Support NeoGAF

[CrisKre]

Just watching how incredibly relentless and thorough Maddow´s reporting has been during the trump campaign and administration has been nothing short of invaluable to shed light to the general public on the overall picture on the scandals plaguing the WH.

Just look at how much value Maddow adds to her reporting when compared to other news outlets:

https://youtu.be/b6JDpadJ5wg
https://youtu.be/-zNcnAGwZs4
https://youtu.be/wLIuoE0eQ9E (this one particularly is a must watch imo dealing with Jr.'s emails)

And this is just in the last couple days. She was the first one painting and aggresively pursuing an overall concerning picture of the Trump-Russia ties back when no one was really putting a lot of focus on the whole thing and connecting the dots to inconcistencies that pointed to a bigger story. This is an example that goes as far as beginning of this year:

https://youtu.be/8ajVO6UJyOw

There is somethimg else about her show: no surrogates. Having these debates over the ridiculous assesments of the trump camp I believe diminishes the value of the reporting of the facts arround this administration and normalizes their behaviour in terms of public perception. Not to mention its infuriating and panders to their cause and ultimate goal of confusing and diminishing public clarity on the issues and the actual cronology and meaning of events.

 

[benicillin]

She's very intelligent and does a fantastic job of laying things out and connecting information for the viewer. Unfortunately that takes time and people aren't used to waiting on TV news so a lot of people don't like her.

 

[Mondrian]

I like her show a lot, and I completely agree with what you said about not having the trump surrogates. They make CNN as unwatchable as Fox News.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

"Fiasco"

fucking people latching onto that blip.

GG

 

[Skinny Pete]

I'm not a huge fan of her show but she is a very smart journalist and she's really doing great work on regards to peeling back the layers at this Trump Russia shit.

 

[oti]

She's amazing.

 

[CrisKre]

She's very intelligent and does a fantastic job of laying things out and connecting information for the viewer. Unfortunately that takes time and people aren't used to waiting on TV news so a lot of people don't like her.

Thats why I think people should take a look at the linked videos. Shit is facinating.

For example, Jr.´s letter: CNN is endlessly debating with surrogates as to what this evidence means. Really? In turn, Maddow started her show tuesday stating the obvious: no matter how they try to spin it, to everyone paying attention this email chain is an admission of guilt. She lays that down. Debating whether that meeting means what it clearly means is ridiculous. Giving equal weight to a camp that is lying and spinning shit is dumb and unprofessionall. Yet, she is the only one stating it in black and white like this.

 

[onipex]

I think she was also the first one on the 24r hour news networks to point out the trouble that was brewing in Michigan with the whole city manager bs before the Flint water crisis hit.

She call out the Obama White House on a lot of their bs too.

 

[Mollymauk]

She was way out in front on this story. Give her a Pulitzer.

 

[Slacker]

If I had to compare time I've watched/listened to her vs time spent with other new personalities the ratio would probably 1000 to 1. Her show is absolutely essential and has been for as long as I remember.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

Yup she could be the Woodward/Berstein of stupid watergate.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Even if you dislike her delivery, Maddow has always been really good at presenting information and going inside of topics in a way that other TV personalities don't on cable news. I learn something new every time I watch the show.

She's been on fire, and that tax shit shouldn't even register if people are judging her fairly.

Fantastic work.

 

[Goofalo]

She's dreamy.

I know that's shallow, but I have a huge crush on her

 

[EmptyCanO'wupass]

Too much filler, like all cable news shows. She spends an hour explaining the same information I could read in an article in ten minutes. And she overhypes everything.

She's better than most cable news hosts, but all cable news programs are trash compared to the big papers and public media.

 

[Brakke]

I can't stand her delivery but she's wicked sharp.

Yup she could be the Woodward/Berstein of stupid watergate.

Woodward and Bernstein were reporters. Maddow hosts a TV show.

She's not out there chasing down leads n shit.

 

[3rdman]

Love her...Listen to the show as an audio podcast every day on the way to work.

Also, can we kill the whole "fiasco" crap? The internet/media did a far greater job of hyping the release of the tax returns than she did.

 

[Nekofrog]

"Bombasticity" is kind of repelling to me in my news commentators.

