Great post, Z. The smug patronizing manner of Maddow has probably turned off even her own ideologue base. It is disturbing that those journalists that attempt to present a neutral discussion of the news will be overlooked for the cheap thrills of talking head indignation and fury. These networks are nothing more than a Home Shopping Network for ideas. If you can't find any of your own, tune in and buy them by the bushel.

I am sorry to hear that the Maddow show is loosing audience.

I actually think that she is a very smart person and her show is wonderful.

The tea parties were a complete fraud, I was there, thinking that people were actually stating something. They weren't. The majority were just people who hated Obama, and could not stand having lost the election. They voted against him and now they have to demonize him.

I do not know where you were that day, but it made me feel embarrassed.

Hi Alma, I thank you for the comment, but I have to question whether you were at ALL the tea parties. So to call them a complete fraud, is an unsubstantiated generalization -- and while you might be able to do that, the host of a show on a channel that bills itself as "news" should not. Thanks. Z

Alma - a fraud? based upon what? How is a million people showing up to protest the size of gov't a fraud? It was not a coordinated single issue protest like many Goerge Soros funded protests are, but genuine Americans upset at the direction of the country. I was at the San Antonio one (16,000 people according to the police) and the mood was just as anti GOP as it was anti Democrats. It was not anti Obama, it was anti Washington DC.

I do not for a minute believe you went to a tea party. You are just repeating talking points you'be been given. Try thinking for yourself for a chance.

I've personally been somewhat disappointed in what I've felt were some "silly" or "kiddish" or "cute" behaviors on her part. Ever since she's been on msnbc I've regarded her as the "adult in the room" with a refreshing and intelligent take on things. I think it must be particularly difficult to follow some strong personalities (Chris, Ed, Keith) who cover news stories and then, somehow, she must stay "fresh". Yet, that's the challenge she faces and I've never doubted that she could handle it. So, lately, as you've observed, it hasn't worked so well and I hope she's not backing herself off the charts that embraced her so wholeheartedly in the beginning. I so want her to succeed, so she should be a bit more "balanced", I believe. Even the folks who've been directed to "talk her down" have only lobbed the soft balls.
Those guys: Chris is totally spoiled and one huge ego. I'll never forget the snit he threw at Jon Stewart's pan of his book. Now, Jon Steward is SMART and Chris, because of his "position" on his program is the only one in charge (as he likes to remind his visitors, occasionally), seems to get away with downright bullishness when cutting off some of the very, very intelligent guests who even bother to come on his show. Then, there's Ed who (without the bells and whistles) almost rivals the guy on CNBC who blows gaskets by the bushel. Keith has more gravitas, though his guests, of whom he will ask profound questions, have many of the answers already provided in the interminable questions. His "best persons" frequently draw a "huh"? from me. He could drop that segment in my opinion.
All that aside is to say that Rachel has got to bring fresh information and purpose to her show. She might not have a lot of time to "recover" her special status, if she continues in her current "persona", so I really hope she can find a cleaner way to cut through much of the ego-trips that precede her.
Sorry to be so winded, but I've so longed for a way to say what I think about that line-up that I'd love to be able to like!
Luanne

Excuse me, but when did Rachel Maddow EVER say that she was doing a "news" show? Oh, that's right, NEVER! She freely admits that she does a pundit show, unlike the crap that spews forth from Fox Noise.

As an afterthought, the fact that these teabagging parties where funded, pushed, and promoted by right-wing organizations just goes to show their complete lack of "grassroots" and more "astroturf."

"That's one of the problems with MSNBC: It's looking for "rock stars" instead of journalists or analysts to host its shows. If a rock star's CD sales dropped by 44 percent, believe me, the record company would be worried."

Excellent point. And Tom made a great point as well. Let's take MSNBC for what it is, a leftist propaganda machine. The liberal blogs don't even pretend to hide it anymore. There's nothing objective about it. From 6pm on it's propaganda promoting the Democratic talking point of the week. That privelige used to be held by CNN, which is still a liberal shill, but MSNBC beats them all. It's blatant in its demagoguery. No wonder why the ratings are in the tank.

Talking about a 44% fall of the peak of the election season is misleading. How much did the average/commentary news show fall since october/november of last year?

April said

How is a million people showing up to protest the size of gov't a fraud?

A million? You wish, buddy. More like 300 thousand, which is less than the last national protests have gathered in a single city.

As for the rest, I agree with Luanne said. Maddow need to be more wonkish and ease on the silliness.

Talking about a 44% fall of the peak of the election season is misleading. How much did the average/commentary news show fall since october/november of last year?

April said

How is a million people showing up to protest the size of gov't a fraud?

A million? You wish, buddy. More like 300 thousand, which is less than the last national protests have gathered in a single city.

As for the rest, I agree with Luanne said. Maddow need to be more wonkish and ease on the silliness.

David Zurawik, how dare you compare Rachel Maddow with bigots like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity!

Rachel is thoughtful, courteous, humble, brilliant, wise and yes a liberal. She by far has the best news show on TV.

I explained how she distorted the reality of the tea party events. That's what O'Reilly and Hannity do, and it is just as dishonest whether it is coming from the right or the left. As for the adjectives, are you sure you weren't thinking of Ghandi? Thanks. Z

Who on earth are the 1.1 million? What could they be thinking. What a waste of time.

The bloom is off the ..., folks are tired of listening to insane rantings of an angry ...., its that simple

Rachel Maddow is unwatchable.

I dont care what your politics are...she is simply unwatchable.

I have tuned in a few times out of curiosity and I couldnt sit through more than a few minutes.

She has a very strange presence...talks out of the side of her mouth...tries real hard to be be funny, but just simply isnt....her bias is such that she really has zero credibility. She just seems creepy.

I dont care for OReilly much either, but at least he will bring in people who disagree with him...and although he can be annoying and also hard to watch....he is a million miles ahead of Maddow in the watchability category.

I consider Rachel Maddow to be a charter member of the "Four S Club". She is Smug, Smirky, Snarky and Self-impressed. What she isn't, is alone. keith olbermann and Chris Matthews are charter members of the same club.

Yes, I have problems with Fox News Channel's people as well. You certainly can find self-caricature and exaggerated opinions there. But when it comes to the four S's? MSNBC rules the roost.

I guess they're just full of S.

ChickaBOOMer: Rachel Maddow's Uncivil Tongue
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/04/rachel-maddows-uncivil-tongue.html

It's no fun watching Maddow now that Obama is in office. Not enough material.

Hey, look! The three people in the entire US that watch Raymond Maddow are all on the same blog!

Word of advice, guys, urh, girls...watch your favorite MSNBC guy on different TV sets, 'kay? That'll increase her/his/its ratings some.

That is, if you three are really different people....

Spot on post but I'm afraid it's a lost battle. For now.

The future of cable news for the near time is with the ideologues on the left and right and not with reasoned discussions. Sure, it doesn't have to be two old white guys gabbing; but let's stop this "rock star" standard.

At the very least, let's keep them away from the newsroom. A pretend news anchor like Olbermann shouldn't be within 1000 miles of a news room.

No, make that 10,000 miles.

And Ms. Maddow, as characterized above, can always find a job taking care of the poor in Calcutta.

