I try but I just can't get into it.  10 mins have passed already and all she's done is spin Republican's movements and twist their words and comment on their comments.  Not trying to get into a political debate, but this is hardly news.  I guess she must get the ratings and alot of folks must like her or she wouldn't be on.  Her & Olberman are both so revved up in their segments it's distracting to even listen to let alone watch especially with those ridiculous zoom in closeups on Olberman's mug.

 

For the record I can't stand Fox news either and CNN is just plain lame. 

I like Maddow as far as cable news pundits go.  But yeah, sometimes she just goes too far with misrepresentations of the facts.  It's not like it's everything she says or every argument but it kinda irks me when she spoils what she was building with severe partisan misrepresentations.

I don't usually turn on the tv till about 9pm and I like to get some sort of news.  Regular networks don't offer anything then.  CNN has Larry King on now, interviewing Mel Gibson's ex...  Fox News has some sort of shout-off about Nancy Pelosi...    I guess I just have to skim a little relevance from each?

I can't stand her! She is so smug. I watched her interviewing Jon Stewart and she kept on pushing the fact that it is unfair how bias fox news is and how partisan they are. While she ignores the fact that MSNBC has her and Keith Olberman, both who are crazy one sided. Every channel pushes for their own political side. But for her, I just can't stand watching her.

We need a TV version of NPR. All the for-profit stuff is awful.

 

I know there's PBS, but it should be more prominent (and better funded), like BBC.

I've stopped watching most news. I gave up on local TV news years ago, the PD not long after and the cable news networks after that. Aside from national/world headlines on my homepage, I've given up on the general news. Instead I watch some business news, like Bloomberg (CNBC gets too opinionated), get my sports kick from ESPN and a flurry of weather from the Weather Channel.

 

I watched Fox News about 8-10 years ago, but gave up on them. I used to think MSNBC was entertaining, but they've gotten to be a broken record and now their only reason for existing is to be the opposite of Fox News. CNN tries to be the 'tweener, so all they report on is politics.

 

Guess what -- politics isn't news. It's the least productive human activity. At least war produces technological innovations and sleep restores you. That's why I rarely visit these political threads here on UO. It's not news. Politics is always the same -- BORRRRING!!!

 

Tell me what's going on in the world.

Exactly, you cant have news 24 hours a day so all those channels just spin things and talk about anything they can to attack the opposite political side. The scary thing is some people take these shows as fact and vote based off of them

I've stopped watching most news. I gave up on local TV news years ago, the PD not long after and the cable news networks after that. Aside from national/world headlines on my homepage, I've given up on the general news. Instead I watch some business news, like Bloomberg (CNBC gets too opinionated), get my sports kick from ESPN and a flurry of weather from the Weather Channel.

 

I watched Fox News about 8-10 years ago, but gave up on them. I used to think MSNBC was entertaining, but they've gotten to be a broken record and now their only reason for existing is to be the opposite of Fox News. CNN tries to be the 'tweener, so all they report on is politics.

 

Guess what -- politics isn't news. It's the least productive human activity. At least war produces technological innovations and sleep restores you. That's why I rarely visit these political threads here on UO. It's not news. Politics is always the same -- BORRRRING!!!

 

Tell me what's going on in the world.

 

That is untrue.

I tune in occassionally.  I refuse to watch Olberman - he's got way too much hate angst in him.  But generally Maddow is better at providing her viewpoint without being disrespectful, although she can be smug at times.

Exactly, you cant have news 24 hours a day so all those channels just spin things and talk about anything they can to attack the opposite political side. The scary thing is some people take these shows as fact and vote based off of them

 

Yeah unfortunately my mother who is retired & living in FL watches Fox news and was telling me about Obama's $2 billion trip to Asia.  "Mom, it really didn't cost that much"...  "But it said so right on the news..."

Honestly, the only news I can stomach nowadays comes from CBS, CNN, and ABC. I used to watch Olbermann and Maddow, but they have turned into Fox News pundits on the opposite side of the aisle (I guess you have to fight fire with fire). I think it's important that there is a counterpoint to Fox News, but it'd be better if all news tried to keep their bias in check. Actually, just getting the facts straight would be a good first step. Something was lost when bias and misinformation became morally justifiable.

 

CNN tries to be the 'tweener, so all they report on is politics.

 

But being a 'tweener is probably a good thing. I would agree they play the middle.

 

The scary thing is some people take these shows as fact and vote based off of them

 

It is very scary, and it's why I think kids should take a basic media literacy course.

^I'm with you.  The only American news I watch is ABC and CNN.  ABC recently had a wonderful series on China/HSR and that alone keeps me with them.

