All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2022 Season

[BuckeyeLou]

3 hours ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

Couple of things here...this subbing other people in to do her show, isn't working . Ratings for TRMS are WAY down. I don't even watch it anymore. It's just not the same. Yes, Rachel is working on other things but is her podcast more important then delivering news stories with deep dives that we need to know about??? I've read that Chuck Todd is lobbying for Rachel's show...big time. If MSNBC gives her show to him, then that would be the single worst thing to happen to this network. MSNBC needs to grab someone from another network who has the same journalistic pedigree and great on air persona that Rachel has. There isn't anyone currently from the MSNBC stable that can replace her...they are all bench warmers not stars. 

On another note...what is with this SKY News that is on for a several hours in late night before Way Too Early? What happened to repeated shows like Chris Hayes and TRMS in those time slots? I couldn't sleep one night and thought I'd watch the Chris Hayes 3:00 AM repeat since I I missed the 8 PM show and it this SKY News that is apparently now on for several hours before Jonathan Lemire. What is going on over there?

I read that at SXSW this year, some of the NBC "Bigwigs" were there talking about all their new streaming services & how this will be the future of all news broadcasts & something was mentioned about partnering with SKY News in Britain, so maybe they are making some changes already...

[Hedgehog2022]

2 hours ago, BuckeyeLou said:

I read that at SXSW this year, some of the NBC "Bigwigs" were there talking about all their new streaming services & how this will be the future of all news broadcasts & something was mentioned about partnering with SKY News in Britain, so maybe they are making some changes already...

I don't know about other people but I don't watch CNN streaming and doubt I would watch MSNBC streaming unless they had something really great to watch. I think these suits at NBC, CBS, ABC etc...want to believe that "streaming" services are the next big thing but they aren't. People don't really change their news viewing habits too much. They pretty much watch the same news sources out of habit...is anyone really watching Peacock news shows? Do they even have any? I know Mika Brezinski was supposed to have a show there but I haven't heard anything about it since it was announced she would be doing it. If they have decided to partner with SKY News out of Britain, why put it on on 3 AM? Why not ace out that awful woman Andrea Mitchell and put SKY News on then? The best thing MSNBC coud do is to find an equivalent replacement for Rachel and fire or retire some of the older, boring anchors like Andrea Mitchell and Joe Scarborough. Put some younger talent in their place...and Jonathan Lemire was a bad decision for Way Too Early. He can barely read the monitor and of course has to blither blather about his beloved Red Sox at every chance he gets...also, he looks terrible. That pasty white face, big bags under his eyes...yikes! I miss Kasie Hunt 😥

[tessaray]

Most networks have been reluctant to put much of their exclusive news content on their streaming services, so this next day thing is actually pretty interesting.  No TRMS though.

https://deadline.com/2022/03/msnbc-to-boost-peacock-streaming-content-with-on-demand-offering-of-cable-network-shows-and-specials-1234975257/

In addition to Morning Joe and The ReidOut, other shows that will be offered on demand include Deadline: White House, The Beat with Ari Melber and All In with Chris Hayes, as well as weekend programming. The shows will be offered the next day. Such a time delay has been a bit of a norm for cable channels as they have existing commitments with pay TV distributors.

The network also said that the hub also will offer specials with Rachel Maddow, Wallace, Hayes and Trymaine Lee that will stream exclusively on Peacock. Maddow’s show was not included among the on-demand offerings, but she signed a deal with that includes the development of projects in partnership with NBCU.

[possibilities]

It's not that I think what Rachel is working on right now is or isn't more important than her nightly show. It's that I think she's a human being who has a right to decide what she works on. We don't own her.

I personally miss her a lot and don't watch consistently anymore.