I was at a protest, in the driving snow and wind. Boy if someone was getting paid it was not me. It was not any of the people who were talking. In fact, in this small town, they didn't decide to have one until the night before. I have never gone to a protest or march all of my life. I took some of my grandchildren with me because I knew it would be peaceful and there would be no abusive language, and I was right.
Since I can't talk for everyone as you said I will speak for me. I'm fed up with the stimulus with all the pork. I will be paying taxes for the rest of my life as will my children and grandchildren. Electric bills are going to skyrocket. As obama bowed to the saudi king, I suddently realized why he refuses to allow drilling in the U.S. We have to make sure the saudi's are enriched, and I wonder what he is getting out of it? He was not schooled about this country or in this country. He does not care about it/us.
Bret was not at a protest. He is lying. We are just people who have no voice and our country is being destroyed. But then you all have barney frank, "cold cash jefferson", dodd, palosi, reid, feinstein, and they have all become millionaires in congress. I think they should be in jail.
He hates our friends - Britain, Canada, but loves our enemies and I don't have to name them.
If you don't know I'm FED UP!

MSNBC's problem is that they think you are a "Rock Star" for losing 40% of your ratings. Maddow should probably go, but first the head of MSNBC and then Olby.

While FOX's lineup continues to pull viewers from all other sources, the Left wing sound chamber run by the DNC is getting old quickly.

You can only say so many "Teabag" jokes before you become nothing more than a hack.

I think the group Queen has a song that is relevant – “another one bites the dust, and another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust”. I LOVE IT. For all you vet hating libs just know that when she gets canned I will laugh myself to sleep. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

nowadays doesn't liberal = bigot? I mean really, Hannity, yea he is definitely on the right, but I tell you O'Reilly has been disappointing lately, giving the benefit of the doubt to the liberals, like he's scared or something. MSNBC hasn't had a dissenting opinion in many a year, at least Fox manages to stick on a wimpy Alan Colmes or Juan Williams for the blue dog democrats pleasure.

Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity both have an agenda. She's as far left as Hannity is right. Either propagando show is fine with me, the difference is that the market decides and they say they like anything on Fox more than anything on MSNBC. I personally think that most everyone has an agenda and you have to decipher the real info through all of that... I think the ratings prove that out of all the people who watch the news and pseudo news pundits, they prefer the right of center. That can't be disputed. Which in turn makes me believe that the conservatives who voted are more aware of the issues than the voters who elected Obama. Can anyone dispute this??

Maddow: "We Don't Debate The Ratings Very Much"
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/maddow_we_dont_debate_the_ratings_very_much_114690.asp

"with bigots like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity!"

Evidence, please? Next you'll be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a raaaaaaacist. Maddow is just a Garofalo who hasn't entirely lost her mind yet.

"unlike the crap that spews forth from Fox Noise"

and yet li'l ole Fox News is destroying everyone else in the ratings and has more Democrats watching it than either CNN or MSNBC (38 percent of viewership at Fox is Democrat) Hmm. Must be all the blonde babes they have, right?

One main difference between Maddow and Hannity is that Hannity never tries to pass himself off as a journalist. he is a pundit plain and simple.

In the midwest Rachel Maddow is on at 8:00 she's my favorite on MSNBC, but we all love American Idol and that pulls a big portion of her audience to another station. I'll put money on the fact that once American Idol is over, her ratings go up again. She's the smartest and fairest when it comes to political matters.

There is absolutely no comparison with Bill O and Rachel. At least Bill gives the points of view from both sides and takes his job seriously. He invites both sides of the isle to speak and debate....it's comedy hour over at msnbc. They are like a bunch of clowns that want to be taken seriously and have the nerve to call anyone partisan.

A million? You wish, buddy. More like 300 thousand

300,000? You wish, buddy. The most recent estimates are 750,000. Nice try though.

Z, your objectivity is a breath of fresh air! Maddow is insufferable and MSNBCs attacks and adolescent mockeries of the "tea parties" will back fire. Yet on the other hand, Hannity is a conservative version of MSNBC. However, with the extreme liberal leanings of the MSM and the dead tree papers, it seems like Hannity's over the top Conservatism schtick is nothing in the overall comparison of the Medias love of all things liberal and their visceral hatred of anything NOT liberal.

Hannity qualifies as a FOX partisan but O'Reilly doesn't even come close. He's one of the biggest Obama fans on FOX!

While I agree that Hannity is pretty right of center, I would disagree with you on O'Reilly. I think he is center/slightly right.

I watched Maddow's first few shows. As with Olbermann, I see both of these entertainers as total liars. Olbermann is the worst of the two.

Fox has been blowing the socks off the left leaning shows which is interesting to say the least. How is it we have a left majority in House, Senate, and President yet these "right" network shows dominate? Even the newspapers, liberal to the end, are drowning in their own debt and losing viewership.

Your article was nice as it merely stated a fact, but I think you should investigate a little deeper and begin defining the "why".

Hannity and Maddow are not journalists but Olberman and Matthews attempt to pass themselves off as one. Maddow is obnoxious and unoriginal and trying too hard to be Olberman and Limbaugh.

Wow, it's really quite refreshing to read someone who will criticise those on the left and on the right in equal measure. Thank you!

Let her Crumble !!!

She would be better to work on SNL.

On second thought,not even there!

Counting the days........................

MSNBC and their insufferably smug "talent" deserve the awful ratings.

Great column. I think there's a place for objective news--if there is such a thing anymore--and a place for pundits as well. But that a woman of Rachel Maddow's intelligence and education stooped to calling the tea parties a lewd term, over and over and over, indicates to me that she is either desperate or out of material, and perhaps both.

Television that attempts to be witty and fails forces me to change the channel every single time. It seems I'm not alone there, according to the ratings.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat--supported Hillary in the primary; Obama in the general--but I have not appreciated the direction of MSNBC. It used to be the only cable news channel I watched. But as I tuned into MSNBC last week and viewed its execrable coverage of the tea parties--childish; lop-sided; frequently vulgar and mean--I had to ask myself why and kept asking myself: Are there any adults at MSNBC? I think they did themselves great damage last week. You can't trust your news coverage to sensibilities of the DailyKos comments section.

Maddow and most of the MSNBC on-air personalities are light-weights. After spending thirty years in television news and sales departments I think I can safely say that the lack of integrity and journalistic honesty amongst the current crop of talking heads and programming geniuses is what has ruined this industry. These clowns have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Too bad, I actually used to enjoy working in television, now I regret that I ever made the career choice.

Bret: "Excuse me, but when did Rachel Maddow EVER say that she was doing a "news" show? Oh, that's right, NEVER! She freely admits that she does a pundit show, unlike the crap that spews forth from Fox Noise."

Puh-leeze: Hannity and O'reilly are pundits with opinion shows, or didn't you notice?

And I guess you've never noticed how many liberals appear on Fox News "news" AND opinion programs: For instance, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Bob Beckell, Ed Rendell, Ellis Hennican (who duked it out with O'Reilly tonight), Kirstin Powers, Alan Colmes, Geraldo, Chris Wallace, and Greta.

Please write back to list all the conservatives who have regular slots on MSNBC.

Nimed said: "Talking about a 44% fall of the peak of the election season is misleading. How much did the average/commentary news show fall since october/november of last year?"

A dumb question, since there is no "average". But Fox News is UP, way UP, across the board. Thanks for the softball.

Finally, Jon Stewart is smart when he has a dozen writers to help him with his lines. W/o them, he's not smart, just a smart-*ss.

Nimed,

Maybe the "last national protest" was made of a whole lot of people who didn't have to work and support the welfare of people taking govt checks and going to protests. I would have attended myself, but I'm a professional and have to make a living. Not to mention I live in a state so blue it makes the Blue Man Group look like mimes.

