Skip to main content

I just turned off Alex Wagners's show on MSNBC ("Now"). I did so yesterday, too. Her intro yesterday and today was in regard to the problems with the website of the Affordable Care Act. Her intro today made it sound like it will doom the presidency of President Obama. Also, I have difficulty with some of the guests she has on her program (i.e, Michael Steele, former RNC chairman). Why can't see get better quality guests ? I do like Alex when she is a guest on Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

There are some programs on MSNBC I like. I like Mellissa Harris Perry, Rachel Maddow, and Martin Bashir. But sometimes I find MSNBC difficult to watch. (I won't watch Morning Joe.)

Who do you like or dislike on MSNBC? What do you think of their programs and what guests do you like or dislike on their various programs?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Turn it off! I stopped watching MSNBC (11+ / 0-)

    altogether a long time ago, and it was one of the best decisions I've made.

    Yes, there is some good content interspersed here and there, but the overall experience of being exposed to their programming is detrimental.

    MSNBC is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the ruling class, of their corporate owners, but what they do is even more insidious because they are pretenders.

    •  Oh, here we go again. (10+ / 0-)

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:33:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Saying "here we go again"... (12+ / 0-)

        implies that it stopped at some point.

      •  agreed...Ugh... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raptavio, fcvaguy, tporky, nextstep, Aquarius40

        "the adults" are trying to tell us what is "proper" programming to watch for Liberals.

        That's what all these type threads are ANNOUNCE their "standards" and why they feel superior than the hoi polloi because of it.

         Otherwise what is the freaking point of making such an "important announcement" other than.."Here is how I am above it all".

        •  Instead of saying things (11+ / 0-)

          which make one sound like a tool -- "I don't even WATCH the mainstream media, and neither should you" -- why not instead encourage critical thinking? Watch MSNBC, watch CNN -- heck, watch FOX -- and encourage independent and critical evaluation of the information presented -- and the information omitted -- and make your own decisions.

          Knee-jerk "Don't watch that! It's EVIL! EVILLLLLL!" can be as much a tool of control as the things one DOES watch.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:46:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Watching the trash peddled by MSNBC, CNN, (5+ / 0-)

            FoxNews, NBC, CBS, ABC, impairs critical thinking abilities.

            I was just making a suggestion to the diarist.  By all means, keep watching TV news if you must.

            •  Because you say so? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tporky, fcvaguy, Aquarius40

              Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

              Remember: A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:01:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me share with you a couple of things: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                4kedtongue, angel d, TheMomCat
                The 15 Rules of Web Disruption

                Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed.   For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes”, pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the manipulation.  This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems.  And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.

                Research Study Explains How U.S. Media Brainwashes The Public

                Gonzaga University Master's Degree Thesis by Frank McCoy

                The more [concentrated] the media landscape becomes the greater risk of harm there is to the public interest. As powerful corporations grow increasingly wealthier, powerful, influential, and politically affiliated the greater risk there is to the political economy on a global scale. The risk inherent with affluential transcultural media corporations is the mass homogenization of content and, thus, propagandist reinforcement of corporate and political interests serving only the dominant elites and, in turn, harming and marginalizing non-elites. One would be grossly remiss of the tangible danger and malign effects to the public to simply abridge the issue examined in this study as a case of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
                Without an awareness of the grave consequences involved with an increasingly concentrated media environment the public (i.e. non-elites) will continue to be systematically brainwashed by the propagandist arm of the government that is the mass media and will unknowingly acquiesce to the interests of the dominant elites.
                •  Most Masters Theses aren't worth the paper (0+ / 0-)

                  they're written on.

                  Skip Rope or Skip a Meal? A Theory Driven Examination of The Factors Contributing to Caloric Restriction and Exercise among University Students

                  Ba Ba Bling: Personal Ornament and its role in Social Cohesiveness During the Late Iron Age in Northern France

                  •  Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model: (3+ / 0-)
                    Propaganda Model

                    The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

                    The theory posits that the way in which news is structured (through advertising, media ownership, government sourcing and others) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.