MSNBC is a mess, they don't know how to recruit or train people to do real journalism, and they don't really have an institutional priority on it, and they don't really seem to understand or care about being a news network so much as a ratings gabfest. Some of their people are interesting and bring info and perspectives I think are valuable, but it seems to be pretty much random luck when it happens. I am under the impression they just kind of throw people on air based on personal relationships and then see how the ratings are, rather than actually having a recruiting and vetting process to select for talent.

If they give the hour to Chuck Todd, that will be a sign they are not only lazy but also stupid. He's the worst!!!

 

[ruby24]

They weren't even the ones who found Rachel in the first place- didn't she come through Keith Olbermann? 

It really was an idiotic "deal" they came up with though. They didn't want to lose her so they managed to get her to compromise by giving her an extended "break" but the truth is if she didn't want to do the show anymore and she was ready to move on to other things she should have ended it. Whatever this is that's happening right now is not working. And it's stupid.

[possibilities]

I guess I'd rather have her sometimes than never.

[Xena]

Chiming in to say -  I am totally fine with what Rachael is doing, and that getting Rach sometimes is better than not getting her at all.  She has spoken before about her battles with depression - she knows herself well and if she needs a break, then good for her having the opportunity and the where-with-all to take one.  As far as finding a replacement - that isn't possible.  Rach is lightning in a bottle - her intimidating knowledge of history, smarts, and satiric wit aren't easily copied.  

[tessaray]

Without Rachel MSNBC isn't really a must for me anymore, so this strategy seems weird from a ratings perspective.  

The network is in an awkward position though. Bringing in someone from the outside would alienate their current personalities but none of them (except maybe Nicolle) is all that interesting. They might be decent journalists and Ali Velshi is doing great work in the field but on an ordinary day, boring. 

Rachel was a workhorse for 10 years and I don't blame her for being sick of it. I would love to see her get a Real Time or John Oliver kind of show. It would be better than to see her sporadically. 

[Scout Finch]

On 3/14/2022 at 10:05 AM, tessaray said:

Without Rachel MSNBC isn't really a must for me anymore, so this strategy seems weird from a ratings perspective.  

The only evening show I'm interested in right now is Lawrence O'Donnell's (but not if someone is filling in for him). The old lineup of Rachel, Lawrence, and Brian Williams used to be my must-see shows. I've only watched a few episodes of The 11th Hour since Brian left.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Scout Finch

[LaylaGirl]

On 3/12/2022 at 4:42 PM, Hedgehog2022 said:

On another note...what is with this SKY News that is on for a several hours in late night before Way Too Early? What happened to repeated shows like Chris Hayes and TRMS in those time slots? I couldn't sleep one night and thought I'd watch the Chris Hayes 3:00 AM repeat since I I missed the 8 PM show and it this SKY News that is apparently now on for several hours before Jonathan Lemire. What is going on over there?

They started this last week. I was wondering if it was going to be permanent, or if it is being done to get live coverage during the war in Ukraine. Because of the time difference, there is often breaking news during the night in the United States.

[tessaray]

The Daily Beast published a rather interesting article...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/msnbc-almost-brought-back-keith-olbermann-to-replace-rachel-maddow?source=articles&via=rss 

She nixed Keith temporarily replacing her (boo) and the article says TRMS will be ending this spring. So NBC is paying a boatload of money to keep her in the news family but won't get anything to help with her current MSNBC time slot. I like Rachel a lot but without a show, I can't see how these podcasts and specials will keep her on top. Oh well. 

[ruby24]

I'm dying to know what the beef is between her and Olbermann.

If the show was going to end this spring anyway, why not just end it now? April is spring, is she going to come back for a month and end it? Seem pointless.

[meowmommy]

Well, I'm sorry Keith and Rachel don't get along any more, because Keith Olbermann is definitely one of the few people I'd sign on to watch.  It's also telling that she has so much clout that she can tell the network whom they can hire into their most important prime time hour. 

I have no interest in podcasts or specials.  Bye, bye Rachel.  There's no one currently in the MSNBC stable whom I'll put on my DVR in that time slot.

