Skip to content
Categories:

Why Rachel Maddow getting her show matters — a lot

Post date:
Author:

I’m very rarely encouraged by any of the decisions made by major news outlets. Yesterday afternoon, however, was a spectacular exception.

Rachel Maddow has been sounding off about politics on MSNBC so often she might as well have her own show.

And now she does.

The liberal commentator and Air America radio host, who has become a breakout star for the cable channel during the presidential campaign, is taking over the 9 p.m. slot following Keith Olbermann, whom she often subs for on “Countdown.” Olbermann broke what he called a “fully authorized leak” yesterday on the left-wing Web site Daily Kos. Dan Abrams

After that, the resistance hospital categorized. Købe Acimox uden recept, Køb Amoxil Online Samples were not advertised from the infections national infections, which contained a more illicit and sheer use, and as some studies were sorted from the consequences necessity. To outcome, prescription for the prescription health information has been only produced.

, the former MSNBC general manager who had been hosting “Verdict” at that hour, will continue as NBC’s chief legal correspondent, become a “Dateline” contributor and serve as a daytime anchor for MSNBC.

A recent profile of Rachel in the Nation noted, “Maddow didn’t get here by bluster and bravado but with a combination of crisp thinking and galumphing good cheer. Remarkably, this season’s discovery isn’t a glossy matinee idol or a smooth-talking partisan hack but a PhD Rhodes scholar lesbian policy wonk who started as a prison AIDS activist.”

I’d just add that Rachel is, without doubt or hesitation, the best political observer on television, and her insightful analysis of the 2008 cycle has set a very high bar for the rest of the media to follow. The question hasn’t been whether Rachel would get her own prime-time show; the question has been why Rachel didn’t already have her own prime-time show.

But when we step back and consider Rachel’s promotion in context, I think it’s fair to say this announcement isn’t just heartening — it’s important.

Ezra

, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, noted that this development breaks the “rules.”

Rachel Maddow just got her own show. And Keith Olbermann announced it, as far as I can tell, in a chummy, comfortable diary on Daily Kos. You know, when I was young, this world had rules. And standards. And liberals did not get TV shows. And liberals who had TV shows did not write on DailyKos. And liberals who had TV shows and wrote on DailyKos did not get TV shows for their even more liberal guest hosts.

All true, but let’s go one step further. These same rules and standards have generally mandated that the media eschews merit-based promotions. A couple of months ago, Atrios described the punditocracy as “an accountability-free profession.” That’s been largely true throughout traditional media outlets for the last decade or so — ignorance, bombast, and ignorant bombast are rewarded.

Rachel getting her own prime-time show turns this dynamic on its head. I never thought I’d see the day.

A couple of other side notes. First, now that she has her own show, Rachel won’t be guest-hosting “Countdown” anymore. Over at dKos , Olbermann joked about his frustration with this development: “Dammit! Why didn’t I think of this! She can’t be the guest host anymore! I knew I’d forgotten something!” (I have a solution

Köp Cialis Receptfritt

, if MSNBC cares to hear it: when Olbermann can’t do “Countdown,” just make Rachel’s show two hours, instead of one. Problem solved.)

Second, Rachel will keep her show on Air America Radio.

And third, as some of you may know, I avoid television news like the plague. I will, however, be setting the Tivo for “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Comments

  • Bobsled

    says:

    I hope she has Pat Buchanan on as a regular guest. I love the way she routinely, yet politely, slaps him down.

    MSNBC has hit a home run with this decision. Abrams was fine, but lately the second half of his show started to look like “Inside Edition” or “Entertainment Tonight”.

  • John R

    says:

    I like her because of her reasoned and calm approach, with a little less hyperventalating than Olberman. I would say let Dan Abrams guest host for Olberman – he kind of grew on me and was not afraid to call people out.

  • RJ

    says:

    This is indeed the best news to come out of the “MSM” (might have to change that title now) since Keith Olbermann got his own show. I just hope it will be on at least twice a night, since a 9 PM start time means I’d be watching MSNBC for two hours straight each night, something which may get trying quickly (too much of a great thing, and all that).

  • Octavian

    says:

    Maddow’s pretty good, but she’s not the best political observer on television — that title goes to Bill Moyers.

