Dr. Rachel Maddow: #1 Most-Watched Cable News Host

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who is that dude?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

She's #12 behind Big Bang Theory.

 

[Lakhota]

Rachel loves to fish. Here are some of her pictures...

Who is that man on the right, bottom picture?

Who do you think it is? Are you really 78? Are you moving into senility? Try not to be so juvenile/trolling/flaming. I really don't want to put you on ignore - but I will. You can do better...

 

[sealybobo]

Sean Hannity has been dethroned.

March Maddow-ness.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow dethroned Fox News’ Sean Hannity last month to seize the title of most-watched cable news host.

According to figures from Forbes, The Rachel Maddow Show turned in its best-ever performance with an average of 3.058 million viewers, compared to Hannity’s 3 million.

She also beat him among those aged 25-to-54 ― the demographic advertisers most covet ― with an average viewership from that group of 671,000 compared with 616,000 for Hannity.

More: Your New Most-Watched Cable News Host Is ... Rachel Maddow

Congratulations, Dr. Maddow! Go Rachel.

That's great news....for China and North Korea.

And 53% of voters

 

[Lakhota]

Go Rachel.

 

[Markymark11]

Rachael is the cheerleader for the sit -on-the-couch whiners of America

 

[FA_Q2]

Hannity and Maddow
Wow, really says something about us.
Go ahead and cheer, though. Dumbfuck

Actually it 'says something' about media.

Not really. Media goes where the money is and the viewers dictate that..

That's sort-of what I mean, but no, absolutely the viewers don't dictate that. The broadcaster does. I doubt any viewer petitioned mass media to 'please give us inane shows about naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, and fake wrestling, and on-stage paternity tests and oh can we have a camera truck that goes around following philanderers?" This loserist lowest common denominator swill is concocted to mine the emotions specifically because the concoctors know the somnambulist sponges will sop it up like candy.

You are directly contradicting yourself here. Stating that no one petitioned for that type of programming and then that they sop it up like sponges is directly contradictory.

The people can and do DEMAND that type pf programming and do so when they flock to it and watch it. Your premise that it is the producers forcing that content on the viewers relies on a false premise - that there are no options.

Just as hordes of people did not clamor for Detroit to make too-big inverted bathtubs that they could roll over.

The Three Lies: "This won't hurt a bit", "The check is in the mail" and "We're just giving the public what they want". Except that there actually are times when this won't hurt and the check really is in the mail.

NOBODY gives the public "what they want" over "what will sell". That whole "we're just giving the public what they want" lie is a crutch they use to avoid taking responsibility for their offering's obvious flaws.

Again, that is based on the false idea that those customers have no options.

Face the facts, there is a reason that entities like FOX and CNN absolutely blow PBS out of the water when it comes to viewership and it is NOT because people are forced into that type of content. It is because they want that content over something like actual news. If they really wanted it then they would be watching the content that is already there for them. 100 percent of ALL television viewers tuning into FOX and CNN have access to far less biased content through NPR. Every single one of them. And yet that content draws ever larger audiences. This is the same reason that Hannity and Maddow continually do FAR better than commentators like Smerconish - people WANT the divisiveness and confirmation bias and they willingly go along with it.

Do you honestly think that the media giants forced people to migrate from news shows to places like the tonight show where most youth gets news these days or can you see the truth that this is what people want and so they are getting it?

If the media were to suddenly grow a soul and start broadcasting real news in an unbiased manner all that would happen is 'news' outlets like Breitbear would become the new leaders.

The fact that people flock to this type of media says a lot more about them than it does about the media. It is not as though there are not other options out there, just that most do not want reason and discussion. They want talking points and hate.

Again, it's got nothing to do with "what they want" -- it's "what they'll accept" that's served up to them on Toiletvision, which has already indoctrinated them to sit down, shut up, and watch whatever turds we hand you. Nor does the public have any avenue to make such a request anyway.

Emotion sells, and broadcasters know that well. Aside from that, the fact that one slanted talking head is overdrawing another slanted talking head doesn't mean people are "flocking" to either one; without bothering to look it up I have no doubt both Hannity's and Maddow's ratings are dwarfed by the big hitters of those other options in that same time slot. Sitcoms, dramas, people stranded on an island eating bugs, whatever they are.

As stated above, as there are options out there your premise that they are forced into this type of 'news' is simply false.

That does not relive those entities of the responsibility that they bear but it does mean that they are not the cause but rather the symptom of a far larger problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dr. Maddow reports facts and truth. We should all appreciate that. I sure do.

Case in point pogo.

 

[Snouter]

Rachel "Blinky" Maddow lookalike "Pat" back in the day!

 

[rightwinger]

Dr. Maddow reports facts and truth. We should all appreciate that. I sure do.

Calling Madcow "Doctor" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer "Chef."

She is a Rhodes Scholar

 

[Pogo]

You are directly contradicting yourself here. Stating that no one petitioned for that type of programming and then that they sop it up like sponges is directly contradictory.

