MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

[NextIteration]

@NewDigs, Joy got the replacement time for Melissa Harris-Perry on the weekends, I'm not sure if they've settled on a name yet.  It's 10-12 est on Saturday and Sunday.  I like her a lot, but she doesn't quite replace what we lost, I don't think she'll be addressing intersectionality every weekend like MHP did.  I am happy they found a new home for her after they unceremoniously took away her show for Roberts who then disappeared as well.

I can't figure out why Frances Rivera bugs me so much. :(

Ughhhhhh, they've added Hugh Hewitt, is there any other RWNJ that they can get as an analyst?

Edited May 25, 2016 by NextIteration

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, NextIteration said:

I can't figure out why Frances Rivera bugs me so much. :(

The eyes.  I can't get past the eyes with so much makeup on them that she looks blind.

[Sharpie66]

Joy's weekend show is called "A.M. Joy", and it's quite good, although, like you said, not as good as MH-P's show was. However, she did take a little while to settle into a rhythm, so I'm willing to wait to see what Joy does in the future.

[33kaitykaity]

23 minutes ago, Sharpie66 said:

Joy's weekend show is called "A.M. Joy", and it's quite good, although, like you said, not as good as MH-P's show was. However, she did take a little while to settle into a rhythm, so I'm willing to wait to see what Joy does in the future.

I find her totally unwatchable, at least when it's just her.  She tries too hard to be like Tweety and interrupt and be a total jerk.  When she's on a panel, I like her fine.  

[alias1]

Lawrence had this woman on tonight (no idea who she is) claims to be a democrat and was going on and on about how the Bernie/Trump debate would marginalize Hillary and her "plodding" campaign.  With friends like that, Hillary doesn't need enemies.  Say what you will about Trump, all the never Trumpites are sucking it up and getting behind him.  I wish the democrats would stop dividing the party.  You can be for Bernie or Hillary without denigrating one of their campaigns,  I wanted to throw something at that woman.

[33kaitykaity]

I am so sick to death of Rachel Maddow's being in the tank for Hillary.  Last night she totally tanked her credibility by trying to downplay the significance of the State Department's OIG report by pretending it was only process and arcane rules and had nothing to do with what would result from the FOIA requests about what Hillary was doing as secretary on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.  Tonight Rachel is all outraged about the debate between tRump and Bernie and kept repeating ad nauseum that Hillary is the nominee and how dare they do this to Her Highness Hillary.  

STFU, Rachel.  You will not be press secretary in a Clinton White House.  

ETA -- Friday's episode, first block, could she have said the words "Sanders" and threaten" more in the same segment?  Gawd, I can't believe I used to even like this woman.  She is a hack.

Edited May 28, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[tenativelyyours]

I'm trying to close my eyes and imagine Rachel wanting to be press secretary of all things.  And I see....Bigfoot.  Okay I'll try harder.  No still see Bigfoot.  And now he's following an oblivious Easter Bunny picking up all the eggs and candy being carefully scattered on the lawn....

Joking of course.  I think it could well be that Rachel is partial to Clinton.  It could simply be that she does think she is the best person running to do the job.  But I also never have seen her state something not backed by facts.  So to say she is a hack simply because she states a view much different than mine some of the times.  I don't always agree with what she says about Sanders or Clinton.  But I also know she has done her research on what she has available to her.  And I do think that the debate was a way to insert any type of wedge the moldy orange cheeto dust turd could in the opposition party.  Rachel's overall opinion was not mine.  But the motives by the orange windsock seemed rather clear and considering the tenor of the whole campaign on both sides I think dismay that Sanders would engage at this point was merited if not shared for the same motives candidate wise.

[33kaitykaity]

43 minutes ago, tenativelyyours said:

I'm trying to close my eyes and imagine Rachel wanting to be press secretary of all things.  And I see....Bigfoot.  Okay I'll try harder.  No still see Bigfoot.  And now he's following an oblivious Easter Bunny picking up all the eggs and candy being carefully scattered on the lawn....