 

Guess what -- politics isn't news. It's the least productive human activity.

 

I can't believe you said that. People need to be aware of how the country is managed and by who. I LOVE that media is biased. It forces people to think for themselves. You can't brainwash someone that doesn't want to be brainwashed. Everyone's a critic. We have free speech - blogs, message boards and other social media for those that disagree with what the mainstream puts out and thank God for that because people decreasingly share opinions and information in public places. For a while there we were just spectators who had to sit and listen to pundits since you can't answer back to a tv screen or newspaper.

I think people should take some sort of test when they register to vote which tells them what they are. Liberal, moderate liberal, moderate, moderate conservative, or conservative. I think a lot of young people dont actually know what they are. Just for an example I know several people thought they were liberal because that was what was popular at the time and then when they were really question they found out they were actually conservative

I hate watching Rachel Maddow. For one, she looks like the crazy drunk butch lesbian that sucker-punched me at Penn Station, and two, she acts like Democrats are such victims to Republicans. I hate the victim mentality. I haven't watched her show enough to really judge her well though. Olbermann is the same way. There's too many liberal intellectual narcissists on these shows and they all p!ss me off. I really don't get how people can HATE Bill O'Reilly yet love Keith Olbermann. It makes no sense. They both essentially have the same agenda, they just use different tactics. At least Bill O'Reilly keeps it real. 9 times out of 10, if he says something crazy, he probably does actually believe what he says. As far as all the so-called racist stuff he says, he really doesn't say anything that you don't hear white people say all the time behind closed doors. The only thing I don't like about him is how he's so big on censorship. As controversial as he is, he's in no position to tell people to pull their stocks from UMG/Interscope because some rapper cursed on their record. Overall, I have to admit he's probably my favorite pundit. Sadly, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert come in second and third and they're not even supposed to be taken seriously.

I cant stand Keith Olberman. He is so hateful and so smug. I feel like allll he does is attacks. Like blatantly attacks. Glenn Beck can be crazy but i've never seen him really attack, like really attack like Olberman. I do see how Rachel Maddow acts like a victim. Does anybody actually really enjoy watching her??? And the most annoying thing is how everybody takes everything everybody says out of context and tries to use it against them.

For the record I can't stand O'Reilly either.  I actually laugh everytime I see him on because he predictably falls into one of two formats: interviewing someone he disagrees with, whom he immediately gets into a shouting match with and usually wins, or someone he agrees with and sits back casually smiling and letting them have the floor.  Nice format Bill.

I am surprised to hear that most replies are negative.  I would've thought I was in the minority for not liking her show/public persona.  Really, I can't be objective about why other than when I have tuned in I find myself immediately rolling my eyes.  Other than that I think she just reminds me of someone from my past who was an annoying...uhm, person.

 

Same for Olberman.  As dry as sand and as sour as vinegar.

Maddow is the most stomachable on the nightly MSNBC lineup.  But as her ratings and the other ratings on MSNBC demonstrate, liberals are not nearly as hooked on cable news as conservatives are.

 

ClevelandOhio, if you have never seen/heard Beck attack then you have never watched/listened to his show or are oblivious to his message.  He never makes it 15 minugtes witghout inferring that those who disagree with him are commie-socialist-jihadists hell bent on ripping apart the fabric of our great society.  And he blatantly misrepresents the facts in an attempt to rationalize a misguided point. 

 

While I don't care for Maddow's style or delivery, she does not do what Beck and Hannitty do.  I would take the pepsi challenge on that point any day.  O'Reilly, who has somehow become the voice of reason on Faux is a much more apt comparison for Maddow.  Whether you prefer one or the other likely depends on your social leanings

I just find Keith Olbermann annoying as hell. Here is like a 5 minute attack.

 

 

This one is the worst.

 

Keith Olbermann vs. Bill O'Reilly

I just find Keith Olbermann annoying as hell. Here is like a 5 minute attack.

 

 

This one is the worst.

 

Keith Olbermann vs. Bill O'Reilly

 

What, is he competing for an Oscar? He's a melodramatic dork. Someone needs to give him a swirly.

I just find Keith Olbermann annoying as hell. Here is like a 5 minute attack.

 

 

This one is the worst.

 

Keith Olbermann vs. Bill O'Reilly

 

What, is he competing for an Oscar? He's a melodramatic dork. Someone needs to give him a swirly.

 

Candidate No. 1 - The lesbian that sucker punched you.

Maddow is the most stomachable on the nightly MSNBC lineup. But as her ratings and the other ratings on MSNBC demonstrate, liberals are not nearly as hooked on cable news as conservatives are.