And I don't understand all this "the tea parties were funded by right-wingers" crap. What, all the Million-Mom marches and illegal Immigrant marches are all funded by the protestors?

Glass houses, people, glass houses.

How come you won't post mine?

It was posted. Z

Z

And kevin was not tonyjoe in another nom de plume! I continue to be amazed that you compare Rachel Maddow to Sean and O'Reilly; every time you get on this false equivalency rap on Rachel, you leave it to me to remind bloggers/viewers that Rachel's CNN competition is the close-to-brain dead but still big name Larry King, which the LA Times informs me she is still whipping in the ratings. Why don't you mention that fact?

I think mocking an astro-turfed Fox News supported faux revolution that is so stupid it uses as its brand a very common sexual act referance deserves in 2009 to be mocked. When Fox News guys say lets "teabag the WH" onair, they deserved any and all of thr puerile mocking that "comes" their way. Oh, yeah, you think we are in the golden age of sunday tv journalism- where Peggy Noonan can say on This Weak of torture and international war crimes vs humanity "walk away, don't look, you don't need to know this, citizens of this democracy "(my fair paraphrase), and Geo Will nods in agreement on the better of the very bad.Not the same tv I am seeing.

Even if I were to accept your tea party position, would you please show me on Rachel's show where she ever got so close to inciting civil disobedience,violence
secession from the union, armed insurrection, false panic about govt abuse of the constitution etc? I repeatedly cite the Pittsburgh police murders and the Tennessee church slaying relating directly to Faux news distortions and I can find no similar civil damage done by any of Rachel Maddow's shows, or Keith's, for that matter.

Because the torture policy of the Bushies is the news of this week, I ask you to acknowledge that much of the MSNBC news opinion (Chris, Keith, and Rachel)shows you castigate as excessively partisan have in the past week been very very critical in real time of President Obama's attempt to sweep that torture policy under the rug w'out looking too hard (the Noonan position). Fox News did not respond to its partisans' outrage over immigration in 2005 as immediately. You continue to be embarassingly way off base on Maddow.

Madcow is a loser, but it won't matter. NBC has enough capital to continue to incur losses on these political shows. She's pathetic just like her fascist buddy Olberman.

A previous post said ..."As an afterthought, the fact that these teabagging parties where funded, pushed, and promoted by right-wing organizations just goes to show their complete lack of "grassroots" and more "astroturf."

That is an outright false statement. I host a radio show and followed the tea-parties. I spoke with MANY of the organizers who recived NO instruction, NO money and NO help from any group other than people in thier community. You may not like the tea-parties but they were truly created by no one but the people themselves. Fox may have promoted them, as did I and many others in talk radio. But we didn't create them, plan them or make them happen.

Look only in liberal land would the failures that are these two liberal "radio" host with their combined radio audiences of 100K people combined be GIVEN nationwide cable TV shows.

Nothing enhances a liberals' resume apparently more than failures and then people are surprised when they fail again. What is it with the love of failure as a resume enhancement?

Even Obama has lived a life of repeatedly failing as a investment analyst, "community organizer", attorney, state senator but he has been hailed by the Left as the most accomplished candidate ever??? And people are now surprised that he is making mistake after mistake.

I agree Maddow is unwatchable. She makes me cringe with her attempt at humor. I don't agree with her politics but nonetheless I cringe and feel embarrassed for her when she attempts humourous putdowns of those on the right. Say what you will about Hannity but he disagrees without mocking people and he never wears a creepy grin

It's good to know that you're keeping an eye on your fellow hack journalists. By the way, good job getting that little tea bag shot in there you jerk.

It's hard to take your complaints about journalists' (never mind that all of the people you mentioned are comentators...not journalists) partisan agendas seriously when you decide to throw in your own smug shot at the tea party protesters the first chance you get.

What do you expect from anyone who has no down-on-the-ground experience? Who is responsible for the obvious and blatant indoctrination of these people(?)? No person in their right mind with any real broad-based education could buy into this nonsense. I have a parrot with better reasoning skills.

Given the leakage of Maddow's viewers, I'd say it's time to put a finger in the dike.

Hannity's show has dropped to levels of partisan unwatchability since Alan Colmes left, but at the very least his show does off a few opposing viewpoints the light of day, like starting off Wednesday's show by interviewing former MSNBCer Charles Grodin. Maddow's show has mimicked Olbermann in pretty much just preaching to the choir, with no opposing viewpoints booked as guests (Chris Matthews can survive having conservatives on to battle with, so it's not as though MSNBC doesn't have their numbers in the corporate Roladex).

During an election season, or when your political side is out of power, 60 minutes of nothing but red meat might be enough to attract viewers. But when your guy is in office and you're basically playing defense against the other side, you've got to at least debate the issues with people who hold opposing views; if not, the show can't help but either be a snarkfest that can head towards the lowest common denominator (the Lipton laughs segment between Maddow and Anna Marie Cox last week) and/or an alibi echo chamber for the people now in power when they do make mistakes. Not very compelling TV, since this type of TV (and talk radio) draws much of its passion from being in opposition and challenging the status quo -- which also explains Fox's ratings surge since Obama's been in office.

Recently Ms. Maddow foolishly revealed she doesn't even know basic Civil War history, suggesting the Confederacy was inspired by REPUBLICANS!

She seems to have confused the Republican Party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, with the old Democratic Party...

"The return of Confederacy in American politics as seceding from the Union comes back into Republican fashion." - Rachel Maddow

This is the brilliance born of the disastrous Air America, now empowered by NBC?

Embarrassing indeed.

As an observer of the phenomena of left/right, liberal/conservative jousting, the left really does appear to be intolerant. They do seem to despise anyone being vocal if it opposes their point of view. Hence the tea parties just made them come unglued. It is is nice to see a somewhat civil-toned level-headed back and forth in this blog (relatively speaking) on the merits of the two cable tv show lineups. I was at a tea party and it was wonderful. It was the first relief I've felt since Paulson/Bush and the corrupt US Congress passed that bailout in October and continued under Obama. This is a crisis in the making made to cover up the crisis caused by recklessness and stupidity in government. That we have two sides bickering means we aren't looking objectively at the source of our problems -- our government. We now know that our elected representatives are not as intelligent as they need to be to "govern." Better wake up and be willing to look at what you have for representation and how legitimate they are. They most likely are just using politics for personal gain and that is not legitimate representation.

Oh well, guess I won't be getting cable so's I can listen to Rachel enlighten me with her wisdom. Given her job situation, I doubt Rachel could front me the money for cable.

By the way Libs, I use Fox only for Sports.

Ok Please somebody give me any reason to watch any show associated with NBC. I don't even try to avoid NBC but once the football season is over I have not found any show on any NBC channel worth my time.

I know Ms. Maddow is a pundit. More power to her. Anyone with any brains watching her would be aware of that. She is competing with the pundits on FOX News. More power to her. She is getting her butt kicked but she is in the game.
The other clowns on MSNBC they to imply they are journalists. They have helped drag down the NBC brand.

CABLE NEWS RACE
THU., MARCH 26, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,420,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,987,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,374,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,160,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,888,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,322,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,300,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,208,000
CNN KING 1,144,000
CNN COOPER 1,118,000

Glenn Beck just got started on FOX and is pulling more at 5:00pm then some of the primetime greats. He's beating Nancy Grace by 1 million viewers after leaving her network when he had the time slots right next to her. Something about FOX sells and/or something about MSNBC & CNN stinks.