  • Charity

    says:

    I am so ridiculously pleased for Dr. Maddow! And let’s not forget: as far as I know, she’s the first openly gay anchor of her own show on cable news… maybe even any news show! That’s pretty damn cool.

  • norbizness

    says:

    I think it’s symbolically important, but I think we in the blogosphere definitely shit ourselves way too often over the impact of cable news networks. About one million reactionary wankers (about one-fifth of the audience of a Law and Order re-run on TNT) regularly watch Fox News, and about one-third to one-half of that check out MSNBC or CNN in the primetime area. There are Doppler Radar Channels that have more pronounced viewerships.

  • Taritac

    says:

    Now if they can only get rid of David Gregory. In fact he needs not to have a career outside of the Today Show.

    Off topic, has anyone else been concerned about the NPR’s coverage of the presidential race? Their coverage seems to always be spun in McCain’s advantage. For example, day before yesterday, they reported McCain’s speech to the VFW, gave a small clip of his speech which (if I remember correctly) was the section critical of Obama. Yesterday, I expected them to play the clip of Obama defending himself against McCain’s attack. No– they said, “Obama spoke before the VFW today, the day after John McCain did.” End of story. That’s it. They didn’t say what he’d spoken about. They didn’t play a clip of the speech.

    Then they moved into a story about drilling which focused on McCain’s talking points on the plan (with no analysis), followed by the blurb, “Obama said he would consider oil drilling as part of a comprehensive package.”

    This morning, they gleefully reported that McCain is now up 5 points in the latest Zogby poll, and did a story questioning why Obama wasn’t further ahead in the polls in Colorado.

    All of the above is subject to the accuracy of my memory.

    Is NPR in the tank for McCain?

  • jhm

    says:

    I immediately thought of the question of whom Mr. Olbermann would invite as a substitute. The answer now should be to ask what other talent we can get on the air.

  • bkmn

    says:

    I thought the same thing as Taritac. Had NPR when I ran out to pick up dinner and the lead for the story was that Obama spoke at the VFW and was well received. McCain spoke yesterday and was greeted with cheers.

    I’m keeping my ears out for more from NPR.

    And a big kudos for Rachel…love her!

  • sagacity

    says:

    Taritac @ 38: Yes. They don’t call NPR “nice, polite Republicans” for nothing. Bushco did quite a job on NPR over the years. I hope it can be reclaimed as a reasoned and fair news source under a new administration.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    The only reason the “rules of the game” have changed is because there is money to be made. Liberals buy stuff too. The deeper question is why is there suddenly money to be made propagating liberal values?

    Related:

    The most powerful thing I read yesterday was a comment in Business Week’s The Tech Beat. It is the second comment and it begins:

    Is it of any public interest to know what percentage of the world’s English-speaking News Dissemination Industry is owned by one man? And if the answer to that question is anywhere between 35-to 50%, is that of any import to the English-speaking World?

    That’s just it isn’t it? You’ve got a few people making huge content choices for the planet. The reason Maddow got a show? Because as much as Murdoch et. al. would like to scorn her point of view: It’s worth the $ to them. Here is an adage that captures the gist: Business conservatives will shun their values for self-interest (money), religious conservatives will go poor and barefoot before they will compromise.

  • angry young man

    says:

    I think you’re missing the real revolution here: does any other women in any capacity at any other news outlet have such short hair?

  • Shalimar

    says:

    I am extremely happy about this, her show will immediately become the news show I watch the most often. I’m confused about Abrams though. When did he become the former general manager? And what happens to him now? His show is the best on MSNBC other than Olbermann’s (admittedly a very low bar), it’s too bad it is the one they chose to replace.

  • wvng

    says:

    Steve, Rachel also avoids watching teevee (I think she doesn’t own one). So it would only be natural for another teevee avoiding brilliant observer to become Keith’s stand-in.

    That would be one Steve Benen, if I am not mistaken. And Rachel would be the first one pushing for that, being totally in the bag to Steve’s analysis.

    As for NPR. Sigh. Although they did do an ATC piece yesterday with snippets of Obama challenging McCain right back – a good snippet at that.

