All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[ScoobieDoobs]

Rach bored me last nite.  Fell asleep on her.  I don’t EVER remember doing that.  Shouldn’t happen tonite — looking forward to her thoughts on what Mueller said.

Hey, did anyone see some lady asked Kamala last night if she’d consider Rach as VP?  She laughed but didn’t answer.  The lady also said she luved Rachel’s  “turnovers” to LOD.  Uh, who doesn’t?

[meowmommy]

I realize Rachel had to hype the importance of her guest last night--who officially announced his run against Lindsey Graham today--but nothing on earth is going to convince me that South Carolina is in play for a Democratic presidential nominee, or that it will be terribly significant, despite its early date in the primaries, in determining who the nominee is going to be.  This is a state that went 40% for Hillary in 2016 and 60% for other people.

5 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rach bored me last nite.  Fell asleep on her.  I don’t EVER remember doing that.

Y'know, I honestly, and I'm not being snarky or hyperbolic, don't remember what else she talked about last night.

[car54]

I know Rachel's background is public health and I think she did a really good interview with Hickenlooper and gave a great outline of the program he led in CO with providing birth control.   Very timely.

Every other interview I've seen him do, he's gotten a little snippy over the interviewer asking something he doesn't want to discuss (he just did it tonight on Ari Melber's show) but Rachel kept things right on track and gave him a good chance to talk about something that would be helpful for the public to know about him.

[possibilities]

I liked that, too, but I like that she challenged him on some of his other views and choices, as well. I thought it really showed several significant facts about who he is. It was not a fluff piece at all.

[freddi]

I did like the too-short Valerie Jarrett interview on Thursday.  She was direct without being snarky:  “Why yes, he is the opposite of President Obama.”  

And am glad Rachel showed - *twice* - the infuriating footage of McConnell sipping iced tea and saying, “We’ll fill it,” in response to what will happen if there is a SCOTUS vacancy in 2020. *Sip.*. 

And related: IOKIYAR —  I could not figure it out at all while it was projected.  “It’s Okay If You’re A Republican.”

[car54]

The NYT is now stopping it's reporters to appear on Rachel's show for fear of appearing "too partisan".

[bad things are bad]

On 5/9/2019 at 1:01 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

The NYT is now stopping it's reporters to appear on Rachel's show

Are they banned from all other talking head appearances on cable news shows? 

[meowmommy]

10 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

Are they banned from all other talking head appearances on cable news shows? 

According to the article, they're focusing on Rachel, LOD, and Don Lemon on CNN.  But this quote from the Times' handbook, WRT Rachel, is just bullshit:

Quote

“In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.” 

Have they ever watched Rachel?  

[izabella]

That sounds suspiciously targeted, doesn't it?  Like someone must have a bee in their bonnet about only those three shows.  Perhaps Rachel's ratings are why she is on the censorship list.

[car54]

I am going to guess that they get some push back from some reporters.    I can't count the number of times they've dropped a story online at 8 pm and Rachel has the reporter on to promote the story and she is always super respectful to make sure when she does the intro that she asks the journalist if she got it right.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Eh, it’s the Times’ loss.  Rachel was doing them a favor by promoting them.  Very stupid business decision.  But even beyond that, they should eliminate on a case-by-case basis.  Rachel has reporters on to talk facts — and that’s it.  Dumb decision, NY Times!

There are plenty of other reporters Rachel can (and regularly does) have on from WaPo & WSJ & elsewhere.  Btw, anyone notice Rachel has NEVER had Maggie Haberman on to discuss the shoddy shit she puts out?  Must be a reason for that.  Just sayin’ . . .

[The Solution]

That's disappointing. I love the NY Times and I love Rachel Maddow. They are both among the finest and only true journalists that this Nation has left to offer.

[Morrigan2575]

Did the sound cut out half way through for everyone?

[j5cochran]

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Did the sound cut out half way through for everyone?

I'm about to watch the midnight Eastern time repeat.  I'll let you know.

Edited to add: no sound problems. It must have been local, @Morrigan2575!

Edited June 1, 2019 by j5cochran
Updating information.

[possibilities]

No sound problems here in MA. Are you having weather disruptions where you are?

