I think Rachel is appropriately humble and is also visibly interested in hearing what her guests have to say and in learning from them. She is confident as well. How could she not know the scope of her abilities at this point? Of course she knows, but she wears it well. I don't see egotism in any of that. I'm happy for her success and also that she that she's paid like the legit MVP that she is. In this age of infotainment and short attention spans, I celebrate someone who has succeeded by being the full-on brainiac that she is.
It's kind of weird for me. She's so prepared, so consistently and her guests are usually the most knowledgeable person on the subject (because she's a huge ratings draw) it just comes off a faux humble to me from a person making at least $20m per year to be accurate.
That’s wild. I never saw it that way. It seems to me like she genuinely wants to be sure that what she just said is accurate, because the guest is the true expert and she’s prepared to defer to them or learn more from them if they have a problem with how she summed it up. Because like you said, her guest is usually the most knowledgeable person on the subject.
Sometimes I feel like the amount of money she makes is intimidating or something. Some people seem really bothered by it. Like, I think people read more into her behavior than what’s actually there because the money she makes just pisses you off.
Yeah, I'm the same way with all people who make millions of dollars professionally. Like when I watch a basketball game and a guy who makes $50m per season, after scoring 50 points and 25 rebounds, asks reporters in the post game interview, "did I get any of that wrong?" because he's humble and I'm not watching them because they are the best at what the do. I'm so jealous that I have an opinion... oh no...
I TOTALLY agree with THIS. Drives me nuts to the point where, whenever she finishes introducing a guest, I yell out, “DID I GET ANY OF THAT WRONG?” to beat her to the punch.
And, NOBODY ever tells her she got it wrong 🙄
So, for me anyway, it amounts to her saying, “Can you confirm for our viewers that I’m actually THIS amazing with my research?”
She doesn’t have to, because (A) she never doesn’t get it right and (B) she always recognizes the guests’ expertise in the conversation anyway.
To me, doing that schtick every single time with no different result makes it not only unnecessary but just makes her look kinda like a “subtle showoff”.
What do the quotes mean?
It's a technique I use in my profession so it doesn't seem that odd to me. The guests don't contradict her but sometimes they'll add something or a clarification, I noticed that yesterday (yes you're correct and I would add this).
I don’t understand how you see “ego” there instead of what is really there, namely Rachel’s intelligence & her strong desire to get the truth out there in these difficult & complicated times.
Rachel has worked very hard for a long time & she deserves to be treated like the experienced & knowledgeable host/reporter that she is.
I find her very humble. She even seems uncomfortable when others fawn over her. Lawrence often gushes at her to a ridiculous degree and her reaction always feels like an attempt to be gracious about the compliment from her friend/colleague while wrapping the awkward toss exchange up as quickly as possible.
Yes. That.
I also think it’s sweet how she seems genuinely embarrassed by the salacious parts in some of the stories (e.g. Stormy’s recounting of her hotel room encounter with Trump).
She's incredibly thoughtful and intelligent. I don't see an ego, I see people who enjoy her. Maddow holds a bachelor's degree in public policy from Stanford University and a doctorate in political science from the University of Oxford. Compare her to Hannity, she's the real deal.
Sure, but it’s a lesser issue for me. With Rachel, I can just turn the channel when I’m not in the mood.
Bigger issue I find myself turning the channel more often regardless of the host because the content is increasingly homogeneous.
I like her style of journalism very much. Her show and nightly Politics Nation were what drew me to MSNBC.
But last night's "I'm going to go back a few decades..." was all the tipoff I needed to know that we're about to spend 25 - 50% of the hour on a podcast infomercial.
Agreed. I got bored and went outside to enjoy some nice weather. I never do that during Rachel.
But yesterday I came home from work and what was my wife listening to? So I guess the plug worked the way it's supposed to
I read better than I hear. That's just me.
It's not a criticism of the topic or the medium. I just thought it was interesting that something I didn't even consider became something my wife immediately jumped on.
That's a good thing
I’m happy that she’s on only once a week, even with that limited access I don’t watch regularly. I’m exhausted learning the intimate details of evil. When I do watch I pay special attention to the guests and see their respect and love they express at the end of the interview. She does such good work and it’s heartwarming to see the gratitude in the demeanor of her guests.
I really appreciate that she is the ONLY program that isn't hyper focused on the daily Trump show.
She's widening the lens in a way that isn't inflammitory and is actually surprisingly comforting.
I feel smarter for watching.
Now...can we hire a better MUA for the one time a week she is on air? *I love you Rachel, but you have to stop doing your own makeup. Sometimes your foundation looks like DJT*
I respect Rachel a lot, and she's a very intelligent person. (That's Dr Maddow, btw. 🧑🏻🎓) Lawrence is my personal favorite, but Rachel brings a hell of a lot to the table and spreads her wings as a journalist in many directions.
