Support NeoGAF

[CrisKre]

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.

This I totally get. If you are good at critical thinking and willingly search and connect the facts, this editorials bring no added value to you and can seem like rethread of your own conclusions. For 99% of the population that is not the case though.

She is doing what's right for those of us that can't consume every bit of news let alone have the insight to connect it all. And that's commendable and unfortunately far from the norm.

I think she is also fantastic at bringing a sense of true human experience to her stories and also explaining in real life terms how Washington operates.

Her new head of the FBI exposition is a good example of it: she brought up the complexity of the decision to accept the nomination to head the FBI in todays context. On the one hand acknowledging what a career high and honor being approached for the post must be, but also stating that how scandalous this WH and the Trump admin. Has to cause pause when considering accepting. This real life struggle to reconcile the two was something I never even thought of when thinking about the next appointee, but it really makes you think what kind of person would a) have Trump comfortable appointing him and b) would be willing to stake their reputation accepting.

 

[Volimar]

Rachel's great. Her style reminds me of that old "...and that's the rest of the story" radio guy that my grandma listened to. Learn a lot of neat little tidbits.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Didn’t she just massively screw up a story about a false flag leak type thing involving The Intercept?

Did she? A narrative was painted that news orgs should be on high alert and that gave people like Benjamin Wittes enough ammo to claim The Intercept could be compromised.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Quit watching MSNBC years ago.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Only recently started watching her. She's so damn animated, it's great.

 

[skybald]

She can be good but she can certainly sensationalize. See the tax story and now the 'fake documents' story. Two stories handled VERY poorly in a matter of months. It is bad because of how educated she is.

I will certainly watch her over most other shows though.

 

[BlueTsunami]

In a world full of bite sized news tidbits and what we now call hot takes from talking heads, I dont see how you could see Maddows diving into the minutiae as anything but commendable. She has her faults, no doubt, but presenting an overview and slowly fixating on the ultimate point of the hour is why she's not only a good watch but an important one.

 

[polyh3dron]

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

No. No she's not. Alex Jones claimed that no one was really killed in the Sandy Hook shooting and that all of the news footage was comprised of actors.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I don't think Boney is coming back to explain the actual reasoning.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

anyone claiming she's the Alex Jones or Limbaugh or Hannity or whatever else the conservative media has really is not paying attention. Maddow makes an honest and commendable effort to research her stories and to paint a picture how all the facts connect and why they matter. something that can't be said for the other side.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

She's cool.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

She is way too long winded. Get to the point. Her rants aren't entertaining enough to hold your attention like John Stewart's were and Oliver's are.

 

[psynergylover]

I enjoy watching her when I have the chance, her reporting(or at least telling of those who are reporting) is fantastic. She doesn't have to talk over her guest; she has that special gift of asking the right questions that can absolutely destroy you or catch you in a major slip-up. She definitely does her research on who ever will be her guest and has opposing views; I'd say she and her staff are kinda like the Daily Show(with Jon Stewart) but with like 1/10 of the comedic delivery.

I think she'd make a better anchor for Meet the Press than Chuck Todd

 

[jack_package_200]

I don't think Boney is coming back to explain the actual reasoning.

He'll back when he can post a thread involving Noam Chomsky or criticizing the democrats.

 

[HariKari]

Her delivery is obnoxious and she blew a lot of credibility with the tax thing. She's a cut above by quite a bit, but not a fan of hers overall.

 

[LosDaddie]

Well.... she isnt the worst. She has that going for her.

Basically, yes.

Maddow getting trolled over the tax fiasco made her look like a buffoon. She got played like fiddle and didn't have the backbone to own up to it.

But sure, if you want partisan commentary, then you'd could do a lot worse than Maddow.

 

[DrSlek]

"Fiasco"

fucking people latching onto that blip.

GG

That blip was my first exposure to her.

 

[Burt]

I have a hard time believing that anyone who's still going on about the tax thing has spent more time watching the show than they have reading headlines about that single episode.