[stormy]

I was a bit surprised that Rachel's show didn't start out with the sad shooting in VA as all other shows had that on pretty much non-stop since 4 pm ET  Although I was grateful because I would have turned the channel.

If anyone can beat this telephone conversation story to death, it's Rachel.  The better part of the show covered it.  And I can't wait to see what happens. I'm rooting for fireworks.

Rachel asked a lot of good questions because for the average person how can a federal judge be told NO?  

[stormy]

16 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Eh, it’s the Times’ loss.  Rachel was doing them a favor by promoting them.  Very stupid business decision.  But even beyond that, they should eliminate on a case-by-case basis.  Rachel has reporters on to talk facts — and that’s it.  Dumb decision, NY Times!

There are plenty of other reporters Rachel can (and regularly does) have on from WaPo & WSJ & elsewhere.  Btw, anyone notice Rachel has NEVER had Maggie Haberman on to discuss the shoddy shit she puts out?  Must be a reason for that.  Just sayin’ . . .

I believe Maggie Habermann is exclusively on CNN.  I don't think I've ever seen her on MSNBC.

This may be true of other reporters too, i.e., Michael Schmidt, Nick Confessore and Jonathan Lemire, to name a few that I've never seen on CNN.

[car54]

I think the Times is ok with the reporters who have a job with MSNBC appearing on the generic news shows or MTP or the NBC news shows but not the prime time shows that have more of an "opinion" slant to them.   I don't know if any of the "contributors" appear on Morning Joe, but if this is the rule, then they would not ---since that show definitely has strong opinions.

Don Lemon spoke about it on his show last night and he was not happy about it.    Personally I watch his show because he has strong opinions.    Same with Lawrence.   

I always feel like Haberman does the New Day show to get a free blowout and makeup for the day. :)

It seems like the NYT is trying to keep a foot in both camps so if either party wins they won't have offended anyone.      I don't think WaPo will care--they have a history of being on the other side of either party when they are in.

[ScoobieDoobs]

There is a woman from The Times who is always on with Ari, who is titled a contributor on their editorial board, but I don’t ever remember reading a piece with her name on it.  She’s never been on Rachel’s show.  There is a specific reason for that.

Sure, Rachel voices her opinion every nite.  But she also asks questions every nite & is looking for FACTS.  Opinion piece writers like Jennifer Rubin are of zero interest to Rachel and that’s why she never has them on.

The thing is, Rachel has such great respect for reporters — particularly investigative reporters, and the big scoops they get & the work they do to get those scoops.  She NEVER grills them in a negative way.  She sums up their stories first & then lets them tell what they’ve written how they want to.  It’s all positive & win-win for The Times & their reporters.

I get why The Times made this decision.  They are on sorta iffy ground with this WH & they don’t wanna be locked out ahead 2020.  I don’t like it, but I still say it’s their loss & there are plenty of other great reporters Rachel has had on before & can have on again.

Will this decision from the Times affect Rachel’s show?  No, not at all, particularly if no other media outlet makes this poorly thought-out & stupid decision.  She’s never been dependent on The Times for her guests & if an important Times story breaks, she can always have on Chuck, Barb or Joyce for comment.  They’re always welcome to me!

[izabella]

On 6/1/2019 at 12:11 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

I get why The Times made this decision.  They are on sorta iffy ground with this WH & they don’t wanna be locked out ahead 2020.  I don’t like it, but I still say it’s their loss & there are plenty of other great reporters Rachel has had on before & can have on again.

I don't think it will hurt Rachel at all.  But it sounds like censorship.  And if they are doing it because of WH pressure or even just imagining the WH will ostracize the NYT somehow, it means they are censoring their reporters based on WH punishment...censorship based on politics.   

Imagine if WaPo had censored Woodward and Bernstein because they were afraid  the Nixon WH would revoke access to WaPo reporters.  Or if Fox had censored its reporters from talking about Hillary's emails everywhere they wanted because they were afraid the Obama WH would revoke access to Fox reporters.

Edited June 3, 2019 by izabella

[possibilities]

It would be different if Rachel was misrepresenting what they say, or trying to create drama. I would understand if they said their people weren't going to go on shows that devolve into shouting matches and spin/distortion binges.