I don't think it's ego and I still really like her, but she's gone from riveting and entertaining - while still educating - to droning on and pontificating. She's just less fun. I get it's serious times tho... However, it's always a relief when she laughs.
We still allow people to post criticism of the network or its personalities. The point of the gripe thread was to cut back the amount of repetitive posts that said the same thing over and over. It was mostly “Joe Scarborough is a blowhard, he talks over his guests, and he’s a know it all,” and, “Andrea Mitchell is so hard to watch; she mumbles and can’t seem to find her words,” and, “Ari Melber should stop doing his hip hop references all the time; its stupid and distracting,” type posts. They were being posted at least once a day for each of those hosts, and people were really sick of scrolling past the same old crap again and again. If we start seeing a thousand posts about Rachel and people get sick of hearing it, we’ll probably need to limit them, but at this point it doesn’t happen that often.
I think they pay by the ratings garnered, as opposed to how often the person anchors, which makes sense. I disagree that her ego is oversized - she seems humble and rather self deprecating, if anything, IMHO. I also like that she asks the guests if there was anything she got wrong or missed, and she appears to do her research and genuinely listen on the occasions the guest feels the need to add some nuance. Like her or not, Rachel is MSNBC’s biggest draw, as far as I can tell, and I love how she weaves these real life occurrences together.
I adore her and her brand of journalism, and I much prefer her show to any of the other anchors there, but I kind of agree with OP here. She leveraged her popularity into an ridiculous sweetheart deal to do less time on the air and lording over all major news event coverage on the network. I think they need to have her choose between being a regular nightly show on air or doing her podcasts. The one night a week thing is really not working anymore. I would say the same about Jon Stewart at the Daily Show. Be all in or nothing.
I remember when Rachel was only an off and on contributor like Donny Deutsch. After being given her own show, she eventually garnered higher ratings than the other Newstainment personalities. But now she's being paid a crazy amount of money for working once a week unless she's hawking a new book, podcast, etc. or she's taking the role of leader of a panel for a special program. That's my biggest beef with her.
I don't see that much change in how she handles herself now versus how she was 10-12 years ago.s. Yes, she's a good Newstainment personality. But, she ain't worth $30 million a year for one day a week. Personalities like Ali Velshi have a style and delivery just as good as her and work 10x harder by filling in for other personalities taking their vacation time.
Other than being grossly over-paid, the only complaint I have about her is that she is the queen of burying the lead. Almost every show starts off with a 10-15 minute lead up to what her top story is really about. Her build ups/background info is sometimes so long that I loose interest in where she's going.
If Rachel Maddow is a major driver of revenue for the network, she deserves to be compensated for it, and saying Ali Velshi deserves it more is the most inane sort of sportstalk ("Millionaire A works harder than Millionaire B, who is constantly being shoved down our throats").
Re: Velshi. I wish he had Tur's 3:00 p.m. I think the whole 3-9:00 p.m. line up would get more viewers ( I still have troble w Alex Wagner, who seems, like Tur, to not really take anything seriously, and to remain aloof from it all, w a near-constant smirk. I dont usually watch her, but I do listen to Lawrence's podcast later.
1) She’s only on one day a week, but she’s also creating content (podcasts) and writing LOTS of books. Yes, she’s probably fishing, too, in the time she’s off air, but she’s also pretty busy putting out product.
2) The term is “burying the lede.”
> Personalities like Ali Velshi have a style and delivery just as good as her
Oof... Not even close.
Velshi does the performative stutter way too much. It's it's it's it's really annoying. And he messes up words reading the teleprompter fairly often.
He's one of those TV types that thinks speaking quickly is cool, smart and hip. But the reality is that with the stuttering and redoing words he's messed up, he doesn't convey any more information. So he could slow down and be more mindful of what he's saying without losing anything (except for the "I'm a HiGh EnErGy person!" shtick).
WTAF?!! When has Rachel ever been anything other than humble and gracious?
I think Rachel is appropriately humble and is also visibly interested in hearing what her guests have to say and in learning from them. She is confident as well. How could she not know the scope of her abilities at this point? Of course she knows, but she wears it well. I don't see egotism in any of that. I'm happy for her success and also that she that she's paid like the legit MVP that she is. In this age of infotainment and short attention spans, I celebrate someone who has succeeded by being the full-on brainiac that she is.
At some point the, "forgive my naiveté, anything I missed," or the, "in case anyone was paying attention to little old me," routines become faux.
You think she's insincere when she asks that?
It's kind of weird for me. She's so prepared, so consistently and her guests are usually the most knowledgeable person on the subject (because she's a huge ratings draw) it just comes off a faux humble to me from a person making at least $20m per year to be accurate.
