Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[Hooper]

Quote

I am obsessed with the interview with Trump's doctor. There's so much going on between the lines! 

The thing that jumped out at me is that at some point the interviewer says something like "so you have no reservations about Trump being president?", and the good doctor replies with something like "(pause)  medically (pause) I have no reservations."  Is Dr B qualifying his statement as medically he has no reservations because he has reservations about Trumps mental fitness?  That's what it sounded like to me but I suppose there's a teeny remote possibility that I'm projecting.

Quote

But, there were also a lot of suspicious things in that interview. For example, the doctor hesitated when the reporter asked if he wrote the letter himself, and the wife had to jump in and answer for him. ......

And what was with the wife's defensiveness? I guess she was upset that the letter has been ridiculed in the media and become an embarrassment to her husband.

Yeah, I thought the wife's behavior did not do her husband any good.   "Did you write the letter?" is a pretty simple question.  The fact that the doctor hesitated, and the fact that the wife jumped in to answer for him - not good! Sad, actually.

 

Quote

And, no matter what you think of President Obama - you have to at least admit, that except for the smoking (which he has given up I believe) he is a very healthy person. 

No matter what I think of President W*- I have to at least admit that (pause) medically (pause)  he seems to be a very healthy person.  Presidents Clinton, Bush Sr, Carter, and Ford* all seemed pretty healthy when they were elected president, and seemed pretty healthy when they left office.  Hell, as a 90 year old President Carter has apparently beaten back frickin' brain cancer (yeah, I know, it's more complicated than that, but still ...).    I suppose there are far more important issues than a dumb hyperbolic statement in a medical letter, but I wish that instead of just letting Dr B claim that Woodrow Wilson was sickly, and some other president had polio, ergo Trump will be  healthier than any other president elected to that office, someone would point out how factually inaccurate that statement is, and ask why anyone should believe anything in that letter if he makes such flippant statements just because he "like(s) that sentence actually".   

Edited August 30, 2016 by Hooper
* ETA: well technically I guess two of the presidents weren't actually elected to be president

[M. Darcy]

Quote

No matter what I think of President W- I have to at least admit that (pause) medically (pause)  he seems to be a very healthy person.  Presidents Clinton, Bush Sr, Carter, and Ford all seemed pretty healthy when they were elected president, and seemed pretty healthy when they left office. 

That's true.  Even Nixon I think was in pretty good health.  Its weird that the reporter didn't point any of that out.  Sure Trump is healthier than the dead Presidents....That doctor just seems like a Martin Short skit gone wrong. 

[jjj]

2 hours ago, car54 said:

My theory is that Trump gave the doctor some kind of outline or draft of the letter he wanted and they just entered it onto their letterhead.   And the wife was there to keep him from admitting anything about whatever really happened.

If you have ever been around a couple where one partner is losing his/her faculties and the other is helping that person cope, you might be reminded of that in watching this couple.  That was the sense I took away from watching them, aside from anything that was said. 

But yes, I had the sense that some of those sentences were dictated, and that the doctor is foggy enough that he really cannot remember which sentences he wrote and which the Donald suggested. 

Edited August 30, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

1 hour ago, jjj said:

If you have ever been around a couple where one partner is losing his/her faculties and the other is helping that person cope, you might be reminded of that in watching this couple.  That was the sense I took away from watching them, aside from anything that was said. 

But yes, I had the sense that some of those sentences were dictated, and that the doctor is foggy enough that he really cannot remember which sentences he wrote and which the Donald suggested. 

They both look like stoners. 

And yes, quite a few times I was like who the hell is the doctor here? Why the hell does she keep talking?  No one is interviewing you, you're not the doctor. She wouldn't shut up.

[stormy]

My feeling, after the doctor interview, was that he viewed the whole thing as a joke.  Like he was writing for The Onion or the like.

[represent]

Trump going to Mexico is not news, get back to his modeling agency's illegal immigrant hiring practices and poor treatment of young teenage girls. 

I'm glad Chris Hayes went into detail with the story, it'll probably be the only detailed coverage it gets.

Edited August 31, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

45 minutes ago, represent said:

Trump going to Mexico is not news, get back to his modeling agency's illegal immigrant hiring practices and poor treatment of young teenage girls. 

I'm glad Chris Hayes went into detail with the story, it'll probably be the only detailed coverage it gets.

