Someone Needs To Coach Rachel Out Of Her Long-Windedness

[stopbush]

You know I love her, but, damn - I am really becoming annoyed with her long-winded winds ups to her opening story! It's like an opening monologue without a punch line.

She's fallen into this habit of repeating herself, going over her lead into a story from every possible angle and then back again before getting to the gist of the matter. Hell, you could go to the kitchen and make a sandwich in the time it takes her to get to the point.

I've gotten to the the point where I spend the first 4 minutes of her show surfing around the other channels to see if anything more interesting is on.

All I'm saying is that she could use a little coaching from the people in TV land.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I like that she provides a back story. It has become her trademark.

Most other talking heads on the TV machine just provide snippets completely out of context. I understand why someone who frequents this site might not need the context she provides but some viewers do.

I don't think she is long winded. I think she is thorough.

[angry citizen]

19. I agree

I love the way she builds a more total picture than some of the other commentators. That is what makes her so good.

[leveymg]

2. Requires sustained attention, but her dialectical method is also a virtue.

I'd rather listen to her describe in 4 minutes what it takes others 15 seconds. I agree, however, that it can be annoying as the point isn't always reached.

[KatyMan]

3. I agree

She really belabors her points sometimes.

[MineralMan]

4. I like her approach. I usually learn from her intros

to stories. That's why I listen to them, instead of channel-surfing. That seems the best approach, as far as I'm concerned.

No, I think Rachel is doing just fine.

[southernyankeebelle]

13. I agree with you. I know ahead when she starts when she going to get into the subject.

I like the details. Helps me understand the issue a whole lot better.

[niyad]

5. providing context, connecting all the dots, is not long-winded. trouble is, we have become so

conditioned to sound-bytes, acronyms, shorthand, "journalists" who cannot speak in complete, coherent sentences, that we almost forget what news and information sound like. her very thoroughness is one of the reasons many of us love her.

[ProSense]

6. Want brevity, here:

Maddow: Scalia Is Like An Internet ‘Troll’ Who’s Using The N-Word (VIDEO)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/maddow-scalia-troll.php

Nailed it!

[marions ghost]

7. Leave Rachel Alone & Britney too

...just kidding

Rachel is important for my brain to get a good workout. I don't want the sound bites--more than tired of that style.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I like her style, actually. I think she makes her points well.

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. I'm similar to her

There's a reason for it. Believe it or not my psychiatrist said he saw it a lot in ADHD persons of whom I am one. It could be her journalistic style but I would suspect it's more about how her brain is wired.

[Frustratedlady]

10. Thank you! I finally had to quit watching because of that bad habit.

I felt like she was giving me 3 versions of the same thing in case I was too dumb to pick up on the first. She could have more segments if she'd just state the facts.

In fact, while we're on the subject, I have a couple other complaints about MSNBC. Tweety interrupts too much. If he's going to have a guest on, let them speak. He would also do well to cut down on the length of his questions.

Same goes for Rev. Al. The poor guests are sitting there all primed and ready with their answers, but he drags out the questions forever, then shows bits and pieces of videos. The guests don't have much time left to give their opinion. I'm surprised the guests even agree to come on the show.

If they aren't going to let the guests speak, then don't take up their time. Stand out there and give an hour's dissertation on the day's news and leave it at that.

[stopbush]

24. Exactly. It's like the audience is too dumb to get it the first time.

She's hardly providing context and a teachable moment. She's engaging in rote learning techniques - repeat ad naseum until it sinks in.

I agree with you on Tweets as well, though he grades on a curve. You can tell which guests he respects and which guests he takes for granted by how long he will let them speak before interrupting. I've often wondered what it's like sitting across that table from him as he spits all over himself.

Rev Al doesn't quite have the right cadence to his questions to let the guests know it's their time to speak. Lots of times there's dead air space because the guest - knowing the Rev's penchant for adding to his question - wasn't ready to jump in with an answer. The other problem with the Rev's approach to questioning is that he adds so many conditions to the question that any response gets narrowed down to not much more than a nod in agreement with what he just said.

I think Ed is actually the best of the bunch when it comes to interviewing people, but he too tends to interrupt guests before they've delivered their answer. His other bête noir is when he goes up on the tele-prompter, misreads a line and then tries to come back around to get to a statement that is at the opposite end of what he just misread (he did this last night a couple of times). It's sort of like the way KO used to get all worked up and trip over his words, most notably during his "Special Comment" segments, where he'd often walk all over the big moment by flubbing his delivery.

