Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicus USA)   Rachel Maddow's program must be moved to 8PM to further cement Bill O'Reilly and Fox News's humiliation   ( politicususa.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Rachel Maddow, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, cable news, MSNBC, PM time slot, top-rated primetime cable, News lineup minus  
•       •       •

1544 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2017 at 2:06 AM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-04-19 10:49:17 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-04-19 10:54:49 PM  
I'd be fine with that.
 
2017-04-20 12:09:41 AM  
Seems like the obvious move.

But I don't necessarily buy the narrative that your average O'Reilly viewer is suddenly going to migrate to Rachel Maddow.  They are not drawing from the same pool of potential viewers.  Maddow's ratings are way above Tucker Carlson's because Carlson is an idiot not even conservatives want to watch.  The people not watching Carlson aren't watching Maddow instead though. Her ratings are up because of her outstanding work, but also because of Trump Russia and the surge in political interest stemming from "the resistance", not because she's pulling away Fox News viewers.
 
2017-04-20 12:49:33 AM  

clodcomplex: Seems like the obvious move.

But I don't necessarily buy the narrative that your average O'Reilly viewer is suddenly going to migrate to Rachel Maddow.  They are not drawing from the same pool of potential viewers.  Maddow's ratings are way above Tucker Carlson's because Carlson is an idiot not even conservatives want to watch.  The people not watching Carlson aren't watching Maddow instead though. Her ratings are up because of her outstanding work, but also because of Trump Russia and the surge in political interest stemming from "the resistance", not because she's pulling away Fox News viewers.


This.

/the average conservative thinks Fox News is too far left these days.
 
2017-04-20 01:12:48 AM  
I wouldn't think this is a great idea. Not that she couldn't beat Carlson, but because of those viewers that may usually watch O then switch to Maddow afterwards.

Just my 2c
 
2017-04-20 01:28:47 AM  
Stephen Pulls A 'Rachel Maddow'
Youtube q_rTWxJepO8
 
2017-04-20 02:08:30 AM  
Works for me!
 
2017-04-20 02:10:16 AM  

themindiswatching: clodcomplex: Seems like the obvious move.

But I don't necessarily buy the narrative that your average O'Reilly viewer is suddenly going to migrate to Rachel Maddow.  They are not drawing from the same pool of potential viewers.  Maddow's ratings are way above Tucker Carlson's because Carlson is an idiot not even conservatives want to watch.  The people not watching Carlson aren't watching Maddow instead though. Her ratings are up because of her outstanding work, but also because of Trump Russia and the surge in political interest stemming from "the resistance", not because she's pulling away Fox News viewers.

This.

/the average conservative thinks Fox News is too far left these days.


Here's a weird anecdote though, albeit just an anecdote - my Trump voting neighbors, who referred to CNN as "Clinton News Network" and who also dislike MSNBC (Sharpton and Brian Williams was their stated reason) for some reason had kind words for Rachel Maddow.  I was gobsmacked.  This conversation was shortly after Jan 20th...  I don't think they watch her, but they didn't seem to hate her like, say, Hillary.
 
2017-04-20 02:15:11 AM  
Jesus guys, I guess the check cleared
 
2017-04-20 02:23:54 AM  

spamdog: Jesus guys, I guess the check cleared


Glad to read you don't trust Trump.
 
2017-04-20 02:34:31 AM  

derpes_simplex: themindiswatching: clodcomplex: Seems like the obvious move.

But I don't necessarily buy the narrative that your average O'Reilly viewer is suddenly going to migrate to Rachel Maddow.  They are not drawing from the same pool of potential viewers.  Maddow's ratings are way above Tucker Carlson's because Carlson is an idiot not even conservatives want to watch.  The people not watching Carlson aren't watching Maddow instead though. Her ratings are up because of her outstanding work, but also because of Trump Russia and the surge in political interest stemming from "the resistance", not because she's pulling away Fox News viewers.

This.

/the average conservative thinks Fox News is too far left these days.