 

[ChryZ]

She's super sharp and I wish her tons of success.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I think she is a good journalist. Her delivery just grates me. You don't need a 30 minute setup for every little nugget.

Its kind of like my mom, she tells really elaborate stories that go all over the place, telling you about her whole day then you get to the point and its like "I had a really good burrito for dinner"

I think that kind of detail and context is good but works better in written or more documentary style reporting.

 

[D1renegade]

Watch this space...

She's great

 

[CrisKre]

Too much filler, like all cable news shows. She spends an hour explaining the same information I could read in an article in ten minutes. And she overhypes everything.

She's better than most cable news hosts, but all cable news programs are trash compared to the big papers and public media.

disagree 100%. You may not like the style of reporting, but the show´s production rightly assumes the public at large is not reading all available info. and explains the facts in light of that assumption. It not only makes sense she approaches subjects this way, its also necessary for her audience to follow her investigative reporting. Also, assuming the audience can tie all the dots by themselves is at best naive and at worst disingenious.

 

[The Greek Freak]

She only stands out as decent because the rest of cable news is a flaming fucking cesspool.

It's like winning a race among only 400+lb people. Congratulations you are faster than the guy who had a heart attack after 8 steps.

 

[jimmypython]

Yes I agree. She was also the first to report the forged classified document from the "sources"

Her show is investigative reporting in an opinion show format.

 

[Kthulhu]

She's probably one of the few political pundits I don't hate.

 

[Hitman]

She's very intelligent and does a fantastic job of laying things out and connecting information for the viewer. Unfortunately that takes time and people aren't used to waiting on TV news so a lot of people don't like her.

...except shes the number 1 rated Pundit these days.

 

[CrisKre]

"Bombasticity" is kind of repelling to me in my news commentators.

The whole thing is certainly pretty bombastic IMO. So she is justified in the context of the Trump-Russia issue. Heck, the alternative is to muffle the gravity of the situation by not making a big deal about it? its a big deal. Reality is bombastic right now.

 

[The Albatross]

She's a solid entertainer and a great cable television infotainment host, one of the best out there (probably the best right now). She also seems to be a stand-up person as well.

Bare in mind though, her program doesn't do the reporting, they present other outlet's reporting in a compelling way. The Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, and Wall Street Journal have been doing the bulk of this reporting and investigating, but as far as TV goes, Maddow's program is presenting this better than anyone else.

 

[Vinsanity.]

She's saying and doing exactly what we want her to say and do and saying it exactly how we like to hear it. That's why we think her show is so great. It's the old echo chamber thing where you only listen and watch people who share your opinion...and rarely listen at all to anyone outside that comfort zone.

She only stands out as decent because the rest of cable news is a flaming fucking cesspool.

Also this.

 

[CrisKre]

She's saying and doing exactly what we want her to say and do and saying exactly how we like to hear it. That's why we think her show is so great.

Or... because she is saying and doing what she is doing, we have a certain (better IMO) perspective on the whole thing. She informs my opinion in the matters at hand. Not the other way around.

 

[theWB27]

Its like a race to see who can deduce something good into nothing.... then state your preference as of newspaper doesn't have same problem as tv.

 

[Azar]

I'll always respect Maddow for sticking on the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster for MONTHS, long after the story stopped being fresh enough for most cable news to cover it. Everyone had moved on, and she was regularly talking about it, saying "This is still happening. Do not forget about it."

 

[Vicetrailia]

She's fantastic.

 

[DOWN]

MSNBC is openly editorializing and their official motto is “lean forward” so yeah she’s good as a liberal host but she is most certainly not about presenting information so much as presenting a narrative that makes her opinions on information clear. It’s like Daily Show without comedy. Very much about having an audience

I respect her for her obvious intellect on presenting topics.

 

[Nekofrog]

The whole thing is certainly pretty bombastic IMO. So she is justified in the context of the Trump-Russia issue. Heck, the alternative is to muffle the gravity of the situation by not making a big deal about it? its a big deal. Reality is bombastic right now.

Nope. It too often leads to sensationalism when there's nothing to be bombastic about, but it's still "required".

 

[boiled goose]

Meh. By being on MSNBC she is fundamentally kept on a leash regarding what she can say.

 

[boiled goose]

...except shes the number 1 rated Pundit these days.

On cable news.

