Anyone else finding the Rachel Maddow Show tedious these days?

[woolldog]

Her topics are becoming more and more obscure, imo. Find my self more interested in what Ed Shultz and Lawrence ODonnell and Sharpton have to say.

[JoePhilly]

1. No.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Quite the opposite. I like her because she *doesn't* flog

the same stuff over and over that the other shows cover, ad nauseam. Rachel does research, gets down in the weeds and finds very, very interesting stories.

[woolldog]

5. I realize that and that's a good thing.....

maybe its her presentation style that I find a little long winded?

[Archae]

15. Some of these issues have to be "long winded."

They don't fit into the "sound bite."

[Archae]

3. Nope.

[trumad]

4. Nice try

[Ikonoklast]

39. No, it isn't. Weak, at best.

Romney must be not worth the effort.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. I love Rachel (nt)

[ProSense]

7. Nope.

She's tops.

Rachel Maddow slaps the shit out of Limbaugh, leaves mark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002970773


Do you really watch the show?

[woolldog]

10. started watching it today, but

she was droning on and on about Justin Bieber and I lost interest

[ProSense]

16. So

"started watching it today, but she was droning on and on"

..."these days" meant "today"?

I mean, you say you're "more interested in what Ed Shultz and Lawrence ODonnell and Sharpton have to say" as if they aren't sometimes off the mark.

But I suspect, there is something more to this.

[woolldog]

21. yesterday too

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Keith olbermann was always on the mark

that's why he's off their air.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. The story wasn't about Justin Bieber. It was about his car,

a very expensive chrome Fisker, in which Bieber was recently busted for doing 100 mph. This is interesting and political because the Fisker is a new, electric hybrid car whose investors include Al Gore - and also some eminent Republicans, like Meg Whitman. But the Romney campaign has made a big, phony deal about Fisker getting money from the government just because some of the investors are Democrats - apparently forgetting, or not knowing, that there are also many Republican investors, e.g., Meg Whitman. Rachel used this as an example of the ham-handedness of the Romney campaign. It was really interesting; you should have kept watching.

[MrScorpio]

8. She always has a point that she gets to...

Maybe because I'm 50 years old and I don't have the attention span of a six week old puppy, but when she gets to the payoff, I'm there with her.

[freshwest]

30. +1

[Carla in Sequim]

64. Yes, exactly right!

Rachel is a story teller and that is why I love her show. Patience will always be a virtue.
James Michener is my favorite author for the same reason. The book Hawaii begins with how the islands were formed. No one writes and researches like that any more. The knowledge is a beautiful thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. no

[rustydog]

11. Nope, she has one of the best shows on MSNBC

Up is second...in my opinion

[woolldog]

13. up?

Whos that?

[sabrina 1]

42. UP, it's a show.

[flamingdem]

44. Chris Hayes show on the weekend is great nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. What?

That is crazy talk!

[discopants]

14. it took 15 minutes to finally say Sheldon Adelson had a chinese mob connection

on her lead story the other day. It was an important story, but I have to say it took a LONG time to finally explain what the story was.

Tonight … I zoned out & mixed a cocktail during the silver electric car Justin Bieber story … came back 5 minutes later and she finally connected it to Romney's lie of the day.

Yes, I think Rachel's writing, at times, needs a sharper focus on the lead in.

[Raine]

38. I went in and fixed my dinner (she's on 6:00 pm here) I was hungry and got tired waiting. Rachel had

better the last couple of days but today back to the same dragging it out on and on and on.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. "This campaign in flailing, this is a campaign in distress.

I didn't expect it to be this bad at this point in the year."

(Paraphrased)

I take a break from MSNBC for months at a time too, but right now - Yeah, I'll keep watching. I love watching the analysis on Willard and Anntoinette and their "trust us, we are good people" game. You tell 'em, Rachel.


Edit to clarify paraphrased quote.

[Logical]

18. Her LONG LONG LONG openings are boring. I love her but her lead ins to a story drag.

[Release The Hounds]

56. +1

[woolldog]

60. tks

I knew it wasn't just me

[malaise]

19. No n/t

[Brigid]

20. I have to admit . . .

She almost lost me tonight talking about Justin Beiber. I am 54 with no kids, so I have no use for ten idols. But yes, the payoff was worth the wait.

BTW, I saw a Fiskar yesterday. It wasn't the model Rachel was talking about -- it looked more like one of those cute little Fiats -- but it was a Fiskar.

[myrna minx]

22. Nope - I find her show engaging and quite informative.

[Iggo]

23. Nope.

[KaryninMiami]

24. Nope - Fank Rich is on next. It's still my go to news show.

Watch every day- and recommend this to friends who only want a small dose of news a night- I say forget evening network news- watch Rachel. You'll learn ever so much more.

[ornotna]

25. Not at all

I find her show to be informative, factual and quite entertaining.