                    First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature". The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media.

                  •  More to the point (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    the thesis doesn't even examine the question at the core of Mr. Pensador's assertion. He's citing a source that doesn't even analyze his claim, much less support it. See below.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I'm familiar with the 15 rules of web disruption (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Catte Nappe, fcvaguy

                  as you publicize them often -- and use them as bludgeons to engage in your own disruption and shut down critical examination of your claims. BTW:

                  4. Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed.  
                  Such as "Hide your eyes from all corporate media or they'll control your brain!"

                  That aside, you have been asked to present evidence and you have, to your credit, done so. However, the study presents findings concluding that these media companies wield considerable political influence, particularly around the NBC/Comcast merger, and includes the assertion almost by fiat that media consolidation is detrimental to the public interest (but I won't quibble; I tend to agree with that point for reasons that are tangential to the study), the study offers, despite your assertions, no evidence that supports your statement:

                  Watching the trash peddled by MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, NBC, CBS, ABC, impairs critical thinking abilities.
                  Nor, in fact, does the study even seek to answer the question. Instead, it offers a quasi-answer to that question as a premise:
                  Without an awareness of the grave consequences involved with an increasingly concentrated media environment the public (i.e. non-elites) will continue to be systematically brainwashed by the propagandist arm of the government that is the mass media and will unknowingly acquiesce to the interests of the dominant elites.
                  But this assertion, within the study, goes without citation and without support  by the actual text of the study. Further, it speaks of the dangers of homogenization of the media by corporate influences (i.e. a very small number of corporate sources becoming the only available options for media consumption) rather than the dangers of exposure to these corporate sources irrespective of whether the consumer of media also consumes alternative (read: non-corporate) sources of information.

                  So in short, the study doesn't prove what you claim it does, in fact it doesn't even EXAMINE the question of what you claim it does, but rather focuses on a question that is tangential to what you claim.

                  Indeed, the only studies that have been out there (at least that I've found) that show a corporate media exposure reduces critical thinking skills conclude that one, and only one, of the corporate media sources correlate with impaired critical thinking skills: FOX News.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Fox and MSNBC Viewers Largely Misinformed" (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    4kedtongue, TheMomCat

                    All those words you wrote for nothing, grasping at straws!

                    International Business Times: Fox and MSNBC Viewers Largely Misinformed: Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll

                    •  Chris Hayes... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador, angel d

             the exception.  His topics aren't always sexy, and his guests span the political spectrum.  He's engaged and displays an earnest interest in the topics he and his panels discuss.

                      He talks issues and deftly peppers those discussions with politics.

                      I agree with your premise, however.  TV 'news' whether coming from the Right or the Left, is, by and large, propaganda not meant to inform but meant to influence.  Thankfully, given MSNBC's ratings, The Left has little need for a filter.  I don't blame MSNBC for not being able to reach an audience as large as Fox -- much of The Left simply has no use for what MSNBC peddles.

                      all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                      by 4kedtongue on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Not for nothing, apparently (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      because with some pressure you actually cited an actual study showing FOX and MSNBC viewers are more misinformed than average, which actually provides a measure of direct support for your thesis, unlike your earlier citations. This is a welcome improvement!

                      Now here's a counterpoint:


                      This shows MSNBC viewers were consistently better informed than other viewers on many issues, with a small number flagged as "less informed" -- but here's the question for which there's an important caveat:

                      "It was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans."

                      The correct answer is FALSE to this statement, but MSNBC viewers were far more strongly likely to answer TRUE.

