Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

Rachel Maddow: Our Favorite Rhodes Scholar

Recommended Posts


Oh man, can the NY Times be any more clueless?  Rachel is clearly so well-informed on politics & she regularly demonstrates that she's a thoughtful & probing interviewer.  You know, just tonite, when she was discussing the despicable Elaine Chao corruption scandal, she also mentioned the highlights of the other Trump admin peeps who have left or been fired.  That she can keep straight, ALL the firings & scandals of this horrible administration, is proof enough of Rachel's exceptional savvy.

She'll make a fantastic moderator!  She'll be a billion times better than idiot Matt Lauer was.  Dismissing her as a pundit & a wild card?  Uh, what?  Hey, I said it before, when they stupidly banned their reporters from her show & I'll say it again -- FUCK YOU, NY Times!

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad Rachel will be one of the moderators, because she's smart and informed and not easily distracted by shiny objects. I wish they would ditch Chuck Todd and sub Joy Reid or LOD in his place, though, because CT has a tendency to be quite dim and he lets all kinds of bullshit go by him.

Rachel was on Late Night with Seth Meyers tonight and they talked about the debates a little. Rachel pointed out that with 10 candidates on the stage at a time, in a 2 hour format (where I assume there will be commercials, so it's not really a full 120 mins of "debate" anyway), and where some time will by necessity be taken up asking the actual questions, each candidate is not going to get much time to actually say anything.

She was saying that she doesn't want it to be all canned sound bytes and scripted "attempt to go viral" moments, but she's not sure how that will be avoided, either.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, possibilities said:

I wish they would ditch Chuck Todd and sub Joy Reid or LOD in his place, though, because CT has a tendency to be quite dim and he lets all kinds of bullshit go by him.

Chuck "Hillary is just too prepared" Todd is the worst - as much as I love Rachel, if he is there, I just can't watch.   Its interesting that you mentioned Joy - there was a lot of pushback yesterday after they announced the moderators that no African American women were included.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's always hard to tell how much the person who presents the news is a journalist - and it's very easy for outsiders to attribute more to the presenter than is entirely justified. The New Yorker followed Maddow around a couple of years ago and shows her writing her scripts, and I know she's worked as a print journalist, but *now* a lot of the credit for the spadework and research that makes her possible really has to go to her staff. I bet it was one of her staff who did the searches that surfaced Randall Williams' background and tied his story together. And it's certainly true that while I think Maddow is scrupulous with her facts, she takes an unseemly glee in exposing Republican malfeasance. The giggling and face-palming play well on TV but I can see why the staid New York Times might see them as "not-a-journalist".

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel has moderated debates before and as I recall, she was always  very well prepared.   I am sorry to see Chuck teamed with her--I really miss Katy Tur doing MTP daily to cover him--now it's him or Kornake and I am inclined to change the channel.

Of course LOD would be excellent based on his history working in Congress, but Chris Hayes is also always really well prepared and very good at question and answer formats.

At any rate, I hope Rachel gets some of the good candidates in her hour---I'm looking forward to hearing who gets cut---and how they group the 2 groups of 10---I'm  sure they will mix them up some how but you know they all want to be on camera and get to go up against the top 3-4 candidates.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, wendyg said:

staid New York Times

Their "star" reporter Maggie Haberman used to work for the New York Post & New York Daily News.   They have NO business trashing Rachel Maddow.  She presents information accurately and truthfully.

The Times doesn't even have an ombudsman position who will review everything to be sure it's accurate.  "It's just easier for the public to correct our mistakes". 

13 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

FUCK YOU, NY Times!

Amen

Edited by teddysmom
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel-related, but not TRMS: I happened to notice Rachel provided a new introduction to a somewhat recently published edition of Armistad Maupin's Tales of the City. (It was tied in with 2018's PBS America's Great Read.) I've checked the local library and bookstores, but haven't been able to find it. Anyone have it on a shelf somewhere? Could you summarize what RM had to say about the book?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, attica said:

Big NYT profile on Rachel today here.   Ankle injury explained therein.

And they actually talk about the NYT pulling its reporters from TRMS and then letting them back.  I wonder if Rachel agreeing to do the profile was contingent on them lifting the ban.

I really liked the pictures that accompanied the article, especially the ones showing the work environment.  Adds context to the show and its production.

Now I'm reading the comments section on the article.  Seems the NYT readers have a lot of the same complaints we do!

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

More media, this time from InStyle.

Quote

RM: I’m not that angry of a person. I get frustrated. I get sad. I’m an easy crier. I am emotionally affected by the wanton infliction of cruelty on people who have done nothing wrong and don’t deserve it. It doesn’t change the way I do stuff. Sometimes I think ahead about little tricks and techniques to not cry on air when I’m talking about something unbelievably terrible.

LB: Like what?

RM: Pinch yourself right here [pinches her hand between her thumb and index finger]. Just really wrench it. It causes a nerve pain response. Sometimes I cry on TV. That happens. I’d rather it not.

LB: Why? I feel like people — especially in politics — become cynical about crying. It’s not a device. It’s because you’re feeling something.