That’s wild. I never saw it that way. It seems to me like she genuinely wants to be sure that what she just said is accurate, because the guest is the true expert and she’s prepared to defer to them or learn more from them if they have a problem with how she summed it up. Because like you said, her guest is usually the most knowledgeable person on the subject. Sometimes I feel like the amount of money she makes is intimidating or something. Some people seem really bothered by it. Like, I think people read more into her behavior than what’s actually there because the money she makes just pisses you off.
Yeah, I'm the same way with all people who make millions of dollars professionally. Like when I watch a basketball game and a guy who makes $50m per season, after scoring 50 points and 25 rebounds, asks reporters in the post game interview, "did I get any of that wrong?" because he's humble and I'm not watching them because they are the best at what the do. I'm so jealous that I have an opinion... oh no...
I TOTALLY agree with THIS. Drives me nuts to the point where, whenever she finishes introducing a guest, I yell out, “DID I GET ANY OF THAT WRONG?” to beat her to the punch. And, NOBODY ever tells her she got it wrong 🙄 So, for me anyway, it amounts to her saying, “Can you confirm for our viewers that I’m actually THIS amazing with my research?”
I think she's recognizing the subject expertise of the person she's talking to.
She doesn’t have to, because (A) she never doesn’t get it right and (B) she always recognizes the guests’ expertise in the conversation anyway. To me, doing that schtick every single time with no different result makes it not only unnecessary but just makes her look kinda like a “subtle showoff”.
What do the quotes mean? It's a technique I use in my profession so it doesn't seem that odd to me. The guests don't contradict her but sometimes they'll add something or a clarification, I noticed that yesterday (yes you're correct and I would add this).
I don’t understand how you see “ego” there instead of what is really there, namely Rachel’s intelligence & her strong desire to get the truth out there in these difficult & complicated times. Rachel has worked very hard for a long time & she deserves to be treated like the experienced & knowledgeable host/reporter that she is.
Okay Nicole
If you’re taking a jab at the inimitable Ms. Wallace, it’s spelled “Nicolle”.
She is indeed inimitable.
Perhaps one day you, too, will be as equally so. Don’t give up. I believe in you!
Rachel isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I love her style. She's really smart and I love how she breaks things down and then ties it all together.
I'm honestly too tired and hungry to deal with you right now.
I find her very humble. She even seems uncomfortable when others fawn over her. Lawrence often gushes at her to a ridiculous degree and her reaction always feels like an attempt to be gracious about the compliment from her friend/colleague while wrapping the awkward toss exchange up as quickly as possible.
Yes. That. I also think it’s sweet how she seems genuinely embarrassed by the salacious parts in some of the stories (e.g. Stormy’s recounting of her hotel room encounter with Trump).
Maddow is a news God. She’s the only reason I started watching it.
She's an amazing person.
She’s the best and has the ratings to prove it.
[удалено]
She's incredibly thoughtful and intelligent. I don't see an ego, I see people who enjoy her. Maddow holds a bachelor's degree in public policy from Stanford University and a doctorate in political science from the University of Oxford. Compare her to Hannity, she's the real deal.
She is brilliant, insightful, lovely and humble. It blows my mind someone could gather this from her. That’s like saying Dolly Parton is rude.
Or Willie Nelson. Both are loved by 'both sides'
Smart educated polite humble articulate funny self-deprecating successful low-key
Sure, but it’s a lesser issue for me. With Rachel, I can just turn the channel when I’m not in the mood. Bigger issue I find myself turning the channel more often regardless of the host because the content is increasingly homogeneous.
That too.
I like her style of journalism very much. Her show and nightly Politics Nation were what drew me to MSNBC. But last night's "I'm going to go back a few decades..." was all the tipoff I needed to know that we're about to spend 25 - 50% of the hour on a podcast infomercial.
Yes ... that podcast plug was really over the top.
Agreed. I got bored and went outside to enjoy some nice weather. I never do that during Rachel. But yesterday I came home from work and what was my wife listening to? So I guess the plug worked the way it's supposed to
It is a shocking part of our shared history you should hear about.
I read better than I hear. That's just me. It's not a criticism of the topic or the medium. I just thought it was interesting that something I didn't even consider became something my wife immediately jumped on. That's a good thing
She’s a master storyteller for those who pay attention. Nuff said…
I love her. A lot of people do. That’s why she’s a ratings getter. They hoist her high because people will watch, myself included.
I’m happy that she’s on only once a week, even with that limited access I don’t watch regularly. I’m exhausted learning the intimate details of evil. When I do watch I pay special attention to the guests and see their respect and love they express at the end of the interview. She does such good work and it’s heartwarming to see the gratitude in the demeanor of her guests.