Here's a weird anecdote though, albeit just an anecdote - my Trump voting neighbors, who referred to CNN as "Clinton News Network" and who also dislike MSNBC (Sharpton and Brian Williams was their stated reason) for some reason had kind words for Rachel Maddow.  I was gobsmacked.  This conversation was shortly after Jan 20th...  I don't think they watch her, but they didn't seem to hate her like, say, Hillary.


They sound like such reasonable sound minded individuals, all they need is that push to watch Rachel, just a push... So reasonable.....
 
2017-04-20 02:47:26 AM  

Rennisa: derpes_simplex: themindiswatching: clodcomplex: Seems like the obvious move.

But I don't necessarily buy the narrative that your average O'Reilly viewer is suddenly going to migrate to Rachel Maddow.  They are not drawing from the same pool of potential viewers.  Maddow's ratings are way above Tucker Carlson's because Carlson is an idiot not even conservatives want to watch.  The people not watching Carlson aren't watching Maddow instead though. Her ratings are up because of her outstanding work, but also because of Trump Russia and the surge in political interest stemming from "the resistance", not because she's pulling away Fox News viewers.

This.

/the average conservative thinks Fox News is too far left these days.

Here's a weird anecdote though, albeit just an anecdote - my Trump voting neighbors, who referred to CNN as "Clinton News Network" and who also dislike MSNBC (Sharpton and Brian Williams was their stated reason) for some reason had kind words for Rachel Maddow.  I was gobsmacked.  This conversation was shortly after Jan 20th...  I don't think they watch her, but they didn't seem to hate her like, say, Hillary.

They sound like such reasonable sound minded individuals, all they need is that push to watch Rachel, just a push... So reasonable.....


Meh, doubt it.  It does however suggest that she carries a certain amount of credibility which would at least partially explain why certain elements appear to be so scared of her coverage of Trumpestroika
 
2017-04-20 03:29:23 AM  
Maddow would be helped by getting away from her weaker All In lead in

In the DVR era does this whole "lead in" thing really matter anymore? I can't remember the last time I watched live TV.
 
2017-04-20 03:38:19 AM  

fusillade762: Maddow would be helped by getting away from her weaker All In lead in

In the DVR era does this whole "lead in" thing really matter anymore? I can't remember the last time I watched live TV.


Plus plenty of people listen to her show as a podcast, or stream it (as we've seen in the Maddow-watching threads). I just wish I could watch her show on my Roku.
 
2017-04-20 03:49:52 AM  
Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.
 
2017-04-20 03:57:32 AM  

alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.


News, how does it work?
 
2017-04-20 04:24:05 AM  

alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.


Why isn't the media reporting on the thing that I personally care about? Clearly this shows the media is biased against the thing I like!
 
2017-04-20 04:27:15 AM  

alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.


Probably because Flint is more relatable. People think Indians drink mud water anyway. Honestly, if someone told you that Native Americans had poor water quality, your first reaction would be no shiat.

Maddox, imo, is "good". She does a pretty good job covering shiat and have it actually be accurate even though I think she's a little annoying.  The times I think "oh that's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard" is at a minimum.

She is what she is. And yeah, I can't imagine the heads that'd explode if she got better ratings at that time slot. So I'm all for it.
 
2017-04-20 04:33:26 AM  

alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.


So is Jon Oliver a terrible host because he only focuses on one subject a week?  There is only so much time one person has to devote to "the news", and the odds of it being the subject you want it to be is difficult if you have a pet story.
 
2017-04-20 05:17:44 AM  
People are putting way too much emotional investment into nightly news programs.
 
2017-04-20 05:44:37 AM  
FTFA: "...the door is wide open for MSNBC to move The Rachel Maddow Show to 8 PM where it will have the chance to be the top-rated show on cable news."

Liberals actually believe this.
 
2017-04-20 05:47:10 AM  

Lost Thought 00: People are putting way too much emotional investment into nightly news programs.


"Surely this will make up for me not bothering to vote in the last election!"
 