RM: I expect the audience will feel things when we’re reporting on poignant or difficult stories, but for me to display emotion, I don’t think that’s helpful to anybody. It’s a distraction. If you’re having an emotional reaction to the news, I want to respect that and not trample on it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert:

Rachel and her “rrrriiipped armpits” 😄

I bet Rachel hanging out with Stephen and the Jimmies would be awesome.

The book! As usual, she finds the interesting and funny sides to a topic.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Just finished a fascinating NY Times piece on Rach, which gives some interesting background into Rachel's thinking about everything she's been talking about the last few weeks.  Here it is-

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/magazine/rachel-maddow-trump.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=The New York Times Magazine

Really liked the interview with Hillary -- such on-target observations!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Scoobie.  Thanks for posting this great in-depth article.

Poor Rachel.  That ankle injury sounds positively gruesome.  Who knew fishing could be so dangerous! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel on "The View" this morning, to promote her new book.  She came out hobbling on her crutches & telling how she did it...sounded painful!  But she kept on fishing! lol.   She is always funny & interesting & polite to all the ladies.  Even Meghan was polite to her, no "gotcha" moments & she was thrilled Rachel mentioned her Dad(John McCain!) as the inspiration for her book.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, car54 said:

No Rachel tonight--Nicole Wallace just said she was filling in tonight.

Rachel did a good job on The View today, and then rushed back and did Andrea Mitchell's show.   

 Imma need to see a clip of that!

Share this post


Link to post

She was good..    Every time Meghan or Abby tried to ask her something she acted like she took them seriously.    She was very smart to be complimentary about John McCain first thing.    

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, car54 said:

She was good..    Every time Meghan or Abby tried to ask her something she acted like she took them seriously.    She was very smart to be complimentary about John McCain first thing.    

Rachel very casually, but directly, corrected some misinformation McCain has been saying confidently, but very wrongly, every day on The View — that Schiff has always been a strong proponent of impeachment, which McCain says makes him “untrustworthy” to be in his present position.

Now if McCain watched Rachel regularly, maybe (just maybe) she wouldn’t spout all the false shit she spouts on The View — particularly about Schiff, who Rachel speaks with frequently on her show.

Rachel mentioned on The View being inspired by a quote from John McCain, he said in 2014 after he visited Ukraine — that Russia is just one big gas station (or something like that).  She said her curiosity about that statement was a basis for her book, which is about Russia & the gas and oil industry.  Fascinating!  Why has she not mentioned this on her show?

And she ended her time on The View by pertly asking Abby Huntsman if her father ever told her why he quit his job as ambassador to Russia.  Ha!  Good one, Rach!  Surprisingly, Rachel hasn’t asked that on the show, or has she?  Just why did he did he so abruptly quit?  Another dot to connect, Rach . . .

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel told Lawrence last night that she was going to try to get info from Abby.

I thought she handled Meghan very gracefully (it's Rachel)--Meghan takes most everything a liberal says as offensive, and Rachel was very serious, spoke to her respectfully but said what she really thought.   And saying something good about McCain put Meghan into a better mode where she was not confrontational.

Nicolle did a good job tonight but I'm glad Rachel is in tomorrow.   This book tour is going to be brutal for her, it sounds like.

I got a free copy of the book by doing a free trial of Audible on Amazon--you can cancel after the trial and keep the books.   I think I'll like listening to it--I loved Bagman.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, car54 said:

snip

Nicolle did a good job tonight but I'm glad Rachel is in tomorrow.   This book tour is going to be brutal for her, it sounds like.

I thought it was "very interesting" that Nicolle had Mike Schmidt on the show.  Just sayin'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I noticed that in the past couple of weeks, she's had NYT people on again--I wondered if they lifted their ban against their people doing Rachel's show---I'm pretty sure Mike was on last week when he had some hot story.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, car54 said:

Actually, I noticed that in the past couple of weeks, she's had NYT people on again--I wondered if they lifted their ban against their people doing Rachel's show---I'm pretty sure Mike was on last week when he had some hot story.

From the NYT profile:

Quote

The Times distanced its reporters who cover political subjects from her program over what it viewed as a “sharply opinionated” orientation.....The New York Times had reconsidered its stance, and its reporter Michael Schmidt went on as a guest two nights in a row.

Share this post


Link to post

They should know that Rachel is on in prime time and her having the reporter who has breaking news on is only good for them.    I will give them that she definitely is on the left side --but I do not think she's unfair or in any way distorts the news *but then I mostly agree with her!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/4/2019 at 10:31 PM, Sesquipedalia said:

Came here to post this. Her character's name is Vesper, which is my cat's name. Somehow I can't picture Rachel being able to act, but it will be interesting to see.

I got the impression from what Rachel said, that she is just doing a voice-over, not actually acting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, BuckeyeLou said:

I got the impression from what Rachel said, that she is just doing a voice-over, not actually acting.

That's what I understood too!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, car54 said:

Rachel will be a guest host on Pod Save America this week.

oh crap! I just deleted an email /link from them (Pod Save America)! I didn't realize it was concerning Rachel Maddow.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/3/2019 at 11:27 PM, car54 said:

I got a free copy of the book by doing a free trial of Audible on Amazon--you can cancel after the trial and keep the books.   