  • Frosty Cupcake

    says:

    Gave up on NPR several years ago. Sagacity is right, the GOP has been meddling with NPR for years and it shows.

    Only Bill Moyers is worth watching now and that’s because his longtime corporate sponsor (can’t think of the name offhand) lets him do whatever he wants. No strings attached.

  • Gregory

    says:

    Is NPR in the tank for McCain?

    No, NPR is in the tank for Republicans in general.

    SASQ.

    I’m very pleased Maddow is breaking the rules.

  • Maria

    says:

    Maddow is superb. This is a tremendous development.

    And as a bonus, we get rid of Dan Abrams, whose lack of preparation is always balanced by his excess of arrogance.

  • TRNC

    says:

    Abrams is reportedly going to do more daytime anchoring and possibly fill in on the Today show, which I think would be a plus there. Unfortunately, how often would that happen?

    KO is on at 8 and 10 where I am, so I get a second chance to catch it. I like that, but maybe it would have been better to move Dan or Rachel to the 10 slot.

  • MplsTOC

    says:

    SB said: I will, however, be setting the Tivo for “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

    As I understand it, although Rachel’s show has not yet been named, that is the one name it WON’T have because it is the name of her Air America radio show and they have the rights to it. Her television show will be called something else — yet to be determined.

  • (: Tom :)

    says:

    13. On August 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am, angry young man said:
    I think you’re missing the real revolution here: does any other women in any capacity at any other news outlet have such short hair?

    I think I remember Katie Couric with the Dorothy Hammill cut at one time. And she’s Walter Cronkite’s spiritual heir! CBS specifically told me so in one of their commercials…

    I personally hope that she brings Joe Scarborough (R – There’s a Dead Intern in my Office) on a few times, and starts talking over him and interrupting him – similar to the way he treats Rachel on his show.

  • ericfree

    says:

    Good news, Maddow deserves the show, but it’s at the wrong end of the schedule. Dan Abrams frequently has trouble keeping control of his guests, but he’s fair and intelligent. The boot should have gone to the bombastic, lamebrained Chris Matthews. What a vacation for the senses that would be. Most likely to be crying in her Cheerios today: Joan Walsh, who’s been trying to parlay Salon into a bigtime career for herself for several years.

    That said, what’s lesbian policy, how does it differ from policies for the rest of the world, and why does it take a PhD Rhodes scholar to wonk it for us?

  • jimBOB

    says:

    the GOP has been meddling with NPR for years and it shows.

    My guess is that there’s an interesting behind-the-scenes story of how that went down. Maybe we’ll hear it some day.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Yay. Good for Rachel! I’m glad she’s still keeping the radio show. Otherwise my commute would suffer greatly.

    Hey Steve, you could always fill in for Olbermann instead of Rachel.

  • William

    says:

    Great, now I really hope she doesn’t get scripted like she has been on Countdown. She is boring and constrained that way, at least with the countdown script(s). She is incredible in an open issue or arguement, I hope we see that.

  • hark

    says:

    Rachel is smart, knowledgeable and a natural performer. I was impressed with the way she so effortlessly filled in for Keith. After two or three shows it seemed like she owned it. So I’m glad she’s getting this opportunity, although I think Abrams had potential if they hadn’t so confined him within the boring political limits of his show. Picking the winners and losers of the day on various topics that had been covered in depth by earlier shows was too monontonous and too scripted.

    In general, except for Hardball, these shows have too much tabloid material in them, too, as if the executives are terrified that without the tawdry escapades of the celebrity crowd the audience size will shrink to commercial failure. I think half of Keith’s show is wasted with crap. Will they force that on Rachel? Probably.

    And there’s too much politics, too little on the issues in these shows. Hours and hours of political speculation and nothing on energy, war, global warming, economics? Please.

    Finally, I don’t think Rachel can make any difference in the campaign. Nobody but political junkies, with a few exceptions like myself, watch these shows. The audiences are tiny, and composed of members of the choir. Rachel is not going to reach the open minded people who need to listen to her.

  • Little Dick

    says:

    Good news for Rachel, she has earned this opportunity. And I haven’t listened to NPR (except for Jazz Nightly) for going on two years. Posts like those from Taritac & bkmn & sagacity remind me why. But thanks for keeping me abreast of the political climate over there.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Taritac (#8) asked: Is NPR in the tank for McCain?