But she's very respectful, and she lets them describe their reporting in a way that basically is just telling her viewers what the newspaper itself printed. She doesn't try to bait them to take any kind of position on anything, she doesn't force them into "debates" or other things they aren't really trained to do.

It's really just advertising for the NYT itself, and they should be grateful for the exposure.

[BabyVegas]

I think it also matters that they're on her platform and not vice versa. If the NYT had Rachel on their platform and she stated an opinion, I would assume that they approved of it, at least enough to publish it. If a reporter is on Rachel's platform, it's not reasonable to assume that the NYT holds that opinion because the show is under Rachel's control. And frankly the description of Rachel as "mega-ideological" is baffling. I would certainly concede that she has a point of view, but the idea that any political/news show is without a POV seems insane. 

[izabella]

27 minutes ago, BabyVegas said:

And frankly the description of Rachel as "mega-ideological" is baffling.

That's the part that's making me think the NYT is doing that thing where they bend over backwards not to appear to have a liberal bias, and in doing so, go to the extreme and actually enact a conservative bias.

[formerlyfreedom]

Topic, please. The New York Times is not on topic for episodes.

[Calvada]

I was glad Rachel had Karine Jean-Pierre on tonight.  When I first saw the video of the incident with Sen. Harris, I had to laugh at all the chatter on Twitter about the senator's husband jumping up to protect her.  I was thinking Hey!  What about the woman in pink who put herself between the guy and the senator?  

[car54]

I honestly don't know how Rachel keeps all these people like Nader straight.  I was trying to follow that story earlier today and it seems like he had his hand in a little bit of everything.    I'm glad she had the reporter for the current story on to help explain the timeline.   I was confused but his explanation about the time gap between them questioning him/making a case against him for the child porn helps explain how this went down.

He is one creepy guy.

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, Calvada said:

I was glad Rachel had Karine Jean-Pierre on tonight.

It's really funny, given the discussion everyone just had about how Rachel only talks to reporters, lawyers, and movers/shakers, that she had Karine on tonight.  Karine is a frequent guest on all the other shows as a talking head, but never on Rachel because Rachel doesn't do talking heads; once Karine did something active and became part of the news, Rachel wanted to talk to her.  It totally epitomizes Rachel's approach.

[possibilities]

I appreciated what Jean-Pierre did-- watching that video, my heart was in my throat. Where was security???

I wish we'd heard more about what the candidates said at the forum, though, too. It was a Big Ideas forum, where the participants were supposed to each bring a Big Idea. There were eight of them there. But none of them were reported. It was all about The Terrible Incident.

---

The Nader disgustingness was hard to listen to tonight, but I'm glad she featured it. How much more of this is there? How much more do we have to go through to get to the end????

[ScoobieDoobs]

5 hours ago, car54 said:

I honestly don't know how Rachel keeps all these people like Nader straight.  I was trying to follow that story earlier today and it seems like he had his hand in a little bit of everything.    I'm glad she had the reporter for the current story on to help explain the timeline.   I was confused but his explanation about the time gap between them questioning him/making a case against him for the child porn helps explain how this went down.

He is one creepy guy.

One thing about Rachel, she is consistent.  She has been following Nader closely since this awful admin started -- precisely because he is such an influential character to this admin AND also because he is such an awful character himself.  All Rachel did was sum up again (and it is well worth repeating) just what a horrible & vile POS he is.

So who did Rach have on tonite?  The reporter from WaPo who broke the story of Nader getting arrested.  NY Times?  Fuck you big time for blowing off Rachel -- she's doing just fine without you!

Wow, is Karine a thoroughly lovely woman or what?  If I didn't think so before (I did), I sure do now!

[meowmommy]

6 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Wow, is Karine a thoroughly lovely woman or what?  If I didn't think so before (I did), I sure do now!

And boy, did she make the most of her appearance on TRMS.  It was as if she knew she'd probably never be on again, so she wanted to get all her points out in front of Rachel's audience.

Also interesting that Rachel identified her as an MSNBC contributor, when, unlike almost every other host on MSNBC, she almost never bothers to do that.

6 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So who did Rach have on tonite?  The reporter from WaPo who broke the story of Nader getting arrested.  NY Times?  Fuck you big time for blowing off Rachel -- she's doing just fine without you!