Joking of course.  I think it could well be that Rachel is partial to Clinton.  It could simply be that she does think she is the best person running to do the job.  But I also never have seen her state something not backed by facts.  So to say she is a hack simply because she states a view much different than mine some of the times.  I don't always agree with what she says about Sanders or Clinton.  But I also know she has done her research on what she has available to her.  And I do think that the debate was a way to insert any type of wedge the moldy orange cheeto dust turd could in the opposition party.  Rachel's overall opinion was not mine.  But the motives by the orange windsock seemed rather clear and considering the tenor of the whole campaign on both sides I think dismay that Sanders would engage at this point was merited if not shared for the same motives candidate wise.

Press secretary is a big step up in prestige from nightly newsreader/geek.

She damn near read this thing word for word.  It uses "threat" and variants nine times.  That doesn't qualify as research to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/democrats-wyoming-bernie-sanders-revolt-223668

F-love "moldy orange cheeto dust turd" and "orange windsock."  

[shok]

Funny, most Hillary supporters were sure that Rachel was in the tank for Bernie up until a couple of weeks ago. She seemed totally enthralled by his insurgent campaign and gave him (and Jane) a ton of positive coverage. Guess she was doing her job well to have both sides griping about her. Like tentativelyyours said though, you can be sure her coverage was well researched and based on facts.

She seems to have gone off him though after the Nevada fiasco and all his subsequent blustering and whining and conspiracy theorizing. He's hurting the Democratic Party (and Hillary's chances in the general) with all his antics of the past few weeks and I think Rachel is as horrified as most everyone else that in pursuit of his own quixotic revolution, he may well help Trump become president. It doesn't seem to be about issues anymore but mostly Bernie's own personal aggrandizement and Rachel thinks that's bad for the country. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten from her.

[alias1]

Rachel is just reporting the facts.  There is no chance for Bernie.  I think she's appalled (and frustrated) at the level of discord in the democratic party right now.  Rachel has been fair to everyone, even Martin O'Malley.  But Hillary is going to be the nominee and at this point Bernie is just harming the democratic party in general.  Even Trump wasn't actually serious about a 2nd tier debate with Bernie.  He just loved promoting it for a day because it kept him in the news. 

I think Rachel has the most unbiased news coverage on MSNBC.

[Mumbles]

Quote

Press secretary is a big step up in prestige from nightly newsreader/geek.

I doubt Rachel would take a job reserved for water-carrying political hacks who at worst lie and at best say, "I'll get back to you on that." 

[tenativelyyours]

I beg to differ too that a press secretary is a big step up from Rachel's job no matter the semantics of being a "nightly newsreader".  First she makes 7 million a year.  Versus the chief White House press secretary's salary of 172,000 a year.  If money is power Rachel sends the WH press secretary out for coffee. 

Also she has her own prime time show that she controls much if not most of the content.  She says her words.  Not someone else's.  If she wanted such a job, she likely would have jumped when the Obama Administration was said to be putting out feelers and she smiled and nodded no freaking way.

Also in terms of job paths, other than Tony Snow who thought he could use the leap from Fox to the WH as a means to shore up a stuck position he felt was undeserved as Hannity and O'Reilly got their own primetime rating and money powerhouse hours.  Note that since his move and even before, WH press secretary was a move to then transitioning to speaking positions, talking heads on television and writing books.  All of which Rachel can do and has done.  Dana Perrino and Scott McClellan wish they had the career path Rachel has had.   All without the relatively low pay and horrible hours and horrible treatment of being WH press secretary.  Rachel seeing it as a move up?  Bigfoot.  Still in my imaginary yard.  Prestige?  Serving the White House communications director and forced to mouth another person's words and blindly sell policy she might not agree with?   Bound to one role and one job.  Not able to pursue her own projects like another best selling book.  All for 2 percent.  Yep two whole freaking percent of what she makes now.  Bigfoot. Holding a huge hoop while the Loch Ness Monster several unicorns and the Chuppacabra leap through for treats.

Edited May 30, 2016 by tenativelyyours

[WendyCR72]

A reminder: Remember, discuss things in context to what is airing on any MSNBC program, if political issues must be alluded to. Anything outside that realm does not belong here.

