Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

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


Recommended Posts

And for the opportunity to do THAT, they cancel The Cycle, Alex Wagner and Ed Schulz. God forbid that we viewers - the ones who are left, at this point - receive actual information about politics, world events, climate change....all that stuff that affects our lives. Thomas must have been gritting his teeth through that whole "interview".

  • Love 2

I just saw where the first couple of weeks of Chuck Todd's reign at 5:00 has been a ratings disaster, a good deal worse than Ed's.  I have to wonder if his ratings don't really matter to management, as long as he gets the company line out every day they will keep him on.  I don't know who makes me crazier...him or Joe Scarborough.  I think it is Todd, because you always know Joe is going to shout over everyone and pimp the crazy from the Republicans.  Todd pretends he is a journalist....Joe has no such delusions.  I don't think, anyway.  Delusions of grandeur, maybe.

  • Love 4

I usually only watch TRMS, but I've occasionally tried other shows and I seriously want to know why some of these hosts even bother having guests when it's clear they're simply going to interrupt and browbeat and not listen to a thing the guests say.

 

It was friggin' embarrassing to watch Chris Matthews try to grill Carly Fiorina after the Rep. debate. She clearly answered his question, but instead of probing further into her response, CM simply started yelling (complete with spittle...attractive) his question and including "But don't you think that...[repeat question]" No, Chris, she clearly doesn't think that. Try a different question or probe her response a bit if you're thrown off, but at least look like you're making an attempt to engage her.

 

Last night, I watched Chris Hayes display unbelievable rudeness to a Clinton campaign rep. The rep would hardly get a word out before CH pounced and snottily tried to steer the conversation to "why Bernie should be the Dem. candidate." 

 

Would it kill these guys to bone up on interviewing skills? They come off looking immature, rude and bombastic, which is what I expect from Fox, and, wow, that's a major sadz this day.

 

 

 

  • Love 2

Last night, I watched Chris Hayes display unbelievable rudeness to a Clinton campaign rep. The rep would hardly get a word out before CH pounced and snottily tried to steer the conversation to "why Bernie should be the Dem. candidate."

 

Was it David Brock?  He seriously comes off pretty slimey himself, one of Clinton's slipperiest of supporters, imho.

  • Love 3

 

I really despise the new daytime lineup and find it ridiculous when they have Brian Williams stomp on Hall, Mitchell and Robert's shows where they should remain the lead and he a contributor.

 

His presence as "breaking news anchor" makes no sense.  I get the anchoring for special events like the Pope, but why have Williams pop up when, say, the President speaks when whoever is anchoring that hour is more than capable of doing what BW can.  Either give Brian Williams his own program, keep him at home until there's some special event or some truly earth shattering breaking news or bite the bullet and buy out his contract to get him to go away.

  • Love 3

Some bumper stickers we should totally see for this next election:

 

You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.   Trump 2016

 

What? I can’t have layers?  Clinton 2016

 

You don’t need a brain to do brain surgery.  Carson 2016

 

Babies for Bernie.  Cute? Or mandate?  Sanders 2016

 

Because he could be doing a lot more fun things right now than running for president.  Vote Jeb!    Jeb! 2016

 

You know, I've noticed that MSNBC does more Trump coverage than the other cable news networks and I think it's because of their long standing entertainment relationship with the asshole.  They give him maximum free coverage/publicity and reap the rewards when he loses (he'll never win general vote) and comes back to NBC with Celebrity Apprentice or something else. I mean,now that they've seen that he takes no real hits over his obnoxious ignorant comments and behavior.  And this whole thing makes me hate MSNBC right now. I watch it, but I'm mostly mad when I do.  Great marketing plan that -- fill up the schedule with conservative interviews and press conferences.  

 

I hope this whole new MSNBC tanks big time -- but only so they go back to a more progressive leaning schedule and a lot less Trump.  

Edited by Andyourlittledog2
  • Love 3

First let me say I like Chris Hayes; I've followed him around MSNBC's ever-changing schedule and watch him most nights.  But ---- am I the only one who thinks he sounds slightly inebriated when he speaks?  I am in no way saying that he is, only that he slurs his words and phrases when trying to talk so quickly (what's the rush? The show is an hour long) that if I knew how to engage the closed-captioning on my TV, it would be totally on during All In so I coud figure out what the hell he is saying.