Then, there's "The Cycle." Yikes!

[Tempest]

11. So you want it condensed to a 30 second spot?

Which is the attention span of a typical American.

Maddow doesn't speak to the typical American. She speaks to Americans like me who want detailed information and not sound bites.

[stopbush]

26. No. I want her to say something different in the ensuing 3 minutes after the initial 30 seconds

rather than repeating what she said in the initial 30 seconds for another 3 minutes.

[Tempest]

30. She doesn't do that

So I have no idea where you're getting that impression.

[grasswire]

41. sorry, but she does just that

which is why I don't watch her anymore.

[renate]

12. I reluctantly agree... and I ADORE her beyond measure

But yeah. I hate Lawrence's rapid-fire repetition of short quotes, all the same few words from different people, at the beginning of his show (HATE! but it's short), and I always find myself wondering just how much more Rachel could fit into her show if she didn't say things three times. Twice might be okay sometimes, for emphasis, but I think it's often more than that. Her viewers, I suspect, are above average in intelligence and are probably already somewhat informed about whatever her topic happens to be; it's not necessary.

Putting things in context is great, and she and her staff are just so damn good at providing details and a back story, so I'm not fussing about how long the intros are per se... but oy vey with the repetition of the same point over and over.

I'm sorry, Rachel! You know I love you madly.

[Frustratedlady]

17. I loved listening to the meat of her show...

it was just the 3 repeats before every segment that finally got to me.

The other thing I liked about Rachel's show was that she had different subjects than the prior news programs.

Tweety has his headliners, then Rev. Al is almost identical in subject lines, Ed tried to throw in a few different subjects because he talks alot about labor/unions. Rachel was always refreshing because she went deeper into her subjects and hit them hard. I liked that.

If she could back off from that irritating introduction to the subjects, she'd be my fav.

[singermo]

43. I reluctantly agree... and I ADORE her beyond measure

Hi Renata
I have used this quote before and I am trying to remember where I heard or saw it .
If you you can remember it would be amazing
Cheers
Mo

[myrna minx]

14. I appreciate that she provides backstory and context.

I prefer her approach to the FOX flashing graphics and dramatic sound effects.

[Greybnk48]

15. I prefer her clear explanations, arguments

and thoroughness. She does her homework and it shows. I've tired of mediocre news-readers.

[randome]

16. Melissa Harris Perry could use the same.

[SoCalDem]

18. Learning takes more than a soundbyte

The fact that a few generations of us have become used to the "Cliff Notes" version of almost everything, is part of the reason we are so under-served by our government.

They all have learned that the attention span of most Americans is probably less than the average gnat's, so all that has to happen is for them to toss us a few clever phrases and we will buy what they are saying, and parrot it as truth.

To get to the real truth of almost any issue, there is always some setting up, a preface, that needs telling, so we can see the context of what we have been told.

Just today, I saw a "crawl" that proclaimed that the "average income" of America was $63K and change, but to arrive at that number, surely the CEO pay and super-rich was combined.. To be fair, an average of all is an "average", but there is that pesky 1%, 5%, even 10% that are so very very very far above the rest, that we almost need a "new" average...one that encompasses what most of us really live every day. With no "explanation" or teasing away of super-incomes, we might actually believe that the "average income" of Americans is really $63K and change. Believing that will surely make millions of people feel even more like the losers our media tells us we all are.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Oy vey.

Maybe four hundred and seventy three million times on this website alone, the lament has been raised: the news media is crap, they never tell us anything, everything is soundbites and half-truths.

Along comes a journalist who actually takes the time to explain things on television - THE most important medium for the delivery of information in America - and you tag her for being long-winded.

[LancetChick]

25. Totally agree!

What the long wind-up does is what no other news source does, outside of hour-long specials, and that is to provide perspective. I LOVE that she provides perspective, and I would feel bereft if she didn't. I can hardly believe that people who generally agree with her find these wind-ups so dull. I guess it is a world of instant-gratification-or-bust. Which I get (hey, I love Twitter!), but I also appreciate taking the scenic route to an important point.

[stopbush]

27. I would agree IF the long wind-up was something other than a repeat of what she said

in the first 30 seconds.

I'm all for providing context, but repeating the same bit of context 15 times doesn't add to the context. It's just repetitive and - ultimately - off-putting.