                      Two points on this:

                      One, being misinformed in this manner is not in the interests of the so-called "corporate oligarchy"; and

                      Two, replace "It was proven" with "There is clear evidence" and the statement becomes TRUE; this is therefore not a well-worded question because it lends easily to misinterpretation and misinformation.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 12:09:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Did you read the report or just the headline? (0+ / 0-)
                      "Fox news viewers were 18 percentage points less likely to know that the Egyptian protesters had overthrown Mubarak and six percentage points less likely to know that the Syrian protesters had thus far failed to overthrow Al-Assad."
                      "MSNBC viewers still knew less about the Arab Spring than people who didn't follow the news -- they were three percent less likely to know that the Egyptian protests had been successful and two percent less likely to know that the Syrian protests had been unsuccessful -- but they performed significantly better than Fox News viewers on those questions.
                      Assuming the validity of the study it doesn't speak well for MSNBC only viewers but it's hardly the equivalent of Fox viewers that you would make it out to be.
                    •  I see you have trouble getting past rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

                      when faced with facts, this is the classical way you seem to respond.

              •  Don't be silly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raptavio, fcvaguy

                By asking for evidence, you're engaging in the circular fallacy type thing. Baseless assertions will fuel the upcoming revolution.

          •  It's just his opinion (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador, TheMomCat

            for God's sake. It's not like anyone's going to stop watching MSNBC because Ray Pensador told them to. Or develop critical thinking skills because you told them to.

            This verges on trolling to me. You're trying to start a fight for no real reason.

            •  It's just my opinion (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              for God's sake. It's not like anyone's going to stop listening to Ray Pensador just because raptavio said he sounds tooly. Or start listening to him just because you defended him.

              This verges on trolling to me. You're trying to start a fight for no real reason.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 03:06:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think Ray was trolling this diary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              He didn't offer an opinion. Go to the top of the thread, he made an emphatic demand that people stop watching MSNBC and then through several more comments, made clear his sneering condascension to those that refused his "advice".

              He chose to come into THIS diary and behave much like those he grouses about in his own diaries. And you accuse those responding to him of trolling? Stop projecting.

              •  This is the way (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                of Ray and his defenders.

                Ray is just "expressing his opinion" but those who express their opinions that Ray's opinions are wrong are "disruptive", "trolling" or, my personal favorite, "sockpuppets".

                Because obviously, some standards are for thee, not for me.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Wed Oct 23, 2013 at 08:59:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I'm an adult (15+ / 0-)

      I don't need to be told what to watch or not watch. And for what purpose.

    •  Here is a real pretender for you... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, Lying eyes

      Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

      by quiet in NC on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:50:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador

      My head is so much clearer since I've given up cable news.  It's like a circle jerk, if I want to hear sounds bytes that confirm a viewpoint I hold, it might do the job but if I want actual reporting, in-depth analysis, there's far better out there than cable pundits.

  •  I like Reverend Al (10+ / 0-)

    and I like Martin Bashir. Both of them I find hilarious and entertaining and I love them both. I don't really watch MSNBC to become "informed" except for maybe Rachel & Chris at times.

  •  I agree (8+ / 0-)

    about Alex Wagners show. I did like her at one time, but no more. She is like Morning Joe lately with her false equivalency between Dems and Republicans. It is almost like well the Republicans took a beating during the shutdown so now I need to find something to bash Obama over. Really a web page is comparable to the shut down.

    And Andrea Mitchell's HUGE conflict of interest by sleeping with Alan Greenspan and then making almost constant negative commentary about Obama policies is outrageous.

    I am down to Rachel and Chris. I like Melissa and Steve as well, but they are weekends and I don't have the time to watch.

    "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading."- Lao-Tzu

    by Pakalolo on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:35:06 AM PDT

  •  So basically, you want a show that only (6+ / 0-)

    reinforces your own ideas and perspective rather than challenge it?  Pretty sure that's been the main criticism towards the sheep that watch Fox, isn't it?  Well done.

  •  You quit too soon (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nocynicism, Eddie C, raptavio, Catte Nappe

    The discussion did get around to disspelling the notion that the site launch is a big deal.

  •  I like less and less (7+ / 0-)

    Its just an obviously revv'd up FOX-reciprocator.  

    I can not summon the mental stamina to sit through the one-note brow-beating sardonically-laced disdain that is the Martin Bashir show.  I think that is by far the weakest link of the entire channel, even below Morning Joe and the weekend fail-documentaries about Prison Gangs and Missing People or whatever....