Did you see something on MSNBC? It goes here.

Internet/other sites/political chat in general: No go.

Use that as a guide. Thanks.

[Sharpie66]

I saw this article about the new direction that MSNBC is going in. It talks about an interview in Politico with Phil Griffins in which they discuss the new ad campaign, including an ad with photos of their right-wing talking heads like Hugh Hewitt, et al, with the line "People Might Start Accusing Us of Leaning Too Far to the Right." As the linked article's headline says, "Dear MSNBC: What. The. Hell?"

[NewDigs]

43 minutes ago, Sharpie66 said:

I saw this article about the new direction that MSNBC is going in. It talks about an interview in Politico with Phil Griffins in which they discuss the new ad campaign, including an ad with photos of their right-wing talking heads like Hugh Hewitt, et al, with the line "People Might Start Accusing Us of Leaning Too Far to the Right." As the linked article's headline says, "Dear MSNBC: What. The. Hell?"

"People might start accusing of us of leaning too far to the right." Really? 

Do they keep BriWi in cold storage, or something, until there's some knd of breaking news? They dragged him out today for the UCLA shootings. He made sure we knew what "June Gloom" was in LA (some kind of air currents weather condition) and then made sure to tell us that today, it's another kind of "June Gloom". (insert eyeroll)

And while he's prattling and umming and ering his way through his info CNN was on the phone w/ someone on the scene.

I guess this means he'll be invading the evening shows.

[NextIteration]

 MSBNC, you've tortured us with all your new right-wingers, could you please manage to keep Kelly Ann Conway off your airwaves?  I mean isn't Hewitt enough of a Clinton hater for you?

[Medicine Crow]

1 minute ago, NextIteration said:

 MSBNC, you've tortured us with all your new right-wingers, could you please manage to keep Kelly Ann Conway off your airwaves?  I mean isn't Hewitt enough of a Clinton hater for you?

Totally agree!!

[Mumbles]

Well, to be fair, Hewitt loathes Trump and vice versa. I don't think he has any dog in this fight.

Of the dopes on the poster, Hewitt to me is the most palatable. That's damning him with faint praise, because I will never forgive Steve Schmidt and Cackles Wallace for Palin, and Mike Murphy is a substanceless hack. Steele seems like a nice enough guy and Ginsberg is more of a lawyer than a political type. 

That said, it's annoying that MSNBC feels obligated to even do this. Does Fox News feel obligated to have lib'ruls on its network?

[Padma]

50 minutes ago, Mumbles said:

Well, to be fair, Hewitt loathes Trump and vice versa. I don't think he has any dog in this fight.

Of the dopes on the poster, Hewitt to me is the most palatable. That's damning him with faint praise, because I will never forgive Steve Schmidt and Cackles Wallace for Palin, and Mike Murphy is a substanceless hack. Steele seems like a nice enough guy and Ginsberg is more of a lawyer than a political type. 

That said, it's annoying that MSNBC feels obligated to even do this. Does Fox News feel obligated to have lib'ruls on its network?

Having watched 2 nights of Hewitt (today kicking off O'Donnell), I have to disagree. He may think Trump's an ignoramus, but he's all in for him anyway. The one he loathes is Hillary (along with Obama. And any kind of foreign policy they might be involved in, based on his comments tonight.). Also, LOD brought out Hewitt, and Andrew Card and played a clip from Fred Malek trying to make the case for why Trump is better than HRC on foreign policy, and it was just too much "return of the war hawks" for me.  Where's Michael Steele? He may be voting for Trump, too, but at least he is able to convey that he's aware he's selling his soul and principles to do it--and he can even find some gallows humor in what has happened to the GOP this year.

[pennben]

I enjoyed parts of Maddow tonight. She still does her long, rambling road to her point, which has grown annoying. But when she was showing Hillary's phenomenal speech today that destroyed Donald with his own words, the show did a great job of moving from Hillary's speech points, to showing Donald saying precisely what Hillary said he did. It was an extremely well-played segment.