  • Love 1

I agree with you, Ohwell. Chris does need to learn how to dial it back. I can't recall; was he always this over-zealous? I'm trying to figure out if it's because he's simply that passionate about the subject matter or if the network's rating czars are breathing down his neck to Create The Drama and he's desperate to keep his show on air. Lord knows his daytime co-horts have been dropping like flies. ~~~ On a related note, I just read an article (I'd provide a link but am totally clueless how to do that) stating that Rachel's ratings are up double digits and Fox's are falling. Actually I think the article mentioned MSNBC's nighttime ratings up across the board. Maybe I even read that on here, via someone else's link. Good news.

Last night, I watched Chris Hayes display unbelievable rudeness to a Clinton campaign rep. The rep would hardly get a word out before CH pounced and snottily tried to steer the conversation to "why Bernie should be the Dem. candidate."

 

Was it David Brock?  He seriously comes off pretty slimey himself, one of Clinton's slipperiest of supporters, imho.

 

Yeah, if it was Brock, he's a Clinton supporter who really needs to be tightly interviewed. I liked Brock's "Blinded By the Right" but when he's not breaking down right wing lies, I think the Brock who wrote that horrible Anita Hill "expose" comes out. Sadly, it's made me think a little less of Brock, who I used to really like.

That's a salient point about Chris being more tolerable on UP than he is now.  He would have to have been more interruptive moderating an entire panel who were  over-talking one another, just to keep it manageable.  And no, that tactic does not work well in a one-on-one interview.  Thanks for that insight, ktwo.

Edited by Ladyrain

 

Was it David Brock?  He seriously comes off pretty slimey himself, one of Clinton's slipperiest of supporters, imho.

 

Yep, it was. I'm not familiar with him at all. I can see some interviewees needing a more forceful interviewer so they can't dodge questions. So, I can understand CH playing the role of a tough as nails interviewer; I do think continually interrupting and shouting over the person, though, isn't going to necessarily get the interview into a more productive format and instead of pulling out a tough interview, it just appears that CH wants to be seen as "tough". 

 

Then again, I also hate with a passion any kind of "panel discussion." Oh my god, NOBODY gets a complete sentence out before they're all screaming (and it's really bad if there's a time delay so that one person catches the conversion five or ten seconds later and then we have another screamer enter late). How about everyone agree to take a breath and listen to what someone says before you open your mouth?

  • Love 4

Yep, it was. I'm not familiar with him at all. 

 

David Brock was a proud card carrying member of "the vast right-wing conspiracy" that upon further thorough examination of many of the Clinton stories/scandals that he created and contributed to in publications like the American Spectator did a complete 180, he founded Media Matters.

I was watching MSNBC on Friday night while they were covering the Paris story. I was getting sooo frustrated with Brian Williams, who was alternating between rather fatuous comments, simplistic questions, and then insisting that the attack was "unsophisticated" or "low-tech" because they used AK-47s, grenades, and suicide belts, even though the Mid-East experts he was talking to kept pointing out that the level of communication needed to carry out a multiple-location attack and keep it all very quiet in the planning stages indicates that it was anything but unsophisticated.

 

At least when Rachel took over at her usual time, and then Chris Hayes two hours later, they started asking better questions than Williams did. I loved it when one of the experts gave Williams a slam when he said, "Someone earlier [read, Williams] was saying that this was unsophisticated, when it was anything but...", and Rachel had Williams sitting next to her when this guy said that. Oh, burn!

  • Love 5

Ok, I'm going to say it now:  I am officially tired of all the Paris coverage.  Yes, it's still news, but there is no need for it to be on MSNBC 24/7.  

 

Also, there is a French woman reporter whose last name is Haim, and I know she's got a French accent but her struggling to speak English is really getting on my nerves.

  • Love 3

Ok, I'm going to say it now:  I am officially tired of all the Paris coverage.  Yes, it's still news, but there is no need for it to be on MSNBC 24/7.  

 

Also, there is a French woman reporter whose last name is Haim, and I know she's got a French accent but her struggling to speak English is really getting on my nerves.

 

It's all disaster porn at this point.  

  • Love 7

I get that MSNBC wants to distance themselves from their former liberal branding, but it would have been nice to watch Melissa Harris-Perry this morning to see her and her panel's take on the Paris terrorism and the reactions from US politicians to the tragedy.  It's great to see Harry Smith, but they're doing nothing but rehashing the same news at this point.

