Does anyone else get frustrated watching Rachel Maddow?

[Laffy Kat]

She repeats the same thing over and over again in different ways so we'll understand the point she's about to make. It drives me crazy and I've gotten to the point that I will mute her until I think she's finally about to break the news it has all been leading up to. Geesh.

[Ilsa]

1. I had a paragraph about it in the thread I started,

But deleted it. She was covering the history of the issue, but she kept going on and on. I was very frustrated, waiting for the news.

[Ohioboy]

2. Yes, she is so thorough it's sometimes hard to take.

But, she does her homework and digs down deep with things so I give her a pass on overdoing her explanations.

[Laffy Kat]

5. I appreciate her thoroughness, I do.

She is so redundant though, it's almost condescending and it's difficult to watch. I'm surprised her producers don't try to rein her in a little. I want to scream: "I get it, I get it, go on!"

[apcalc]

40. She is complete, thorough, and methodical.

I am delighted she is. After years of news without substance and background detail, I find it delightful.

[empedocles]

3. This concern has been raised at DU before. A good part of her popularity is her reach

beyond the DU close followers of the news.

[I wish she had gone into more Deutsch Bank release data news tonight - important stuff]

[Elwood P Dowd]

4. I usually skip the first 10-15 minutes.

It's usually that much or more before she gets to the good stuff.

[Laffy Kat]

6. Maybe I should do that. nt

[emmaverybo]

7. I like the show when she has guests on. I think she should do less monologue and more

dialogue. She’s a congenial and well-informed interviewer who gets some good info from folks and
can hold her own. I admire her greatly, just think the show’s format(predominantly lecture) needs to get changed up more frequently.

[Laffy Kat]

8. Totally agree.

And there is no one like her. We need her.

[brewens]

9. It's like an hour long meeting where you get maybe 15 minutes worth of information you need,

but realize the dumbshits need to have things drilled into them. It's annoying, but not always a bad thing.

[Laffy Kat]

12. Truly, though, how many dumbshits watch her show?

I would imagine most of her viewers are a little above average.

[brewens]

20. If a dumshit happens to watch, maybe it pays off. You're probably right though,

most of the idiots are taught to not watch anything but their bubble crap.

[Yavin4]

10. Chris Hayes is the only one that I watch regularly. His podcasts are 1000x better than his show.

He's gotten so much better at interviewing that it's unreal.

[Iggo]

11. Years ago!

[ariadne0614]

13. It doesn't bother me in the least.

I understand what she’s doing, and why it’s necessary. She’s a great teacher and a national treasure.

[Laffy Kat]

14. I agree with you about the national treasure.

[sop]

26. Maddow provides a lot of historical background details to put her reporting into proper context

Often it's the only way to make her points effectively. I also appreciate how she asks guests to clarify her long, informative lead-ins, allowing them to point out any errors. I can see where others might not like listening to a lot of information before getting to the heart of the matter, but she doesn't report on simple issues, and she doesn't dumb it down.

[TimeToGo]

54. But often not germane to the point

She loves tangents (so do I) I just wish she would lable them as such.

I don't know how many times it seems as if she is building to a point only to find it was just interesting unrelated history.

DVR is your friend.

[Hortensis]

15. Yes, but her explanations of context and history make up for it.

It's a whole additional dimension, or dimensions, lacking in every other show. Watch Rachel's version and come away with a much better understanding of what's happening than otherwise.

Of course, on particularly busy nights they have to ditch that, unfortunately.

[davekriss]

16. Nope, she's a national treasure

[trueblue2007]

24. Nope, she's a national treasure ...nope, she is wonderful. stop your bityching.

[kacekwl]

17. No. Actually I

like to watch the 1st 1/2 hour and depending on who the guest is or subject will determine if I stick around for the 2nd half.

[nolabear]

18. I love a good storyteller. She does nothing casually and it has great effect.

Rachel’s not just headlines. She’s features. She does beautifully detailed work and spins it out like a fine lure. Some of us like that kind of artistry a great deal.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

19. Go Rachel.

[Pompoy]

21. She is the best

I have to check on her every night, even though I might fast forward through segments about abortion and the like. I tape it every night.