2017-04-20 06:44:50 AM  

WeedBong420: Maddox, imo, is "good". She does a pretty good job covering shiat and have it actually be accurate even though I think she's a little annoying.


Has her accuracy gotten better? When I stopped watching her a few years ago it was because of her atrocious inaccuracies and jumping to weird conclusions based on scant evidence. Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?". I'd take a closer look and realize she was simply parroting talking points that had no basis in fact.

I suspect her recent ratings increase has less to do with an improvement in quality reporting, and more to do with people disliking Trump. After all, who doesn't like a little Trump bashing? I sure as hell do. And so do a lot of TV viewers.
 
2017-04-20 07:20:27 AM  

Next week's Tom Sawyer: WeedBong420: Maddox, imo, is "good". She does a pretty good job covering shiat and have it actually be accurate even though I think she's a little annoying.

Has her accuracy gotten better? When I stopped watching her a few years ago it was because of her atrocious inaccuracies and jumping to weird conclusions based on scant evidence. Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?". I'd take a closer look and realize she was simply parroting talking points that had no basis in fact.

I suspect her recent ratings increase has less to do with an improvement in quality reporting, and more to do with people disliking Trump. After all, who doesn't like a little Trump bashing? I sure as hell do. And so do a lot of TV viewers.


Maddow gets it right 98% of the time and when she screws up she mea culpas up and self corrects.

Compare that to RW media pedalling the same emailghazi secret Muslin lies.

Then point at you.

Then laugh.
 
2017-04-20 07:28:07 AM  

Next week's Tom Sawyer: Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?".


This isn't something indicative of Rachel Maddow, this is something indicative of ALL NEWS EVERYWHERE.

We always take whatever the nightly news says at face value........... until it's on a subject we are intimately familiar with, then we notice the omissions, the errors, the glaring gaffs, the shortcuts, the gross simplification of complicated subjects....

Every expert of every field hates it when their field is on TV. It's never portrayed accurately enough.
 
2017-04-20 07:46:46 AM  
They need to keep hardball and Maddow separated. It's like the old 8:30 time slot Thursday nights on NBC. You can't have friends and Seinfeld back to back cause people would turn off suddenly Susan at 9pm. Chris Hayes is a nerd, no clue why anyone thinks we need more chuck todd, and Greta is terrible. Gotta put the chaff between the wheat.
 
2017-04-20 07:47:36 AM  
I'm thinking of a number. It's a number. It comes before this number named 9. see that one? It's got a curvey line and a loop. Just the one loop. (Smirk) 9 is a good number, it's a great number. Never had problem with 9s. In fact I've often been told I dress to the nines. (Smirk, cutesy face). Here's another number,.Do you know this one? Slanted line then it shoots back straight across in top. It's a 7. George Costanza liked 7 for a baby name. Remember that epsiode? Great show. (Smirk). But these aren't the numbers I need you to think about...however... they are really close, in fact the number we will be discussing is right between them.

Infinity. Infinity has a neat symbol. Oh, there it is! Hi infinity symbol! (Cutesy face) Let's turn it just...a....bit.... Oh look at that! The number 8. This number is going to be very important going forward and we'll talk more about what that means for our show after the.break.
 
2017-04-20 07:50:10 AM  

quatchi: Next week's Tom Sawyer: WeedBong420: Maddox, imo, is "good". She does a pretty good job covering shiat and have it actually be accurate even though I think she's a little annoying.

Has her accuracy gotten better? When I stopped watching her a few years ago it was because of her atrocious inaccuracies and jumping to weird conclusions based on scant evidence. Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?". I'd take a closer look and realize she was simply parroting talking points that had no basis in fact.

I suspect her recent ratings increase has less to do with an improvement in quality reporting, and more to do with people disliking Trump. After all, who doesn't like a little Trump bashing? I sure as hell do. And so do a lot of TV viewers.

Maddow gets it right 98% of the time and when she screws up she mea culpas up and self corrects.