    Ed is better on the radio.  This is an inarguable statement.

    For Sharpton, I'd rather they just turn the teleprompter around to face the camera and I'd just read the prescribed dose of talking points rather then have Al shout them at me for an hour.

    Matthews is his own institution that can flare up and be interesting at times but is drifting inevitably into more insider-focused nostalgia that obsesses over process ten times more then it touches policy.

    Morning Joe is a lukewarm pablum smeared across 3-hours of time-to-fill that at least has the good sense to not try to pretend to be anything more than it is:  A morning show that shallowly skims over headlines, rehashed op-ed pieces, talking head banter, books, sports, celebrities, weather and idle chatter.

    Chris Hayes could be interesting if he spent half as much time sinking is obviously intelligent teeth into an issue as he does trying to polish his delivery mechanism.  Put simply, he needs to try and take one step closer to the Amy Goodmans of the world and one step AWAY from the Keith Olbermans.

    Lawrence O'Donnell would probably do his show in its exact format even if he had no one watching.  There is some kind of "If a tree falls with no one around..." metaphor to make here, but I think if they cancelled him he would sit in his living room and yell at his wall from 10:00-11:00 every night just as a way to kill time.

    And Rachel is Rachel.  I can't actually watch the show but I do seek out the clips when and if she covers something that I want to see.  My problem with her is that watching her show at 9:00 is like having a roommate that comes home and night and starts excitingly telling you everything you've already read on the internet that day.  I don't care if they are smart and passionate and on your side of all the big issues, I just can't dedicate an hour of my time every night to nodding along saying "I know.  I know.  I read that too.  I know... Yep... I saw that.  Yes.. that's right.  I know... "

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:41:38 AM PDT

    •  Every time Chris Matthews is on... (4+ / 0-)

      ...all he does is sell his book, over and over again.

    •  There's a difference between MSNBC & FOX (9+ / 0-)

      Fox actually lies. They actually pay people to stand in front of a camera and talk about how they are getting screwed by Obamacare or how Obamacare has put them out of business, or forced them to cut employees. On further investigation, in every case, it was found that they lied and were paid to do so.

    •  What you say of Rachel is true, (0+ / 0-)

      and what you said of Lawrence O'Donnell made me laugh because I think it is true!

      •  And maybe thats the biggest point here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        angel d

        amidst my smarmy commentary...

        ....when was the last time you saw anything on an MSNBC evening program that you hadn't already read?

        All they do is regurgitate.  They take stuff off the same websites we read and then repeat them in front of a camera.  Even the stupid shit... I remember the other week during the shutdown I saw a link on TPM (I don't know where it originally came from ) about the new Congressional Drunk Dialing app.  

        A silly side-bar story about nothing.  Fluff.  Something to browse over, smile at and move on, right?  

        Then that night and the next morning I watched and listened to every program and radio show work that in.  "Coming up after the break, a new app provides a way to vent off some steam at Congress"  ... "Later in the program, you've heard about drunk dialing but what about doing it to your Congressman or just a random Comngressman.  Wait until you hear about the latest app to his the web!"

        It was all the same shit... EVERY TIME (and I was watching a LOT of news media during the shutdown)... and after like the first three or four times I couldn't help thinking:  "This is just fucking lazy.  They are just reading a website to me."

        I mean we all know Rachel is smart and the same can be said for Chris Hayes, but when was the last time they reported on anything new?  They are professional paraphrasers.  Paid repeaters.  Information repackagers.  ...dramatically reading something off Twitter with a snazzy graphic super-imposed over your right shoulder does not make you a journalist.

        Anyone have any examples to disprove this?  People that watch more of this than I do.... have you ever seen something NEW?

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:09:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wisper you nailed the entire lineup perfectly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d

      The only thing I'd add about Rachel is the props on her desk.  Just so fake to have her reading and highlighting things.  I cringe and yell 'all that is on your prompter'.