[Meadowoak]

22. I love her show and wouldn't miss it, however, she does tend

To over explain sometimes and it kinda works my nerves.

[Raine]

23. That's why I quit watching her

long ago, she makes me want to put my foot thru the TV screen!

[Lucid Dreamer]

28. I don't like the way she delivers.

I love tv because I CAN get away from such a pedantic style. Agree w/ your foot thru screen urge.

[womanofthehills]

25. I love Rachel - she has emotion in her voice that others don't

Her broadcasting is not flat. I podcast Rachel. I listen while I am doing other things so I kind of appreciate her drumming in stuff. There is so much info out there, when she does that it helps me retain info.

[jberryhill]

27. No, you're not alone

If you like being spoon fed and spoken to like a child with some kind of short term memory disorder, she’s great.

Maybe it’s for people who have the TV on in the background while they play with their cellphones.

[Hoyt]

29. As I've said before, she helped me get through bush years. But, stretching 5 minutes of worthy

content into an hour, endless and long connecting dots that don't line up at end, Bombshells that fizzle, etc., make it tough for me to watch most nights. It's probably my fault, and I think it's great she has a show that a lot of people like.

[Wounded Bear]

30. I get frustrated reading this same complaint about her over and over...

or very similar ones. Seems to pop up every month to 6 weeks or so.

[Laffy Kat]

45. Truly, if I have ever seen another post about this I do not recall.

My apologies if I annoy. I am glad to hear that it's not only me, though. Also, I would be beside myself if her show ended. I agree she's a treasure and we need her.

[ProudLib72]

48. I posted about it last year

Can't remember if it was an OP or just within another thread, but I did say exactly what you said.

[Wounded Bear]

62. The length of this thread should tell you you're not alone...

But my opinion is not solely mine, either.

[uponit7771]

56. This

[customerserviceguy]

31. I've noticed that

She seems to be the progressive version of Rush Limbaugh. If you've ever listened to one of his radio shows, he keeps the same drumbeat going for several minutes.

[elias7]

59. Except that her drumbeat is fact based

And Limbaugh is just spewing spun bullshit

[customerserviceguy]

68. Of course

I was simply referring to the method of delivery of a message, I was not comparing the content of the two messengers.

[Jarqui]

32. I really like her and her show is my favorite of it's type

but there are frustrating moments when I wish she would get on with it

[Gothmog]

33. Rachel was great tonight

Link to tweet

[Golden Raisin]

34. Yes. She's super intelligent and very thorough in her research

but I have come to hate her delivery. I always feel like she's "explaining" as if the audience were a bunch of wayward kindergarten kids that have to be spoon fed and told over and over in order to comprehend. I much prefer when she interacts with a guest than when she's flying solo.

[smirkymonkey]

41. +1000

[Hoyt]

47. I think that's it.

[shanny]

35. I quit watching for exactly that reason.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. No, I love the way she sets the stage for the news she's about to discuss.

She actually provides background and a clear analysis of what she's reporting on, not just sound bites, bumper stickers and unsupported opinions like most of the others, who cater to short attention spans. I think she's the best in the business for exactly that reason.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. It's a large part of why I gave up watching her.

She does have good information, but as someone else said it's maybe fifteen minutes worth. Which I can read in under five minutes.

[mopinko]

38. fuck all y'all.

ok, kidding, but really. as tiring as it is sometimes to hear chapter and verse of things we at du know a lot about, du is not normal.

and sometimes when she hits on things i dont know anything about, it is always fascinating.

some people need it spoon fed, detail by detail. it is why msnbc is not fox. it deals in fact. and even tho i might yawn through the occasional long wind up, i know that really, the only hope we have is to start putting the facts out there in a way that is undeniable.

[Ligyron]

39. Yeah, it seems she likes to draw things out, perhaps building to some imagined crescendo.

Or is it a lack of things to talk about? Naw, she has tons of material; they all do, especially with Trump and our ongoing national nightmare. Lack of prepared material maybe? Nope, she seems way too professional to not do her homework and properly prepare.

Some nights are more extreme than others but I still watch her. She's a national treasure and I like her personality. Just one great story, line or zinger supported by her great facial expressions makes it all worth it.