Compare that to RW media pedalling the same emailghazi secret Muslin lies.

Then point at you.

Then laugh.


What's the basis for your "98%" figure? Is that an accurate calculation or just your gut feeling?
 
2017-04-20 07:53:58 AM  

Ishkur: Next week's Tom Sawyer: Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?".

This isn't something indicative of Rachel Maddow, this is something indicative of ALL NEWS EVERYWHERE.

We always take whatever the nightly news says at face value........... until it's on a subject we are intimately familiar with, then we notice the omissions, the errors, the glaring gaffs, the shortcuts, the gross simplification of complicated subjects....

Every expert of every field hates it when their field is on TV. It's never portrayed accurately enough.


Yeah I'm not saying other TV news does it better, not by a long shot. However I wouldn't say this is a failing of all news everywhere. There are journalists out there who are still committed to the truth over ratings. I guess they just don't fit neatly in the mission of Fox News or MSNBC.
 
2017-04-20 08:05:24 AM  

teto85: [img.fark.net image 750x750]


did the farking little rascals do the graphic design for that?  why no backward s?

/cranky
 
2017-04-20 08:14:13 AM  

Next week's Tom Sawyer: WeedBong420: Maddox, imo, is "good". She does a pretty good job covering shiat and have it actually be accurate even though I think she's a little annoying.

Has her accuracy gotten better? When I stopped watching her a few years ago it was because of her atrocious inaccuracies and jumping to weird conclusions based on scant evidence. Like, when ever she reported on things that I happened to know a lot about (stories close to me and military issues mostly), I'd keep saying to myself "that isn't true" or "wtf did you get that from?". I'd take a closer look and realize she was simply parroting talking points that had no basis in fact.

I suspect her recent ratings increase has less to do with an improvement in quality reporting, and more to do with people disliking Trump. After all, who doesn't like a little Trump bashing? I sure as hell do. And so do a lot of TV viewers.


I know this is the internet and no one cites their sources and all that, but if you want to make a point about "so many of the things she says are wrong", maybe you could come with one specific example so it doesn't look like you're pulling it outta your ass?
 
2017-04-20 08:15:08 AM  

Ishkur: alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.

Why isn't the media reporting on the thing that I personally care about? Clearly this shows the media is biased against the thing I like!


But that's not at all what he/ she said.

I could easily hang out with Rachel Maddow; we could make popcorn, paint each other's toenails, and yell at FoxNews. But before I start watching her show again, she needs to let go of her belief that the viewer needs to hear the same point three times, consecutively -- each one ever so slightly reworded, and each one gently urging us to join in her growing outrage.

It's insulting and, worse, it's boring to be treated like one is that stupid. And I *like* (and generally agree with) Maddow.
 
2017-04-20 08:27:02 AM  

Champion of the Sun: They need to keep hardball and Maddow separated. It's like the old 8:30 time slot Thursday nights on NBC. You can't have friends and Seinfeld back to back cause people would turn off suddenly Susan at 9pm. Chris Hayes is a nerd, no clue why anyone thinks we need more chuck todd, and Greta is terrible. Gotta put the chaff between the wheat.


I love Hardball and Chris Matthews, most of the time; its the only show I bother to record and try to watch every day. It's on in the mid-afternoon here, though, and I don't even know what anyone's time slot is.

Matthews does have an annoying habit of occasionally bending over too far backwards to be "fair" to whatever right-wing nut is in the news that day. I am all for fairness, but sometimes he takes it too far, IMO (past "fair" to "ludicrously accommodating"). But he's been around a long time, and he knows his craft. And he occasionally wields a humorously sharp tongue.
 
2017-04-20 08:30:48 AM  
Looks like we will get to see if the Murdoch sons are visionary or just incompetent.  Right now, I am leaning towards the latter.  What I think will happen is hannity will follow his buddy oreilly to another outlet and fox will be left with tucker Carlson to carry the banner, and he just isn't up to the task.
 