I'll catch hell for saying this here, but there's a marked difference in attitude between right-wing and left-wing pundits that makes the former much more watchable than the latter.

On-air conservatives seem to make more general pleas to the public that what they believe is good and right, and that people will come around to "see it their way", but their's no assumption that the conservative way of looking at the world (which can be intellectually complicated at times) is obvious or that someone is especially evil for opposing that viewpoint. They're like tele-evangelists asking their audience to come to Jesus and that they'll be blessed if they do, but they're not necessarily screaming hellfire and damnation if you don't believe what they do.

Liberal/Progressives pundits, on the other hand, seem to take alot for granted in what they're proposing, and whom there proposing it to. American conservatives have made some intellectually complex arguments--based on economics, theology, history, philosophy, and observance of human behavior--why they oppose universal healthcare, welfare, affirmative action, taxes on the wealthy, gay marriage, etc. There are virtually no attempts at intellectual counterarguments from liberals based on the intellectual framework of how conservatives frame their arguments. Instead, the entire conservative way of looking at the world is flawed.

E.g. It's wrong for the rich to be taxed, not because investment of tax dollars in society will add to their wealth in the long run, but because they have "enough" or "too much" and they have a moral duty to "pay their fair share". Some even go as far as saying a wealthy capitalist lifestyle is destroying the earth.

E.g. Fundamental Christians aren't wrong on abortion or homosexuality because they're misapplying scripture, they're wrong because scripture is false. (Here's a trick: try quoting to religious anti-abortion people Exodus 21:22, then say it's the reason Orthodox and Conservative Jews don't believe abortion is categorically murder.)

Liberals pundits don't argue (or at least argue enough or earnestly enough) that liberal policies would be good for conservatives, but assume that what liberals believe is categorically good, and anyone opposing them is categorically bad and acting out of bad motives. More to the point, it seems at times that the talking heads on MSNBC are openly hostile to large demographic chunks of the country and want to see these groups fundamentally defeated and removed in some fashion from political power. Most of the TV watching public--righty or lefty--don't want to hear that kind of talk day in and day out.

I watched her once. She was defending the Obama administration and their apointee corruption probem by pointing out the Bush admistration appointee who had problems. She could only name 7 people and most of them were so obscure that I never heard of them. They were undersecretaries of undersecretaries. Anybody who watch this with an open mind would come to the conclusion that the Bush administration was pretty ethical. She was so partisan that she could not see how stupid she looked. She was unable to make the critical distinctions between cabinet level positions and obscure appointees.

The first time I watched Maddow was during her reporting on the TEA parties. It was also the last time. Smug, condescending, supercilious -- she was that and more. She didn't quite stoop to Garofalo's level -- but she came close with her Olbermanesque mischaracterizations.

Z, you suggest she is a 'journalist.' That's the one thing that she made it clear she is not.

It would be nice if you didn't use "tea bag protestors". This was an MSNBC and Los Angeles Times slander that alluded to sex and video games for the purpose of belittling people with whom they differ politically.

The protests were called "Tea Parties", and participants would be properly called "tea party protestors". Please use the correct name.

Your use of the tea-bag terminology makes me suspect that you aren't quite as unbiased as you like to sound. Using that obscene term is something akin to saying the "pro-choice" are in favor of the right to murder. It's loaded language and anyone who wants some civility in the discussion should avoid it. You mention O'Reilly and Hannity but seem to give a pass to Olbermann and Matthews both of whom make the former pair seem like centrists. Do you get tingles watching the President?

As usual, I see lefties giving other lefties a pass unless the commit the unpardonable sin of embarrassing the movement.

Dude, they're commentators, not reporters. As such, they're allowed to espouse opinion and participate in partisan events because they're agenda is not disguised, unlike yours.

Check the ratings.

Fox Noise (or Faux News, or whatever you lefties want to call it) crushes the looney tunes of MSNBC.

Crushes. Like a grape.

Everything else is just whining.

Maddow is a hack that apparently doesn't know what she is talking about very often. She tried to hit back at the gov. of TX by claiming the Republicans were waxing nostalgic back to the civil war days with the talk of cessation.

Apparently she thinks it was the Republicans that ran the racist south. For the record, Lincoln was a Republican, and the Dems. ran the south. I learned that in 2nd grade.
There are endless examples like that.

The last time I turned on any NBC network was to watch Ben Affleck destroy Keith - the baseball card collector pretending to be a news man - Olbermann. I even skipped the Super Bowl, and I am a huge football fan.

I know plenty of 2nd graders that can do a better job keeping their facts straght. MS-LSD hallucinating fake news on a nightly basis. Pathetic.

http://www.OlbermannWatch.com

I don't mind opinion shows as long as they are presented that way, Opinion journalism has it's place. The fact is that there is a market for opinion journalism shows and programs like O'Reilly's and Hannity's proves it; however, Rachel is losing in that market.

I wonder why, maybe it's because she doesn't compete against OReilly and Hannity because her audience gets its read meat from supposedly unbiased news programs.

As much as I disagree with Olby, I'll watch every now and then. I tried watching Madcow and just can't. That woman has no business being anywhere near a TV.

Rachel Maddow is more like Michael Savage than Sean Hannity. Their smugness could destroy an entire city.

I was watching some MSNBC post-election coverage, albeit not voluntarily, under the tutelage of Matthews, Olberman and Maddow and found myself asking, er, myself, “Where have I seen these people before?”. The giddiness of Matthews, the phony rage of Olberman and the I-Can’t-Believe-You-Are-Talking-To-Me look of Maddow, I’d been in their presence before, but where? Where? When I was attending my University studies? When I was teaching at a University? Was it while working in Hollywood for TV and film? No. That’s not it. But, where? Or when? That’s it!

Then it hit me. Junior high school! That Bastian of pre-educated insecurity. I can see it now. Matthews as the hyper-active, non-athletic, fawning boy pal to the captain of the basketball team (let’s say, Obama). Olberman as the brooding angry young man ready to die on any hill just impress himself. And Maddow as the snearing teenage girl who pretends to be impressed with nothing, which secretly includes herself. I hated Junior High.

These characters played out in every junior high in every blue and red state across the land. And in film. Think John Hughes’ Breakfast Club. If I close my eyes and transport myself through the ages, OK not that far back, I can see the halls of the government school of my youth. The bell rings. Classes empty.

Here comes Chris, just nano-steps behind the lanky Barry, who says, “Let’s do something different this weekend.” To which the slightly pudgy Chris replies, “That sounds great Barry, let’s do it!”. Barry doesn’t really like Chris. But he is a good errand boy and knows intrinsically when Barry doesn’t want him around. To Chris Barry can do no wrong. He is a god to him. And when he is much older these will have been the best years of his life.

Look out here come Keith. Don’t make eye contact. Because he’s looking for any excuse to take someone down a notch. Except his father, the only person he’s afraid of. He’s energized because he just told his teacher to go F herself after she told him to sit down in the middle of his diatribe on why Stalin was the best ruler in recent history. A statement he knew was malarkey but made solely to shock. As he walks by you in the hall he says something falsely maligning like, “You! Have you told your parents you’re a fag yet?”. These aren’t the best years of his life. He will not keep in contact with anyone from these days, but will occasionally run into someone from these years, to whom he’ll reply at some point in the reminiscence, “I didn’t really say that did I?”. Statements not believed are rarely remembered.