Oh cool, she reads the book herself, and not an actor?  I was debating whether to buy the print copy, or audible, this may make my decision easier! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

10 hours ago, car54 said:

Rachel will be a guest host on Pod Save America this week.

It’s a fun pod! Most of it is their usual format of them going through the latest political news, with Rachel chiming in, too. (There’s a funny bit towards the beginning where they play some historical audio in honor of her being there, and she had brought that exact same audio to play for them!)

At 1:02:20 Jon Favreau starts asking her about Blowout. 

At 1:06:50 Rachel starts putting the whole Russia/oil-gas story in a really easy-to-follow and tidy nutshell that takes less than 4 minutes—well worth a listen for everyone to get the big picture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel was a guest on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast that was released Sunday. I found it really interesting and I learned some things I hadn’t known before. She talks about her family (I didn’t know she has a brother) and how she went from high school right through to her tv career.

It’s definitely worth a listen if you’re a fan. It’s about an hour or more and starts about 10 minutes in.

Edited by grooveshinney · Reason: Hit post too quickly.
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

I have not had time to listen yet, but this is a recording (audio, I think) of Rachel's appearance in Seattle -- two hours' worth, posted on an NPR affiliate station.  Remember, it was a day of crazy breaking news that evening, which apparently she recapped for the audience.  Can hardly wait to have time to listen!  Oh, and it is available via podcast, also linked below.

ETA:  Just listened to the first five minutes, and it is great.  It was in a hall that holds about 2500, and she kept talking about all the people.  And it was the day she was reporting for the first time on "Lev and Igor", before she started calling them that.  "They had Paul Manafort's lawyers -- what, are they on call like on 'Night Court' for airport arrests?"  And more snark.  

https://www.kuow.org/stories/rachel-maddow-on-the-fight-of-our-lifetimes-against-rising-authoritarianism?fbclid=IwAR25d1qfEPGo3goUdrvkk5Pvf41OCRQ5EV2Rl9J6tu2AmCQXm_1DXtRdQP4 

Podcast:  https://www.kuow.org/podcasts/speakers-forum 

Edited by freddi
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

WaPo media critic reviewing Friday's bombshell show:

Quote

Until Maddow knocked on the doors of her own bosses, however, the public received nothing from NBC News that approached the candor of “profoundly disappointed.” Instead, we heard cover-your-butt explanations about Farrow’s alleged shortcomings.....

Not long after Farrow’s original New Yorker story was published, he also appeared on Maddow’s show, where he said that “there were multiple determinations” that his Weinstein story “was reportable at NBC.” That led to a moment of grand commotion at the top of NBC News. Farrow writes in his book that right after the interview, MSNBC President Phil Griffin was on the phone with Maddow, “his raised voice audible even at a distance.” Oppenheim dialed up Farrow himself: “I cannot account for Rachel Maddow’s behavior,” he said.

Good! Because Maddow’s behavior aligns with the public interest.

I added the bolding.  The headline to the story calls Rachel "untouchable."  She's bigger than the network at this point.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Fareed Zakaria, in NY Times Review of Books, reviews Blowout, and it's a glowing review:

Quote

“Blowout” is a rollickingly well-written book, filled with fascinating, exciting and alarming stories about the impact of the oil and gas industry on the world today. While she is clearly animated by a concern about climate change, Maddow mostly describes the political consequences of an industry that has empowered some of the strangest people in the United States and the most unsavory ones abroad...

“Blowout” is a brilliant description of many of the problems caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. But it does not provide a path out of the darkness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just finished Catch and Kill, and Rachel comes across very positively in that book. After Farrow was blacklisted at NBC, Rachel told him no one dictates to her what to do with her show. She was the only one on all of NBC who booked him during that time.

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

I always enjoy seeing Rachel outside of the studio....she was fun & funny with Jimmy Fallon.  Her boot is finally off & she had her sneakers on.  The 1st segment was a general discussion of what is happening in the news, and the 2nd segment was about her book.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BuckeyeLou said:

I always enjoy seeing Rachel outside of the studio....she was fun & funny with Jimmy Fallon.  Her boot is finally off & she had her sneakers on.  The 1st segment was a general discussion of what is happening in the news, and the 2nd segment was about her book.

She often does say when she will appear on a show like that, especially on her own network.  I'm surprised she did not mention this appearance ahead of time.  

Share this post


Link to post

I just finished reading Blowout (thank you, Phoenix Public Library!), and it was surprisingly good.  Not that I'm surprised that Rachel writes well, but I was afraid the subject matter would be very dry, dusty, and academic, and it was none of those things.  Very readable, although having followed along as Rachel has told us about the Russia connections for the past several years definitely helped provide context.

Oh, and I counted at least twice where Rachel, not quoting anyone, described a situation as a "fuckup."  So enough with the pearl-clutching when you encounter a bad word, dear.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

She swore on her appearance on the podcast Pod Save America, too.

i am in the middle of listening to the audiobook of Blowout, and I totally agree that it is very engaging. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size