Only old people really consume news on TV.

 

[Treo360]

Been following her since the Air America days. She has a great research staff.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

I can't stand her delivery but she's wicked sharp.



Woodward and Bernstein were reporters. Maddow hosts a TV show.

She's not out there chasing down leads n shit.

The format is different but she is still an investigative reporter

 

[Boney]

She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents since there's miles between conservatives and liberals. She's not a liar but boy she's a bullshitter. And she's not a journalist, she's an anchor.
She's less I.F. Stone and more this

 

[The Albatross]

The whole thing is certainly pretty bombastic IMO. So she is justified in the context of the Trump-Russia issue. Heck, the alternative is to muffle the gravity of the situation by not making a big deal about it? its a big deal. Reality is bombastic right now.

There is a certain risk with presenting everything as "the smoking gun," or everything as the "This is the moment!" information. Not that Maddow necessarily does that (she certainly does), but you see it very often in left-leaning television and internet press today, that each new day is "THE" story to take down Trump... And then 3 weeks pass, and that story is forgotten, and they're racing for the next story that is "THE" story, etc.

Case in point, when the Don Jr. stuff broke, the Huffington Post's headline all morning was "THE SMOKING GUN." The thing is... it's not the smoking gun, any clear-eyed person knows that this isn't Trump holding a smoking gun. I mean, even Deep Throat revelations during Watergate wasn't a smoking gun. It can be helpful to build narrative so that people who may not otherwise pay attention know when something is important or not, but the risk is that when everything is treated as the smoking gun as cable news and often internet opinion sites do, it makes discerning what is the smoking gun that much more difficult for the average person. What happens then is usually disillusionment because when someone is told by HP or RawStory or what have you that "this is it, this is the thing we needed!" and they tell you that almost every day with every new story, if you believe them, then you end up thinkign "Well goddam why hasn't anyone DONE anything yet!?" Now the answer to that question can often be "Well because the people who have to do something are in on it, or incompetent, or motivated by other reasons," but when it happens often enough and when the response doesn't match the 'bombasticness' of how something is presented, it can undermine the original intention.

There is more value (IMO) in how something is presented by, say, the NYT and NPR, in an exacting, stick-to-the-facts, inform-the-public kind of way. There is also value in narrative making (which is one of the things that Maddow's program is so good at), there are lots of people who need a narrative to better understand information (I think the Right was very effective at building a narrative around Obama and Clinton). But without the yeoman's work that your base, on the ground reporters are doing at NYT, WaPo, NPR, and even the WSJ, we'd have none of this stuff.

The format is different but she is still an investigative reporter

I don't take anything away from Maddow as a television news host and an important person in America right now, but she's not an investigative reporter. They're very different jobs. She might have been earlier in her career before she became a host (I don't know much about her pre-MSNBC host days), but in her capacity now, she's not. MSNBC isn't even doing the investigating for the topics, typically newspaper press is.

 

[Angelus Errare]

MSNBC is openly editorializing and their official motto is “lean forward” so yeah she’s good as a liberal host but she is most certainly not about presenting information so much as presenting a narrative that makes her opinions on information clear. It’s like Daily Show without comedy. Very much about having an audience

I respect her for her obvious intellect on presenting topics.

Well I mean facts tends to have a liberal bias.

 

[Phased]

She's literally and figuratively taken up Olbermann's spot on the network. Her delivery is really similar to his too, which I guess makes sense since the first time I recall seeing her was as a guest on his show.

She's a bit too theatrical for me (as was Olbermann) but they definitely have their place.

 

[Slaythe]

As a European, I didn't know her before the tax thing.

Yeah... I'm getting my sources of information from elsewhere now. First impression matters most.

 

[CrisKre]

There is a certain risk with presenting everything as "the smoking gun," or everything as the "This is the moment!" information. Not that Maddow necessarily does that (she certainly does), but you see it very often in left-leaning television and internet press today, that each new day is "THE" story to take down Trump... And then 3 weeks pass, and that story is forgotten, and they're racing for the next story that is "THE" story, etc.

