Is Rachel Maddow sometimes too "cutesy" on her show?

[derby378]

I'm sort of wincing at her treatment of DOMA on last night's show before Howard Dean got on the air. Rachel's a good reporter, don't get me wrong, but what do you think? Too cutesy or not?

[saltpoint]

1. Boy, I'll say she is. If only she'd act more level-headed like that

sensible Andy Rooney.

[derby378]

3. Bwaaah!

Now, I do like Andy Rooney, but he does have his moments.

[saltpoint]

9. Hi, derby378. I like him, but I think Rachel is a much more talented

commentator. I always felt that Rooney got on 60 MINUTES because he was pals with the original interviewers, although I never knew for sure.

I'm a Maddow fan. The more of her on the air we have, the better.

[Captain Hilts]

5. I actually like him. He's an old crank who admits to being...an old crank. nt

[saltpoint]

10. True. Ya git whatcha pay for with Rooney, and he's been up front about

that from the git-go.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[dorkulon]

65. Wow. Hilarious.

Now go away.

[QC]

2. Maddow is an enemy of the people. n/t

[saltpoint]

13. With enemies like Maddow, who needs friends. I mean, really.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Women have to avoid seeming too authoritative or threatening. nt

[derby378]

8. Hell, I don't care...

What's wrong with a few authoritative women in this world? It's hard enough finding authoritative men - we can use all the hardnoses we can get.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I'm old enough to remember when men were featured on ads for bras explaining which

was more comfortable and offered more support.

Really. That's what was revolutionary about the ads Jane Russell was in.

People are more accepting of men as authority figures, even on stuff like that.

[Bucky]

14. Silence, woman! How dare you speak on this subject before us menfolk allow you!

Now that I've thought through this matter, I will stamp my permission for you to hold this opinion.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Thanks, Bucky, you are always so sensitive to my needs! nt

[Lisa0825]

6. I like her cutesiness. It cracks me up.

I also like the contrast betweeh her hard-hitting segments and her cutesy-crack-up segments.

[derby378]

11. I do love her interplay with Kent Jones

Darn good stuff. I remember Kent doing this on Air America for Maron & Riley's morning show.

[ChickMagic]

22. Me too. It's not over the top cutesy.

And quit talking smack about my Rachel!

[derby378]

33. Uh-oh...

:scared:

:hi:

[zonkers]

7. yes, she is. And for me... it gets old. I am glad she is around but I can't watch her too long.

[lxlxlxl]

12. Stop pretending that people on TV can meet some type of 'perfection'

you get what you get. maddow is better than 90% of the idiots out there.

[derby378]

15. Who said anything about being perfect?

Still, the 90% comment is well-taken. I'll take Rachel over the ghouls at FOX any day.

[lxlxlxl]

54. maybe i was a little unfair...and definitely didnt explain myself

sorry i was a little curt.

first, tv is a shit medium for reflecting any sort of reality, but I think what we saw in the late 90's was a retreat from TV as serious, which led it to become even worse, and is now more or less a center-right dominated medium.

keith and rachel, while not perfect, are ALL WE HAVE. if those two are the sole remaining 'liberal media' then I think they are doing a kick ass job.

[havocmom]

16. Other: Poll is a bit ridiculous

all things considered

[Dogmudgeon]

17. Yes -- but big deal!

Nobody's perfetc!

--d!

[Iggo]

19. Is Keith Olberman?

Or are we just worried about the girls?

[dorkulon]

45. No, Olbermann's problem outweigh Maddow's

But he's not "cutesy." More like snippy, self-righteous, blustery and pompous.

And I watch him nearly every night! But Rachel's much more sober and clear-minded, which is why I think she limits her prospects as a serious analyst with the cutesy.

[Iggo]

53. Snippy, self-righteous, blustery and pompous.

That about sums it up. I don't see it as a problem, though. That's why I watch. It's highly entertaining!