    •  Yeah, Bashir is annoying. (0+ / 0-)

      He employs a lot of the same sorts of tricks and mannerisms of the RW propaganda types.  I don't need a media type to whip up my irritation with the right, I can be irritated on my own by the bozos who place politics over solutions.

      I prefer the hosts who come across as bemused by the antics of the logic-free than overtly angry.

      •  Give me enough factual information (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

        ...I will supply my own outrage.

        The worst part is the way he uses his guests.  He does a quick intro laced with insults and then throws it to the guest, either to chime in with their own mean-spirited statement or he leads them with a ridiculous question like "Amanda... do you think Ted Cruz realized what a complete out of touch moron he is?"

        I mean.. I agree with the sentiment, obviously, but I have no need to tune in to watch this shit.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 11:18:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Zackley! (0+ / 0-)

      Sound bytes that confirm one's already closely-held beliefs.  


  •  Mrs. Greenspan pegs my disgust meter (9+ / 0-)

    It is tough to beat Andrea Mitchell, aka Mrs. Greenspan, for unadulterated BS and Villager posing.  Chuck Todd is a close second.  It's true that MSNBC has several other hosts, analysts, and whatever the hell those guys around the table on Scarborough's show are, that give Mitchell a run for her money.  But day in and day out, her stuff is the worst.

  •  Did you write to them and tell them (0+ / 0-)

    your concerns?  If not, how do you think that they might change?

    My children are the joy of my life

    by Tom Stokland on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:41:47 AM PDT

  •  I like endless shows of babes in prison.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think the idea of some hot, meth dealing incarcerated chick getting into a cat fight is turn on and need to watch it for 8 hours in between morning and night programming. Orange is the new black, rraaawwww...

    Ok, seriously. Who is the intended audience for MSNBC's day time programming? How much women on lockdown shows does a person need?

  •  My TV turns on at 6:00 AM to Morning Joe (0+ / 0-)

    he can be a real downer

  •  MSNBC = Too Many Ads (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Micheal Steele has taken a much softer tone since he was dismissed as chairman of the RNC.  Funny how that happens.

    I have largely stopped watching MSNBC.  While I might be interested in some of their evening programming, it seems they load up on the advertising minutes during the evening hours.  When I turn away from the ads, I rarely turn back.

    Most TV news exists to sell advertisements, not to inform viewers.  Their primary constituency are people thinking about placing ads.  So if they have to offend you rather than their primary constituency, they will gladly do so.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:47:03 AM PDT

  •  Can be said of most media outlets (0+ / 0-)

    But there are still worthwhile things to watch on MSNBC.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 09:51:51 AM PDT

  •  I must confess to watching them all via surfing, (0+ / 0-)

    Algazeera thrown in now.

  •  I try to watch the segments sometimes on shows (0+ / 0-)

    where the host is presenting something directly. Rachel had a funny bit about harpooning whales, during the shutdown.

    But as soon as any of them bring on the Panel of Distinguished Talking Heads, I am outtathere!

  •  I'm not Crazy about Chuck Todd... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He is often one of the false equivalency gurus, but not always.

    I find that I watch what I feel like when I have time. Even though I'm sort of politics dweeb I sometimes I get overwhelmed by everyone banging on the same nail and need to turn off the box, grab a book and read something escapist.  

    Sometimes our progressive progress seems more like regress.  I remember being so optimistic in the 60s and 70s. Anyway, it's bad for my blood pressure to always be angry at the #$@# Tea Party, the clueless people who elected them and the press that often treats their insanity as if it were sanity.  

    By-the-way, I love Rachael, Chris, Ezra, Melissa and sometimes Lawrence, when he doesn't get too full of himself.

    "The Trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." attributed to Lily Tomlin

    by uniqity on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:10:57 AM PDT

  •  Wagner said that her mentor is Chris Matthews. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Need I say more?  Her middle-school voice drives me away every time I seriously try to watch her show, and her constant smiling even when she is delivering bad news about anything drives me batty.  I agree with you about her pathetic panelists, too.