Case in point, when the Don Jr. stuff broke, the Huffington Post's headline all morning was "THE SMOKING GUN." The thing is... it's not the smoking gun, any clear-eyed person knows that this isn't Trump holding a smoking gun. It can be helpful to build narrative so that people who may not otherwise pay attention know when something is important or not, but the risk is that when everything is treated as the smoking gun as cable news and often internet opinion sites do, it makes discerning what is the smoking gun that much more difficult for the average person. What happens then is usually disillusionment because when someone is told by HP or RawStory or what have you that "this is it, this is the thing we needed!" and they tell you that almost every day with every new story, if you believe them, then you end up thinkign "Well goddam why hasn't anyone DONE anything yet!?" Now the answer to that question can often be "Well because the people who have to do something are in on it, or incompetent, or motivated by other reasons," but when it happens often enough and when the response doesn't match the 'bombasticness' of how something is presented, it can undermine the original intention.

There is more value (IMO) in how something is presented by, say, the NYT and NPR, in an exacting, stick-to-the-facts, inform-the-public kind of way. There is also value in narrative making (which is one of the things that Maddow's program is so good at), there are lots of people who need a narrative to better understand information (I think the Right was very effective at building a narrative around Obama and Clinton). But without the yeoman's work that your base, on the ground reporters are doing at NYT, WaPo, NPR, and even the WSJ, we'd have none of this stuff.



I don't take anything away from Maddow as a television host and an important person in America right now, but she's not an investigative reporter. They're very different jobs. She might have been earlier in her career before she became a host (I don't know much about her pre-MSNBC host days), but in her capacity now, she's not. MSNBC isn't even doing the investigating for the topics, typically newspaper press is.

Well, the thing is don Juniors emails are The Smoking Gun. It's true that the dots need to be connected for the investigation to Bear fruits, but notice how most of Washington is already treating the Russia issue as matter of fact (except those Republicans trying to spin it of course).

Also having watch the show Daily I fail to see how she hasn't at every step of the way being careful not to conclude any of the allegations were facts until Dunn's emails.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

She's literally and figuratively taken up Olbermann's spot on the network. Her delivery is really similar to his too, which I guess makes sense since the first time I recall seeing her was as a guest on his show.

She's a bit too theatrical for me (as was Olbermann) but they definitely have their place.

Man, I miss Olbermann.

I dig The Resistance on Youtube, but it's just not the same.

 

[King Tubby]

She's the Alex jones of liberals.

What is her equivalent of "they're putting chemicals in our water supply that turns the frogs gay"

 

[teepo]

can't wait for her to be vindicated

give her the pulitzer

 

[CrisKre]

She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents since there's miles between conservatives and liberals. She's not a liar but boy she's a bullshitter. And she's not a journalist, she's an anchor.
She's less I.F. Stone and more this

I don't understand how the latest developments proving her reporting at least sound can lead to anyone saying this. Not after everything that has come out it may have sounded in the past like a conspiracy theory but I guess we are beyond that now. she was right to hammer on this issues and everything is pointing to her assertions and suspicions being somewhat corroborated which means they where based on facts. Unlike anything Jones said, ever. So no?

 

[LCGeek]

She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents since there's miles between conservatives and liberals. She's not a liar but boy she's a bullshitter. And she's not a journalist, she's an anchor.
She's less I.F. Stone and more this

How about fuck no....

This is so fucking dishonest I don't know where to start, whoops I do.

Give me a call when there's the equivalent of a sandy hook like incident she denies. Give me a call when she becomes shill for the right wing. She was one of the few that wasn't too peachy on hillary during the campaign process. Can't fucking say the same for AJ who was buddy buddy with trump on the show. Last time I checked I've never seen rachel maddow pull a fake hoax of another country invading. Does Maddow tell people she's for them while actively dividng a movement say like occupy wall street or ufos. She isn't a zionist shill either.

There's no one like Alex Jones considering how he basically took himself from some nobody wannabe conspiracy theorist in the mid 90s to what essentially has been a rise since the turn of the century. Gaffers and others hate his infamy I've learned from much better and insightful people to be weary of him and those who easily peddle or rationalize his bullshit like you did.

 

[rambis]

As someone who follows the news closely at times, I am disparaged alot by her willingness to explain every detail every time. As someone who's worked with intel agencies, brevity is a hell of a trait. I understand why she does what she does but that and her cheesy delivery makes her pretty unappealing to me.

She should be applauded for her dedication though.