Rachel wants to be cool. She wants to be spoiled like the princesses in her class. She wishes she were pretty. You think Rachel is cute, but you don’t have the guts to talk to her until the end of the school year. The thought of not seeing her again all summer hurts. So you invite her to the weekly Young Life meeting. Something she would’ve considered had you been one of the rich boys, a group she mentally categorized all school year. Instead she looks at you as if you were her little brother, making you feeler small, and says laughing with a confused look on her face, “Um, thanks? But, heh, no thanks”. She walks away chuckling on the outside and angry at herself on the inside wondering why she was so mean to you. Years later, if she grows up, at a reunion, she’ll apologize. If not, she’ll make some man very unhappy. Or she’ll become a lesbian, cause it’s cool.

These three would never hang out together while in the system. And neither do these MSNBC commentators I speculate. But never has a group of people been more degreed and more emotionally stunted than the American left in the 21st century.

Now this post may say much more about me than about this trio of post-elementary terror. That’s the risk I take willingly. I hated junior high. I admit it. The self-doubt, over self-awareness. The confusing class schedules and locker combinations. But I loved high school, where identities were more forged and groupings less cliquish. And everything beyond has been a grand adventure of seasons designed by time itself to coach, train and guide one to a state of proper, realistic perspective. At least for some of us.

It's the sneering. Really, that's all she does, sneering ad hominem attacks. I can't watch most of the Fox shows for all of the sneering, but Rachel sneers more than all of them put together. She is unwatchable.

Hi Pete, This "sneering" comment is brilliant. I dislike the mean spiritedness that comkes with that sneer. Not just from Maddow, of course. O'Reilly is one big nasty sneer especially when he has a liberal professor on who he can bully. It really is the objectibe correlative of the ugliness of American public discourse today -- and Maddow is just another version of the O'Reilly sneer. But, at least, he has big, big ratings. Z

It amazes me that finally there is a person who is highly educated (Stanford University, a Rhodes Scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford) who knows every relevant fact about any subject she discusses and can destroy the so called “facts" of anyone on the other side of the truth, i.e. just plain liars. All while adding her qualified opinion with a sarcastic wit that puts all others to shame. Or I guess most of those commenting would rather hear the pathetic sobbing of Glen Beck, a real man.

Since Maddow is a Marxist, perhaps she will demand that 0bama take viewers from Fox News and force them to watch MSNBC so that there is rating equality.

I did not realize that Maddow was well educated which just makes her program more disheartening. Like MSNBC's parent company, GE, Maddow has found the incredible amount of money that can be made as a partisian hack. Like so many others, on all sides, the truth gets lost because there is more money in taking sides.

I don't watch TV news live, but one aspect of MSNBC clips that I've seen on Youtube &c. is the sheer immaturity and lack of professionalism demonstrated by its commentators. They may believe that their jokes about "teabagging" are sophisticated and edgy, but the viewing public disagrees if Maddow's numbers are any indication.

The interview with Olbermann and Garofalo was a farce. Garofalo was spouting the most ridiculous lies, and Olberman only encouraged her instead of challenging her claims, as a journalist would. I attended the 4/15 Tea Party at Boston's Long Wharf, and I know from my own experience that all of her claims were lies. There were no racists (although there was one yahoo who REALLY wanted to hang Barney Frank), it's hard to live in Boston without knowing the story behind the 1773 Tea Party, and there was no evidence of neurological anomalies.

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than waste time watching MSNBC.

J. Smith - Apparently you think that Lincoln was a Democrat the way your hero Maddow does? Perhaps you think that the Republicans were trying to break up the union?

How bad is our education system that someone actually thinks Maddow can do no wrong? WOW! What a hack with no facts.

Try C-Span on for size, especially C-Span.org where you can choose your news. Far more reliable on the whole than any of the corporate "news" outlets

madcow's creepy grin, and it is creepy, real creepy- but could it be from a small stroke? might that also explain the bizarre comments? maybe fox's stomping of msnbc made her blow an artery.

She is like Janet Reno without the sex appeal....

I have a standard for watching or listening to pundits or journos. I take down comments they make and check for their veracity. Maddow had a show on Herbert Hoover, and coming from a Rhodes Scholar, I expected it to be accurate. During the 17 minute section, I found 6 blatant outright lies, not inconsistencies. I have checked her on several other issues, and yet again, she attempted to rewrite history. This doesn't even take in to account the weird way she changes her voice and does silly things. I like comedy with commentary, but she isn't funny. She has an air of nastiness and smugness just under the surface. Her show is bad, just not quite as horrible as her Air America show. As for hiring Ed Shultz? I thought MSNBC was a glutton for punishment with Olbermann and Matthews, but adding Maddow and then Schultz was the nail in the coffin. Of course Hannitiy and O'Reilly are pundits and can be annoying, but the have a more balanced show with their guests who disagree with them. People will go for fair over crazy everytime. Besides, try explaining to elderly people what "teabagging" means, and why a person on network tv during a news program would use it.

Maddow's biggest problem is that she has zero warmth. She's a robot.

Alma's the fraud. She wasn't anywhere near a tea party. If she had been, she'd know that it's about the spending, and there was just as much Bush-bashing as Obama-bashing.

As for Rachel Maddow, that's what she gets for insulting millions of people like that. We still have the right to change the channel.

Stanford University, a Rhodes Scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford.
Woop dee effin doo!
She is still a hack. Everytime I stumble on her show I can tolerate it her for about twelve seconds. The ratings seem to indicate I'm not alone.

Fox News currently has the viewers of MSNBC, CNN and CNBC combined. That has not gone unnoticed by the shareholders of GE, owners of NBC. At the annual shareholders meeting, quite a few vented to the board of directors over that fact (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i888016761f9ec824f862a5c265de605c). Eventually the desire to make profits will exceed the desire to be a shill for Obama, and Fox News will have some competition. The only question is whether these other "news" organizations will follow the path of GM (get smaller over decades and get a government bailout) or Ford (responsibly reposition themselves).

Fox News does not have the viewers of the other three combined. What day part are you talking about? Fox leads in prime time, but even there, it is not over the combination of the other three Monday through Sunday for each and every hour. Facts are facts, Pablo. Let's stick to them, and the discussion will be a better one. At least that has been my experience. Z

Regarding ratings decline,” . . . one should delve into the numbers, the truth about the conservative media "is, rather, a crueler demographic point. The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out? What’s more, it’s the Internet that is the fast-growing and arguably more powerful political medium—and it is the province of the young and liberal. The only sensible market view of conservative talk is that it will contract and be reduced, in the coming years, to a much more rarefied format."

So, if the Lincoln example is the only, oft repeated claim, and explaining to the elderly what teabagging is, BTW, a term first uttered on FOX, is the best criticism one can come up with, I can only hope that day is near when the blathering screaming heads will loose their audience for lack of irrelevance.

So, what does the age of the Fox viewer have to do with her drop-off? What does anything having to do with the Fox numbers have to do with her numbers? You can go inside the numbers in a thousand meaningless ways. The point of my post: Her numbers fell off a cliff in just a few months. Now, if you can take us inside those numbers, that would be interesting. But maybe I am missing your point. If so, please help me out. Thanks.

Maddow's show is wretched. She never, ever dissents from the left-wing party line, just like her mentor in hackery.

It's sad a lot of liberals can't tell that both of them are such ideological slaves.

I hate Bill O'Reilly because he's an arrogant asshole but he at least has a few areas where he disagrees with the right and talks about them on his show: gun control, gay adoption, the origins of homosexuality, and Iraq.

Maddow and Olbermann are nothing more than cheerleaders for their side--just like Sean Hannity.

I can't watch the three of them for more than a few minutes without gagging.