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, and also thinking that if WaPo pulls the same stunt with their reporters, I'll have to rethink my subscription.

[Medicine Crow]

8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Wow, is Karine a thoroughly lovely woman or what?  If I didn't think so before (I did), I sure do now!

She is definitely a brave "little gal".  I've been her fan for a while, but her jumping in front of Kamala & trying to grab the mic was outstanding!!!

[freddi]

I was so glad to see Rachel talking about Flint again, and that the new Governor of Michigan has drawn attention again to that tragedy created by officials who just did not care about the population of Flint.  I hope Rachel will invite that governor to her show in the future, not just to talk about Flint and public safety, but other issues that Michigan exemplifies:  red/blue divide, states' rights, etc.  

[stormy]

Rachel rambled on for 23 minutes last night then took a commercial break before having Rep Eric Swalwell on.

Really? Sometimes I wish she skip all the other shit and just get to the interview.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Wow, Rachel sure was giddy last nite.  OK, I don’t mind her chuckling & snickering over the ridiculousness of Trump in London . . . cuz it is looney.

But she was still snickering when comparing how women now in Congress are considering abortion issues, rather than ONLY men, just a short time ago.  Uh, no, Rachel.  This fact is awesome, but SERIOUS.  And her snickering takes away from the seriousness of it.  Thank goodness she held back the snickering when discussing the gun control stuff.

Eric Swalwell?  Very nice guy, but if you missed that interview, you missed nothing.

Rachel keeps joking that every Dem in the world is running now for Prez.  Uh, why is she so bothered by this?  Many, if not most, will be eliminated quickly once the primaries start.

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, stormy said:

Rachel rambled on for 23 minutes last night then took a commercial break before having Rep Eric Swalwell on.

She made a big deal about how she was going to have a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE right here in the studio!!  And then it was the same tired Eric Swalwell who's been on Rachel and LOD about eleventy million times already.

2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Many, if not most, will be eliminated quickly once the primaries start.

But the first primary is nine goddamn months away.  The media's gotta have something to do to keep themselves amused until then.  With any luck, the debates will winnow out a few who won't inspire any fund raising, but then, luck's rarely on our side.  

There are 179 weekdays, minus holidays, between now and the New Hampshire primary.  Rachel could interview each and every one of the 23 candidates on her show nearly eight times each before then.

[stormy]

So tonight Rachel tried to explain trump inserting himself into the WA DC annual 4th of July celebration, four of his adult children being brought to England to hang with the royals and talking up a boarder wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland with the Irish PM.

She can't. She's at a loss for words. Because it's mind boggling.

[freddi]

Best image was Trump and the Irish PM meeting at the airport instead of an official location proposed by the Irish. “You know the are near the vending machines.”

And in addition to the four Trump children at a state event, the whole motley remaining hangers-on crew was attending.  Kellyanne, Sarah, the social media director, and so many more.  

3 hours ago, stormy said:

So tonight Rachel tried to explain trump inserting himself into the WA DC annual 4th of July celebration, four of his adult children being brought to England to hang with the royals and talking up a boarder wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland with the Irish PM.

She can't. She's at a loss for words. Because it's mind boggling.

[SpiritSong]

On 5/31/2019 at 3:45 PM, The Solution said:

That's disappointing. I love the NY Times and I love Rachel Maddow. They are both among the finest and only true journalists that this Nation has left to offer.

Ever since their "coverage" of the 2016 election I have not considered the NY Times a credible news source. At all. But I do enjoy Rachel interviewing investigative reporters who have just broken a big story. She always asks such intelligent follow up questions.

I enjoyed her follow up tonight with Chris Hayes and his town hall with Elizabeth Warren. It was nice to get a little extra insight. And I can only pray and hope the 4th of July extravaganza this year goes even worse than it did for Nixon. I hadn't remembered any of that (I was only 13 at the time) so found that interesting.

[teddysmom]

I swear at first I thought he believed Ireland was part of the same land mass as Great Britain, and not an island, when she said he was talking about a wall.  

She was positively apoplectic. 

[BabyVegas]

49 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

She was positively apoplectic. 