  • Love 4

MSNBC has reached a new low.  They've got Kerry Sanders inside the two San Bernadino terrorists' apartment, going through their shit.  I watched incredulously for about five minutes, then got disgusted with myself.  I do not want to see their vile shit.

 

Seems it's MSNBC and lots of other news organizations with all the people and cameras.  Anyways, how weird is it to have a computer in a baby's nursery?

 

Seems it's MSNBC and lots of other news organizations with all the people and cameras.

 

All of that was very weird to me.  I guess invading the privacy of family members is okay now that we know it's Islamic based terrorism.

 

I really wonder if MSNBC would have accidentally doxxed family members of Dylann Roof or that Dear guy who shot up that Planned Parenthood if given a chance to go through their homes.

  • Love 6

I tired of Mika's adoring Joe-gazes and have tired of Joe so have dodged the "Morning Joe" bullet until right now as they replay the Trumpster's morning spewings. Ugh. Like passing a carwreck, I don't seem able to look away.

But, what has Joe done to himself? Botox? A good peel? That ridiculous pompadour?

And now I feel so dirty. I agree with Cheney. (eta: or maybe it's that dick finally agrees wih me? I'm confused...)

But thank goodness for Eugene Robinson. And Mark Helperin. And the others.

Edited by NewDigs

 

On the bright side?  Where is Brian Williams?  He's been no where near "breaking news" lately.

 

Good.  MSNBC should just give him the occasional special to keep him happy until his contract runs out.

 

Oh it looks like Brian Williams will probably be back, he's just taking time off after having back surgery:  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-brian-williams-back-surgery-20151201-story.html

Edited by junemeatcleaver

 

Can somebody explain why Katy Tur goes out of her way to defend Trump all the time when he has no qualms about slamming and humiliating her in front of his supporters?

 

Access.  Trailing Trump is the best gig going for reporters right now, no reasonably ambitious reporter is going to throw away a high profile spot on the news to say what they really think of the person they're following.

 

Andy Lack claims they had to re-brand MSNBC into a "breaking news" channel or else be clobbered in the ratings:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/21/can-msnbc-re-center-itself-andy-lack-on-breaking-news-today-and-brian-williams.html

 

 

“Had we not made this turn to breaking news with seriousness of purpose, in these times and in this election, we would have been clobbered,” he said. “As reasonable as that [discarded liberal] programming was for when it was created, we’re in a long game now… This is maybe the most interesting election of my lifetime… The world has never been more dangerous in my lifetime.”

I am really pleased to see Erica Hill on air recently on MSNBC -- today she is anchoring the early evening slot (I'm usually not home at this time; is it the Chuck Todd slot?).  She is calm and focused, and seems to be well prepared, handled a glitch well (when someone played the wrong Obama clip).  If she is being used as fill-in during the holidays, along with Alex Wagner on other shows, that would be a good holiday week of anchoring replacements. 

  • Love 3

Tonight, near the end of the Rachel Maddow show, she cited his current poll number and said that no one at that level has ever failed to get the Republican party nomination, in the years that polling has existed.  But she also ran a more critical segment about his most recent mis-speaking.  (Sorry I am vague on the details -- cookie baking had to happen while I was listening!) 

Edited by jjj

I just hope that someone on MSNBC tonight manages to slam Trump for his horribly misogynistic comments about Hillary last night --between the "schlonging" she got from Obama in 2008 (not only misogynistic, but also racist to boot) and then his saying that her having to go to the bathroom during the break at the Democratic debate was "too disgusting" to even mention (but he did anyway).

  • Love 3

Trump loves to get slammed by the likes of MSNBC.  He just loves to hear the sound of his name, doesn't matter if it's negative.  The best thing to do at this point is just ignore his more outrageous comments.  I understand that the media has to report it as "news" but they'll keep harping on it instead of just moving on.  

  • Love 3

I just hope that someone on MSNBC tonight manages to slam Trump for his horribly misogynistic comments about Hillary last night --between the "schlonging" she got from Obama in 2008 (not only misogynistic, but also racist to boot) and then his saying that her having to go to the bathroom during the break at the Democratic debate was "too disgusting" to even mention (but he did anyway).

And indeed, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell both led with this -- plus his comments about reporters: "I hate them, but I wouldn't kill them". Rachel related this back to George Wallace attacks on the press by inviting a guest who described the uneasiness of reporters singled out by Wallace.  Lawrence got a quote from a Yiddish scholar at Harvard about the meaning of "schlong":  "Vulgar," is the academic determination.