[xaxat]

9 hours ago, Mumbles said:

That said, it's annoying that MSNBC feels obligated to even do this. Does Fox News feel obligated to have lib'ruls on its network?

MSNBC isn't doing it out of a sense of obligation. They are doing it because they think it will increase ratings and make them more money.

We'll see if it works, but I have my doubts. (Like I do with pretty much every programming move they make.)

ETA: Another thought. . . Perhaps they are doing this to get liberals to hatewatch the channel. Maybe that would work?

Edited June 3, 2016 by xaxat

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, xaxat said:

ETA: Another thought. . . Perhaps they are doing this to get liberals to hatewatch the channel. Maybe that would work?

I think that is part of it. And I think it might work. Another part is that programming is simply more interesting when there's a conflict of ideas than when all discussion happens within an echo chamber, with people saying the things the audience already thinks. (I know it works for Fox News, but liberals are smarter than that.) 

I say this as a liberal. I've mostly found the channel boring because I don't need to watch people saying what I already think. I'd rather have my thinking challenged, my ideas tested and growing stronger--or evolving--for being tested. Kind of like a tree's limbs grow stronger when they are subjected to the wind.

This is not to say I want to watch Republican trolls or idiots. But intelligent commentators from that side--if they can find some--who can test the strength of liberal ideas, sure. I think it's a good move.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[alias1]

I did love that they showed a very presidential Hillary giving her scathing, absolutely true remarks about Trump next to him waving his arms and ranting like a lunatic.  Very effective. 

Except for Michael Steele, I hate all the right wingers they have on MSNBC.  They all pretend to couch their Hillary hate in some kind of moderate rhetoric.  I'm glad LOD had Madeleine Albright on to counter attack all these supposed objective analysts of Hillary's speech.

And whenever Chris Matthews has his love fest with Ann Coulter, I change the channel.  If they think they're getting viewers this way, they are mistaken.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

And whenever Chris Matthews has his love fest with Ann Coulter

why does anyone think Ann Coulter is worth paying any attention to?

[Hanahope]

13 hours ago, pennben said:

the show did a great job of moving from Hillary's speech points, to showing Donald saying precisely what Hillary said he did. It was an extremely well-played segment.

Indeed.  It almost reminded me of a Daily Show segment and I was thinking that someone finally realized how effective that kind of demonstration can be.

[Padma]

I kind of loved the moment when BriWi asked Dianne Feinstein, "isn't Trump basically the same as Ronald Reagan was when he became president?"  Feinstein was so stunned by the question she actually was speechless, then stammered for a few moments as she searched for a way to say, "That's one of the dumbest things I've been asked. Ever."  Williams looked like he'd never use that one again, stumbling over his words as he explained, "Well, that's what some people are saying."

The bigshot NBC newsman really didn't even look ready for primetime MSNBC in that interview. It was obviously just a tiny bit humbling, for a moment anyway.

[Mumbles]

I have a feeling that while the prima donna at NBC, Williams was protected by a phalanx of experienced and smart producers and researchers to prevent him from himself. I just don't think he has that backup at MSNBC. Plus everything was written out for him as anchor. Less opportunity to be an idiot.

[potatoradio]

Uh...what the f*ck do I care what Trump Tweeted about Ali's death, MSNBC? Not as though you featured other "celebrity" Tweets or other politician's reactions. Are you seriously worried that viewers can't go five minutes without your incessant 'what is Trump saying right this second' coverage? That was repulsive. That really was. 

[Mumbles]

I saw MSNBC talk about the Clintons' repsonse last night.  Frankly, the only people I'd really be interested in hearing from (other than family and friends, who I would understand may not be in the position to talk now) are folks like George Foreman, Leon Spinks, etc.

[vb68]

Quote

Do they keep BriWi in cold storage, or something, until there's some knd of breaking news? They dragged him out today for the UCLA shootings. He made sure we knew what "June Gloom" was in LA (some kind of air currents weather condition) and then made sure to tell us that today, it's anotherkind of "June Gloom". (insert eyeroll)

I just now saw him on air saying (without any molecule of irony) of Ali, "very few people know how to make a graceful and dignified exit off the public stage like he did."

