Turn off the 24/7 Breathless Breaking Noise Infotainment Channels and what they show or don’t makes no difference. They only exist to fill airtime between ads for drugs we never knew we needed.

All too true....

We all know that real impeachment hearings would get extensive live coverage. That's just how it is.

they'll cover what they want people to see.

People are drawn to high drama, and media covers what people are drawn to. Stuff like the Kavenaugh hearings. And yes impeachments, since they happen at most once every 15 years. Media goes non stop with election returns, with terrorist attacks, and with anything else that most people are prone to want the latest on. The commentary may vary wildly, but the hearings IMO would be covered

Especially in the early stages?

It is the set and setting. The same two teams playing baseball in a regular season game could be of little interest. Place them on a World Series stage and interest rises exponentially. It also seems likely to me that Democrats will be more likely to get face track judicial approval to demand testimony from high interest individuals for an impeachment inquiry than for a more conventional oversight hearing.

And there's no proof supporting your argument that "Democrats will be more likely to get face track judicial approval to demand testimony from high interest individuals for an impeachment inquiry than for a more conventional oversight hearing." Some people keep making this assumption, without any basis. In fact, so far, the courts have been moving at a breakneck speed to rule on the issues that have come up so far.

Moreover, the hearings aren't "more conventional oversight hearing." Nadler has made clear that these hearings aren't regular oversight hearings.

...judicial approval to demand testimony from high interest individuals for an impeachment inquiry than for a more conventional oversight"

There is never absolute proof of what a court will decide until a ruling is made, even precedents can be over turned. However evenTrump's own legal brief recognizes that impeachment offers Congress the strongest possible hand to investigate him:


“On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings."

https://politicalwire.com/2019/06/12/trump-just-invited-impeachment-proceedings/

The fact that Trump's lawyers said that Congress has no power to investigate a president "except possibly in impeachment proceedings" (with no support either) isn't support for your claim that a judge will be more likely to fast-track requests to compel testimony in impeachment proceedings.

When you're resorting to relying on a bs argument Trump's discredited lawyers stuck in a brief - an argument that lawyers across the country are laughing at and expect will get thrown out because it's counter to centuries of jurisprudence and practice - you clearly don't have any support for your claim.

Why the heck would you pay him to put him on the air? MSNBC is no better than most networks. They just have a few of the best anchors like Rachel. They still heavily benefit from Trump's dumpster fire, and money is all the matters in this country.

They're just not showing it live.

Everything can't be shown in real time on television. But the fact that they're not running a live feed doesn't mean it's not being covered.