[tessaray]

53 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I'm dying to know what the beef is between her and Olbermann.

If the show was going to end this spring anyway, why not just end it now? April is spring, is she going to come back for a month and end it? Seem pointless.

The article linked to one that implied it was Rachel not liking Keith taking credit for her success.  {shrug}

I kinda agree that coming back just to unwind the show seems pointless.  Though it would be a good way for them to plug her other projects. And it buys them a bit more time to settle on a new host. 

[ruby24]

Well, I mean isn't he literally the one who brought her on TV in the first place, on his show? She's great, but he is the one who discovered her, right? He may be a nightmare to work with but I would think she'd have to admit he had something to do with her being on TV.

[ScoobieDoobs]

On 3/12/2022 at 3:09 PM, possibilities said:

I agree MSNBC needs to cultivate more talent, but I don't think Rachel owes it to us to be there. She's actually working on something else right now, and didn't she say she'd be back in April? 

Who said anything about her owing anything to anyone?  Honestly, I just don't get what she's about now.  And I still don't get why she did this deal of blowing off the show & then only being on a handful of times.  I mean, sure, she'll get paid zillions to do a tiny fraction of what she was doing before, so cha-ching, cha-ching, it's a great cash payout for her, but to me it's disappointing. 

I figured she'd be itching to talk about what's going on in Ukraine.  She's been talking about Putin (& his oligarchs) for what seems like decades, and now that he's doing the horrific things he's doing, we hear absolutely nothing from Rachel.  That's what's disappointing to me.  Not that she owes anything to viewers, but again, I don't get her.  Doesn't she want to comment on what's going on now?  Guess she has more important priorities and/or commitments.  Yeah, she said she'll be back in April, but it's already been announced the show is ending by then, so it probably won't be more than once or twice.  Wonder if Putin (and/or his oligarchs) has sent her a thank you muffin basket for her trip to oblivion.

Btw, the comment about Chuck Toad wanting Rachel's timeslot gave me a hearty belly laugh.  He's lucky to have the 1 o'clock time he's got.  Apparently, they're considering giving him the boot totally.  The only one more deluded than him must be Andrew Cuomo!

[possibilities]

I don't think she's leaving because of money, or because she thinks podcasts are more important than primetime. I suspect a combination of burnout and a desire to spend more time with Susan after her near death scare last year.

I had a job I loved and I burned out so much that I literally felt nauseated whenever I even thought about continuing. It was physically painful to push through it. I took a break fully intending to return but I just never could do it. That's why I understand if she's leaving for personal reasons. It might just be that she cares about and even liked the job, but she jusrt didn't have it in her anymore. It's very hard to walk away from something you love, that you also consider important. But sometimes you just have to.

MSNBC needs to specifically look for and cultivate people from places outside the usual chatteratti. Look for academics, activists, other people with Rachel's background in history, who are able to concentrate for more than a soundbite, and who can contextualize the way she does. The problem is that the suits at MSNBC don't know what the hell they're doing, and are so far out of their depths that they can't figure it out. They got lucky with Rachel. We all did.

They could also look at the non-TV media, people who write long form reporting and have proven they are actual journalists, not just pretty faces who can read headlines. Maddow herself came from the less glamorous wings of journalism. But the way they manage the network, it's clear they are not thinking deeply enough to have that kind of development process.

[Hedgehog2022]

22 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I'm dying to know what the beef is between her and Olbermann.

If the show was going to end this spring anyway, why not just end it now? April is spring, is she going to come back for a month and end it? Seem pointless.