Oh Brian, how right you are on that one.

He even made me chuckle a little.

[Medicine Crow]

I can.not.watch Chris Matthews with a panel.  He NEVER lets them finish a sentence & acts like he's the only one in the room that knows anything.  What an ignorant asshole!!!

[Padma]

I think it's outrageous for AP and NBC to declare Hillary the "presumptive nominee" on the eve of major primaries.--based on calling up superdelegates and adding new supporters to the total.   That seems so meddlesome, so unethical and, in a way, so misleading as its really hearsay whether or not these additional people now support Clinton.

It's not that I favor HRC over Bernie, or vice versa, as I think both lose out by this media play.  Seriously, why should the press be canvassing Democratic delegates and deciding there's a winner?  That really seems like overreach.

To bring it back to NBC/MSNBC  I appreciate that Lawrence O'D was the only person to criticize this practice yesterday, to call the ethics of it into question (although he was still required to announce these "results" during his show).

I'm also tired of the press constantly asking about BS's plans to drop out. There are still primaries and caucuses!!

Honestly, I'm all for a free press, but I'd love to see news organizations  banned from political polling. It has the potential to influence voters and has no benefit that I can see.   The press has not served us well during this election year, with their constant obsession with personalities, polls and questions that are unimportant and/or unanswerable. (How many times do they have to hear "The election's not over yet" and "Bernie will see the results and do whatever is needed at that point". Duh. And yet...they just keep asking!

[Rhetorica]

I'm tired of the personalities not calling out the Sanders' surrogates who want the super delegates to vote against the people who duly elected Hillary Clinton. Talk about undemocratic... That's what the Sanders supporters have been claiming for weeks. 

[HyeChaps]

Who has had more facelifts-Maria Shriver or Barbara Boxer?

[Padma]

7 hours ago, Rhetorica said:

I'm tired of the personalities not calling out the Sanders' surrogates who want the super delegates to vote against the people who duly elected Hillary Clinton. Talk about undemocratic... That's what the Sanders supporters have been claiming for weeks. 

I did (finally) see Chuck Todd ask Weaver about that today. He phrased it well, too,--mentioning she has won by every metric--popular votes, # of states, # of delegates--so how could Bernie justify a strategy of "persuading" superdelegates to change their votes so HE wins after all?  Wasn't that, Todd asked, using superdelegates in the way they've been criticizing them all along, as not in sync with the will of voters? How do you justify using this "corrupt" superdelegate system to undermine the victory of someone who won a majority of votes in every way?

Weaver really had no answer to that other than, "well, it's the rules that leave that opening" and "Bernie has a better chance against Trump in the fall" (in other words, I guess, "the ends justifies the means"--not exactly a "Bernie-esque reason, imo.)  I think they're just saying things in the hope of getting a strong showing today, but that "stealing superdelegate strategy" is pretty weak.

[WendyCR72]

Take talk of Clinton indictments and Sanders' chances elsewhere, please. This leads nowhere good. Some like Sanders, some like Clinton. Some even like Trump. And that's all, folks.

This is getting close to political talk for its own sake, rather than show content, and I have repeatedly addressed that issue in this thread as it is.

[pennben]

6 hours ago, HyeChaps said:

Who has had more facelifts-Maria Shriver or Barbara Boxer?

Who needs a facelift more, Mitch McConnell or a turnip?:)

[vb68]

The mishaps with Kornacki's big board appear to be never ending.  Those have turned into the comedy (using the word loosely) segments on election night coverage.

First off, right as they start the night, they announce in near hysterics that there is no color.  Can poor Steve even see what he's doing?  Hard to tell really, but he finds it hilarious as well and presents it like it's the big draw at a carnival.

Then hours later, some anonymous staffer is "secretly" playing a video game or whatever that bleeds into the board?  What?

Seriously, this is a top flight news organization?