75% of the show is just collating the news from literally the most reputable new sources in the country and adding a throughline between current and past events. It's the exact same stuff posted in OT daily, condensed and contextualized for a TV show.

20% of the time is original or quasi-original reporting that takes old stories and puts them in a new lens to ask questions that you don't often see anywhere else.

5% is Rachel laughing at her own jokes and asking rhetorical questions. "Ha-ha! What does that mean? I don't know! Ha-ha! ...Watch this space." And maybe an interview with the author of a related book.

But hey, she led a story by half an afternoon with a tweet that one time, so she's basically Jeffrey Lord.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

I regret not watching Maddow. I've watched MSNBC the least out of the big three in my lifetime. All the praise she's been getting has me interested.

 

[leroidys]

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 swear every time you come back from a ban your posts are 2x as dumb.

On topic:

Yeah, I still like Rachel even after the TRUMPS TAXES episode. Was pretty hilarious that she had a show making fun of Geraldo Rivera's similar moment just a few weeks earlier.

She was way ahead of everyone else on the Russia story, and no doubt is largely to thank for keeping it in the public eye.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

Omg, look how he treats Mrs Macron.

 

[CrisKre]

I regret not watching Maddow. I've watched MSNBC the least out of the big three in my lifetime. All the praise she's been getting has me interested.

Do it. Her reporting adds value where I feel 99% of reporting elsewhere is completely void of it. No joke.

She explains what the reporting indicates by contextualizing it to derive an informed assertion of the intention behind actions, and also takes it further by indicating the logical possible outcomes of where any given reported fact may inform future developments.

For example: she has been stating what the Republicans counter will be in regards to the email scandal by exposing the behavior of seemingly unrelated agents like some people in Congress stating in passing they want to know who let the Russian lawyer into the country, and certain headlines on right wing media.
She prognosticated Tuesday the response would be related to shifting blame too the Democrats by stating they in actuality set up the meeting to implicate the Trump campaign. That prediction came to be.

 

[CrisKre]

Basically, yes.

Maddow getting trolled over the tax fiasco made her look like a buffoon. She got played like fiddle and didn't have the backbone to own up to it.

But sure, if you want partisan commentary, then you'd could do a lot worse than Maddow.

That doesn't undermine the fantastic job she's doing 99.9% of the time. Like she's been called a crazy conspiracy theory nut by hammering the Russian connection while NO ONE was looking seriously at it. There is some major journalistic instinct there just by that sheer determination in persisting to ask questions and see the big picture when everyone else tells you there is nothing there.

We might add she has done balls as well for insisting on persuing this story. She is definitely putting herself in harms way by doing it.

 

[Messofanego]

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

Boney, you gonna explain this Alex Jones = Rachel Maddow comparison or just duck out of the thread with this hot take?

I don't know of this poster's history, am I being trolled?

 

[Hitman]

Maddow isn't to blame for the "Trump Tax Fiasco" because that so-called fiasco was due to people having expectations for something she never had. She reported on the taxes just fine, with context and with education. Learning that Trump has a pattern of releasing his own fake leaks was well worth the segment. That possibility and insight into Trump's mind is still more valuable than 95% of the articles and reports on Trump and his steak eating or whatever. Also, was educational in that we know that the 2005 tax returns purposefully left out vital pages that we will now know to continue to demand for the 2012-2017 tax returns.

 

[Sinfamy]

Has she reported on anything but Russia in the past 6 months?

 

[SaviourMK2]

I never really paid attention to her until the 2005 tax release. Which ironically I was miffed over that it amounted to nothing after a sudden buildup.
Now I watch every night I can.

 

[Hitman]

Has she reported on anything but Russia in the past 6 months?

...kinda reported on the Oroville Dam possible collapse... which some how loops around connects back to Trump but not in a Russian way.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

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:

None of her shit from last year led to anything. I watched her thinking Trump was getting laundered oligarch money through Cyprus and property sales and it turned out he was just getting emails so he could lift sanctions. Unbelievably off base. No, she wasn't "the first one". Everyone was hot on Trump's shit as soon as Paul Manafort turned out to be a black book Kremlin operative a year ago.