    I have no patience for morning MSNBC anymore, and usually I peek in to see if there is something "breaking" or Mr. President is giving a speech, if not then I hold off watching msnbc until Martin Bashir is on, then Ed.  Even if I peek in to make sure I'm not missing something important, I usually fall on the morning crew beating the drums for the T-GOP.  Ed Rendell?  I really need that asshat's opinions?

    Do I bother mentioning it's been a huge relief not accidentally falling onto Chris Matthews?  Now I can just skip his ONE hour to hear Hayes and Rachel and Larry.  Hooray for that!

    LOVE Melissa and if I get my lazy arse out of bed early enough, Kornachi has good panels and discussions, too.  Of course, he talks fast like Chris Hayes.  They need to pace their comments and I feel like I'm in a reflexive mental sprint listening to them, even as I believe they are smarter than smart and both have earned my interest and respect (even if I don't always agree with them).

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:30:37 AM PDT

  •  The only show on MSNBC I DO watch regularly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe

    is Morning Joe.  Yes, I know Scarborough can be rude and interrupt at times.  But If you are looking for a show where the GUESTS are often reputable names on both sides who are able to express an opinion beyond talking points, that's a decent outlet.  And that's why I watch it.  

    I tend not to watch shows that are aimed primarily at reinforcing one particular political viewpoint -- I find them transparent and petty.  I'll give you an example from MSNBC this morning.  I had the TV on Thomas Roberts for some reason.  He was doing a story on women suffering from abuse and how it affects health.  It was a pretty good story, well done, not political but HEALTH based, and as the last guest was finishing a discussion about how women need to seek help for domestic abuse, he suddenly said, "Well, the ACA funds domestic violence treatment, and Republicans are against the ACA, so what do you say to them?"  it was a petty and transparently inappropriate comment in the nature of "and besides the health issues, Republicans are bad!"  To her credit, the guest said, "It's not a political issue and I'd say the same thing to anyone, Republican or Democrat," . . . and talked about how women need to seek out help.  Throwing in the "Republicans are bad" line whenever you can just reinforces my view that most of MSNBC sees itself as a vehicle for reinforcing the "progressive is good, conservative is bad" view.  Some people may look for that, but not me.  I'm looking for more of a "let both sides talk to me, and let me make up my own mind about who I agree with -- don't tell me who I'm supposed to agree with."  And I don't find much of that on TV any more, certainly not on most of MSNBC.

    It goes without saying that I don't watch much on FNC.  

  •  Al Jazeera America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, jayden

    I like the people at MSNBC and I like the programs and it's great to listen to guests who have politics I agree with.  But Al Jazeera America, taking over from Current TV, has a lot of worthwhile programs and personnel.  What's more, they actually go out and interview people and report on what they find.  MSNBC tends to a like a soap in that people have recurring roles and show up when it's their turn.  Michael Steel is not going to be making any comments that give much insight into the Republican Party because he was once the face of the party, and he will never take off that face, despite some moments when he sort of leans in that direction.  MSNBC is an old friend, but one who's not going to beat up on you, even when you need it or deserve it.  If you can, take a look at Al Jazeera America.

  •  Michael Steele is actually about as reasonable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, vadem165

    as a Republican political type that you'll find.  If you say 'Why can't she get better quality guests?', what you're really saying is 'Why can't they simply not have Republicans on the show?'  Which is certainly one way to look at it.

    Morning Joe actually had a good segment with Henry Louis Gates on recently.  He's come out with a new 500 year history of black life in America that sounds like something that should be made available in pretty much every history classroom in the country.

    Gates also made a very politically astute statement about how we might want to alter affirmative action to be class based, rather than race based.  First, that would undermine much of the 'we need to get rid of it' racist crap that we see even from the Supreme Court justices, and second, it would still continue to benefit minorities, since a greater proportion of minorities live in poverty.

