Making Maddow's Show Better

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 21:00


I began with the thought of how much better Maddow's show would be if she relied on Digby regularly instead of Anna Marie Cox. Then I thought of something even better, from a movement-building point of view.  What if she drew on a much wider range of blogging talent for critical perspectives, helping to raise the visibility of a wide range of progressive voices?  Why not a daily bloggers panel to discuss a particular issue?  It would be pretty easy to scan for top posts on a subject any given day, and select participants to present their views.

My preference would be for a larger panel of five participants, but to do that right would require too much time out of a one hour show.  Simple solution to that--give Rachel two hours.  But until then, I'll take a panel of three bloggers, every day, and not just the same three every time.  In fact, I'd say no repeats in any one week.

But that's just one idea.  I'm sure there are others out there.  What would you suggest as a way to make the Rachel Maddow show a stronger vehicle for advancing progressive politics?

Paul Rosenberg :: Making Maddow's Show Better

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Making Maddow's Show Better | 33 comments
15 bloggers a week (0.00 / 0)
means some combination of 15 remote set-ups, trips to NY or regional studio sites, on top of all the current ones. cost and logistics do get in the way on these shows.

I'm all for expanding her stable, and cultivating a deeper bench than (the excellent) Hayes, Hamsher, and occasionally Benen. But I'd say twice-a-week roundtables would be fantastic, and the right pace to break in those new to studio appearances.

Excellent suggestion! (4.00 / 4)
I would suggest Matt Taibbi and Dave Sirota and, of course, Mr. Rosenberg.  Anna Marie Cox, though providing us with an often tragically comedic perspective of teabaggers, birthers, and the like does little to enlighten the topic of Democratic feebleness in regards to policy outcomes (and how such behavior emboldens the aforementioned nutjobs).  Regardless of panel participants, more emphasis on "news" media's corporate slant (even those regarded as moderates or "experts") and a sizable contingent of Democratic elected officials actively supporting conservative policy outcomes, IMHO, would be the best improvement to the show.  Ms. Maddow, relatively speaking, is already the best at this among her cable colleagues, but there's always room for improvement!

-10.00E

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain....


[ Parent ]
just want to point out that everyone you've named is white, male, and american (0.00 / 0)
and i think they're all straight too, though i don't know.  so although that is one consideration among several, it should be one that's taken into account.  how will we address instituional and structural discrimination in the media if we don't provide role models for people and public faces?

further, i would say is that for me, it is a higher priority to find people who can have strong analyses on ISSUES like race, gender, sexuality, citizenship, height, et. - but at the same time, it is often the people affected by those issues who have the incentive and the interest to develop that analysis.

i don't mean to be overly reductive though - if you could put a chomsky or a wallerstein on the air regularly, i certainly wouldn't complain - like i said it's the perspective that matters.  especially if it cuts through the media as 'creator' of stories vs. media as 'reporter' of stories.

[ Parent ]
well, i'm sorry (0.00 / 0)
I did forget to mention Naomi Klein, perhaps not a blogger, but an excellent observer of what is really going on at the intersection of politics and economics (Shock Doctrine is a fantastic read!)--IIRC, she is Canadian, though not by birth.  I thoroughly enjoy Rachel Maddow's program, as she offers as close to a leftist perspective as one is able to find on cable television--pointing out the privatization issues of our foreign occupations like no other person in a prime-time context.  

But by assuming I a white, Southern male, most every one on this "leftist" blog thinks I'm racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc., etc.  Now they're in disbelief that the sell-out candidate is going to sign a bill that will make us subsidize insurance companies, let "defense" contractors run amok in Afghanistan and Iraq, hand over our futures to banks by socializing risk and privatizing the returns, allow exploitation of undocumented workers with "guest worker" programs instead of at least a quick path to citizenship so that immigrants are granted rights and have legal recourse, he's going to ditch EFCA, and let the Gulf Coast lie in tatters.  But he courted much "better" people in the primaries--people obviously better than the Southern, racist, sexist, etc., etc. that I am who doesn't deserve to breath the same air as the more "enlightened" ones.

I happen to like Chomsky too, so I'll leave you with this quotation in the hopes that it illustrates my current frustration:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."-Chomsky.

We're so busy implying that people--people who want equality in every dimension, like myself--are bigots, that maybe we should see that there is no social democratic left in this country among our political candidates--it's militant libertarianism or militant fascism.

-10.00E

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain....


[ Parent ]
well i don't think your racist, homophobic, or misogynistic (4.00 / 1)
i have no way of knowin.

i can also relate to the total lack of empathy that people in 'easier' climates - at least in terms of what they can say or not say - than people in more difficult places - or the assumptions that people makeabout culture on the basis of class or language or region of origin or anything else.  everyone has an answer for how to solve problems in, say, parts of Latin America or through trade, but very few people take the time to look at things in detail.  by labeling the entire south as 'backwards' rather than focusing on the specific problems (some of which are in greater prevalence there - like lack of union density) - it undermines the basic premise of social justice work and is sloppy thinking.

this becomes obvious when you consider that new york city, which i'm familiar with, basically witnessed a government and market led displacement of black people, working class people, and others - changing facts on the ground, as it were ;) from the 1970s to today.  but very few talk about it.  instead, we're to understand that what is liberal is new york and what is new york is liberal, which is flat out false (e.g. see john stewart's take on acorn - fair enough to call attention to the failings that were exposed, but not to ANY of the positive contributions that ACORN has made over decades).

anyway, i was mainly pointing to the structural biases, so i'm sorry if i offended - it was not my intent, but i should have been more sensitive.  apologies.