 

[tekumseh]

Maddow is fantastic, and always has been. She's the most prepared host on TV, and unafraid to acknowledge mistakes made on the show and to correct the record when necessary. She was on the Chris Christie bridge scandal for weeks before anyone else breathed a word about it, and her persistence concerning it was definitely paid off when convictions came from it. The tax thing was a minor stumble, and she's recovered spectacularly following it. She's deserving of every single accolade finally coming her, and the show's, way, because she's been doing the same preparation and the same exemplary work, whether she had large audiences, or barely perceptible ones, like were unfortunately the case for a long time. She's the smartest talker on night time news coverage, and, as someone who has been a huge fan since her Air America days, I couldn't be more happy for her success...

 

[newtypepilot]

her videos are great, especially the one where she reveals there are forged classical documents being "leaked" with the intention of discrediting the media.

 

[ResidentWeevil13]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07...ke-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

It's about Maddow hyping an obviously fake and forged "leaked NSA document," that other news organizations (including goddamn Buzzfeed) realized almost immediately was fake and didn't report on.

And I have to say GAF, I'm a little disappointed in those of you who can't see that Rachel Maddow is just another cable news pundit out for ratings in the 24 hour news cycle. Like she's not as bad as someone like Bill O'Reilly, but like him, she's just telling her audience what they want to hear day in and day out, over-hyping almost every little thing.

 

[Gattsu25]

She is way too long winded. Get to the point. Her rants aren't entertaining enough to hold your attention like John Stewart's were and Oliver's are.

If you're expecting pseudo-comedic rants then you're watching the wrong show for two reasons: 1) She isn't a comedian and 2) she doesn't rant.

Edit: Tubs_McNubs, no. That episode was her warning other news outlets to be careful about faked documents intending to discredit the entire russian-collusion news story. She spends the majority of her discussion talking about exactly that.

 

[jph139]

I mean, if you absolutely have to get your news from a TV show, she's probably the one to watch. I guess. But I can't get past the "talking head" style of it all.

 

[Boney]

As I said, they're not equivalents. Conservatives in America are scum 100% batshit crazy. Liberals are, for the most part, functional and decent human beings. That same difference carries over to the comparison, where one talks about lizard people while the other hypes up stories with little regard for the accuracy of facts or any sense of scale about them.

Just like president's merits shouldn't be compared to trump, Fox News is not a good barometer for network news media.

 

[LosDaddie]

That doesn't undermine the fantastic job she's doing 99.9% of the time. Like she's been called a crazy conspiracy theory nut by hammering the Russian connection while NO ONE was looking seriously at it. There is some major journalistic instinct there just by that sheer determination in persisting to ask questions and see the big picture when everyone else tells you there is nothing there.

We might add she has done balls as well for insisting on persuing this story. She is definitely putting herself in harms way by doing it.

Yeah, like I said, if you want partisan commentary, then you could do worse than Rachel.

 

[Inyourprime]

When it comes to news watching on tv, after I watch the NewsHour that's, normally, it. I'll watch her show every now and then, but watching tv in general is something I don't do much of anymore.

 

[ResidentWeevil13]

I
Edit: Tubs_McNubs, no. That episode was her warning other news outlets to be careful about faked documents intending to discredit the entire russian-collusion news story. She spends the majority of her discussion talking about exactly that.

Except every reputable news organization vets the annonymous documents leaked to them. That's basic journalism. They know how to do their job, they don't need Rachel Maddow to tell them.

You know who doesn't apparently know how to do there job, though? Her staff. Who acted like the fake NSA document they received was a very convincing and high-guality forgery when it wasn't. Like I said, every other news organization that got this document did not report on it because it was clearly fake.