"tea-bag protesters"?

Be careful what you hate. You will likely imitate it. Television has become a game of caricaturing the "other side," and in the end, almost all the players look like bad vaudevillians.

Z states: Fox News does not have the viewers of the other three combined. What day part are you talking about? Fox leads in prime time, but even there, it is not over the combination of the other three Monday through Sunday for each and every hour. Facts are facts, Pablo. Let's stick to them, and the discussion will be a better one. At least that has been my experience. Z

I agree that facts are facts, and Pablo is closer to the facts than you are Z. On any given night or day, it is more likely that Fox News as more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. See the attached link for actual numbers. http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news

Z, your entire premise is that Fox has to have more viewers for "each and every hour." That's a BS standard. Can you honestly say that every characterization you have made about a media personality on this blog is accurately portrays how that person is "each and every hour"?

In summary, (i) Pablo's right that more often than not Fox News has a higher viewership than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined, and (ii), you're being a hypocrite by applying a different standard to Pablo than you do to yourself.

Hi Swamp Fox. Thanks you the comment, but you are dead wrong. Sorry. "On any given night" is not the way Nielsen data are reported. That is the language of people making unsupported generalizations. Fox is doing very well in the ratings. They don't need you to make things up. It doesn't make their ideology any more valid or invalid. Z

It is possible to put forth an opinion on something without accusing everyone who disagrees with your opinion of being stupid or evil. It used to be called civil discourse but it's fallen out of favor which is why I don't watch Cable News.

Good points, and cable news does contribute to the lack of civil discoirse. I could not agree more. Not all cable TV, but the right and left nastiness of Fox and MSNBC.Z

I was saddened, but not surprised in the least, to discover that Rachel Maddow and I are alumni of the same high school: Castro Valley HS. Castro Valley is located in the SF Bay Area, approximately 15 miles south of Berkeley.

Her persona is typical of the sneering and smug liberal condescension that is predominant in that section of the country. They may say they "support the troops", but their parents were there spitting on our soldiers when they returned home from Vietnam.

As for myself, I was castigated during my last two months at CVHS for accepting an Army ROTC scholarship. My days were spent hearing epithets such as "baby-killer" and "warmonger", and "fascist sell-out", in addition to epithets that are completely unprintable.

It is that same attitude that permeates MSNBC. I watch snippets of their shows, if only to see what the enemies of this country are actually saying.

Disagree with Foxnews all you want, but you have to admit that their guests are far more diverse than anything MSNBC puts on in the evening.

I will say this about MSNBC: thanks to them, I learned the definition of the term "tea-bagging". Had a similar vulgarity been expressed toward liberal protestors, Obama would have immediately written an Executive Order reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Democrat leaders in Washington would have been cacophonous.

President Lincoln said that all republic fall from divisiveness.

America is there.

Some catalyst event will happen than this nation will come apart. Red hates Blue. Blue hates Red.

If we were a married couple - regardless of orientation - we would divorce.

It is beyond me how a nation like the USA can exist in its present form. We sure as heck don't like one another.

Z: I'm also having trouble finding anything wrong with Pablo's statement "Fox News currently has the viewers of MSNBC, CNN and CNBC combined". According to TVNewser http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_tuesday_april_21_114751.asp#disqus_thread for the evening of April 22nd total viewers were more than the other three combined. Am I missing something?

For one evening -- and I am assuming that is prime time. That doesn't mean they have that in all dayparts all the time as Pablo asserted. Far from it. Who was it that said without precision in language, there can be no morality. Well, without precision in ratings, we are talking madness. Here is the kind of statement you can make: "On April 22, from X p.m. to Y p.m., channel Z had more viewers than channels a, b and c combined." But the generalizations Fox fans are making based on that one snapshot of one "evening" are totally wrong. Thanks. Z

I'm not sure I understand this guy's point. These people, Madow, Hannity, and O'Reilly are COMENTATORS, not reporters. Unless I am missing some subtle point here, they are being attacked for COMMENTING. Why not let the audience decide whether or not it wants to listen and watch their COMMENTARY?

I don't think it appropriate to complain about Madown's looking like a lesbian . . . it's her ideas that are offensive. She's like teeth - ignore them and they'll go awa.

You state: . "On any given night" is not the way Nielsen data are reported. That is the language of people making unsupported generalizations.

My language was not unsupported. I linked to actual numbers of both daytime and nightime viewing figures for several days. You link to nothing. Thus, you are the one engaged in unsupported generalizations. So please, provide us with the facts you rely on or at a minimum dispute the numbers shown in the link I provided. And for the record, I'm not a Fox fan, I just dislike "journalists" ignoring facts to justify their mistaken positions.

I do not want to be argumentative, honest, but what is the value of your link? I am telling you the statement you are trying to support is wrong. You will not be able to support it. I am not trying to argue. Thanks. Z

I am usually a nonreader of political weblogs as they seem to be at the level of high-school debate point-scoring high-fiving exercises. "I pwnd u1!! LOLZ" etc. Comment threads especially.

Fascinating thread of comments here. If you look at the comments by rising a level above the Itchy and Scratchy Show tone of the participants, one thing has been ignored. Luana's comment.

I think (and hope) that there is an enormous well of ordinary, decent people who, like Luana, do not debase themselves by immature debate. Normal people who are deeply concerned by the current course of politics. I'm one of them. I have no love for the Democrats or Republicans. They're fungible.

That is all. I wish all of you gleeful folks well as you play "Gotcha!" on the interwebs. Carry on as you were.

bahhh. Yes, Pablo's claim that fox currently beats the others combined was a general statement, but it was true enough. Friday, Monday and Tuesday Fox beat them all combined in total viewers. This is a growing trend. Yes, we're talking about prime time, but wasn't that the point of the original article? Your friendly "stick to the facts" slap down was not called for.

The liberal-conservative division will NEVER be healed. It is time to divide the country into two and let each side align with their respective ideologists. Then each country can live the way it wishes to live without all the hatred and venom being spewed here and everywhere else.

Fox News currently has the viewers of MSNBC, CNN and CNBC combined

Z--So this is unacceptable hyperbole ? What if he had stuck the word "often' in between currently and has, would you then not have wasted a whole paragraph with admonishment?

Any why the impatient retort? Does it really bother you that much that the "conservative" FOX out viewerships its rivals, often, combined? Remember, facts are facts. No point in getting upset about them.

Hi Art, Thanks, but no, even "often" would have been wrong because it is so imprecise. I am just saying let's not make such claims when we cannot back them up. You can say Fox is tghe highest rated all-news cable channel in weeknighyt prime time. That is true. But when you start saying "often" and "on any given night," all you are doing is creating needless imprecision, and it is often dne to try an falsely suggest evidence for a claim that doesn';t exist. Anmd the Fox viewership does not bother me. I can play the game of citing all the times CNN leads everybody -- or MSNBC. The devil can quote scripture, guys. I have been reading and citing ratings ratyings for 25 years, and I know most of the games people play with the numbers, and I would hope we don't have to play them here. We have much better discussion about much better stuff most of the time. Thanks.Z

She, MSNBC and CNN have the ratings they earned. Nobody with a clue watches mad cow.

James at 7:47 nailed it:

"In the midwest Rachel Maddow is on at 8:00 she's my favorite on MSNBC, but we all love American Idol and that pulls a big portion of her audience to another station. I'll put money on the fact that once American Idol is over, her ratings go up again. She's the smartest and fairest when it comes to political matters."