2017-04-20 08:50:02 AM  
So here's a thought... will Fox begin pushing Shep Smith a bit more, to try and attract more of those sweet, sweet liberal eyeballs?  Tucker "Sentient Bowtie" Carlson has all the charisma of a used tampon, and is best known for getting completely and totally owned by Jon Stewart.  Shep, on the other hand, has some credibility with the left based on his impassioned statements against torture and other notable pieces.

Fox is, first and foremost, a business.  And that business exists to make money.  O'Reilly brought eyeballs to the network, which meant ad revenue, and I severely doubt Carlson would be able to generate the same amount of long-term viewership that Shep Smith might.

Also, Rachel rocks.  She does seem to hammer a point a little too repetitively sometimes, but she is damned good at what she does.
 
2017-04-20 08:58:40 AM  
O'Reilly signs a massive deal with OAN within 48 hours. Hannity follows whenever contract allows. OAN becomes what the rumored trumptv would've been. Trump team feeds stories to oan, then cites those same stories as secondary confirmation of whatever bs they're pushing.  The old curve ball Judith miller trick. It'll be obvious to everyone except the people with the power to stop it.
 
2017-04-20 09:18:49 AM  

Lochsteppe: fusillade762: Maddow would be helped by getting away from her weaker All In lead in

In the DVR era does this whole "lead in" thing really matter anymore? I can't remember the last time I watched live TV.

Plus plenty of people listen to her show as a podcast, or stream it (as we've seen in the Maddow-watching threads). I just wish I could watch her show on my Roku.


The NBC Roku app leaves a lot to be desired...like actual streaming like other apps do.

/interesting to see the difference between US news and something like Al Jazerra or Sky News on Roku
 
2017-04-20 09:27:09 AM  
Cable news shows are all back-patting circle jerks, the only difference is who they are aimed at.
 
2017-04-20 10:11:53 AM  

fusillade762: Maddow would be helped by getting away from her weaker All In lead in

In the DVR era does this whole "lead in" thing really matter anymore? I can't remember the last time I watched live TV.


I DVR her but all the lead in stuff is still annoying because I do projects while I watch TV and having to grab the remote to fast-forward every two and a half minutes is not my favorite thing.

Oh well.  Better than live though, as you said.
 
2017-04-20 10:30:17 AM  
MadAzza:
, she needs to let go of her belief that the viewer needs to hear the same point three times, consecutively -- each one ever so slightly reworded, and each one gently urging us to join in her growing outrage.

It's insulting and, worse, it's boring to be treated like one is that stupid. And I *like* (and generally agree with) Maddow.


Have you meet People? I don't thonk you have meet People.
 
2017-04-20 10:55:15 AM  

dodecahedron: alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.

News, how does it work?


I know, it's like people don't understand this was how the Cronkite's of the world did things back in the day.
 
2017-04-20 11:26:09 AM  

Alien Robot: FTFA: "...the door is wide open for MSNBC to move The Rachel Maddow Show to 8 PM where it will have the chance to be the top-rated show on cable news."

Liberals actually believe this.


I suppose you're betting on Tucker Carlson taking the top seat?
 
2017-04-20 02:53:06 PM  
Rachael who?
 
2017-04-20 04:00:29 PM  

vonster: Rachael who?


What?
 
2017-04-20 04:02:03 PM  

Rwa2play: dodecahedron: alienated: Rachel made a giant issue about  Flint Michigan, and their water. She has been approached by several tribes and Nations about the same issue, but she stayed focused on one place. and, as soon as it was convenient- she moved on to another issue.
Please do not get me wrong- I like her, but she is not some damn god of information.
She does not really give a flying damn. Do not trust me ? good. Just check her follow up on a single subject that is not " hot " or ratings worthy. And look at her coverage of Standing Rock. When it happened.
Hero worship is a bad thing.

News, how does it work?

I know, it's like people don't understand this was how the Cronkite's of the world did things back in the day.


Cronkite wasn't an advocacy/op-ed journalist. It's not really an apt comparison.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report