To be fair, the "Trump does Mexico" story was just breaking, and fits into the theme of "what the hell kind of strategy is this campaign running?"  (I say this 30 miles from the Trump rally in a state he never had a chance of winning). 

But I do want more on this illegal immigrant hiring story -- INSTEAD OF two (ETA: three!) freakin' segments on the loony Governor of Maine.  I'd love a quick update each night, but he is not national news, just a weird and dangerous diversion.  How's Flint doing, Rachel?  Their emergency federal funding for filters and water ended two weeks ago, with "promises" from the state that it would take over those responsibilities.  The state does not have a good track record, and from what I can see (could be wrong), NOTHING has changed in terms of replacing the pipes running to homes.  "Use a filter, and you'll be fine." 

ETA: Okay, the third Maine segment was about snakes, but still, it's a third segment on Maine.  A snake.  Eating a beaver.  Shedding its skin.

ETA2: Update on the news about the Trump rally this evening -- Rudy Guiliani is on this trip, super.  :(  

Edited August 31, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

I'm personally done with Paul LePage, it's not interesting.  Get back to me when he steps down, or gets hauled off to jail or a mental facility for something. 

The Trump/Mexico story will be interesting when the Mexican president remembers the good relationship he has with President Obama, the summit that he just had with President Obama and the Prime Minister of Canada, the objections he's expressed toward the campaign that Trump has been running, and proceeds to rescind his invitation. Well he can't do that since he also invited Clinton, so he'll have to come up with some other excuse to back out of it, so he doesn't start looking like Putin negatively interfering in our election.  Yeah, when the story has this angle, the press can get back to me. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by represent

[Medicine Crow]

Canada has a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau .... no Presidents here.  LOL.

[represent]

4 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

Canada has a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau .... no Presidents here.  LOL.

Yeah, I caught that mistake and changed it.

LOD has the illegal model agency story, thank you Lawrence for following Hayes in detail.  It should be all over the news, unbelievable. 

Keep digging, I'm sure if they dig even further they'll find out this is exactly where Melania came from.

Edited August 31, 2016 by represent

[M. Darcy]

Quote

It should be all over the news, unbelievable. 

Seriously.  Even if it was adults this is a major story but it was also teenagers. 

Quote

Okay, the third Maine segment was about snakes

Which what the hell Rachel.  I don't need to see a 12 foot snake skin...and then shown just how tall that is.

[jjj]

According to the crawl on MSNBC, Rachel will come back for a second hour at midnight (9:00 PT) to cover the immigration speech. 

[alias1]

I love Rachel but if that is a reason for her to come back on, I'm going to pass.  Yawn.  I really don't care what he has to say because it will either be incoherent, or it will be different in two days, or both.

And that segment on the snake was really stupid.  The whole Maine thing is not that interesting anyway.  Come back to it if they actually impeach him, otherwise he's as uninteresting to me as Trump is.  I'm sick of them covering whatever Trump says.  They should stick to uncovering his past shady dealings. 

[represent]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

According to the crawl on MSNBC, Rachel will come back for a second hour at midnight (9:00 PT) to cover the immigration speech. 

Good to know, so Chris Hayes is all I'll be watching tonight apparently. 

I have no idea why his speeches need to be covered especially in their entirety.  Again, this is total bias, I don't care how boring  they feel Clinton is, where the hell is her full speech to I believe it's the American Legion today.  Where is it? If they cover his speeches in their entirety where are hers? Then they come back and report that she's in hiding and talk about the speculation of how sick she is...oh and she won't give a press conference. Well be that as it may, take what you can get because her face was right up on a podium today giving a speech to veterans, why wasn't it covered live?

See ya tomorrow Rachel, unless Trump interrupts your show again.

Keep it up MSNBC, keep allowing Trump's speeches to interrupt your highest rated prime time show, good luck with that. 

I don't want to see him for five fucking minutes much less and hour or more. I know he needs to be covered, what he says has to be covered, but it should be covered in short clips especially if you're not going to cover the speeches of the other candidate in the same manner.  He should give his speech, it should be reviewed behind the scenes and during the next hour following his speech,  the most important parts of his speech should be shown and then analyzed by the journalists. Not torturing me, the viewer, to watch it word for word.

Quote

They should stick to uncovering his past shady dealings. 

Yep, because they sure as hell will never stop covering Hillary's.

Edited August 31, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

10 minutes ago, represent said:

Good to know, so Chris Hayes is all I'll be watching tonight apparently. 