  •  Rachel Maddow... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, agent

    ...spends too much time introducing an issue -- more than half the time dedicatd to the issue is her setting up the story, leaving little time for her guests.

    Chris Matthews is a hack.  There's just no other word for him.  

    If Lawrence O'Donnell breaks into his South Boston accent one more time, I'm going to throw my fucking television out the fucking window.  Won't that be wicked-awesome, Larry?

    I watched Melissa Harris Perry this past weekend to discover that not until The Age of the Internet were there any bullies in the 2nd grade.  Imagine my surprise.  I have to admit, however, I found the segment which preceeded the Cyber-Bully Segment was informative -- dealt with Race and criticism of the president.

    My father LOVES Ed Schultz -- I've never seen even 5 minutes of his show.

    Chris Hayes, who I discovered years ago in The Nation, is the only host whose show I watch with any regularity.  He has great topics, smart guests who span the political spectrum, and he knows the subject matter.  His show is civilized.

    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    by 4kedtongue on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 11:56:08 AM PDT

    •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)
      If Lawrence O'Donnell breaks into his South Boston accent one more time, I'm going to throw my fucking television out the fucking window.  Won't that be wicked-awesome, Larry?
      HAHA! I fucking hate it when he does that. I also hate it when he offers to fight people. LOD, fuck you.
      •  I had very high... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...expectations for O'Donnell's show when it first started airing.  Worked in the Senate for a million years, wrote for and produced The West Wing.  But his macho act and the outright contempt he has for some of his guests is off-putting.

        I can do without the sanctimoniuos bravado.  Leave that schtick to O'Reilly.  

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The worst is Andrea Mitchell (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know what sort of insider she's supposed to be, but why does she seem so absolutely clueless about everything? It's like the female version of Wolf Blitzer.

  •  I stopped watching (0+ / 0-)

    tv news altogether a few years ago. It wasn't a decision. I just stopped wanting to. My mother watches CBS news and Rachel Maddow so I watch them when I'm at her house, otherwise I don't.

    I do know a lot less about what's going on in the world than I used to. As bad as the coverage is, there's a lot to be said to actually seeing the footage and seeing people and hearing them talk as opposed to reading about it in a newspaper. I don't even know what a lot of public figures look like. And I realized after I stopped watching it that I actually did get something out of hearing the talking heads, even at their worst.

    But that's how it is. I turn it on now and have no patience with it. Before I know it I'm back watching Law & Order or looking at blogs.

    I'd never even heard of Jodi Arias until the verdict was over. Not important maybe, but it does feel very weird to be so out of touch. It almost made me feel like I wanted to start watching CNN again.

  •  My experience is limited to prime time. (0+ / 0-)

    Ed Schultz - a bit of a radio host (which he is) trying to do TV.  His show is OK, but not one I make time for now that it's earlier.

    Al Sharpton - a little loud, and we could probably make a drinking game out of the number of times he says something is "an outrage" or "outrageous".

    Chris Matthews - very loud, as in I turn the volume down when he comes on.  Hardball also belongs to a different generation of political talk shows that involved both sides going at it.

    Chris Hayes - thoughtful discussions, but sometimes boring, also decent journalist.

    Rachel Maddow - my favorite of the bunch.  I like her humor and also see her as the best actual journalist of the primetime hosts.  Given that she anchors coverage of election nights, SOTUs, etc. I suspect the network shares the latter opinion.  She does give quite a bit of background.

    Lawrence O'Donnell - can be annoyingly self-righteous and so confident in his predictions it's kind of fun to see him proven wrong.

    Overall I'm a fan of the network and glad it has gone the direction it has.  Even their Republicans are thoughtful people with respect for reality.

  •  Chuck Todd - pulleze n/t (0+ / 0-)

    We’re enablers. We’ve become enablers. We can’t be that anymore. ~ Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA

    by anyname on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 03:12:49 PM PDT

  •  Rachel Maddow is the (0+ / 0-)

    best political commentator in the media today.

    I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member--Groucho Marx.

    by DaveS002 on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 03:33:19 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site