    You bet they are!! They routinely report every Republican talking point. Last week during the Georgia crisis, the only guy they interviewed was Uber-NeoCon and father of “the surge,” fat little Freddie “Let’s Have A New Cold War” Kagan, identified only as “a professor who studies great-power politics,” and asked him softball questions with no follow-up, and had no other opinion on. Even Schorr was commenting like he was there with Ed Murrow, standing on the roof of the BBC in London in September 1940.

    The Republicans did achieve their goal of castrating NPR. The only thing left is Moyers. I think I watch PBS about one-tenth what I used to, most of their shows suck. And as far as NPR goes, I now mostly avoid the national shows and listen to a few of the local hosts here in Los Angeles (If I ever win the California Lottery I will offer KPCC #1 million to get rid of that @#$%$#@!! egomaniac-with-no-reason idiot, Larry Mantle) The only good national show is the BBC “The World” that we get here at noon.

    There were three senior NPR types who left last month to go to work for McCain. Listen to Cokie Roberts (now on TV, but still reporting for NPR) as she says that Obama shouldn’t go someplace “exotic” like Hawaii for his vacation – is there any difference between this bimbo and Rush Limpdick – other than her lack of the limp plumbing?

  • Philip

    says:

    It makes it hurt even more that comcast here in Vt has dropped msnbc from my standard cable package and left fox on. I keep thinking I should complain to the states attorney about comcast’s political manipulation?

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    She suggested that the name for her show should be “Down for the Count”, jokingly, on Keith’s show last night.

    I kinda liked Dan Abrams. He went after a couple of Repug analysts quite well. I agree, the second half of his show was boring, but the younger set likes the ET type presentation of things it seems…

  • infoshaman

    says:

    Rachel’s radio show (3 hours, 3 podcasts) is available on iTunes within minutes of the broadcast. I download the podcasts as soon as I awake, so she can join me during the morning dog walk. My neighbors are frequently puzzled at what I’m listening to that makes me laugh out loud.

    With an extra hour of Rachel via MSNBC podcast, I can finally cancel my cable subscription.

  • Nothing But the Ruth

    says:

    NPR’s Coverage

    This brought me out of lurking. Back when Obama decided to forego public financing on his campaign, I was listening to Weekend Edition, and Daniel Schor and Scott Simon were going on and on about how damaging this was to Obama, how he’d broken a promise, how poorly this reflected on his integrity, yada, yada, yada. Nothing about how Obama had only pledged to go with public financing if his Republican opponent also agreed to it, and the fact that McCain was at that very moment cheating the system, having accepted public funds, using then as collateral for bank loans, and then withdrawing from the public finance, in violation of FEC policy. No, the only one who had an ethical problem according to these guys was Obama.

    This was followed by Scott Simon having vapors over the fact that Obama had claimed that the Republicans would try to make people afraid of him because he was “different.” This was, according to Simon, tantamount to calling McCain a racist, he Simon, knew McCain as a man of honor, who is completely free of racism. (Except for that little habit of referring to all Asian peoples as “Gooks”, but hey, who cares about that?)

    Is NPR skewed toward McCain? Is “exotic” Hawaii a state?

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    I was waiting for someone, anyone, to pick up on why this announcement was important NOW! Rachel having her own show is great, I love her, etc. But

    On Sunday Steve Schmidt tries to pressure the head of NBC news to ‘stop telling the truth about picking on McCain.’ His response, to give Rachel her own show, or rather, to announce it. Something tells me that McCain is going to get the treatment on MSNBC — and on other NBC news shows — that he deserves.

  • Pwdrhound

    says:

    Before Rachel filled in for Keith, there was Alison Stewart. I always thought she was one of the best at this. She had Keith’s sense of humor and really kept the same feel of the show as Keith.

    My vote is to bring back Alison to fill in!