Her audience is predicated on the American Idol mentality. Once those shallow minded morons repent of their viewing habits; her deluded followers will return. Thanks for the insight James.

"ideologically driven partisan propaganda as I am by that of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on Fox"

You're comparing her fact-checking with Fox's propaganda? It's obvious that you never watch the show.

"Maddow was at her worst last week, falsely minimizing the tea parties held across the country as "the fizzle in the drizzle" and mocking the participants."

EVERYONE mocked them. They were NewsCorp sponsored and driven.

"You could hardly have a better example as to how an ideologue distorts an event or facts to fit her or his worldview -- the opposite of journalism."

She's never claimed to be a journalist. Again, it's obvious that you never watch the show.

As for one of your responses to a certain post:

"and Maddow is just another version of the O'Reilly sneer. But, at least, he has big, big ratings."

So which is it that you respect, again? -- journalism or ratings? You need to make up your mind. Oh, by the way -- big, big deal. Fox has a monopoly on the fringe wingnut audience, with zero conservative competition. Congradulations. Unfortunately, for conservatives, FNC has also played their part in damaging Republicans almost to the point of unelectability -- and will continue to do so.

Who cares what Mandow thinks. She's a Jon Stewart-esq hack who amuses herself and no one else. I watched her once....once...and I was completely repulsed by her manly persona. Ugh, how did homosexuals gain so much media power? Oh, right, nevermind. They've always been around, now it seems they have some small sort of leverage thanks to liberal b------.

Editing for coarse language is mine, sayeth the Z

Rachel Maddow is young, intelligent and fun. she has changed the everyday reporting into interesting stories. So what if she is a liberal, don't we have enough right wingers around for you people to view.
Leave her alone and go watch another channel. .
She is new and refreshing. Keep on keeping on, Rachel .

Has anyone looked at the demographics of Beck's audience? I understand that he reigns supreme with the 26 to 45 year old. So for the blogger above, I guess he will have his audience for a long time. So Sad!
I love the guy!

I find rachell maddow to be a very good talk show host. Obviously she does tilt to the left but that is the way of cable news these days but i do think she does much more than most to look for facts and opinions rather than force them on other people. All of the MSNBC pundits lean left except scarborough but none of them are even close to the over the top and flat out lying of fox news. How many times have you ever seen chris Mathews try to light a man on fire. And on msnbc you quite frequently see the pundits call democrats to task or ask them real questions. Fox on the other hand is a 24 hour a day GOP commercial. When the GOP ran this country for 12 years fox saluted everything they did and called opposers every name in the book. Its one thing to know a pundits personal beliefs leab one way and to see that come through in their reporting. It is somthing completly diff to have a 24 hour news network that absoulutly indorses everything from on political party and completly disses another ALL THE TIME on every issue. Also MSNBC dident used to be this way they are now trying to be the left wing fox wich I dont agree with. But the truth is one of the biggest problems we face in the country today is the fox news's and rush limbaugh's of the world. Most people arent that far apart on what they belive politically but you have the rush and hannity's of the world flat out lying constantly so that they can tare the country apart and profit from the chaos

I used to respect Rachel Maddow and her point of view. I did not always agree, but I like to another side of the same issue. She used to provide this for me, as I cannot stand Keith O. and Chris Matthews ( cannot tell if they are remotely telling the truth, or what they perceive as the truth ). Last nightI tuned in to see what she was up to. I saw her interviewing Barnay Frank. "Wow", this ought to be good!!!" I thought. Boy, I thought wrong. She gave Barney the most softball interview I had ever seen. Not one question about the financial crisis, noot one. She couldn't smile big enough. It was undenialbly the biggest butt-kissing I have seen since the election coverage. She ATTACKED the tea party protesters mercilessly, but this guy who both the left and the right know is knee deep in lies was treated like gold. Rachel now joins the ranks of keith and Chris...It was bound to happen.

I find that Rachael is telling us like it is from an honest and forthright perspective.

While she may interject some humor into the news (which I really like) her commentary and facts are never in question.

Her numbers may be dropping but I will continue to listen to her via podcasts everyday for her view on the world.

We need more media professionals like her to keep all of us honest. I hope that MSNBC sticks behind her because she is that great of a reporter and this country needs to hear her voice.

Remember she was one of the first to stand against the past administration in their crimes and for that she deserves the respect she has earned as a media professional.

She does give Republicans a voice on her show to say what they want which is more then what Rush does and frankly I will never heed anything that windbag has to say.

Don't believe me, ask that guy Charles that called Rush a nazi because of his inability to see any other opinion than his own.

Oh and btw I am a Republican that rejects windbags like Rush and the other talking heads of his kind.

I reject them because they only want to hear their voice and not the voices of the true Americans that make up 75% of this country.

They are only in it for the money, yes the almighty dollar. Just go Google map Rush's home address and look at his $44 Million Fl. home and you tell me he cares for humanity and our country.
Heck go look up Warren Buffet's home and you see a true American financial hero.

Its not about how much you have but what you do with it that makes you great.

Rachael is only one person that has a wonderful fresh voice in an old worn theater. I rather listen to her honest perspective and not agree with her then the lies of the Right Wing "entertainers"

Hannity and Reilly don't pretend to be reporters: they are commentators.

Rachel Maddow is a commentator pretending to be a reporter.

Differences are crucial.

Sorry to hear that Maddow's ratings are dropping. I find her show well researched and while she makes no bones about her political orientation, she gives her guests a chance to speak their piece without talking over them and without constantly interupting them. When she is wrong, she says so. I do not miss her show period. She is well educated--she knows her subjects well. She is one of the very few talk hosts that I watch regularly. I enjoy her mischievous sense of humor. I would really miss her if her program should be discontinued. Incidentally, I do not belong to either party; I have voted in every election since I turned 21 (which was the age of majority when I waas first old enough to vote.)

In order for Maddow to survive, she needs to run as far away from Olbermann as she can. Olbermann defines TV "News" absurdity, and Maddow occasionally slips into a bad imitation of Olbermann's hackery. Olbermann is a network cancer that, with his salary ($4 million per) and miniscule ratings, could singlehandedly bring down MSNBC

Rachel is entitled to be a bit preferential about her personal or personal philosophical views as most of the TV talk hosts are. I doubt that there's one TV or Radio talk show host who is not guilty of what Rachel is being accused of. As far as her rating is concerned, it's a matter of day-to-day up or downward swing. As the classic Dire Strait's songs goes "some time you're the windshield, sometime you're a bug, sometime you're Louisville slugger baby and sometime you're the ball". So Rachel, don't worry about the yoyo rating game. You're by far the most intriguing, stimulating, and instanteously spontaneous anchorwoman in the business. I hate to admit it, but Keith is now my # 2 and Chris Mathew is gone to #3. I must admit, I also watch O'Reily once in a while when some of your guest is not that interesting so I flip the channel and watch Bill'O!! Don't let no one derail your steadfast climb to the top and if you keep your show as honest as you are now, it is destined to top the charts for months and years to come. Thank yo for very thought provoking discussions. I always take time out from my schedule to at least watch you at a cost of skipping Keith and the Hardball!

Wrong. It's only the hackset at MSNBC that give Fox cover to keep Hannity on the air. Maddow is an order of magnitude worse than anything else on TV. Olbermann is terrible, but can be funny when not angry...which is almost all the time now. Maddow is nothing but a talentless shill and propagandist.