Same with Ms Maddow. I like the fact she's not like the others.

[Cresent City Kid]

21. It's a question of style

I don't personally mind a little sarcastic humor mixed in with discussion of heavy topics. I respect those that don't. If she was only sarcastic and never serious, I wouldn't like it as much, but she's not so I watch.

[EndersDame]

23. I like it when she is a bit sarcastic or snarky

I think she has achieved the perfect balance of bringing humor into the news with out it being The Daily Show and with out it being way too dry. I am 23 and the go to girl for current affairs simply cuz' my age group doesnt like watching news programs because they are too boring and unrelatable for them (and lets face it they really are). I am getting them started watching news through Stewart and Colbert trying right now to work 'em up to Rachel.

[Orsino]

24. Often.

It's probably why MSNBC hasn't yanked her yet.

[madamesilverspurs]

25. I watch Rachel

for her "Rachelness." She's a breath of fresh air, and it would be disappointing in the extreme if she started acting/speaking/looking like everyone else on the teevee. Her lack of predictable sameness is a huge part of her appeal, and it's likely that it's one of the reasons conservatives don't want to be on her show.

[Just Saying]

26. I think she's just being herself.

Which I find refreshing and different. She's incredibly smart and a little quirky - a welcome change from the majority white/straight/male model.

[Echo In Light]

29. I like those aspects, too. However, many are the dire issues that can...

...inadvertantly be trivialized if the messenger indirectly frames the context humorously/light-heartedly. Within such a densely propagandized social climate as America is, we need far less of that - data certainly needn't come exclusively from straight white guys, hell no...but there's been an unfortunate trend for alternative mainstream "news" to always rely on the cute humor angle i.e. Daily Show, Colbert

[EndersDame]

30. I see your point but some people wont watch the news

because it is too dry. And I think she is helping to reach out to those folks

[Echo In Light]

46. Remember, she's there because powerful corporate interests WANT her there now

So from there, one has to ask: why does right-wing, corporate power want a friendly, free thinking, progressive woman like RM on the air anyway?

Necessary illusions

[dorkulon]

56. I don't know. I think MSNBC's programming director just wants good ratings.

The "imitate Fox" strategy failed, so now they're going with "oppose Fox" and it's working.

It's a money game, like anything else.

[Echo In Light]

What staunch "conspiracy" deniers fail to grasp is that indoctrination comes ahead of $

Nothing new there. Plenty of objective studies over the past four decades reveal a pattern that always yields a unifying conclusion that favors the aims of the corporate/state nexus, which, in a country that relies on The Big Lie as its primary method of social control, revolves around indoctrination via mass media. If it were merely a "money game" those results wouldn't always favor the same interests and outcomes.

[dorkulon]

60. It's a good point, but I don't think it's all or nothing

there are stories that hurt the status quo. Why would the NYT, for instance, break a story about wiretapping? I'd say that there is control, but it's more complex and nebulous than a star chamber. There is an establishment consensus, and the consensus of the news audience isn't much different. I think the news reflects both, but is more immediately responsive to the audience--not what's good for the audience, but what the audience wants to hear, which is that they're always right about everything, and America is the greatest country in the history of the world. What I see when I watch the news is the American people's narcissism reflected back them. Look at how emboldened in criticizing the Bush administration the MSM became when his approval ratings plummeted, when they had been so timid before. There was a noticeable, direct correlation there. Maddow has been accommodated not because of a change in what the power elite want to hear, but because the audience has moved to the left. Of course, it's not like they're going to give Noam Chomsky air time, so there are parameters.

[Echo In Light]

61. Certain potentially damning stories get through when there's a deluge of them...

...and the mainline press can no longer, with a straight face, play dumb as they did all throughout Buscho, and their numerous atrocities/crimes and cover ups.