Last year Keith took some rather nasty potshots at Rachel and Steve Kornacki. He said that he “discovered” them both and they weren’t grateful to him for giving them a start at MSNBC. He said some other stuff that was pretty snarky and dripping in jealousy over both Rachel and Steve’s success. He sounded petty and mean spirited…all unprovoked…neither Rachel or Steve had made any comments about Keith since he was fired years ago. So I can understand why it would piss her off that MSNBC would hand off her show to him. Also, they fired him 10 years ago, now they’re bringing him back? They sound desperate…Keith has been fired at every network he’s worked at.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Hedgehog2022

[Hedgehog2022]

On 3/13/2022 at 7:01 AM, possibilities said:

It's not that I think what Rachel is working on right now is or isn't more important than her nightly show. It's that I think she's a human being who has a right to decide what she works on. We don't own her.

I personally miss her a lot and don't watch consistently anymore.

MSNBC is a mess, they don't know how to recruit or train people to do real journalism, and they don't really have an institutional priority on it, and they don't really seem to understand or care about being a news network so much as a ratings gabfest. Some of their people are interesting and bring info and perspectives I think are valuable, but it seems to be pretty much random luck when it happens. I am under the impression they just kind of throw people on air based on personal relationships and then see how the ratings are, rather than actually having a recruiting and vetting process to select for talent.

If they give the hour to Chuck Todd, that will be a sign they are not only lazy but also stupid. He's the worst!!!

 

I will voice my displeasure to the suits at MSNBC if this show goes to that asshat Chuck Todd.

[tessaray]

2 hours ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

Last year Keith took some rather nasty potshots at Rachel and Steve Kornacki. He said that he “discovered” them both and they weren’t grateful to him for giving them a start at MSNBC. He said some other stuff that was pretty snarky and dripping in jealousy over both Rachel and Steve’s success. He sounded petty and mean spirited…all unprovoked…neither Rachel or Steve had made any comments about Keith since he was fired years ago. So I can understand why it would piss her off that MSNBC would hand off her show to him. Also, they fired him 10 years ago, now they’re bringing him back? They sound desperate…Keith has been fired at every network he’s worked at.

Here's the thing... Keith is his own worst enemy but I'd still rather watch him (until he implodes) than most of the other hosts. And if the network brass was talking to him, they know the sad state of their hosting talent. 

I'll add my name to the "no Chuck Todd" list. 

[shok]

On 3/14/2022 at 10:49 PM, ruby24 said:

Well, I mean isn't he literally the one who brought her on TV in the first place, on his show? She's great, but he is the one who discovered her, right? He may be a nightmare to work with but I would think she'd have to admit he had something to do with her being on TV.

No, he didn't 'discover' Rachel. Ironically enough, it was Tucker Carlson who originally brought her to MSNBC. Rachel was gaining reputation and popularity working in radio for Air America and she was brought onto a couple of MSNBC shows as a guest pundit/panelist. She was so good, she was doing a lot of appearances and making quite a name for herself. Keith then got her started out being an anchor by having her fill in for him once in awhile until she was finally given the regular 9:00 pm slot, so yes, he did have some involvement in her success but the thing is, she would have made it without him as she was so smart and so good at what she does that she was making a name for herself by herself anyway.

 

[alias1]

18 hours ago, tessaray said:

Here's the thing... Keith is his own worst enemy but I'd still rather watch him (until he implodes) than most of the other hosts. And if the network brass was talking to him, they know the sad state of their hosting talent. 

I'll add my name to the "no Chuck Todd" list. 

This, times 1000.   I like Rachel a lot but she didn't do MSNBC any favors here.  I would watch him over anyone else who is there now.        

[grommit2]

Chuck Todd, eh?
I noticed that they have a segment where he goes to a board and draws circles around key points...all while there is upbeat, intrusive music.  Not sure why they do that.  The music just adds noise to the segment.  Oh well.

[Prairie Rose]

Why even bother using TRMS name with her being out so long? Use the Velshi name and graphics from his weekend show when he's on (which has been most of the time), or the generic MSNBC Reports. 

[grommit2]

2 hours ago, Prairie Rose said:

Why even bother using TRMS name with her being out so long? Use the Velshi name and graphics from his weekend show when he's on (which has been most of the time), or the generic MSNBC Reports. 