Not in the least. The programming is already trotted out --- NONE of us had a voice in choosing what would be trotted out, unless we work for that broadcaster's programming department, which virtually none of us do. That programming is then designed as it is specifically because they know people will sop it up like sponges. This is called psychological manipulation. Don't tell me you never heard the phrase "if it bleeds it leads". --- that's exactly what's going on there.

Again at the risk of repetition, ratings measure attention, not "assent". Getting someone's attention is not related to whether they "agree" with it or seek it out. That jacknifed tractor trailer on the other side of the highway will get your attention -- that doesn't mean you asked for it.

The people can and do DEMAND that type pf programming and do so when they flock to it and watch it. Your premise that it is the producers forcing that content on the viewers relies on a false premise - that there are no options.

There is another option, which is to pick one's TV up by the wires and carry it out to the street. The fact that that TV will soon disappear from that spot demonstrates what an addictive parasite it is.

As for the programming model, no there is no other option within that ratings mentality mindset, i.e.the profit motive, LCD, how-can-we-snare-the-most-viewers mentality, which is why we have bizzaro pap like naked people on an island and fake wrestling and onstage paternity tests. There are of course other ways to program, but if your goal is profit, which means maximizing eyeball count because that will sell more expensive commercials, then the LCD is your model. It's the soup they choose to swim in.

Face the facts, there is a reason that entities like FOX and CNN absolutely blow PBS out of the water when it comes to viewership and it is NOT because people are forced into that type of content. It is because they want that content over something like actual news.

Nobody's "forced" to watch LCD programming. That's not how it works.

Again--- psychological manipulation. That means mining the emotions. That's why our lead story tonight is a house fire in some obscure neighborhood nowhere near you -- because it stimulates the emotions, and the viewer gets invested and has to find out how it all worked out, even though they don't know anybody out there. Once they've done that it's commercial time --- which is the whole point of commercial broadcasting --- as opposed to noncommercial broadcasting. Entirely different motivation, entirely different goal, even though using the same technology.

Are you free to tune that sensationalist swill out and go somewhere else? Of course you are. But the historical analysis tells them they will snare enough eyeballs to make a hefty profit, and the more they mine those emotions, the more money they can make.

News -- real, objective "news" in the original definition --- is expensive and it's dry and unemotional. You need a team of reporters with travel expenses and mobile studio trucks. You need foreign bureaus and stringers. In the old Huntley-Brinkley daze those straight news broadcasts were loss leaders, subsidized by that mindless pap of Green Acres that would follow them through the evening. The actual content is dry and factual and does not involve selling or mining emotion.

With the Fox Noise model they dispensed with most of that expense, making their money by sitting talking heads at a single desk to talk about the news, rather than reporting it, and focusing on people (politicians) rather than ideas (policy) --- which makes it personal and something the viewer can invest in. They pounded their fists on the desk, they dreamed up "they're all out to get you" paranoia, they dressed up the studio in bright garish colors and they had suggestive chyrons of more paranoia running underneath the whole time. Again -- mining the emotions. Viewers of that sort of thing are not there because news --- they're there because their emotions are being massaged, particularly by FEAR. When a TV tells you "we'll be right back to tell you how you're going to die next Thursday but first here's why you should buy a Dodge Ram", that's a manipulation tool, the object of which is not to inform you of what happens next week, but to maximize how much money they can make from Dodge. By keeping you right where you are --- attentive, passive and assuming the position to sponge up whatever they dictate.

Now your PBS (or other noncommercial example) isn't driven by that motivation so it doesn't need to mine emotions and is free to venture into straight information. I'm afraid your phrase "blows the water out of their viewership" belies a belief that higher ratings are somehow a positive thing. They aren't. They're simply a measure of how much you can charge an advertiser. If you don't have advertisers, how much you could have charged if you did becomes irrelevant, and thus is not a programming motivation. Again, that's all "ratings" measure. They are only of use to those buying or selling advertising. They have no other meaning, certainly none that relates to the legitimacy, quality or social or informational value of the program content.

"Ratings" are not baseball scores -- they're a metric to measure manipulation power. This is not to suggest 'high ratings' automatically mean there is manipulation going on --- some big news event, a legitimately big event, will of course draw viewers to the reports thereof --- but it does present the opportunity, and if profit is the underlying motivation, that news will be milked as long as it works to milk it, long after the event has passed. And of course other news that is not legitimately big is blown up to pretend it is, and we get endless pap smears about how Michael Jackson died or the next missing white girl.

100 percent of ALL television viewers tuning into FOX and CNN have access to far less biased content through NPR.

NPR is radio of course, but yes. And radio -- in general, irrespective of whatever program content --- is inherently a superior medium to television, so just the act of switching off the boob tube and migrating to the audio is a step forward all by itself. Radio can mine the emotions too of course, and does, but doesn't have anywhere near the manipulative power of a medium that by definition forces its user to sit down, shut up, and sponge whatever it dictates including all context and sensory input.

This is the same reason that Hannity and Maddow continually do FAR better than commentators like Smerconish - people WANT the divisiveness and confirmation bias and they willingly go along with it.