So Maddow and her staff were either concern trolling, or they aren't very competent journalists. I'd bet money on a combination of the two. Cable news is entertainment. Please GAF get your information elsewhere.

Edit: Or there's a third option, which is they needed to fill air time so they report stupid stories. 24 hour news cycle, yall

 

[Gattsu25]

Except every reputable news organization vets the annonymous documents leaked to them. That's basic journalism. They know how to do their job, they don't need Rachel Maddow to tell them.

You know who doesn't apparently know how to do there job, though? Her staff. Who acted like the fake NSA document they received was a very convincing and high-guality forgery when it wasn't. Like I said, every other news organization that got this document did not report on it because it was clearly fake.

So Maddow and her staff were either concern trolling, or they aren't very competent journalists. I'd bet money on a combination of the two. Cable news is entertainment. Please GAF get your information elsewhere.

Edit: Or there's a third option, which is they needed to fill air time so they report stupid stories. 24 hour news cycle, yall

She started her piece talking about how the staff at 20/20 got taken by fake documents and then pivoted to how the intercept completely compromised one of their sources. Her point was that this was not the time to cut corners and to remain vigilant.

But sure..

 

[Maiden Voyage]

The people who love her are people who are deep in the echo chamber and just hear what they want to hear.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[CrisKre]

She started her piece talking about how the staff at 20/20 got taken by fake documents and then pivoted to how the intercept completely compromised one of their sources. Her point was that this was not the time to cut corners and to remain vigilant.

But sure..

Not to mention the fact that the public knowing someone who has access to top secret documents is attempting to disseminate false evidence might be a good thing and actually newsworthy.

 

[Stinkles]

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.

I understand what you mean but her role is akin to Neil degrasse Tyson or professor Brian Cox - make complex subjects understandable and entertaining through sometimes pretty reductive explanations.

 

[CrisKre]

Couldn't agree more.

So the whole Russia think is #fakenews right? Pleeease

 

[Duane Cunningham]

I understand what you mean but her role is akin to Neil degrasse Tyson or professor Brian Cox - make complex subjects understandable and entertaining through sometimes pretty reductive explanations.

Popular [Political] Science

 

[Dishwalla]

She's pretty great, one of the few news personalities that's worth watching, but she's not enough to get me to watch cable news on a regular basis.

 

[Father_Brain]

She started her piece talking about how the staff at 20/20 got taken by fake documents and then pivoted to how the intercept completely compromised one of their sources. Her point was that this was not the time to cut corners and to remain vigilant.

But sure..

Arguing for journalistic vigilance is one thing. Spending twenty minutes insinuating that an obviously fake document was actually an incredibly convincing forgery that was produced by the Trump administration in a deliberate high-level effort to discredit journalists reporting on Russia is quite another.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

So the whole Russia think is #fakenews right? Pleeease

Because the two can't coexist without each other?

 

[Gattsu25]

Arguing for journalistic vigilance is one thing. Spending twenty minutes insinuating that an obviously fake document was actually an incredibly convincing forgery that was produced by the Trump administration in a deliberate high-level effort to discredit journalists reporting on Russia is quite another.

Where in the bloody hell did she even begin to imply that this was by anyone within the Trump Administration? God..people who don't watch a show shouldn't pretend to have watched it.

 

[captive]

Yes, this was incredibly fucked up.

She's not quite as bad as Glenn Beck, but she's close. The people who love her are people who are deep in the echo chamber and just hear what they want to hear.

I've watched her a few times, by no means do i love her. But anyone comparing her to Glenn Beck, Bill OReilly, Rush or anyone on the right in any other capacity than "yea she's on the tv" is flaming moron.

When i've watched her shes been fairly fair and balanced, though as others have said, long winded.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I disagree, she is just another partisan cable news personality among many others. She could be replaced relatively easily and you'd still get the same thing you are getting now. This goes for all of them to be honest, Look how easily Fox went from Greta, Megyn Kelly, and O'Reilly to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity without skipping a beat.