[enlightenment]

21. I see them as teaching moments.

When you are teaching, you need to present the same concept in several different ways because people understand things differently. Sometimes, what you may personally think is a ridiculous analogy is what will turn on the light for a person struggling with an idea.
Yes, it is slightly annoying for the student who "got it" the first time - though even they sometimes discover that the alternate presentations gives them opportunity to think about the concept in a different way.

That's my take on it, anyway. I like what she does.

[Viking12]

22. Complicated issues deserve thorough discussion

If you want bumper sticker political analysis, you're likely not very interested in understanding the issues.

[stopbush]

29. My complaint is that Rachel is putting up 15 copies of the same bumper sticker, rather than

providing any added depth.

The repetitions don't add a dime to anyone's understanding.

[LancetChick]

35. Hmmm...

I've watched every Rachel Maddow Show almost since it started, and I've never seen a single one that "put up 15 copies of the same bumper sticker rather than provide added depth". I would say the opposite is true.

[immoderate]

23. I only dislike the teasers...

I don't care what's coming up until it's up.

Otherwise Rachel is truly great!

--imm

[librechik]

28. Oh, come on. She's like the least long-winded of any PhD I've seen

And I've seen a lot. Plus a great, down to earth sense of humor. She's a precious treasure.

[Sheldon Cooper]

31. I don't watch Rachel much anymore, but I used to feel the same way about

Phil Donahue. That guy just never shut up. Although Rachel is different in that she spends time setting up the story, whereas Phil just liked to hear himself talk.

[patrice]

32. Her audience is growing. Newbies are just beginning to pay attention. I value her commitment

to as much understanding amongst as many different kinds of people as possible. That kind of discipline is what makes her special to so many of us. Repetition is not harmful, even for subject matter experts such as yourself, review gives one one more opportunity to think deeply about the facts, so there's always a chance that discovery can happen again.

It's a little bit of a risk to annoy people as you say, but it's the right thing to do in order to begin to end the oppression of ignorance that fueled by most sound-bite media.

[JaneyVee]

33. I'm into it. She treats every opening with great attention to detail.

[Bake]

34. Honestly, I can't even watch her anymore.

It takes her too damn long to get to the point. When she finally gets there, show's over.

Bake

[vanlassie]

36. I Love and Admire her but....

It's like this. Rachel wants us to know the back story for the topic she is planning to highlight tonight. SO, the reason she repeats herself, about the backstory, the backstory to the topic she is going to cover tonight? The one that she plans to tell us more about? The one she has planned?

The reason she wants us to know the backstory is that she is planning to tell us more. After the break.

[Myrina]

38. OMFG. ^^THIS!! ^^

[vanlassie]

40. But I DO Love her.

We all have friends or family with idiosyncrasies that we mostly overlook! Hers is pretty strong tho...

[Myrina]

37. Agreed 100% ...

.... I've given up watching MSNBC except for Reverend Al.

Hayes is too hyper. I want to give him a Valium. Or 5.
O'Donnell is just wierd with his forays into being a 'southie toughass'.
Matthews has always irritated the shit out of me. Shut UP & let someone else talk already!
Big Ed just throws red-meat to the choir. Both sides are assholes, man ... give viewers something to think about.

[brush]

39. You have a point

I watched some of her show last night and she went through this whole big build up — just over and over from every angle — about how the DOW Jones Average closed just short of it's 2007 all-time high. She just went on and on but she never reported the actual number, which the build-up had you panting to know. I kept waiting for it, and waiting, but she never mentioned the numbers, neither the all-time record or yesterday's closing number that was so close to it.

I thought what was the point of the build up and said to my wife, "She never said number."

But my wife was already leaving the room as she can only take so much of Rachel because she goes on and on so much. Maybe Rachel needs to have on more guests and that way, possibly, she won't feel she has to carry the whole show, because a little of the avalanche of info explored at every angle goes a long way.

[grasswire]

42. no more Rachel or Lawrence for me -- just tooo tedious.

Too bad MSNBC doesn't have a "Rachel highlights" show -- condensed.

I watch Martin and Alex Wagner, and some of Ed and some of Tweety.

Alex Wagner has a very smart, snappy show. Lots of good people on it -- different people! It's probably the smartest show on MSNBC these days.

I watch Martin just for his British snark -- his content isn't as good as Alex Wagner's.