 

I just think there are more options for liberals to get news that is slanted towards them.  The major networks lean left, some more than others.  CNN is middle-ish.

 

Fox News is the only right leaning outlet.  Conservatives pick it exclusively.  Liberals spread their ratings among several other stations.

While I don't personally care for Olbermann, I found this commentary to be particularly persuasive and well-delivered.

 

Maddow is the most stomachable on the nightly MSNBC lineup. But as her ratings and the other ratings on MSNBC demonstrate, liberals are not nearly as hooked on cable news as conservatives are.

 

I just think there are more options for liberals to get news that is slanted towards them. The major networks lean left, some more than others. CNN is middle-ish.

 

Fox News is the only right leaning outlet. Conservatives pick it exclusively. Liberals spread their ratings among several other stations.

 

But all those other channels rip on Fox and say that they are the only one choosing sides and that they need to be stopped. Liberals have more channels to choose from

You wanna see somebody destroy O'Reilly?....

 

 

 

You wanna see somebody destroy O'Reilly?....

 

 

 

 

 

I LOVE THAT DUDE!!! The way I see it, since the "news" is just entertainment anyway, I'm going to watch people who are actually entertaining.

 

I like Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric too. They always ask good questions.

 

You wanna see somebody destroy O'Reilly?....

 

 

 

 

 

I LOVE THAT DUDE!!! The way I see it, since the "news" is just entertainment anyway, I'm going to watch people who are actually entertaining.

 

I like Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric too. They always ask good questions.

 

:clap:

 

Maddow is the most stomachable on the nightly MSNBC lineup. But as her ratings and the other ratings on MSNBC demonstrate, liberals are not nearly as hooked on cable news as conservatives are.

 

I just think there are more options for liberals to get news that is slanted towards them. The major networks lean left, some more than others. CNN is middle-ish.

 

Fox News is the only right leaning outlet. Conservatives pick it exclusively. Liberals spread their ratings among several other stations.

 

But all those other channels rip on Fox and say that they are the only one choosing sides and that they need to be stopped. Liberals have more channels to choose from

 

Yeah... that's what "they" say.  But the fact of the matter is that MSNBC and Fox are rough equivalents, in degree of their leanings and mission of their broadcasts.  The other news stations are nowhere near those two.  I think any news organization that does not have a HEAVY right wing slant is branded as liberal by conservative America.  I could go into further detail of this common talking point ("mainstream liberal media"), which was generally started and popularized by Rush Limbaugh, but any conclusion on that point would be purely subjective.  It's a neat trick though..... catch a conservative in a lie or spat of ignorance and then blame it on the liberal, gotcha mainstream media.

 

On the issue of liberal vs. conservative preferences, I just saw a study that showed liberals are much more likely to prefer print journalism (including on-line).

I find it very asmusing and telling that the guy who lists Bill O'Reilly as his favorite pundit begins his list of reasons for not liking Rachel Maddow with a comments about how he does not find her attractive. Way to go, champ.

The liberals have the New York Times

And the conservatives have the WSJ.  Point?

The liberals have the New York Times

...and the Washington Post; and Time magazine; and CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; and (insert-name-of-pretty-much-any-other-big-city-newspaper-here); and the New Yorker; and...

Maddow is the most stomachable on the nightly MSNBC lineup.  But as her ratings and the other ratings on MSNBC demonstrate, liberals are not nearly as hooked on cable news as conservatives are.

 

I just think there are more options for liberals to get news that is slanted towards them.  The major networks lean left, some more than others.  CNN is middle-ish.

 

Fox News is the only right leaning outlet.  Conservatives pick it exclusively.  Liberals spread their ratings among several other stations.

 

But all those other channels rip on Fox and say that they are the only one choosing sides and that they need to be stopped. Liberals have more channels to choose from

 

Yeah... that's what "they" say.  But the fact of the matter is that MSNBC and Fox are rough equivalents, in degree of their leanings and mission of their broadcasts.  The other news stations are nowhere near those two.  I think any news organization that does not have a HEAVY right wing slant is branded as liberal by conservative America.  I could go into further detail of this common talking point ("mainstream liberal media"), which was generally started and popularized by Rush Limbaugh, but any conclusion on that point would be purely subjective.  It's a neat trick though..... catch a conservative in a lie or spat of ignorance and then blame it on the liberal, gotcha mainstream media.

 

On the issue of liberal vs. conservative preferences, I just saw a study that showed liberals are much more likely to prefer print journalism (including on-line).

 

It's what "I" say.  I don't listen to Rush.  The most I've eveer heard him was when he had his brief stint on ESPN before getting fired for his comments about McNabb.