[napi21]

42. jPlease try to understand many of those who watch her show aren't as quick to understand

as you are. I have a cousin in another state who loves the way she explains everything. She's not dumb, just slower to "get it" than some others.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. Are you suggesting that those of us who enjoy Rachel's detailed expositions

are "slow," maybe not too bright? I do resent that, and I would suggest the opposite: that smart people appreciate background information and detailed analysis.

[Hoyt]

49. I think it's more like some people will take a few hours enjoying a good meal.

Others — including me — like an explosion of taste than taking it too slowly (jeez, this sounds weird). It’s all good.

[triron]

44. She is talking to a wider audience than you and me. American's attention span is short.

[Laffy Kat]

46. Noted. nt

[blueinredohio]

50. I like how Rachel goes into detail with her stories.

Most of it is stuff I didn't know and never would have known if not for her. I learn something every night.

[comradebillyboy]

51. I don't watch her any more. Her format is really tedious.

[Maru Kitteh]

52. I find her repetition condescending sometimes. I like her very much, but sometimes she

engages that device a few too many times and then I just have to change the channel.

[earthshine]

53. I shut her off after about eight minutes today.

It takes way too long to figure out the context and then the point of what she is talking about.

In the Air America days, she was a fast talker and I never had a problem with her. I'll even say she was my favorite AA personality.

But now, it's like she needs to fill the time slot with talk.

[Jeroen]

55. I agree n/t

[Doreen]

57. Rachel does a really good job

at helping people understand the history of an issue before going into what is happening now. Not everybody is as knowledgable or catches on as fast and she does well to make sure some of those people do.

[JI7]

58. no

[malaise]

60. No n/t

[yortsed snacilbuper]

61. Does anyone else get frustrated with these kind of posts?

Just wondering!

[Little Star]

64. Yes!

[Little Star]

63. Nope!

[rsdsharp]

65. I really like her, but the way she has set up the "A" Block

is unwatchable to me. She violates the cardinal journalistic principal of not burying the lede.

[FakeNoose]

67. I take it as a dare to stick with her until she makes her point

In many ways Rachel is like a college professor, and she knows a lot of her students (listeners) have ADD. So she is mildly repetitive but she also ratchets it up as she goes along. Each time she mentions her subject, a few more facts get thrown in, to see if we're still paying attention.

I will agree that those of us who watch her every day might become bored, but not every listener tunes her in every day. Many people need to get caught up because they only see her show once or twice a week. For most of Rachel's shows I'm glad I stuck with her because the payoff is usually worth it.

[rsdsharp]

69. I appreciate her intelligence, her diligence and her research.

But she is not a college professor. She is, at least nominally, a journalist, and it shouldn't take 12-15 minutes before she gives us the lede. Do it up front, in 30-45 seconds, and THEN do the Easter egg hunt to fill in the gaps.

[highplainsdem]

66. Her opening segments, the A blocks, are often almost unwatchable. She clearly thinks she's educating

her viewers, but all too often she's wasting program time going over background her viewers are already very familiar with, or, sometimes, making tenuous connections to try to show "background" that isn't particularly relevant. (And then sometimes she caps it by asking whichever expert she finally brings in as a guest whether she explained things properly, and the guest dutifully gives her the compliment she's apparently looking for.)

I think Lawrence uses his hour more wisely. He doesn't talk down to his viewers by assuming they need lots of background info they probably already know.

I do have to add that Rachel doesn't always do this, and there have been times when I've found even her longer opening segments interesting.

But she does it frequently enough that I often skip the start of her show.

[Caliman73]

70. I love Rachel Maddow. But yes, it can be frustrating.

I too wonder who she is trying to reach with that particular approach.

[shanti]

71. Nope, never felt that

She's my favorite out of the bunch. Now Tweety....he's a different story! I hate his interrupting.

I don't even bother with CNN.

[Laffy Kat]

72. I kind of like Don Lemon and AC. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

73. She needs to learn to respect the intelligence of her audience

She comes of as an arrogant intellectual when she does this, like she is so smart and had to explain everything to us dumb people.

Either that or she is just stretching.

[Revanchist]

74. Get a Tivo

Record the show and watch it in quickmode, which is 1.3x normal speed. You can slow it back down when she gets to the point and also skip the commercials and get through the program in about a half hour.