Hi Prarie...
I agree with you.  Velshi is clear, thorough, articulate, knowledgeable...all the things you want in your on-camera talent.
I miss Rachel.  I listened to her as far back as her Air America radio show, a worthy opponent to the EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) shows featuring the late Rush Limbaugh. 
But...on we go. 

[MissL]

I came in here to see what people thought of Velshi. I’m just not feeling it. He seems nice enough but bleh… And it doesn’t make sense because I know he’s basically reading the same script Rachel would have gotten. I thought there was supposed to be a rotation but I must be super unlucky and only seem to catch him or Ari. I only saw one woman fill in for her and I liked her but can’t remember her name so that doesn’t bode well I guess. I was hoping they’d try out more up and comers or something but again…all I’ve seen is Velshi. I guess I should just be grateful Stephanie is nowhere near this time slot. Man she grates.
 

its April now where is she? If Rachel is really not coming back may be time to just fully delete from my dvr. 

[tessaray]

I think Ukraine has affected the planned host rotation. 

I did some searching again yesterday but all I can find are the same old, same old from Jan/Feb. Basically that she'll be back in April and the show as we know it is ending in the spring - or April, depending on the source. I did see a reference that she would be moving to a weekly show, about 30 a year. At this point I'm not sure anyone will care. 

[M. Darcy]

Rachel is back hosting next week! 

[LaylaGirl]

41 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel is back hosting next week! 

While I am glad Rachel will be back, I have to admit that I will miss Ali. He has been doing some great reporting on the ground in the war zone. I hope he is able to come home for awhile and then I wish they could find a place for him during the week.

[possibilities]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4/7/2090679/-Rachel-Maddow-is-back-on-Monday

This suggests she'll be at MNSBC for a while, but it's still unclear about how long she will do the show every night.

[BuckeyeLou]

Rachel looks happy to be back :)  She is praising Ali Velshi filling in.  And she says her time off was great!  But, she is now rested up enough, that she will be back hosting every Monday thru Thursdays...

[PurpleFishHead]

22 minutes ago, BuckeyeLou said:

Rachel looks happy to be back :)  She is praising Ali Velshi filling in.  And she says her time off was great!  But, she is now rested up enough, that she will be back hosting every Monday thru Thursdays...

But the Punchline is she will be hosting weekly on Mondays. No comment on who will host the rest of the week.

[ruby24]

What a bizarre way this whole thing is rolling out. Why would they have rotating hosts for "The Rachel Maddow Show" the rest of the week if she's only going to be on one night? Why not just make a new show in that slot?

So strange. MSNBC is clearly desperate to keep her around to be agreeing to all this fluctuation, but she could probably do a weekly show on another network.

[tessaray]

So, she'll be on M-Th for the rest of April and in May will go to a once a week show on Monday. With appearances for special events like elections.

With all the (deserved) praise for Ali, it wouldn't surprise me if he did get the slot. 

[meowmommy]

Feh.  Got all excited when she said she didn't need another hiatus, and then this.  Once a week dropping in on something called The Rachel Maddow Show.  It needs to be renamed and rebooted with a new host.  If she wants to work once a week, why not take Lawrence's Fridays since he's never there anyway. 

But as became painfully obvious when BriWi left, Stephanie Ruhle went to his slot, and the utterly useless Twins were given four hours instead of three when most days they barely showed up for two, MSNBC definitely does not have a deep bench.  Are they planning to make their other hosts do double-duty as subs for all eternity?  Nicolle doesn't want prime time and Chuck Toad will tank the prime time ratings if they put him there.

I know she thinks she's doing great things, but she will never again have the exposure and the audience for her ideas she has now, no matter how many podcasts and specials and books she generates. 

[movingtargetgal]

I would love it if Rachel became the new host of Meet the Press.