 

But that's what I percive in watching news channels and I was offering my opinion only.  I'm not a fan of populist talking points.

The liberals have the New York Times

...and the Washington Post; and Time magazine; and CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; and (insert-name-of-pretty-much-any-other-big-city-newspaper-here); and the New Yorker; and...

 

Don't forget Rolling Stone!  Arkansas Democrat?

The liberals have the New York Times

...and the Washington Post; and Time magazine; and CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; and (insert-name-of-pretty-much-any-other-big-city-newspaper-here); and the New Yorker; and...

 

This is hilarious to me. I love that anything without a blatantly conservative bias is considered liberal. And everything with a blatantly conservative bias, why that's fair and balanced.

 

Some people wouldn't know objectivity if it bit 'em in the ass. And those people are usually the ones who create their own reality instead of accepting reality for what it is.

The liberals have the New York Times

...and the Washington Post; and Time magazine; and CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; and (insert-name-of-pretty-much-any-other-big-city-newspaper-here); and the New Yorker; and...

 

While I don't agree with all of the above (especially CNN), what about talk radio?  Conservatives dominate that sector of the market.  Even here is a liberal city like Cleveland we have popular talking heads like Bob Franz and Mike Trivissommo (who suddenly became a political commentator and moved away from Sports when Obama was elected.... hmmmmmmm).  Major newspapers like the Washington Times and a few of Ohio's big city newspapers lean to the right.  And don't forget the blogosphere such as Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, isbarackobamamuslim.com, Red State, Michelle Malkin, World Daily Net, National Review, Newsmax, Hot Air, The Weekly Standard, Jihad Watch, and countless others.

 

You just don't like the media outlets you mentioned, such as CNN, because they objectively report and your ears just have not adapted to that type of media.

The liberals have the New York Times

...and the Washington Post; and Time magazine; and CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN; and (insert-name-of-pretty-much-any-other-big-city-newspaper-here); and the New Yorker; and...

 

While I don't agree with all of the above (especially CNN), what about talk radio?  Conservatives dominate that sector of the market.  Even here is a liberal city like Cleveland we have popular talking heads like Bob Franz and Mike Trivissommo (who suddenly became a political commentator and moved away from Sports when Obama was elected.... hmmmmmmm).  Major newspapers like the Washington Times and a few of Ohio's big city newspapers lean to the right.  And don't forget the blogosphere such as Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, isbarackobamamuslim.com, Red State, Michelle Malkin, World Daily Net, National Review, Newsmax, Hot Air, The Weekly Standard, Jihad Watch, and countless others.

 

You just don't like the media outlets you mentioned, such as CNN, because they objectively report and your ears just have not adapted to that type of media.

 

I like the way you think kid!

God these coversations about media go in circles. I'm telling you right now because I worked for a large media outlet on the political side briefly and talked to a lot of people in the industry. The editors, president, you name it, are interconnected with and share board seats with Fortune 500 Company CEOs, Sr. Execs, you name it, on various non-profit programs. It is, in fact, an elitist group with a lot of camaraderie and let me tell you that advertising is much more important than subscriptions. Think about how networking with the head of companies can influence your advertising revenue. Then think about how companies view politics. Now you can see why guys like John Boehner not only escaped prison but escapes potential exposes. I would never trash on a company for networking to increase revenue; I don't believe in denying people a way to make a living. We all have to eat, however, you should only bend your own morals so much if you want to be able to sleep at night.

 

Journalists, as prestigious, recognized and award winning as some are, often times have VERY LITTLE to do with topic and content. I'd probably get killed if I told you about stuff that has simply never made it to the mainstream for political reasons. Bribery, blackmail, lawyers, crisis management/damage control/public relations. All these things inhibit information. An investigative reporter or journalist can do all sorts of fantastic research, have great contacts to interview for a piece, or in our case, sometimes get the most astounding recordings or documents anonymously slipped under the office door that provide great leads for stories - even a smoking gun, but guess what? As much as the editors love to hear your ideas and see what you have written so far; they take what you've written, manipulate it, or tell you that there's only room for so many lines and this or that needs to be cut. Then you have them saying that they're chosing a different story instead because it's more "newsy" which is often total bs. That kind of nonsense is endless in media. Editors often function as filters for those higher up than them who have a vested interest. So when you criticize the media, whether print or broadcast, don't shoot the messengers. That's all I'm saying.

 

I really don't know how much creative control people like Rachel Maddow, Beck and O'Reilly have. I'm guessing a lot since they serve their audience well, ratings are easy to calculate and they come across as genuinely believing most of what they're spewing. I'm guessing that Olbermann is definitely someone's butt-ass-boy though. Probably George Sorros'. Hah!