There is room to move, however, and The People can apply pressure. Hence, say, Phil Donahue (MSNBC) was easily canned early on, as where now it may prove slightly more difficult for GE to pull such an obvious move. And is also why there's an appearance of slightly more 'liberal' media right now, even if it's largely going through the motions.

Part of that is simply smart tactics on the part of the real corporate $ that owns the country: after eight yrs of Bushco, they know people want a friendlier face, so they 'play along' just enough (illusory change) that will hopefully, from their perspective, coax just enough people into buying into the "change." And this is allowed since those shadow powers understand that no real damage will be done (democratic interference threatening centralized, corporate/military aim$) by allowing that perceived pendulum shift.

Plus, if the real establishment powers understand ahead of time that breaking the story won't actually lead to any substantive accountability or legal consequences, than it's completely 'safe' for that story to break. The real damning stories don't receive any M$M coverage, or if they do, only very select parts of them do.

Besides, Star Chambers aren't required when the real glue fueling the impetus is convergent intere$ts.

[Just Saying]

32. I wouldn't put her in the Daily Show/Colbert catagory.

Although I think those shows also play an important role. When things are bad, you gotta laugh or you'll cry all day!

As far as Rachel goes, I think she finds the news exciting and she sometimes comes across as joking/sarcastic in her delivery. I enjoy it personally and don't believe she means to trivialize the issues. I've listened to her radio show for years and maybe it's seeing her face that changes the dynamic.

[Lerkfish]

27. I am not sure how to respond to this

she's the first openly gay rhodes scholar, and you think she's too "cutesy".

she's damn good at what she does.

[dorkulon]

50. It's not disrespectful.

I think the idea behind the OP is that she is too good at what she does to trivialize herself with cheesy humor. Nobody's calling her a bimbo.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Is 'cutesy' a code term among heterosexuals?

Is that like when they say 'urban voters' and such?

[derby378]

35. ???

Huh? As in a secret slur? Not a chance. :hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Cool.

I'm actually heartened to hear that folks think she's maybe too cutesy. Maybe she is. She is certainly a talent who is still in the process of inventing the proper 'Rachel' for TV and all. Seeking a balance. I dig her. She's taking the time to really find her TV voice. I've been wildly impressed at her transition from radio. And she continues to evolve. I'm expecting a great and long career for her.
Peace!

[boston bean]

31. Once again using sexism, to tear down a woman with some power.

This tactic coming from the left especially is disheartening.

[dorkulon]

37. Really?

This is sexist? How ridiculous.

[derby378]

39. Oh, please...

There are no bug-eyed purple monsters under your bed. If you do find any, however, send us pics.

I'd have asked the question if I had seen Keith Olbermann doing it, BTW.

[Captain Hilts]

58. There is a LOT of sexism on DU and in the 'left'. nt

[dorkulon]

34. Love Maddow, but yes she can be cloying.

I think it's too bad, because she really shines when she sticks to sober analysis. She is the best educator and smartest thinker in the cable business. I think when she devolves into the jokey, high-voiced silliness, she harms her own credibility as a serious commentator, which she is. Also, I don't see why every show on MSNBC has to have a tabloidy pop-culture segment at the end. That's when I always wind up changing channels.

[derby378]

44. I don't mind the pop-culture bits

Oddball is definitely pop-culture, and I've enjoyed it for years. Since I don't watch much in the way of sitcoms or faux-reality shows anymore, it's a nice little break.

[dorkulon]

47. Oddball's okay with me, but what really grated was the groan-fest at the end

with lame comedians about tabloidy stuff. Wisely now replaced with the "WTF moment", which is preferable, despite the bad title. To be fair to the comics, I don't think anyone could have been funny in that format.

[myrna minx]

36. She's a Rhodes scholar and has a PhD in Political Science. She is the first openly

gay woman in cable journalism. She isn't too "cutsy", she's a professional. Way to pat her on her little head though.