I'm always convinced he's just guessing at what he's doing anyway.  Dude acts like he's playing with a computer for the first time. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by vb68

[NextIteration]

14 hours ago, Padma said:

I think it's outrageous for AP and NBC to declare Hillary the "presumptive nominee" on the eve of major primaries.--based on calling up superdelegates and adding new supporters to the total. <snip>

Seriously, why should the press be canvassing Democratic delegates and deciding there's a winner?  That really seems like overreach. <snip>

They did the exact same thing to tRump two weeks before - so he was randomly in Bismark, ND acknowledging it in a weird speech that day.  It wasn't as big a deal on the GOP side since there was nobody else in the race.  I thought it was despicable to do with the Democrats the day before millions would/could be voting in a still contested race.

[nowandlater]

I've watched MSNBC for most of Obama's presidency. I didn't really follow the 2008 election closely, but at some point early in Obama's term, I became a devoted watcher of the primetime slate, plus Chris Matthews.

Before Bernie Sanders began running, I was unaware of him...I'm sure I heard his name before, but I don't remember him. There are many senators who stand out. You know their names...but he wasn't one of them.

And that has mostly been my problem with him -- he seemed like an unremarkable senator, who glommed on to the Democrats as an alternative to Hillary. I was disappointed that somebody I'd never really heard of could get this far, though I'm glad he ran just because it would be bad for Clinton to cruise easily to victory..

It's kind of like us first hearing about Trevor Noah in late 2014 (unless you followed comedy closely, he was pretty much unknown) and him suddenly being named Jon Stewart's successor a few months later.

Yes, I realize Obama was somebody who was somewhat new to the scene when he ran in 2008. That was probably why I was for Hillary then. (But I'm glad, in retrospect, that Obama won.) But at least we knew about Obama for 4 years.

So here's my question for you MSNBC watchers: Was Bernie a frequent (or occasional) presence on MSNBC before last year? Or was I just watching the wrong shows?

[shok]

Quote

So here's my question for you MSNBC watchers: Was Bernie a frequent (or occasional) presence on MSNBC before last year? Or was I just watching the wrong shows?

You were just watching the wrong shows. ;)

He used to be on the Ed Schultz show at least once a week although Ed was on at 5 or 6 oclock I think so not prime time. I think he was on Lawrence ODonnell once in awhile too. You didn't miss anything. Bernie was bellowing about the same things over and over again just like he does now in his stump speeches. 

[Kemper]

Did anyone catch the tense-ness between Rachel Maddow and Nicole Wallace last night?  Wallace did not like the criticism of Trump's speech (she seems to have had second thoughts about that on Morning Joe today...but I digress) and was testy with Rachel.  Rachel pushed back a little and Wallace did not like it at all..she was haughty and got sort of a mean-girl vibe.  At the end of it, Rachel tried to shake Nicole's hand...and Nicole seemed to hesitate for a moment before she reluctantly shook.  I didn't see her much after that, but maybe her segment was over.  This is the woman who was a spokesperson for "W"...worked for McCain and knew what Palin was like but went along and pushed her anyway.  Then there were the crocodile tears after.  Can't stand her; is she still on The View?  What happened there?  By the way, during the exchange between the two, Brian Williams and Eugene Robinson looked like a pair of living statues.  Girl Fight!  Girl Fight!

[Sharpie66]

Yeah, I was cheering on Rachel for not backing down, even though Nicole was in full "I'm not going to let you get a word in edgewise" mode. Eugene Robinson was trying to mediate between the two of them, but he was just repeating both of their points to each other, which IMO was verging on mansplaining, but I think he was just trying to lower the rhetorical temperature a bit.

[Medicine Crow]

4 hours ago, Kemper said:

Did anyone catch the tense-ness between Rachel Maddow and Nicole Wallace last night?  Wallace did not like the criticism of Trump's speech (she seems to have had second thoughts about that on Morning Joe today...but I digress) and was testy with Rachel.  Rachel pushed back a little and Wallace did not like it at all..she was haughty and got sort of a mean-girl vibe.  At the end of it, Rachel tried to shake Nicole's hand...and Nicole seemed to hesitate for a moment before she reluctantly shook.  I didn't see her much after that, but maybe her segment was over.  This is the woman who was a spokesperson for "W"...worked for McCain and knew what Palin was like but went along and pushed her anyway.  Then there were the crocodile tears after.  Can't stand her; is she still on The View?  What happened there?  By the way, during the exchange between the two, Brian Williams and Eugene Robinson looked like a pair of living statues.  Girl Fight!  Girl Fight!