Is it wrong that I laughed and rewound that moment of her sighing/facepalming? I was maybe 8ish when the Good Friday Agreement was struck, and the second that she played that clip of him talking about a wall my immediate reaction was "wait, wasn't that the big issue with Ireland/Northern Ireland?" I know several of us have commented on her snarkiness, but sometimes I think it's a "laugh so you don't cry" situation.

[BuckeyeLou]

7 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

Is it wrong that I laughed and rewound that moment of her sighing/facepalming? I was maybe 8ish when the Good Friday Agreement was struck, and the second that she played that clip of him talking about a wall my immediate reaction was "wait, wasn't that the big issue with Ireland/Northern Ireland?" I know several of us have commented on her snarkiness, but sometimes I think it's a "laugh so you don't cry" situation.

I laughed too!  I thought Rachel was extra 'snarky" on Wed. night & I loved it!  Trump is So Unbelievably stupid and his whole family in-tow for a free vacation...its either laugh or cry.

[freddi]

Oh, good the show is not all prerecorded— the Flynn phone call was news today.  

But I got a whiff that tomorrow’s show is prerecorded.  I hope I am being too cynical!

Edited June 7, 2019 by freddi

[meowmommy]

53 minutes ago, freddi said:

Oh, good the show is not all prerecorded— the Flynn phone call was news today.  

It's not at all prerecorded.  Rachel did a live handoff with Chris, and although the Missouri story itself is not brand new, her A block coverage of it was.  And you can always look for the LIVE banner over the MSNBC bug.  

This was the special report she alluded to last night.  Aside from the issue itself, I don't understand why it's a TRMS exclusive or a special report.  Didn't anyone in Missouri hear about and report on this?  

[freddi]

I got the sense at the end that the segment tonight was a setup for a longer exploration on Friday. (?) We’ll see tomorrow!

56 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

This was the special report she alluded to last night.  Aside from the issue itself, I don't understand why it's a TRMS exclusive or a special report.  Didn't anyone in Missouri hear about and report on this?  

[ahisma]

Tonight’s show was surprisingly short. The content of the Missouri report felt a little stretched out (more repetition than usual between segments). But even with that plus a tiny amount of additional news the entire podcast was 35 minutes where usually it's 42-48. Were there a ton of ads? Or did Chris run over?

[M. Darcy]

The fact that Rachel seems to be the only one covering the fuckitude happening in Missouri is another scandal.   I was in tears at the beginning when she showed the clinic in Illinois preparing for what happens when there are no more abortions in Missouri. And then it got worse.   Those poor women and doctors.  

Last night is what I call "Rachel's mad as hell' voice.  Rightfully so.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

So did I hear Rach mumble thru her snickering, in response to Bennet saying she should come to Colorado, that she’ll be there Friday?  Does that mean no live Rachel tonite?  Phooey.

But I am hooked into what the next part of the hideous Missouri story is.  I’m wondering why nobody else is on it.

Edited June 7, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So did I hear Rach mumble thru her snickering, in response to Bennet saying she should come to Colorado, that she’ll be there Friday?  Does that mean no live Rachel tonite?  Phooey.

She said, "I'll be there tomorrow actually...sort of thinking about it now....getting frustrated."  Whatever the hell that means.  Since she had also said she was doing the second part of her Missouri story on Friday.

Edited June 7, 2019 by meowmommy

[meowmommy]

Maybe she was just wishing she could be in Colorado, fishing or something.

Rachel reading the redacted transcripts was like listening to Mad Libs.

And "Let's send chocolates!  Let's send flowers!  Let's send Crimea!"  Like listening to MADTv.

Or would that be Maddow Libs and Maddow TV?

[meowmommy]

Rachel's abortion report hit WaPo.

Quote

In Missouri, this issue — the subject of back-to-back episodes of Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show — is at the center of the fight over the fate of the state’s last abortion clinic.....

Maddow likened the practice to “state-sanctioned sexual assault.”

“State-sanctioned sexual assault is the new price that the state of Missouri is extracting from Missouri women if they try to get an abortion," she said Thursday, "Now, why would the state government do that? What is the benefit to the state of doing that?”

So far, 100% of the comments are in support of Rachel and against this new practice.