@jjj, Erica Hill is in the hour between MTP Daily and Hardball.

Thank you!  I have no idea of what the daytime schedule is.   (That is still daytime on the West Coast.) 

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1

Does NBC understand that any time they cut to Trump speaking -- either live or in a clip -- I have to ff or change the channel?  At this point I couldn't listen to him read the phone book without wanting to do something violent to whoever ic giving this ass air time. My MSNBC viewing time is decreasing exponentially.

  • Love 9

 

Tonight, near the end of the Rachel Maddow show, she cited his current poll number and said that no one at that level has ever failed to get the Republican party nomination, in the years that polling has existed.

 

I just watched that and she said that there hasn't been a candidate to reach a 20 point advantage over their next-closest rival who hasn't won the nomination. That's a scary thought. A few weeks ago she talked to a pollster who said the current Trump surge was due to him bringing in new likely voters. That's scarier but it does raise a question of if they'll really show up to vote, especially for the Iowa caucus. IIRC, Obama's campaign did a lot to prepare supporters to go to the Iowa Caucus for the first time (though their coaching couldn't involve talking about actual candidates), I haven't heard if Trump is doing the same.

  • Love 1

It's okay if Trump wins the nomination, though.  Scary, but okay. Because, barring some scandal or violent event here, an egomaniacal billionaire whose never served in the military OR held any political office (elective or otherwise), CAN'T get a majority of votes/electoral college votes. He just ... can't.

 

It would be a "take no prisoners" campaign from Trump, but I feel confident that, if Hillary stays focused on policy, he would turn off a record number of voters, maybe even help bring in a Democratic majority in Congress.

 

Trump is painful to listen to, but a win (nomination only!) isn't necessarily bad.

  • Love 5

MSNBC struck some deal with Bloomberg and is now airing Heilmann & Halperin's show at 6 pm, an hour after Bloomberg airs it.

I saw "Morning Joe" making a big deal of this on Monday, and had no idea what this was.  I have no plans to watch more than the 30 seconds I saw yesterday.  And Erica Hill had been in that slot over the holiday, so I miss her on top of not liking this new show.

Does NBC understand that any time they cut to Trump speaking -- either live or in a clip -- I have to ff or change the channel?

I can't stand him but MSNBC is actually doing us a service by making clear how much viability his campaign is generating.  Those crowds showing up for the Trump rallies are not there because they are watching MSNBC, and the coverage on MSNBC is not creating new support for him (did you SEE the video comparisons of his rallies to George Wallace rallies on Rachel Maddow's show on Tuesday?  Yikes.)  It's probably good that I'm not thinking this will default to Rubio or someone in his clump of candidates.  But I mute when he is talking, absolutely.

  • Love 1

 

But I mute when he is talking, absolutely

 

The problem with just muting instead of changing the channel is that your digital device still records it as watching MSNBC and it adds you into the ratings. The only way that MSNBC could get the message that Trump is poison is if people turned their tv's off en masse and their ratings plummeted (even further).

 

 

I can't stand him but MSNBC is actually doing us a service by making clear how much viability his campaign is generating.  Those crowds showing up for the Trump rallies are not there because they are watching MSNBC, and the coverage on MSNBC is not creating new support for him

 

I beg to differ. Trump is yoooooge because of the mass media coverage he's gotten. Unfortunately, his message has resonated with a lot of the people who tuned in to see/hear him because he was a loud-mouthed well known tv star but if he was an unknown buffoon, nobody would have paid any attention to him in the first place.

  • Love 2

The problem with just muting instead of changing the channel is that your digital device still records it as watching MSNBC and it adds you into the ratings. The only way that MSNBC could get the message that Trump is poison is if people turned their tv's off en masse and their ratings plummeted (even further).

 

 

I beg to differ. Trump is yoooooge because of the mass media coverage he's gotten. Unfortunately, his message has resonated with a lot of the people who tuned in to see/hear him because he was a loud-mouthed well known tv star but if he was an unknown buffoon, nobody would have paid any attention to him in the first place.

Definitely! It's the media that's making this sumbitch. If I was a Kasich or Jeb fan, which I'm not, I'd be pissed.

  • Love 2
×
×
  • Create New...