Oh 25 minutes in there is a sentencing and she has the perp on TV

Not a proper use of your airtime or abilities.

Grump.

This is like serving candy instead of a actual meal. Sugar rush & you have wasted time when a madman is busy.

[badhair77]

1. I went to Nicole Wallace on my dvr.

[StarfishSaver]

2. I like her in-depth lead ups and explanations

I learn so much from her.

[blueinredohio]

59. I love the way she tells the story. I watch her every day.

[empedocles]

61. That 'leadup' is key to making the issue come alive and expanding the base of

her viewers to those viewers who only watch some cable news. Rachel's huge ratings are key to her outsized megaphone on issues.

[I do feel the frustration that some here feel that it is too slow for those of us who could use a shorthand version of the first minutes. I tend to also look at my tablet early in the show just picking up the color, like the videos of Christie's trump like [which may have been an important subtheme], public lies on the issue].

[chillfactor]

3. I get so tired of some of you

continually complaining about Rachel...if you don't like what she does then use your remote and TURN THE CHANNEL! Is that too hard to do?

[Boxerfan]

6. Fraid I had to

Before the suggestion.

I have nothing against in depth coverage-of say Putin's buttwipe playing fast & loose with the actual rules set by the constitution.

This is a actual emergency and we need to frame it correctly.

Putin's tramp is ordering people to disobey the law. That is news.

[JI7]

4. whatever, I like history and want more than just headlines

and talking points

[rzemanfl]

5. Still listening, I can wash socks later. n/t

[malaise]

7. I got the point immediately

More than a few of Bridgegate goons work for the Con.

Many of us here followed Bridgegate big time - I'm enjoying it.

[malaise]

8. Christie's patronage pit

Too good!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

53. Exactly!

[stopbush]

9. Yep. It's laziness on her part.

Taking 20 minutes to say what should take a minute. In depth? Please.

I try to watch, but I end up yelling at her.

[Hekate]

16. Lazy is not a word I would ever use for Maddow. Fast-forward or change the channel...

...if you don't want to learn something new.

[stopbush]

42. I don't mind learning something new, but learning the same something new 17 different ways

is verbal masturbation.

[PatSeg]

32. Yes

That is my complaint. She uses a commercial free 20 to 25 minutes to say what could be said in five minutes. It reminds me of using filler in a school report to reach the required amount of pages.

I really like Rachel, but I miss the Rachel of a few years ago. I don't need the same thing repeated three or four times. A little backstory is nice and often helpful, but she's taken it to the extreme and the redundancy tends to look lazy and is often insulting to the viewer.

Fortunately, I have a DVR, so I've gotten in the happened of hitting fast-forward a lot during her show. Actually, I've been enjoying Lawrence O'Donnell's show a lot more lately. Less redundancy and he never talks down to his viewers like they are elementary students.

Its such a shame. For a long time, Rachel was my favorite MSNBC show, now it is often painful to sit through the entire hour.

[RhodeIslandOne]

37. Three or four years ago?

She’s been doing this “lemme tell you a story” bit longer than that.

[PatSeg]

66. I'm not sure how long it has been

but it started when she began doing 20 to 30 minutes without a commercial break to tell one very long story. This can often be very effective, but not all stories need that much of an introduction. It is a format that I would like, if she didn't do so often and if she didn't repeat herself so many times.

[StarfishSaver]

76. It's the opposite of laziness

She obviously puts an incredible amount of research, analysis and work into her reporting.

It seems to me any laziness here is on the part of people who want all of their information meted out to them in neat little soundbytes that require a minimal expenditure of their time and attention.

I like the journeys Rachel takes us on most nights. It's a wonderful and information-laden break from the shallow reporting that passes for journalism these days.

[JunkYardDogg]

80. I agree 100%

[delisen]

10. It's spot on. A woman who leaned in to Patriarchy

whose children won't have their mother at home for 13 months-all to super a male politician who has dumped on teachers and nurses-mostly women-to feed his own ambitions.

Christie of course is still roaming free.

This is the red meat of our political situation.

[arthritisR_US]

33. Exactly!👍

[JustAnotherGen]

55. Helps me in my precinct this year

LD 16 in NJ is going to be maintained by Zwicker and Freiman. We have to get rid of that corrupt judge.