God these coversations about media go in circles. I'm telling you right now because I worked for a large media outlet on the political side briefly and talked to a lot of people in the industry. The editors, president, you name it, are interconnected with and share board seats with Fortune 500 Company CEOs, Sr. Execs, you name it, on various non-profit programs. It is, in fact, an elitist group with a lot of camaraderie.

 

Journalists, as prestigious, recognized and award winning as some are, often times have VERY LITTLE to do with topic and content. I'd probably get killed if I told you about stuff that has simply never made it to the mainstream for political reasons. Bribery, blackmail, lawyers, crisis management/damage control/public relations. All these things inhibit information. An investigative reporter or journalist can do all sorts of fantastic research, have great contacts to interview for a piece, or in our case, sometimes get the most astounding recordings or documents anonymously slipped under the office door that provide great leads for stories - even a smoking gun, but guess what? As much as the editors love to hear your ideas and see what you have written so far; they take what you've written, manipulate it, or tell you that there's only room for so many lines and this or that needs to be cut. Then you have them saying that they're chosing a different story instead because it's more "newsy" which is often total bs. That kind of nonsense is endless in media. Editors often function as filters for those higher up than them who have a vested interest. So when you criticize the media, whether print or broadcast, don't shoot the messengers. That's all I'm saying.

 

I really don't know how much creative control people like Rachel Maddow, Beck and O'Reilly have. I'm guessing a lot since they serve their audience well, ratings are easy to calculate and they come across as genuinely believing most of what they're spewing. I'm guessing that Olbermann is definitely someone's butt-ass-boy though. Probably George Sorros'. Hah!

 

Whatever media company you worked for was flawed and what you wrote violates the provision of "church and state" that media especially news organizations work under.

 

There is no way in hell and editor should be manipulating article in favor of one business, community, organization, because an executive said so.

 

That would be the equivalent of me squashing any negative article that SI puts out on a Cleveland sports franchise or me telling the head of the NBA to layoff Lebron-gate stories.

Can you PM me about what you mean by violations in provisioning of church and state? I don't want to deviate too much from the main topic.

 

Editors have their own bias of course. They're definitely influenced by who they network with or who is higher up as well as their own personal beliefs and what they want. They shouldn't be biased - their job should entail moderating but it doesn't always work that way.

 

MTS - I'm not slamming the media as a whole; it's no disrespect to you. I know you have ethics and run a tight ship.

 

Can you PM me about what you mean by violations in provisioning of church and state? I don't want to deviate too much from the main topic.

 

 

 

Basically that means that the business side of a media company will not dictate what the editorial side of the company can write or report on.

 

In addition, the editorial side of the media company will not be in "cohorts" with organizations it covers.

Well, you may be right but it's not that way with this company. I can also think of numerous ways around that provision that might be legal. I've definitely seen that in terms of political reporting (cohorts). You seriously have no idea!

Well, you may be right but it's not that way with this company. I can also think of numerous ways around that provision that might be legal. I've definitely seen that in terms of political reporting (cohorts). You seriously have no idea!

 

I...ME...I have no idea?  :wtf:  :wtf:  :wtf:  :wtf:

 

Sweetie, I've been in this business way to long.  There isn't anything you can tell me, that I haven't seen from a cut throat back stabbing narcissist "personality"!

 

 

^WTF are you talking about?  This thread is about who watches Rachel Maddow, quit junking it up with your comments!

I guess the question has to be asked why we have a thread dedicated to Rachel Maddow?  There are at least three threads I can think of where this discussion could have taken place.

^WTF are you talking about?  This thread is about who watches Rachel Maddow, quit junking it up with your comments!

 

I was responding to David.  Pay attention, dont make me go Danielle Staub on you!

He irritates me.

He irritates me.

 

But how do you feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

He irritates me.

 

But how do you feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

 

A man who cries is now a woman?

 

And athough he can be a little crazy at times, at least he is not a complete a$$hole like Keith Olbermann.

Jeez.... somebody needs to lighten up.  I didn't mean to insult your girlfriend.  Interesting you respond to my comment but not Dan's, which suggested that a woman who is gay is a man.

 

And if you don't think that Beck is a complete a$$hole, then the wool is over your eyes.  You could argue that he is the most dangerous force in America right now because of the seeds he irresponsibly plants in his audience, so easily susceptible to his tactics of manipulation.  Like I said before, Beck is either an idiot or he intentionally misrepresents facts.... blatantly.  I know he is not an idiot.  So.....

 

Anybody want to take me up on the challenge of who has made more blatant misrepresentations, Maddow or Beck?