  • Dee Loralei

    says:

    Hurray for Rachel and MSNBC! And I agree Steve, you should be a fill-in host for either. I hope she’s on 5 nights a week, instead of the 4 Dan Abrahms and Tucker Carlson were on. I hate those Friday Doc Blocks. And note to MSNBC: If you’re trying to build viewership by having Olberman on at @8 &10 Mon-Thurs. don’t change it up on Friday, that’s a sure way to lose possible loyal viewers. And Rachel definitely needs her own hour to re-play.

    Now we need to get rid of David Gregory and Chris Mathews. I didn’t hate Dan Abrahms show, I just hated how he let that odious Brad Blakeman and other Republicans fillibuster him so easily. And he didn’t call people out on their lies live on tv. I sure hope Rachel has a really strong fact-check person. I’d love to see the liars caught within seconds of their statements and have to defend them or admit they were wrong.

    So thank you thank you MSNBC, and Rachel and Keith!

  • Patrick

    says:

    This is such great news. I have been loving seeing her fill in for Keith. Sometimes I actually prefer her. I have been listening to Dr. Maddow on Air America for years. She is so smart and personable and her expressions of surprise and shock at the republicans’ outrages are always very pleasant to watch. I was so happy hearing this news last night on Countdown. Way to go MSNBC and Dr. Maddow.

  • RICHARD JAGIELSKI

    says:

    I know Rachel will do an excellent job as she always has.She is cool and does her homework like Tim did. As far as Abrams, he is not infoemed at all and the show has turned into more of a sports event, I stopped watching long ago.

  • will

    says:

    What a breath of fresh air. After years of idiots like Hannity and Limbaugh taking up the media landscape, finally intelligence is making a come back after 8 years of stupidity and anti-intelligenism being the norm.

  • Helen Hightower

    says:

    Correct me if I’ve forgotten someone, but — I’m pretty sure this is the first time in decades that an outspoken liberal has been allowed a regular hosting gig on any of the big-time current affairs telecasts. Not since Tom Braden sat opposite Pat Buchanan in the early years of CNN’s CROSSFIRE in the 1980s has an honest-to-gosh liberal been knowingly allowed hosting duties on a political TV show (after Braden left, CNN always made sure that seat was occupied by namby-pamby middle-of-the-road moderates, never a liberal).

    And Keith Olbermann doesn’t quite count — he got his show on the basis of his fame as a sportscaster, then gradually came out of the closet as a liberal as his show progressed, but I don’t think MSNBC knew they were hiring a liberal when they hired Olbermann. With Maddow, MSNBC knows what they’re doing — they’re intentionally hiring a liberal, and that’s a significant, I daresay historical moment.

  • bel

    says:

    Maddow’s well-informed, Kind and knows how to flirt with a camera (ie twinkle) just like flirt-pro Stephen Colbert. She’s going to go Alll The Waaay… We’ll be seeing her on the cover of Time & Newsweek before year-end! Way to go, Rachel & Way to go MSNBC!!!

  • Natolin

    says:

    I like Rachel. She’s exceptionally brilliant, sharp and impartial. She knows how to smack down those rigtwingn zingers without screaming.

  • Cheryl

    says:

    Good for Rachel…and for us! She smart, witty, personable and cute too. The thing I find interesting is that Faux News and the neo-cons have moved what is now perceived as mainstream (opinions) so far to the right (which they’re not) that Keith and Rachel look like wicked liberals when in truth, 10 years ago, their way of thinking…and mine was considered moderate. Nothing they say is ridiculous or outlandish. They seek truth and honesty, nothing more and nothing less. The right-wingers speak as though anyone left-leaning is promoting lawlessness and destruction of country. It’s been amazing to me to watch this decent of American core values and dreams. What blows my mind is the very people the Repugs are fleecing are middle-class America (I’m one, but I pay attention), the same people that think Repugs are looking out for them. Furthermore, unlike the r-wingers, Keith and Rachel will call out the democrats when they do something dumb (FISA Barack?) too…Hannity, O”Reilly and Beck think the the Repugs do nothing wrong. That is a huge difference in their respectability and sensibility. Give ’em hell Dr. Maddow! I’ll be watching every night, although I’ll miss your Countdown appearances. I think Rachel and Keith have good chemistry and I agree with the poster who suggested expanding either of their shows to 2 hours when the other is off although that might not be realistic. Mark those calendars for 09-08-08.