Again, your adverb "better" belies a fundamental misperception of what ratings mean. Again, "fear sells". I'm not very familiar with Smerconish; I know who he is but not that familiar with his style. But without knowing that I'd wager he doesn't traffic in fear and paranoia as much as those who "do far better" to use your phrase. But we've got to put distance between ourselves and this idea that ratings are a "goal". They're only a goal for those engaging in psychological manipulation for their own gain. So it's not that people "want" the divisiveness and confirmation --- it's that it works as a manipulation tool to ensnare them. And again we're back to the truism that this manipulative programming LEADS and the viewer FOLLOWS --- not the other way 'round.

 

[Bezukhov]

I missed this episode.

Fuming Rachel Maddow Spends Entire Show Just Pointing Wildly At Picture Of Putin

https://www.theonion.com/fuming-rachel-maddow-spends-entire-show-just-pointing-w-1825017260

 

[Hossfly]

Dr. Maddow reports facts and truth. We should all appreciate that. I sure do.

Calling Madcow "Doctor" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer "Chef."

She is a Rhodes Scholar

 

[Hossfly]

Rachel loves to fish. Here are some of her pictures...

Who is that man on the right, bottom picture?

Who do you think it is? Are you really 78? Are you moving into senility? Try not to be so juvenile/trolling/flaming. I really don't want to put you on ignore - but I will. You can do better...

 

[DrLove]

Yeah but Hannity still rules the coveted 65-95 demographic and pulls in more advertising from The Clapper, Rascal Scooters, reverse mortgage companies, Life Alert and Liberator Medical Supply.

 

[rightwinger]

Rachel loves to fish. Here are some of her pictures...

Not too shabby.

 

[Nova78]

She is a moron, with fake news.

 

[Hossfly]

She is a moron, with fake news.

Who is that guy?

 

[rightwinger]

Good to see Dr Maddow separating herself from the pack

She is well prepared for her shows and provides detailed and accurate information

 

[ptbw forever]

Hannity and Maddow
Wow, really says something about us.
Go ahead and cheer, though. Dumbfuck

Actually it 'says something' about media.

Not really. Media goes where the money is and the viewers dictate that..

That's sort-of what I mean, but no, absolutely the viewers don't dictate that. The broadcaster does. I doubt any viewer petitioned mass media to 'please give us inane shows about naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, and fake wrestling, and on-stage paternity tests and oh can we have a camera truck that goes around following philanderers?" This loserist lowest common denominator swill is concocted to mine the emotions specifically because the concoctors know the somnambulist sponges will sop it up like candy.

You are directly contradicting yourself here. Stating that no one petitioned for that type of programming and then that they sop it up like sponges is directly contradictory.

The people can and do DEMAND that type pf programming and do so when they flock to it and watch it. Your premise that it is the producers forcing that content on the viewers relies on a false premise - that there are no options.

Just as hordes of people did not clamor for Detroit to make too-big inverted bathtubs that they could roll over.

The Three Lies: "This won't hurt a bit", "The check is in the mail" and "We're just giving the public what they want". Except that there actually are times when this won't hurt and the check really is in the mail.

NOBODY gives the public "what they want" over "what will sell". That whole "we're just giving the public what they want" lie is a crutch they use to avoid taking responsibility for their offering's obvious flaws.

Again, that is based on the false idea that those customers have no options.

Face the facts, there is a reason that entities like FOX and CNN absolutely blow PBS out of the water when it comes to viewership and it is NOT because people are forced into that type of content. It is because they want that content over something like actual news. If they really wanted it then they would be watching the content that is already there for them. 100 percent of ALL television viewers tuning into FOX and CNN have access to far less biased content through NPR. Every single one of them. And yet that content draws ever larger audiences. This is the same reason that Hannity and Maddow continually do FAR better than commentators like Smerconish - people WANT the divisiveness and confirmation bias and they willingly go along with it.

Do you honestly think that the media giants forced people to migrate from news shows to places like the tonight show where most youth gets news these days or can you see the truth that this is what people want and so they are getting it?

If the media were to suddenly grow a soul and start broadcasting real news in an unbiased manner all that would happen is 'news' outlets like Breitbear would become the new leaders.

The fact that people flock to this type of media says a lot more about them than it does about the media. It is not as though there are not other options out there, just that most do not want reason and discussion. They want talking points and hate.

Again, it's got nothing to do with "what they want" -- it's "what they'll accept" that's served up to them on Toiletvision, which has already indoctrinated them to sit down, shut up, and watch whatever turds we hand you. Nor does the public have any avenue to make such a request anyway.

Emotion sells, and broadcasters know that well. Aside from that, the fact that one slanted talking head is overdrawing another slanted talking head doesn't mean people are "flocking" to either one; without bothering to look it up I have no doubt both Hannity's and Maddow's ratings are dwarfed by the big hitters of those other options in that same time slot. Sitcoms, dramas, people stranded on an island eating bugs, whatever they are.

As stated above, as there are options out there your premise that they are forced into this type of 'news' is simply false.

That does not relive those entities of the responsibility that they bear but it does mean that they are not the cause but rather the symptom of a far larger problem.

You do realize that NPR and PBS are just CNN in a nicer suit, right(and CNN is just MSNBC in a very slightly nicer suit)?

Of course you do, you contemptible liar.