[displacedtexan]

11. Rachel's first segment is exactly like those I attended at the Univ of London

and Le Cite Universaire de Paris.

If you ever saw the TV series "Connections," you know what I'm talking about. At first, you hardly have any idea where it's going, but it gets more and more interesting the deeper the lecturer goes.

[DeminPennswoods]

17. "Connections" is a good analogy

It's the show that first came to mind when I listened to her opening monologue.

[misanthrope]

39. Always loved that show

Great idea well executed!

[PCIntern]

54. That show may have been the greatest

intellectual exercise in the history of Teevee

[Chin music]

12. If only 1/25th of us, could contribute 1/1000th of what she's done for our country.

Not sure, but, the stress you're feeling isn't RM's fault. Focus all that anger and do your part? Who are you to say what's a proper use of airtime? Do you say this stuff about fox news..all day, everyday? Maybe this story has bigger implications? Maybe take a walk or get some rest. Glass of water?

[IndianaDave]

13. Rachel always provides CONTEXT for what she's reporting. For most of us, that's helpful.

If you don't benefit from her process and style, simply don't watch her. I'm always appreciative of her manner of presentation. If anyone doesn't like it, it's important to understand that they're not required to watch her. Just change the channel. Please don't take up our time and interest in complaining. Again -- just don't watch her. It's OK. We don't want to stop you from finding information that's more helpful to you. Please let us know what the great alternative actually is. I will be appreciative of your profound insight.

[stopbush]

43. I hardly ever watch her anymore. Tired of her schtick.

[IndianaDave]

58. That's a good solution. And it's true for any program.

I'm a little surprised people are discussing this. If anyone doesn't like her, they can just change the channel.

[treestar]

75. I also appreciate the depth

That is exactly what is wrong with the media now. Shallow and sound bites.

[lordsummerisle]

14. I thought it was refreshing that she led with a piece

that didn't directly involve tRump. I also like her sense of history as well as her ability to do storytelling which can be quite effective for many of us.

I can understand in this era of instant gratification that many say "would you the PLEASE get to the point already...!" I've done it myself a time or two...

[arthritisR_US]

38. But it does in a roundabout way deal with the turd. Your turd and thief has many

of the corrupt characters that were doing Crispy’s dirty work in NJ. The swamp never got drained it just became a sludge pool.

[appalachiablue]

15. Although I understand her style I can't stand it, had to give it up

a few years ago. It's always clear where she's going and there's no 'intrigue' for me. But I'm too busy and unwilling to sit through an hour of this, the same routine each night. Much better things to do with my time.

[DeminPennswoods]

18. It's her schtick, get used to it

if you are going to watch.

[nini]

20. I will be honest.. that's why I don't watch her

I respect her but for those of us who understand the background of things it's frustrating.

I do watch clips of things but not the entire show.

[a kennedy]

21. Really??? That's why she's always at the top of the ratings pile.....

she always gives a background of her topic.....so sorry you're tired of it. Only reason we watch.....

[nini]

23. it's ok to disagree

I'm glad others enjoy it.. it's just not for me.

[Talitha]

22. I love her show because she doesn't play clips of Shitler.

The hosts of the other shows often blurt out: "And let's watch what he said"
Then they show a clip of 'ole FishLips spouting his bs.

Ugh. I don't want that POS in my house.
I can't stand the sight of him.
I can't stand the sound of him.

So if you're listening, Rachel - THANK YOU!!!

[StarfishSaver]

77. She also doesn't do pundits and panels

When she has a guest on, they're providing substantive information and she always talks to them one-on-one.

[triron]

24. I had mixed feeling about it.

One of her poorer shows imo. But still worth watching.

[Hoyt]

25. She helped get me through bush years; but, her methodical, long winded connecting

the dots nowadays has me reaching for the tuner.

[sarcasmo]

26. Thought I was in a time warp.

[House of Roberts]

27. Think of Bridge-Gate and Christie this way.

If Christie were to be implicated in this like we believe he is, we wouldn't have to worry about him being the next AG after Barr.

[JustAnotherGen]

56. But Walter Timpone

Sits on the Supreme Court until 2020?

He's got to go now.

He's corrupt and needs to go.