[dorkulon]

40. But she does do cutesy.

Have you ever seen her do her "teeny, teeny, tiny" routine? It's cutesy. I agree she is brilliant, and I think that's why it's bothersome when she does stuff like that.

[myrna minx]

41. Perhaps she can fetch everyone some cool drinks--cute as a bug's ear she is...

[dorkulon]

48. Okay, whatever. nt

[JitterbugPerfume]

38. At least

she hasn't done that annoying "talk me down" thing lately

I really like her show , but sometimes she takes cute way to far.

[Froward69]

42. I fall into a void

where I cannot hear, comprehend or turn away. when Anna Marie Cox is on... YUMMY!

I know she has very intelligent things to say and is an awesome writer... I love her stuff... but actually seeing her... well, lets just say the blood rushes from my head.


on edit/ I voted other.

[bullwinkle428]

43. WAY too cutesy - because there's not enough stiff old white guys who take themselves

far too seriously in the news media world!!! :crazy:

:P

[BuyingThyme]

49. She HATES being called "cute." I suspect "cutesy" will cause her to track you down.

[derby378]

57. Thanks for the heads-up - Rachel, if you're reading this...

...we're cool, right? :hide:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. I absolutely love Rachel. I look forward to watching her everyday.

I mean to get a picture of her for my sig line.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. This is obviously a generational divide

I think Rachel Maddow's terrific, but I can see why someone accustomed to the Edward Murrow/Walter Cronkite school of serious journalism would be put off by her style. Murrow and Cronkite were legends, yes, but that style of journalism has gone the way of the dodo, I'm afraid, in this ADD culture of 24/7 infotainment. Who are the "serious" newscasters these days, really? The network news anchors have the properly Serious Faces and Tones of Voice but they just regurgitate the corporate line. The only thing even remotely resembling Cronkite and Co. I can think of is PBS, Bill Moyers, etc. And how many people actually watch those shows? Rachel Maddow takes the truth and delivers it in pithy, humorous soundbites. Trust me, people of my generation are well-versed enough in that cynical, satirical style to suss out the outrage from the snark. We devour the Onion and the Daily Show; Maddow is right up our alley. And we voted for Obama by a much higher margin than any other generation, so it may not be your style, but it works :)

[derby378]

66. I think you just brought me to a tragic epiphany...

I am now officially an "old fart!" :cry:

Great observations, though. And The Daily Show only seems to get better over time.

[Uzybone]

59. Maddow is a clown, our clown, but a clown nonetheless

Calling her a reporter is a major stretch BTW, she is a talk show host. They have writers, their job is to entertain 1st, inform 2nd. I am glad we have her and KO to attempt to counterbalance the fascists that are all over cable.

Olberman is a clown as well.

[sutz12]

62. i'm in the "overdoes it some" category...

Sure, she may go a little beyond the pale in the cutesy area sometimes. I think she's still feeling out her TV persona and is still looking for exactly what she wants to present and how.

She's smart, she's photogenic, she's a leftie. Can't argue much with that. I love her.

She's also informative and entertaining. These are difficult personality traits to gain and use effectively.

I'm just glad that the M$M has finally realized there is money to be made countering the FAUX News RW cheerleading and have given us Keith, Rachel, and now Ed Schultz.

[libertypirate]

63. Well I would rather a smart person be cutesy, than

stupid camera candy trying to sound smart.

[Malikshah]

67. New Poll: Do people on DU spend too much time thinking of ways to shit on others?

Yes.

[ThomWV]

68. I had to say yes, a little bit - but there is still no one on TV that I trust other than her

She is at her very best when she is straight up level headed fact based no nonsense Rachel and I don't care for the cute stuff at all because of it. We can find grinning idiots on the TV anywhere we want to look, with Rachel we get the best of the best and I just hate to see it tainted with any of that other bullshit.

[Neecy]

69. gee, she must be talkin' gay rights again

Say one word about how Pres. Hunky lied during the campaign and you get 'cutesy' polls.