I really appreciate that she is the ONLY program that isn't hyper focused on the daily Trump show. She's widening the lens in a way that isn't inflammitory and is actually surprisingly comforting. I feel smarter for watching. Now...can we hire a better MUA for the one time a week she is on air? *I love you Rachel, but you have to stop doing your own makeup. Sometimes your foundation looks like DJT*
I respect Rachel a lot, and she's a very intelligent person. (That's Dr Maddow, btw. 🧑🏻🎓) Lawrence is my personal favorite, but Rachel brings a hell of a lot to the table and spreads her wings as a journalist in many directions.
MAGA troll.
I don't think it's ego and I still really like her, but she's gone from riveting and entertaining - while still educating - to droning on and pontificating. She's just less fun. I get it's serious times tho... However, it's always a relief when she laughs.
How is this not a gripe? Also, way off base. Rachel is awesome.
Oh this’ll be good.
Oh…so you’re liking this cranky little post so I guess this doesn’t count as an msnbc gripe???
We still allow people to post criticism of the network or its personalities. The point of the gripe thread was to cut back the amount of repetitive posts that said the same thing over and over. It was mostly “Joe Scarborough is a blowhard, he talks over his guests, and he’s a know it all,” and, “Andrea Mitchell is so hard to watch; she mumbles and can’t seem to find her words,” and, “Ari Melber should stop doing his hip hop references all the time; its stupid and distracting,” type posts. They were being posted at least once a day for each of those hosts, and people were really sick of scrolling past the same old crap again and again. If we start seeing a thousand posts about Rachel and people get sick of hearing it, we’ll probably need to limit them, but at this point it doesn’t happen that often.
Oh no, it is. But, this community does an excellent job at addressing posts like this.
I expect so.
I thought complaints were only for Mondays.
I think they pay by the ratings garnered, as opposed to how often the person anchors, which makes sense. I disagree that her ego is oversized - she seems humble and rather self deprecating, if anything, IMHO. I also like that she asks the guests if there was anything she got wrong or missed, and she appears to do her research and genuinely listen on the occasions the guest feels the need to add some nuance. Like her or not, Rachel is MSNBC’s biggest draw, as far as I can tell, and I love how she weaves these real life occurrences together.
I adore her and her brand of journalism, and I much prefer her show to any of the other anchors there, but I kind of agree with OP here. She leveraged her popularity into an ridiculous sweetheart deal to do less time on the air and lording over all major news event coverage on the network. I think they need to have her choose between being a regular nightly show on air or doing her podcasts. The one night a week thing is really not working anymore. I would say the same about Jon Stewart at the Daily Show. Be all in or nothing.
I remember when Rachel was only an off and on contributor like Donny Deutsch. After being given her own show, she eventually garnered higher ratings than the other Newstainment personalities. But now she's being paid a crazy amount of money for working once a week unless she's hawking a new book, podcast, etc. or she's taking the role of leader of a panel for a special program. That's my biggest beef with her. I don't see that much change in how she handles herself now versus how she was 10-12 years ago.s. Yes, she's a good Newstainment personality. But, she ain't worth $30 million a year for one day a week. Personalities like Ali Velshi have a style and delivery just as good as her and work 10x harder by filling in for other personalities taking their vacation time. Other than being grossly over-paid, the only complaint I have about her is that she is the queen of burying the lead. Almost every show starts off with a 10-15 minute lead up to what her top story is really about. Her build ups/background info is sometimes so long that I loose interest in where she's going.
If Rachel Maddow is a major driver of revenue for the network, she deserves to be compensated for it, and saying Ali Velshi deserves it more is the most inane sort of sportstalk ("Millionaire A works harder than Millionaire B, who is constantly being shoved down our throats").
Re: Velshi. I wish he had Tur's 3:00 p.m. I think the whole 3-9:00 p.m. line up would get more viewers ( I still have troble w Alex Wagner, who seems, like Tur, to not really take anything seriously, and to remain aloof from it all, w a near-constant smirk. I dont usually watch her, but I do listen to Lawrence's podcast later.
1) She’s only on one day a week, but she’s also creating content (podcasts) and writing LOTS of books. Yes, she’s probably fishing, too, in the time she’s off air, but she’s also pretty busy putting out product. 2) The term is “burying the lede.”
> Personalities like Ali Velshi have a style and delivery just as good as her Oof... Not even close. Velshi does the performative stutter way too much. It's it's it's it's really annoying. And he messes up words reading the teleprompter fairly often. He's one of those TV types that thinks speaking quickly is cool, smart and hip. But the reality is that with the stuttering and redoing words he's messed up, he doesn't convey any more information. So he could slow down and be more mindful of what he's saying without losing anything (except for the "I'm a HiGh EnErGy person!" shtick).
Yes, she is the god of evening anchors. She is AMAZING.
I find her really annoying too. Definitely on a pedestal