[grommit2]

Ok Ok...looks like I'll have to fix all of this.
Let's bring in Chris Wallace AND Rachel Maddow for a dual host show.
<<sigh>>  work, work work...🤪  Geez...I'm so smart.

[meowmommy]

5 hours ago, grommit2 said:

Ok Ok...looks like I'll have to fix all of this.
Let's bring in Chris Wallace AND Rachel Maddow for a dual host show.
<<sigh>>  work, work work...🤪  Geez...I'm so smart.

They should have thought of that before Chris Wallace signed a contract with CNN.

I read today that they're going to call the other four days "MSNBC Prime" with...wait for it...rotating hosts.  That oughtta pull the ratings of watching paint dry.

[Scout Finch]

Tonight's episode is yet another example of what I like about Rachel and how it sets her apart: a history lesson that provides a deeper context to a current event. It was fascinating to hear about Finland's Winter War and then seeing their brilliant, extensive fortifications in case of another Russian attack. 

[possibilities]

I was in awe of the Finland underground amenities!!

[Xena]

I admit to scratching my head over folks saying that a once a week news show is worthless and will never attract an audience.  60 Minutes anyone?   I am salivating at the idea of Racheal digging into something more deeply than she does on a nightly show.

[tessaray]

10 hours ago, Xena said:

I admit to scratching my head over folks saying that a once a week news show is worthless and will never attract an audience.  60 Minutes anyone?   I am salivating at the idea of Racheal digging into something more deeply than she does on a nightly show.

I don't think it's worthless exactly but it's an awkward compromise.  Leaving Rachel in her old time slot doesn't set apart the new show at all and the new/old rotating host thing doesn't give anyone a chance to develop a following and establish the kind of audience they need there. 

It doesn't look like Rachel wants to ever do a daily show again and that's her right. A Monday show just seems weird. The Sunday shows recap the previous week and Rachel's strength is giving us what we need to know for what's happening now. 

[corn2022]

Friday is the one year anniversary of the #MaddowBleep. Where Rachel was accidentally bleeped. Perhaps she can throw in some "Watermelon" tomorrow since she won't be here on Friday the 15th.

[ahisma]

Wow. Thursday night news dump? I’m glad Rachel was able to break the McCarthy recording story and the new prosecutor story before her Friday off. 

[FoundTime]

Well, the DVR gods have helped me decide what to do going forward. Since my series recording was set for TRMS and for all practical purposes that doesn't exist anymore (except for whatever the Monday show is going to be), it's officially the end of an era 😔 I'm going to try Chris Hayes this week and see how that goes. I can only take Lawrence and Stephanie Ruehle in doses of about a few minutes at a time, so that's not going to be very comprehensive if I want a day's worth of news!

I will miss this thread and all of you smart and engaged posters. Expect I'll see many of you around elsewhere  on the site.

 

[ruby24]

Wow, this episode tonight made me feel ill. I'm in just as much shock as Rachel is.

[PurpleFishHead]

13 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Wow, this episode tonight made me feel ill. I'm in just as much shock as Rachel is.

And yet, "MSNBC Prime" launches tonight no matter what.

[Morrigan2575]

On 5/3/2022 at 12:24 PM, PurpleFishHead said:

And yet, "MSNBC Prime" launches tonight no matter what.

I just saw that last night, is this permanent or until that other project of hers is done?  I always figured she would cut down but, didn't think 1 day 

[Scout Finch]

F--K! Well, I'll probably still watch Lawrence but I have no interest in MSNBC Prime. What one night will Rachel be on so that I can tune in then? The ratings already dropped during her absence and I think this ridiculous programming move will just continue that trajectory.

[tessaray]

39 minutes ago, Scout Finch said:

F--K! Well, I'll probably still watch Lawrence but I have no interest in MSNBC Prime. What one night will Rachel be on so that I can tune in then? The ratings already dropped during her absence and I think this ridiculous programming move will just continue that trajectory.

She'll be on Monday nights.