This is NJ. We elected a Governor to give all things Trump the hand - and Timpone is Trump Corrupt.

[Greybnk48]

28. I love Rachels preambles. They are packed with relevant background data

to make her reporting more effective. I think some people don't like her because she's so effective and damaging. Or maybe people just want bumper stickers and sound bites. It confounds me why anyone on Democratic Underground would try to cut her down. Very strange.

[PatSeg]

36. Not really

Most people here really like Rachel, but many don't care for the current incarnation of her show. There is only so much over explaining that most people will tolerate.

[Hoyt]

62. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who feels that way about "over-explaining." As I said above,

she helped me get through the bush years, but I find it difficult to watch her show now, especially when she's connecting all the dots or hawking another bombshell that fizzles.

[PatSeg]

68. No, you're not alone

This subject has come up before and some people get very defensive if we criticize Rachel. I love Rachel and have since before she had her own show. I appreciate her creativity and innovation, but I often tune out when she over-explains and repeats herself. I know her ratings are amazing and I'm glad for her, but her show is no longer my number one choice.

I still usually record her show, as she often reports on something that no one else is talking about, but I don't always watch the entire program and if I miss it for some reason, it is no great loss.

[uponit7771]

64. Many like what 3.87%? pre-amble on Rachael !!!

[Greybnk48]

78. Exactly! I LOVE her show as is. n/t

[quickesst]

29. How about that

Someone is pissed off because Rachel did not immediately start talking about what every other pundit on TV had been talking about all day long.

[msdogi]

30. She was all over this story when it hapened

This was a good follow up. and it was likely her choice to give this some time. Some of her choices have seemed to be what others wanted her to do (Harrison Ford's plane crash, really, most of the hour?)

[redstateblues]

31. I was watching the rerun. Had to go to bed. Stretching it out

[zaj]

34. I love Rachel ❤️... But tonight was terrible

[Boxerfan]

35. Lo Do made a very subtle dig on this when he took the reins from her.

Lawrence O'donnel that is.

He said something to the effect of- "I always love your in depth commentaries-There are so many stories to cover today" and then started succinctly doing just that.

But seriously I think she counted too much on the "bookee" to steal a headline. I think she was anything but newsworthy.

If the story could keep Christie Cream off the talking head shows as a guest I will take this thread-print it-and eat it.

So-please make it a huge thread if you think that is a reality. Roughage!

[Grasswire2]

40. Although I admire Rachel, I can't watch her style.

I watch Nicole, and Ari, and Brian.

Sometimes the top story on Hardball. Sometimes I bail on Ari.

[Raine]

41. Over time I totally quit watching her

she drags things out way way too long. I don't need her to spend half an hour on something I can immediately grasp if she would just get right into it.

[pnwmom]

44. I like her show because it is different. We don't need all the shows covering the same news

all day long.

[womanofthehills]

72. I like her show - one of my favorites

Sometimes she rambles, but it doesn't bother me. I like her voice because it's more expressive than other commentators. Also, like Kamala, she has that endearing laugh. I actually like the beginning where she sets up where she is going.

I also like Lawrence and Randi. Those are my 3 regulars that I listen too. I podcast them all on my iphone, so I can do whatever while I am listening.

[912gdm]

45. OP, you are welcome to to send your resume to her production staff.

[Lock him up.]

46. She was reporting on those crimes in real time as they were committed.

Like she was almost the only one asking questions on the air at the time.

I appreciate the follow up that showed how criminal Republicans get away scott free, and make their ambitious gogetters pay the price by going to jail (once more).

Lawrence O'Donnell followed up with the need to impeach the most corrupt one of them all.

You can always skip Rachel before Lawrence if her subject is of no interest to you.

[OnDoutside]

47. I don't understand people like you. If you don't like her, don't watch her. She's the No 1 Cable

News Host for the simple reason that her style is extremely popular and engaging with an awful lot of viewers.

My advice is for you to move on to CNN or something, rather than coming on here to whinge about the No 1 Cable News Host.

[JHB]

48. The real problem about air time is that there aren't six others like her...

...and that's just counting MSNBC. Multiply that for all the networks.

[OnDoutside]

49. Q1 2019 Ratings: Rachel Maddow Lifts MSNBC to Its Most-Watched Quarter Ever

MSNBC was, once again, one of the most popular networks on cable television this quarter. It was No. 2 to be exact, only behind Fox News.