I have no idea why his speeches need to be covered especially in their entirety.  Again, this is total bias, I don't care how boring  they feel Clinton is, where the hell is her full speech to I believe it's the American Legion today.  Where is it? If they cover his speeches in their entirety where are hers? Then they come back and report that she's in hiding and talk about the speculation of how sick she is...oh and she won't give a press conference. Well be that as it may, take what you can get because her face was right up on a podium today giving a speech to veterans, why wasn't it covered live?

I thought it was covered live?  I had the sound muted, but there was a long stretch of Clinton at the veterans' event this morning.  Have no idea what time the Trump speech is tonight (and will not be watching), but I wondered if one or the other of Rachel's shows would be the "real" show.  That is, if her regular time is pre-empted by the powers that be, the midnight time might have the segments she would have done earlier, including coverage of the immigration speech? 

[represent]

1 minute ago, jjj said:

I thought it was covered live?  I had the sound muted, but there was a long stretch of Clinton at the veterans' event this morning.  Have no idea what time the Trump speech is tonight (and will not be watching), but I wondered if one or the other of Rachel's shows would be the "real" show.  That is, if her regular time is pre-empted by the powers that be, the midnight time might have the segments she would have done earlier, including coverage of the immigration speech? 

It was? You mean she stood up with cameras rolling and they covered her speech in its entirety, until she left the podium? Because that's how they covered Trump's last speech. If they did, then I stand corrected. 

[car54]

They showed Hillary's speech to the VFW today live--I think they showed the whole thing.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, represent said:

It was? You mean she stood up with cameras rolling and they covered her speech in its entirety, until she left the podium? Because that's how they covered Trump's last speech. If they did, then I stand corrected. 

Yes, I think it was covered until the end, because she was shaking hands on the podium at the end.  And I had MSNBC on.  Sorry for the muting -- too much work to get done!

ETA: Plus, a massive decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (decision not to overturn a lower court ruling) that will strike down discriminatory voter ID requirements in North Carolina would be a great topic for Rachel to cover tonight, as she has done terrific reporting on the injustice of voter ID laws and restrictive early voting.  This signals that other states will not find their discriminatory laws upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court.  I don't care that this benefits Democrats -- I do care that it provides fairness to everyone eligible to vote:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/north-carolina-voter-id-supreme-court-227604

Edited August 31, 2016 by jjj
#equaljusticeunderlaw

[represent]

2 hours ago, car54 said:

They showed Hillary's speech to the VFW today live--I think they showed the whole thing.

OK, then I stand corrected.

[Medicine Crow]

I laughed as Hillary snubbed Andrea when she was trying to get a word with her after her veterans speech.  (Watching NBC news.)

[cattykit]

17 hours ago, car54 said:

They showed Hillary's speech to the VFW today live--I think they showed the whole thing.

Drumpf isn't spending on ads, and he doesn't need to, because he's scheduling all his speeches in prime time, and the networks are giving him free, unfiltered coverage.  I can't remember the last time Hillary spoke in prime time, other than the convention.

Rachel's comments last night citing The New Colossus ("give me your tired, your poor...") reflected exactly what I was thinking as I watched Drumpf rant about how only the elite should be allowed in.  Too bad most of the east coast probably didn't see her.  Which is another side effect of covering these speeches in their entirety in prime time.

[car54]

You are so right!     To be honest I could not watch the whole thing--I was flipping channels some but that speech went on and on--and I started thinking how much that free media time is worth.     

I did record Rachel's after-speech show and am actually watching it today!

[jjj]

35 minutes ago, car54 said:

 I did record Rachel's after-speech show and am actually watching it today!

So, Rachel's "second show" last night was her "real" show, in her own description at the start of the midnight show. (They knew ahead of time that her regular hour would be pre-empted by the immigration speech.)  And this is the show that ended up on the podcast, audio (all of it) and video (first segment, as usual).  Worth downloading! 

Edited September 1, 2016 by jjj

[car54]

I watched it this afternoon--I got tired of the daytime people repeating the same interviews about the speech last night!  
I always learn something --I enjoyed the piece about the Whigs and how the Republican party started--very timely of Rachel!

[car54]

Kornake ended his afternoon hour saying he was doing Rachel's show tonight.

[jjj]

19 minutes ago, car54 said:

Kornake ended his afternoon hour saying he was doing Rachel's show tonight.

