General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy do you think Rachel is ruling prime time?
Rational people are fed up of the lies and the circus, the racism the divide and rule, the ignorance and the misogyny.
They want the truth.
Vote them the fuck out old people, young people and those in between.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)malaise
(269,063 posts)Not.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,291 posts)malaise
(269,063 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)People want to understand and have information to reach their own conclusions. The historical context they provide (when she isn't forced to lists to cover events incoming like a barrage of missiles) is unique among all shows. Plus, they're pretty hooked in and if it's happening someone's likely to be channeling it to them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I think they elevate her to greatness.
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)With facts to back up what she reports. She explains the who, why, where, when and what so that I can understand it. Plus she throws in a bit of humour at times. She is respectful to those she interviews and who are on her panels.
Just today I told a friend about her. I told her if you dont want to hear the truth then dont watch Rachel Maddow.
I have watched Rachel for so long. She is smart.
malaise
(269,063 posts)That is very good news.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Like a professor treats grad students. With respect, assuming were as smart as she is, just needing to have her connect the dots.
It does take intelligence to understand historical context. She talks to her audience with big words too.
And because were smart we have the ability to know she doesnt delve into alternate facts. We would have caught her doing it long ago if she did.
malaise
(269,063 posts)Correct
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Rachel smarts her followers up.
I swear I can feel my IQ straining to go up sometimes when I listen to her.
On the other hand when I listen to FUX I can feel my brain explode again and again and again and aga....
ailsagirl
(22,897 posts)Rhodes scholar and has a doctorate in politics from the University of Oxford
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)kids on, and she mentioned a few times how she has a rule against them. I agree, theyre often the mechanism for the both sides, let one republican yap on about whatever talking points endlessly waste of time on most news shows. I hadnt really thought about it before, but its why she is in control and has the chance to do incisive follow up questions.
Blue_playwright
(1,568 posts)And she really loves politics - she gets giddy!
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Then backs it with clips/quotes to support the premise she's posing.
Usually pulls various threads in current news together with others across a wider spectrum to build a picture that can help to understand the deeper connections to explain how we have been and will be affected by the latest news.
She doesn't just say "I think ....", it's "This is what we can see ...."
edit for grammar
LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)The Blue Flower
(5,442 posts)I became aware of her when she was on Air America radio. I listened to her every afternoon on the bus ride home from work. No one pulls a story together--context, history, key players--like she does.
malaise
(269,063 posts)more and more people want the truth.
That is bad news for the Con and his fux hacks.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)because her program (it's not a show) is FACT-BASED and she does something really interesting that other programs on MSNBC are starting to do. She uses her opening segment to provide historical FACT-BASED context for reporting on current events.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)Is thorough. Woman enough to admit when she is wrong (which is pretty rare). And I love her humor but that is just frosting on the cake.
FakeNoose
(32,645 posts)They all work together as an awesome team, and that's why she stands above the rest. She has awesome guests and relevant experts, and her interviewing is very good. I think everyone wants to be interviewed by Rachel, for the exposure and for the fairness.
Rachel has said many times that she couldn't have a show without the great people on her team.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)meadowlander
(4,399 posts)Just the facts... no false equivalences and ding-bat "equal timers".
Boomer
(4,168 posts)There's so much to love about what Maddow does to provide insights into history and politics, but one of my favorites is that she focuses on one guest, with direct questions and then she sits back and LISTENS to what they say. Because they wouldn't be on her show if she didn't want them to speak.
I'm so tired of a gaggle of so-called pundits jostling for their two-second sound bite while the show host runs rough-shod over them (hello Chris Matthews).
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)to make family decisions. I have a few to make after the mid-terms, or when Mueller wraps up.
No matter what non voters think, this effects us all.
malaise
(269,063 posts)And that is great news
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Smarter than Trumpies though.
malaise
(269,063 posts)Folks
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)magicarpet
(14,155 posts)At work, out in public, at gatherings when current event discussions open up, Rachel's listener are days ahead in knowledge because Rachel has her finger on the pulse and conveys that knowledge to her listening audience. Her listeners can contribute much to the dialog when current events coming.r up for discussion. Other people ask for the source where the information originated. Her listeners are proud to respond "The Rachel Maddow Show'. More people go home and tune in to be better informed, consequently Rachel's view ratings are on an upward curve and peaking above other broadcasting slots.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)2) it's not sensationalized garbage with a rethug nutcase getting "equal time" to spew lie after lie.