[JitterbugPerfume]

26. no

I think she is smart and well informed

[proud patriot]

27. no way , I love that she finds angles no one else finds

[MrSlayer]

28. No, not really. I like the fact that she doesn't repeat the same stories as the others.

You get the same stories from Tweety, Rev Al, Ed and Lawrence. Rachel breaks it up with more in depth stories on different, important, topics.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Only if your looking for Bang Bang shoot em up....

rabble-rousing .

[Raine]

31. ABSOLUTELY! Rachel takes too long to get to where's she going

I'm not getting any younger and I haven't the patience to sit there 15-20 minutes while she takes the long way around. Just get to the point already!

[elleng]

36. Too many facts for you, eh?

Sorry.

[Raine]

45. No, too long to get to them ... just lay them out there

some minds work faster than others.

[discopants]

50. I agree, if there's going to be a boatload of facts to build the story

then I would recommend she give some hint of where it's going as a preface to her story. Sheldon Adelson could have been mentioned up front and his big casino money financing Romney. But his name was dropped 15 minutes into it, because up to then it was just about ambassadors and China's demographics and and a whole lot of stuff that would have been more interesting to listen to.

[elleng]

33. No

[BumRushDaShow]

34. Remember that the most "discussed" stories of the day

are repeated continually throughout the MSNBC shows, and so rather than her continuing to repeat the same info, with the same soundbites and graphics verbatim, she offers more research and background behind those stories.

It's sortof of a "And now for the rest of the story..." type presentation to underscore why the story is important and how it is not just made up shit like Faux does.

Edit to add - If you notice, every piece of commentary that she makes is actually "footnoted" by the display of the source of that info (whether a newspaper quote, magazine quote, etc), which is aways shown as a graphic on a screen behind her, with highlights of the portion that she is referring to.

[elleng]

37. Good explanation.

Thanks.

[malaise]

48. Well said

[Ikonoklast]

35. No. Try harder.

There are other people I find tedious, however.

[taterguy]

41. Moi?

[Ikonoklast]

53. Tedious, you? Not hardly.

Specious, maybe. Pedantic, possibly. Weird, definitely.


But tedious...never.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. I found her intro story on Justin Bieber's (spelling?) electric car interesting

and the fact the funding of these cars was started under Bush but that Republicans are trying to blame Obama for something most people find worthwhile is a story I didn't hear anywhere else today. It was a bit long-winded but I like the fact that Rachel not only informs but she weaves a tale. She builds suspense and drama and at the end I usually have enjoyed the ride.

[otohara]

46. Nope

she's just fine

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. I think her show is aimed at those

whose attention spans exceed that of the average gerbil. Yes, she takes a fair amount of time on the exposition for some of her stories. But without that exposition the real import of the story can be lost. I am afraid that the fast, sound-bitey pace of most "news" these days has led to an expectation that the point of any story must be reached within three minutes, the length of the average pop song, and if it takes longer than that the viewers lose interest. I don't like premature news ejaculation any more than the other kind. Foreplay is a good thing.

[alstephenson]

49. No.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Nope, she is my favorite

[virgogal]

52. You prefer Sharpton over Maddow? Boggles the mind.

[alp227]

54. NO! Rachel > Lawrence > Ed.

Plus, she has a doctorate from Oxford, explaining why she didn't sound like the rest of the mainstream corporate media. Plus she even debates conservatives sometimes.

Like lobbyist for general conservative causes and the restaurant industry, Rick Berman: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/33201465

In 2010, Maddow interviewed then Senate candidate and son of Rep. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, about Paul's controversial "right to discriminate" comments: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/19/4310399-rachel-maddows-interview-with-rand-paul-519

[ClusterFreak]

55. Yes, massively tedious.

She takes absolutely for-evvvvvver to make a point. And then that point is all too often not that big a deal. Tonight, the opening which began with Justin Bieber? Okay.... so he got pulled over in his chrome car for doing 100 mph. And it's the same car which got made thanks to government help which originated in the Bush administration, continued with Obama and has Republican money from the likes of Meg Whitman etc. etc. I was exhausted by the time she finally got around to making that point...which was something like 6 or 7 minutes into her show. Exhausted, and frankly bored by this point.

Rachel, get to the point. I love ya, but your long-winded, wildly over-emphatic delivery gets to wear a person down after a while. Even a fan like me.

[vanlassie]

63. I love her to death

But you did describe one thing I have to agree about -"wildly over-emphatic" IS an accurate description at times. But I love her anyway.

[nolabear]

57. No. I find her more intelligent and well researched than anyone else.

I like Ed. I like Lawrence more and more. But they're high on whistling the LW dogs, which is just fine, but Rachel reports the exact same things with depth and a level of comprehension that actually educates me. And her sense of humor and obvious delight in what she does are awesome.

[davekriss]

58. Nope - it is a wonderful show

[kestrel91316]

59. Nope. But her shows might be a bit much for people with

short attention spans who prefer soundbites for their intellectual stimulation.

[blm]

61. I adore her, but don't like schtick from serious newspeople, and I consider her a serious newsperson

.

[Quantess]

62. No.