Oh!  Thank you for the alert!  That probably means she is also off tomorrow.  (And Monday will be LockUp! all day?)

Glad I downloaded last night's show. 

[alias1]

I said I wasn't going to watch Rachel, but I did tape it and watched it today.  And Wow!  This might have been her best show ever.  She went back over history (as she does so brilliantly) and talked about the falling apart of a major political party.  I'm really sad she won't be on tonight (or probably tomorrow night). 

[cattykit]

3 hours ago, car54 said:

I watched it this afternoon--I got tired of the daytime people repeating the same interviews about the speech last night!  
I always learn something --I enjoyed the piece about the Whigs and how the Republican party started--very timely of Rachel!

I was a poli sci major back in the 70s and I've always loved history so I already knew the story of the Whigs and the No-Nothings and how they morphed into the Republican party, but I sometimes wonder if history is really taught in schools these days.  Sadly, though, the people who could most benefit from Rachel's history lesson last night are the people least likely to watch her program.

[car54]

I loved history when I was in school but I feel like I've forgotten a lot--and I particularly enjoy when Rachel talks history--I always learn something and her way of presenting things is very accessible.   

[jjj]

3 hours ago, jjj said:

Oh!  Thank you for the alert!  That probably means she is also off tomorrow. 

I was wrong!  "Rachel will be back tomorrow," said Steve Kornacki, who suddenly looked so much better to me!   And she will be a guest on her own show this evening. 

1 hour ago, SierraMist said:

 I'm really sad she won't be on tonight (or probably tomorrow night). 

Edited September 2, 2016 by jjj

[car54]

And Joy is back at 11!    She was on fire on All In tonight.

 

It sounds like they might re-air some of Rachel's midnight show tonight.

[ottoDbusdriver]

2 hours ago, SierraMist said:

I said I wasn't going to watch Rachel, but I did tape it and watched it today.  And Wow!  This might have been her best show ever.  She went back over history (as she does so brilliantly) and talked about the falling apart of a major political party.  I'm really sad she won't be on tonight (or probably tomorrow night). 

Finally saw that segment tonight -- it was really well done.

[cattykit]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

I was wrong!  "Rachel will be back tomorrow," said Steve Kornacki, who suddenly looked so much better to me!  

He doesn't look better to me.  He's still obsessed with his maps, and still acting like a landslide is a given even as fivethirtyeight.com says don't be so sure about the electoral college.  In my sixth decade of watching election night coverage, I can't wrap my head around someone jumping all over the maps two months before the election as if those numbers have legal meaning.  It's like predicting the Super Bowl based on preseason results.

Now if he looks better because it's only one night instead of two, then I'm with you all the way...

[jjj]

13 minutes ago, cattykit said:

Now if he looks better because it's only one night instead of two, then I'm with you all the way...

Yes, this!  And because he was the bearer of the good news of Rachel back in the seat on Friday! 

[jjj]

"This campaign is going to be as nasty as a frat house bathroom on New Year's Eve."  Thanks, Dan Rather, you earned your keep with just that statement.  And you did not even need the final four words.

Those segments on the Bush (now Trump) hitman on the Clintons was fascinating.  I was around in the 1990s, but don't remember all those dirty tricks.  Hearing her describe how this all spread into Citizens United was like watching someone try to scoop up a broken egg with a fork.  The mess just starts to go places you could not have imagined. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

5 minutes ago, jjj said:

"This campaign is going to be more disgusting than a frat house bathroom on New Year's Eve."  Thanks, Dan Rather, you earned your keep with just that statement.  And you did not even need the final four words.

Those segments on the Bush (now Trump) hitman on the Clintons was fascinating.  I was around in the 1990s, but don't remember all those dirty tricks.  Hearing her describe how this all spread into Citizens United was like watching someone try to scoop up a broken egg with a fork.  The mess just starts to go places you could not have imagined. 

Well Hillary actually said that Citizens United was about her. She said it about twice during the primary debates when Bernie brought up Citizens united as her defending herself in being motivated to have it overturned.  She didn't give the details like we got here, but she definitely said that it was about the Republicans going after her. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by represent

[car54]

On one of the earlier shows tonight they talked about the fact that Hillary has confided to friends and people at fund-raising events that she is afraid of the personal attacks on her and her family that Trump probably will pull at the debates.