That being said, there are times when it's just a little too much reality and info and I can't deal with it. In the opening minutes of one of her shows last week, I almost had a panic attack had to shut it off.
malaise
(269,063 posts)Rachel and Jeopardy - my only must see TV.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... have solid verified info behind them.
malaise
(269,063 posts)There we have it
Response to malaise (Original post)
Post removed
malaise
(269,063 posts)And I'm not upset.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)It is the Bernie or bust people and the young ones who scream at the top of their lungs and then don't vote.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)and a
Mike Nelson
(9,960 posts)
knows how to present Rachel to best advantage.
Trump is good for the ratings news shows.
Rachel tries to present a unique and sometimes mysterious "angle" that other news shows miss.
And, when things happen in the news, people want some accuracy - progressives/liberals, of course, but also right wingers who want to know what they're up against.
Response to malaise (Original post)
Post removed
KT2000
(20,584 posts)have said they watch the show. That may have opened her show up to newbies - liberal and conservative.
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)fans. I remember in the book "Devil's Bargain", the part about Bannon watching Maddow. Roger Ailes and others at Fox really supported her, I often wonder if maybe this is reason Trump has never ever tweeted/dissed her.
oasis
(49,390 posts)No back and forth crosstalk with GOP shills.
gibraltar72
(7,506 posts)Once you go through one of her masterpieces of words and it all makes sense you want more. Even my cat knows when it's Rachel time. Perhaps because he get's a treat at 9 but he turns up when he hears her voice. Being a freaking genius doesn't hurt either.
Midnight Writer
(21,769 posts)malaise
(269,063 posts)That would be interesting
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)according to adweek: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-tuesday-sept-18/377631
Hannity also apparently won the head to head matchup in August:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/august-2018-ratings-fox-news-is-the-no-1-cable-news-network-for-200-straight-months/375243
sandensea
(21,639 posts)She combines articulateness, wit, deadpan humor, and a high-voltage persona that's very engaging to see in anyone - anchorperson or not.
We're lucky she's there.
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)She had a blast with the Manafort trial transcripts, mainly the parts that included the judge.
elmac
(4,642 posts)mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)Rachel seems to belief her audience is smart enough to understand what she is telling them. Compare that with Faux or even CNN. Or even some of the talking heads on MSNBC.
Chuck Todd? Chris Matthews? Brian Williams? Forgettabout it.
The only people I watch on MSNBC are Rachel, Katty Tur and that guy on the Last Word. (Sorry. Forgot his name. Senior moment)
I do watch Shep on Fox though. Listening to him is like watching a star fullback carrying the ball to the goal no matter how many obstacles are in his way. Its amazing.
VOX
(22,976 posts)She doesnt posture, or fling any bullshit; she does her homework, and it shows. She has a trustworthy, open attitude, and possesses that rare quality of being able to connect with viewers in a personal, professional manner. Her self-deprecating humor peeks through just often enough to underscore her humanity.
And she has been WAY out in front with the Russia collusion/internet attack stories, connecting names to events and places, identifying financial entities with a reputation of money laundering, and so on. All of her work is researched and presented coolly and with insight.
Am I a fan? Hell yes!
kydo
(2,679 posts)People like that.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)ailsagirl
(22,897 posts)TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)Link to tweet
- and yes, I see her every night if possible. Fact based, but she is not afraid to do some wild guessing when she tries to connect the dots.
GentryDixon
(2,953 posts)Quite like Joe Friday. "Just the facts, ma'am."
Although the depiction of women on this series was quite misogynistic, it still hold true. We just need the facts. Not the paid for bullshit from the Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report & all the Russian trolls adding their input to Facebook & YouTube
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)so that we ordinary people can understand them, she connects the dots, she's likable, she has a good voice, she has good guests & she asks good questions.
mucifer
(23,553 posts)she said that no one who looked like her could host a prime time cable show. Well, I guess you could say she doesn't look exactly like herself when the makeup people get done with her and she has those goofy false eyelashes.
But, she really proved herself totally wrong about that theory!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)TimeToGo
(1,366 posts)Also because it's summer. Prime time will come back and change that.
What we hope is that she will continue to rule cable news. And I think that will happen.