I enjoyed Rachel Maddow from the beginning; however, like many of the comments here, I am getting tired of her trite comments, etc. I have written to her many times suggesting she interview some of the many progressive writers from Common Dreams, CounterPunch, etc. She could be doing everyone a favor by taking one issue and exploring it from top to bottom. I personally enjoy Amy Goodman from Link TV and Pacifica radio.

David Zurawik calls the tea party protestors, "tea-bag protestors".

Rachel,

Is it possible to speak out of the other side of your mouth? I got a kink in my neck watching you speak

Maddow is a pundit on large corporate TV. I like her - she's different in attitude and presentation and doesn't come across as angry. I find it hard to imagine that anyone expects much of anything from MSNBC, Fox, or anyother large corporate TV. Watch FSTV (Free Speech TV) or Link TV if you're wanting real news. Real news is news not slanted by corporate demands and NOT managed by executives with big jobs and equally large conflicts of interest.

And what are the "slants" of Free Speech and Link TV? That is the problem with such operations -- they convince their audience members that they are free of "slant," by stressing the corporate nature of the others. But no news is free of ideology or slant. As for Maddow, she is not angry, but she is just as mean as O'Reilly in the way she ridicules the opposition. Thanks for thje comment. Z

I am blown away by those who say Rachel is smart, brilliant, amazing, blah blah blah. I mean how do you know what she is, besides what you see on TV! I guess the 44% who dropped her can't see it either. Did you people who say she is amazing, and seem to know her so well; did you date her, did you eat dinner at her place, did ya take her to McDonald's for a happy meal? What did she do of any significance ever? And I love the MSNBC president looking for the "rock star", instead of a journalist! She tries to convey topics such has democratic partisanship, the presidents tax cuts for the poor blah blah blah; you know the poor those who don't pay taxes, they will get a tax cut. lol, wow thats crazy but true I challenge anyone to prove that statement wrong. But, that is the American's with limited intelligence absorbing that false info. But, what can I say that is MSNBC viewers especially on Rachel's show! I think I am all over the place with my comment about Rachel, but hey just read the main ideas and some of you will get it of course some of you won't even try!

I love how all you right wingers openly flame Ms. Maddow for partisanship and think you're getting real journalism from the likes of O'Reilly and the rest of Faux and Fiends. Rachel has openly said her show is an opinion driven cross of The Daily Show/and the news. I think she's the best commentater on tv. There's nothing wrong with her tongue in cheek humor. She does her research and most importantly, when she has made a mistake, she lets her viewers know and apologizes. She is a real person, not a phony shill as found on Faux. She does have conservatives on, but since you're all watching hate monger Hannity, you wouldn't know that. By the way, as a class valedictorian, early Stanford grad and a doctorate from Oxford...I think that qualifies her a smart, brilliant, amazing...

As far as Fox ratings, Murdoch's money and bigotry bought him to this place. It doesn't mean the shows are better, but better at lying as to their agendas with the "Fair & Balanced" crock of lies. The biggest thing that makes me laugh at all you "look at the ratings" people is the fact that all the far right undereducated lunatics need to have their prejudice and hatred justified on a nightly basis and Faux fills that need. The rest of the cable channels split the rest of the viewers pretty evenly because we have other things going on. Since most Faux viewers are bitter, older conservatives, they don't use the internet or iPod's to watch any television (which should be counted in ratings as well). I often catch MSNBC shows on the internet since they're posted an hour after airing and are available for several days.

FOX RULES!!!!!!!!! You can't argue with the stats.

Tonight was really the pinacle of disgusting. What was the speed reader all about? MSNBC needs to do something about the Ed show, through Rachel's show. They are not reporting only giving some prejudiced opinions. Even Chris Matthews has joined in the disgusting way of presenting info. If they can't be more informative, get rid of them. Hard Ball was always one of our favorites but he is quickly losing us. TV and MSNBC has a wonderful opportunity to present much needed information. Why have you degenerated to these horrible evening programs? Give us back the good Hard Ball who doesn't talk over his guests and some intelligent broadcasters!

I only watch MSNBC for what I believe are entertaining but as unbiased as possible hosts like Keith and Chris. HOWEVER as soon as Rachael’s show starts I switch to ANY other station. And switch back 1 hour later. Her tone, aloofness, smug smile, split type personality presentation; I just can’t watch it and I hope more people will switch channel 5 seconds after her show starts!

I've only seen a few clips of Rachel and she act like a silly narcissistic child. I actually thought it was a comedy type show when I saw the first one about the tea parties then I leaned who she was and that it was supposed to be a serious news reporter. What a shocker that she is supposed to be serious news. Her sexual innuendos about the "Tea Baggers" is pure childishness and shows insecurity.

Just another reason not turn of the tube!

Where is Rachel? Could it be her truth telling re: C Street, etc. has cost us her input?

The only good show on msnbc is morning joe. The rest of the shows are a joke. I'm niether a dem or repub but I'll tell you that after watching msnbc I feel like the smart money is with the repubs. Just because someone talks fast and can make a witty observation does not make them smart as people keep saying maddow is. Oberman and Maddow have actually made me start watching fox news. Watch those shows with an open mind, not as left or right and you will see they are so far to the right that, to them, nothing else is correct.

So many of rachels fans here are quoting here own words in her defense " AstroTurf"?Someone gave her a soapbox and she is irresponsibly brainwashing and playing pied piper to advance her own agendas. Be careful people. Think for yourself and remember that most of her rants are to encourage and program. I realize that when I listen to hannity and beck , u need to realize that when u listen to her and olbernut!

I accidentally skipped channels on my remote and found Rick Maddo spewing left-wing crap in front of my twelve year old son. He looked over at me and asked who that "dude" was. Appears to me that "that dude" and his girlfriend have an agenda. People like this should NOT be allowed on television. Go away Rick-back to Air America-I hear they need help!

I am a vietnam vet , my father was wounded twice in WW 2, and my little brother was wounded seriously in Iran, Maddow is killing America, has she ever done anything to help our country... She needs to keep a muff in her mouth and be thankful she lives in a free country !!

Hi rags, Thanks for your comment -- and if I may take the liberty of saying so, thanks for your service and the service of your family to the country. I edited one sentence out of this post, because of its potential to be misunderstood by some readers. Thanks. Z

She is a Loser and I hope her life long goal of becoming a man actually happens.

What a dissapointment Rachael Maddow is and has been as well as MSNBC.

Most all of us have viseral reactions and can favor those we agree with or detract unreasonably from those we disagree with but Maddow like Olberman and most of MSNBC just don't seem to get that just because there are conservatives like Sean Hannity that are grinders and hammer the same thing relentlessly that it will work without any substance. Hannity, like him or hate him has substance. I don't agree with much he presents but at least he uses actual facts and is consistant. Hannity hammers the same stupid thing too often but Maddow like Olberman just has no consistency in philosophy other than anything republican is bad anything conservative is bad that George W. Bush was horrible and facts be damned. That gets old fast without being capable of debating a topic which neither Olberman nor Maddow seem to be able to do. That and Maddow is boring after you have heard her for a moment or two.

Then there is O'Reilly who no partisan likes which is probably a key to his high ratings. Unlike Maddow he has his facts in order and while he can be a bit overbearing and even diminish himself when he gets overheated like his Barney Frank explosin (although he was dead right there) with O'Reilly he isn't the partisan that anyone would like. Yes he is more conservative in general than not but that isn't partisan and he is honest.

What Maddow lacks aside from charisma and genuine original thought in her daily ideological chatter is any reason for anyone other than a George W. Bush hater as here kindred spirit to tune in. And there are less and less of those every day with Obama as President!