The network’s programming continues to deliver huge total audiences, and is by Rachel Maddow, who finished Q1 2019 as the No. 1 host on cable news among adults 25-54, the demographic which means the most to news advertisers.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q1-2019-ratings-rachel-maddow-lifts-msnbc-to-its-most-watched-quarter-ever/398379/

[KG]

50. I lulz'd

[stonecutter357]

51. you seem very concerned !

[JustAnotherGen]

52. I enjoyed it

This I was the first time I've heard about our State Supreme Court Judge being involved.

Thank you Rachel. You just assured that we hold the Assembly seats in the 16th district this year!

[Quemado]

57. A 10 minute interesting interview fluffed up to a 60 minute show.

That is the Rachel Maddow show most of the time.

[Sancho]

60. She is doing exactly what she should do....

(40 year veteran educator here)....

As Rachel's audience grows to include more people who know nothing, and don't understand the context...she has to say something several times and set it up with lots of context and detail or they won't get it.

The increasing ratings are likely due to people who are tired of sound bites, and they are not DUers, political watchers, or well-informed. I'm willing to patiently sit through the repeats of the story for the benefit of someone who never heard of a bridge in NJ.

Rachel does a really good job of deconstructing complex situations, and even last night she stuck to the theme that everyone involved was guilty of causing chaos. She ended with a statement that she understood why the guest and others were going to jail.

[SharonClark]

73. I think you've got it.

She repeats everything three times so the newbies or uninformed understand.

[Vinca]

63. I have to say - this is the first time in years I've said to heck with it and gone to bed.

I love Rachel, but nothing is ever going to happen to Chris Christie so, 3 points: who cares, who cares, who cares. A more interesting show might have centered around whether the King paid $2 million ransom to his buddy Kim for a hostage. Or what server Princess and Jared use - is it the Kushner company server? Or whether a Democratic candidate would pardon Trump. I don't really care about what's-her-face who's going to jail and yucked it up when EMTs couldn't get to heart attack victims.

[ariadne0614]

65. The OP got 2200+ views, 70+ replies, and 10 recs. Interesting.

This avid Rachel fan was comforted to see that most replies defended her storytelling presentation, the historical context she provides, and the time she takes to untangle the strands and weave them into a coherent whole. To use another metaphor, watching TRMS is more like lingering over a lovingly prepared home cooked meal than grabbing a bag of junk food at a drive-through window. To each his own.

[FakeNoose]

67. I guess you missed the point of that segment

Rachel was leading up to her interview with Bridget Anne Kelly, the woman who was thrown under a bus so that Chris Christie wouldn't have to face charges himself. Ms. Kelly was convicted and went to jail and now she's out and talking about it.

In Christie's book "Let Me Finish" he claims to have known nothing about the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge, and he had no reason to mess up Fort Lee's commuter traffic for five days straight. He sounds like "No collusion" Chump throughout "Let Me Finish," which I read a couple months ago.

Well Ms. Kelly is now able to talk about the whole situation and she was telling a very different story on Rachel's program last night. It's too bad you missed it!

[Little Star]

71. +1,000000

[dewsgirl]

79. +1000000 this😊 thank you.

[ancianita]

69. Last night was her personal indulgence episode. She nails Chris Christie's coffin.

[brooklynite]

70. "Why don't people always talk about what -I- think is important?"

[treestar]

74. She is on every night

Plenty of time to do that and Bridgegate too. It was came back in the news and is about corruption of power and so it relates.

[randr]

81. Reiteration Rachel

Like listening to a kindergarden teacher
She used to be my fav

[eleny]

82. Christie may be heading for a seat on the New Jersey Supreme Court

So she used her hour to shed light on his corruption. It's galling that he may be on the highest court in Jersey.

[Midwestern Democrat]

83. Some of her shows are of questionable content - like the shows where

she spends 40 minutes covering some arcane trivia from the Watergate hearings - and you're like, what's the point of this? I guess she's trying to draw a parallel to the Mueller report, but she might as well be covering the Teapot Dome scandal - the political world of 1973/1974 no more exists today than the political world of the 1920s - it's just history.