Yes, I saw the tension between them, but "my girl" Rachel isn't going to take any crap from that little sell-out!!

My bold.  She was turfed from The View for a number of reasons, but the part I like best us that she was unceremoniously DUMPED!!!

Edited June 8, 2016 by Medicine Crow
Answered question.

[BabyVegas]

I was up earlier than usual this morning and caught some of Joy Reid's show. I have to say, I really liked it She did a good job holding her guests' feet to the fire and explicitly pointing out that they didn't answer the questions. I know she's on Rachel's show a lot, which makes me happy, but I could happily trade her and Chris Matthews. I can't watch more than about five minutes of his show because of the shouting.

Overall, I'm not thrilled with the way MSNBC has handled their coverage on the actual primary days (my personal opinion is that Brian Williams can feel free to get lost at any time) but I've thought that their prime time lineup has been pretty good. Even their weekend coverage has been pretty good, although the one anchor with the black eyeshadow who doesn't move her face isn't my favorite, mostly because she seems to be a news-reader and not as much of a host with her own valuable insight into things.

[jjj]

Just read this excellent article on Jeff Weaver (whom I have been loathing) in the New York Times -- these paragraphs were quite choice, and I had not seen this exchange on "Hardball":

'He [Jeff Weaver] seems to be tickled by his sudden fame, and chuckled about a recent encounter on the MSNBC program “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. When Mr. Matthews scolded Mr. Weaver for not having yet released Mr. Sanders’s tax returns, Mr. Weaver pointed out that Mr. Matthews’s wife, Kathleen, didn’t release their tax returns when she ran for a Congressional seat last year. (Ms. Matthews lost the primary.)

'Mr. Matthews, clearly taken aback, suggested the analogy was unfair. “This is ‘Hardball,’ Chris,” Mr. Weaver replied evenly.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/fashion/bernie-sanders-campaign-jeff-weaver.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 2:38 PM, Mumbles said:

I doubt Rachel would take a job reserved for water-carrying political hacks who at worst lie and at best say, "I'll get back to you on that." 

Lord, I've had positions like the WH press secretary [but not that position :) ], and it is miserable never to be able to state your own opinions and to be interpreting someone else's mind to their specifications (and always having audiences and boss thinking you could do so much better).  Rachel rules her world to a degree that is unusual even on cable television, and that is as important as the vast salary differential. 

[pennben]

22 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

I was up earlier than usual this morning and caught some of Joy Reid's show. I have to say, I really liked it She did a good job holding her guests' feet to the fire and explicitly pointing out that they didn't answer the questions. I know she's on Rachel's show a lot, which makes me happy, but I could happily trade her and Chris Matthews. I can't watch more than about five minutes of his show because of the shouting.

 

There must of been some sort of weird phase of the moon yesterday, because I also was up ridiculously early and then ended up sitting down and watching Joy's show when it came on.  Like you, I thought it was really good (I almost came here to post something about it). 

I wish they would give her show it's own title, seems they are doing MSNBC Live for all weekend shows. I went to put a recurring recording on my DVR and there's no way to do it.  Oh, well MSNBC you just keep being you.

[maraleia]

So MSNBC has had no leader from the LGBT community on the air today in light of the Orlando shooting at a gay nightclub...keeping it classy as always. FYI they did, however, have anti-LGBT Rep. Peter King on to talk about guns though.

[Decoda]

Don't worry though, Brian Williams has showed up to take over all coverage.

[maraleia]

4 minutes ago, Decoda said:

Don't worry though, Brian Williams has showed up to take over all coverage.

Oh and he'll do a bang-up job NOT!