Now we know why.   This guy is her worst nightmare, I remember those days when he was after anything and everything he could try to pin on her.

[attica]

Whereas I generally find Dan's folksy expressions charming, his analysis is so lame. He keeps insisting the race is much more of a toss-up than it is, and indeed more than it can be (per Rachel's later discussion about the Latinx vote)! Oh, noes, Hill's on defense! Emails and Foundations worries! Oh noez, Trump's tricks are gaining him ground! No, Dan, none of that is true. If Hillary has been playing defense this week, nobody's been covering it. All the email and foundation stuff is a giant nothingburger. Neither is letting Trump self-immolate at all defensive -- it's just smart.

37 minutes ago, car54 said:

I remember those days when he was after anything and everything he could try to pin on her.

True. But the other side is that 1) she's had 20 years to get inured to it; 2) she and the campaign certainly know it's coming, even if they don't exactly know what 'it' might be. More murders perhaps?  

[alias1]

As if there was any doubt, Rachel found out that Kelly Anne Conway is so smooth she can lie right to your face.

[car54]

Rachel should have checked with Cher.

[jjj]

1 minute ago, SierraMist said:

As if there was any doubt, Rachel found out that Kelly Anne Conway is so smooth she can lie right to your face.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover there is duplicity in politics! 

5 minutes ago, attica said:

True. But the other side is that 1) she's had 20 years to get inured to it; 2) she and the campaign certainly know it's coming, even if they don't exactly know what 'it' might be. More murders perhaps?  

At this point, the more ludicrous, the better.  And they are right to be braced for outrageous claims. 

[Grommet]

Just now, car54 said:

Rachel should have checked with Cher.

Ha! But seriously, how many people has Hillary killed? More than Dexter?

I hope the analysis of Latino voters is right. I would be delighted if that were a deciding factor in Trump getting his ass handed to him.

[attica]

Just now, Grommet said:

More than Dexter?

Dexter is fictional, remember. Hillary is all too real. You've all seen that sign, right? Beware the Hilldebeast and her Vagenda of Manocide!

[jjj]

12 minutes ago, Grommet said:

Ha! But seriously, how many people has Hillary killed? More than Dexter?

One of the great tweets this week said that the fact that Anthony Weiner is alive disproves the rumors that the Clintons have people killed. 

[Egg]

I'm hesitant to say so, because I typically like him and his organization is obviously important, but Paul Reickhoff did not impress last night, and I certainly hope he isn't angling for political office or a cable news show. Essentially co-anchoring with Rachel, he interrupted and reinterpreted people constantly, and was too eager to jump in when one of his own members was talking and do an "actually" or "what you mean to say is." I almost couldn't bear to listen. 

[alias1]

16 minutes ago, Egg said:

I'm hesitant to say so, because I typically like him and his organization is obviously important, but Paul Reickhoff did not impress last night, and I certainly hope he isn't angling for political office or a cable news show. Essentially co-anchoring with Rachel, he interrupted and reinterpreted people constantly, and was too eager to jump in when one of his own members was talking and do an "actually" or "what you mean to say is." I almost couldn't bear to listen. 

I had the same impression.  I always liked him when he was the guest on Rachel's show but he was a little too eager to offer his own interpretations of what the other veterans were saying.  Although the forum was initiated by his group (wasn't it?) and had never been done before, so maybe that's why he was a little "over-enthusiastic."

Edited September 8, 2016 by SierraMist

[car54]

While I thought that the veterans questions were well chosen and very useful,  I felt like Reikhoff has a very focussed perspective--him saying that we should be letting the enlisted military be the ones to tell the government what we should do said a lot about his point of view.    

I kind of wish Rachel had been allowed to invite the candidates up to her show to answer follow up questions since their time was so brief.   And especially since Matt Lauer kept interrupting Hillary.

[attica]

33 minutes ago, car54 said:

Matt Lauer kept interrupting Hillary.

This? Rage-stroke inducing. Flames on the sides of my face.

[M. Darcy]

I don't understand why Rachel didn't host the event last night.  She has always covered Veterans issues and keeps reminding us that we are still at war.

Well, my guess is Trump refused to do it unless someone like Lauer was the moderator.

[car54]

I can't imagine Trump ever agreeing to Rachel being the moderator--she is unabashedly liberal and he would consider that unfair to him, but I agree she would have been very prepared and would have bent over backwards to try to be fair.