did you watch Rachel Maddow last nite?

I think she is a fantastic journalist but I can find things that I don't love about her program too. Still I think she's the best journalist on TV. If you can watch her interview with tRump's new campaign manager Kellyann Conway from a week or so ago, it's amazing.

Tonight I appreciated the closer look at what the doctor said on follow up interviews. There was a lot to read between the lines.

I think Rachel would be better suited to a solid 1 hour PBS type of format but they could never show a program with such a Democratic bent. The corporate hustle is evident in the many (many) commercial breaks and bite sized segments.

Who do you prefer on broadcast media?

Whatever you think is your business of course. Not trying to change your opinion, just sharing mine. Peace.

Reid lets nothing get past her in terms of repug talking points and failure to answer questions. She asks excellent follow ups and also will not allow blatant political lies to go unchallenged — all without interminable story set-ups with repeated ad nauseam points being made to let you know what's eventually, hopefully, at some point going to come.

Also, that Rachel would be better with a different format. She seems to talk too long and repetitively to setup her points which leads me to believe she's just trying to stretch the time since the new network bosses have limited what she can discuss and her POV.

Rachel got a taste of those good, good, rising ratings for a while and spends some of her time chasing ratings.

Rachel still gets very good ratings.

I like Joy's take on things and the stories she chooses to cover now. She's the best.

All In with Chris Hayes is good, too.

That shows of this type are simply air time fillers and really serve no purpose for me. They are predominately opinions and offer little if any substance. I am capable of drawing my own opinions and do not need to rely on the likes of the multiplicity of talking heads screaming at each other and at me from my Television set.

I simply do not waste my time on them.

and said he would turn the channel RIGHT. Even their star Rachel buckled down. No FLINT follow ups, right? The old Rachel would NOT even have had Kelly Anne on, much less brag and crow about her GET. All we have left is Lawrence. So sad.

To be honest, even our local coverage is pretty quiet, right now. They are starting to dig up and replace the pipes. The legalities have to worm their way through the system and no doubt it was be a slow process.

it really showed that the doctor is as much a bubble-head as trump is. And whether you chose to believe it or not, Rachel is one of the best journalists out there and her research is second to none. There is a button on your remote control to change channels....no one is forcing you to watch her and then come here and complain.

...is doing well. But, I feel the same way about her show. She treats stories like they're Elvis sightings. Her "tease" segments have become insufferable. But, the ratings are growing - I read she beat FOX recently. So I am okay with her moving on to a bigger audience that does not necessarily include me - better her than Ann Coulter. My new favorite is Joy Reid!

have always had that nasty piece Perky Kellyanne on. There's a reason why the WaPo writer found the "duel" between the two of them fascinating. Rachel pretended to consider the first courteous exchange a win and suggested ending the interview right there while they were ahead. There can't be much she and her researchers don't know about Kellyanne's dirty history, and I'm hoping she'll expose more of it in future than I've picked up on the net.

Btw, no matter what stories were covered, I couldn't think poorly of a show that tries to leave its viewers significantly more knowledgeable about the subjects chosen, and gives them context to understand them with, than when they tuned in. Too often these days it's literally and deliberately the opposite, and that's not just a Fox phenomenon.

when she continued to repeat a point several different ways, ad nauseum. She is highly intelligent and I liked her segments but when Comcast took over, I saw a big difference and quit wasting my time.

Talk about your overkill.

She does a fine job of exposing and presenting information, I watch her daily because of her skills.

If you cut out all her repeated dialogue her show would only last 15 minutes. It sounds like she is talking to pre schoolers.

His backtracking on Trump's incredibly unbelievably amazing state of health was very important. He's a 70 year old guy with, at least, the same health issues shared by many 70 year old men. The inequity between the medical information they have provided and what they are demanding of Hillary is massive. Which causes me to believe they are deflecting from something that Trump's doctor hasn't disclosed.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this whole situation hasn't triggered some sort of investigation by the local medical society.

As to Rachel's delivery technique - yea, she's a little animated and does an overly long and redundant introduction into stories. I just grin and bear it until she gets into the soul of the story. But I do admit that while watching her, now, I keep checking to see how much longer before Lawrence O'Donnell comes on.

Some people might like that format, thinking that the long pauses and build-up are powerful in terms of rhetoric, but I take it as an insult to my intelligence.

I still like her overall, but I usually don't watch her.

She reports the news NOBODY else is allowed to report in the corporate media. Not the endless horse-race news they corporate media permits.
For opinion journalism NOBODY can beat Thom Hartmann. He gives historical and scientific context to everything so you can truly understand the topic at hand.