[ Parent ]
It's a shame… (0.00 / 0)
...that an apology was even necessary. Seems to me the suggestion of diversity was a reasonable one. Institutional and structural discrimination are difficult enough to surmount in conservative/mainstream quarters, so when progressive milieus recreate the same structures what recourse do non-white, male, LGBT folks have? Of course, progressive work will eventually guarantee these folks a seat at the table, too. Someday. Right? I'm genuinely saddened by this exchange.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
Whoops! (0.00 / 0)
That should read "non-white, non-male, LGBT folks". Glad Amanda Marcotte was namechecked below, in addition to our resident rock-star, Naomi Klein, mentioned above. My apologies.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
don't be saddened (0.00 / 0)
the rightwing spent 30 years trying to keep us apart - there will be more than a few conversations where gaps need to be bridged.  the apology was in recongition that these gaps exist and that the style of communication i employed might have worsened it rather than made it better - and am attempt to redress that.  

or in other worsd, it's not to do with the content of the suggestion but to acknowledge that we're all human beings and need to treat each other as such if we want people in power to do the same.

:)

peace.

[ Parent ]
Jeeze Louise! (4.00 / 1)
No one's calling you a racist.

But as someone who's lived most of his adult life in integrated--often working-class communities--I just have to say it always seems weird to me seeing so much white skin on tv.  And I'm white. Imagine how it feels to others.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I would add to the list then: (4.00 / 3)
Amanda Marcotte
Pam Spaulding
John Aravosis
Oliver Willis

You're right -- one of the beauties of the netroots is that it allows us to hear a much richer selection of voices than we ever do in the corporate media. It would be good if that could be amplified.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
yes but will they be added to the list? (4.00 / 1)
much less make their way on to the show? :)

and what about the others who are for a variety of circumstances left completely off the spectrum but do make it onto fora like amy goodman's or pacifica shows.  

there is, as with politics, a balance to be struck, only so far one can go in a particular time frame, but my point was mainly that there is an overall lack of attention to media justice issues of all sorts today.  there is not a focused effort, let alone a strategy, that i know of - or even attention to the problem - not even sufficient attention within the netroots themselves.

[ Parent ]
Eh! (4.00 / 4)
NBC has lots of affiliates with studios scattered around the country.  They all do news shows several times a day.

Compared to the fixed costs involved, I really don't see this as a big deal.

In fact, haven't we reached the point where a decent webcam setup could allow a blogger to do it from home?  Just Fed-Ex out a standardized cardboard backdrop & you're good to go!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
My only suggestion: (4.00 / 2)
If someone unaffiliated with the show did the actual footwork for them, and emailed a producer with a daily summary of 'Today's Issues on Progressive Blogs,' thus turning themselves into a labor-saving device for the show, that might make this (or something like it) more possible.

Perhaps even '_Tomorrow's_ Issues on Progressive Blogs,' if one contacted the bloggers first, to ask about plans ...

I'd expand on that . . . . (0.00 / 0)
Maybe make Maddow critique a OpenLeft an on-going project. Support close reading of her topics, posting additional background etc, essentially a seminar.

USA: 1950 to 2010
[ Parent ]
Kagrox AKA David Waldman on a weekly segment. (4.00 / 1)
Did I mention Kagrox (@ 3:16 )?



"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

Fire Tweety once and for all (4.00 / 4)
Put someone like Laura Flanders in charge of an hour show w/ bits of news (or stop everything and handle breaking stories as well as anyone). She would be great for a couple of 20 minute panel segments or extended interviews a day.

It would bring all of MSNBC's weekday lineup, ratings, and substance, up a substantial notch.

 

Fire Tweety (4.00 / 5)
and replace with David Corn or Sam Seder. And fire David "Dances with Roves" Gregory and give Meet the Press to Rachel.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
AMEN!!!!!! (4.00 / 1)
And then get rid of Chuck Todd, who has gotten tooo big for his right-wing britches.
[ Parent ]
I would love to see and or hear Digby (4.00 / 6)
She should be the modern liberal  commentary person.... toward the end of someone, anyone's show..... Rachel's or KO when has no special comment planned, etc.

Sure would beat the nerdy hollywood gossipy comedic ending to Rachels show.

I would have to resubscribe (4.00 / 2)
to cable if they did something like that!

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Thirty years ago (4.00 / 7)
I saw a show with a physical set-up something like Washington Week in Review, except that the people participating actually had something worthwhile to say. God, what a difference. (To give you an idea, one of them was Tom Hayden, in shirtsleeves, putting paid to years of nonsense and misinformation with just a few bits of history, and a dollop of telling-it-like-it-is.)

I can't remember whether the show was a one time thing, or weekly, or where I saw it. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was probably a local LA thing, possibly on a public interest channel, or maybe one of those occasional far-out experiments by Channel 5 or 9 or 11.

Anyway, given the talent, the smarts, and the knowledge showing up on the intertubes these days, the boob tube could save us a lot of trouble by getting with the program. How about replacing Press the Meat on Sabbath mornings with something a bit more relevant? Imagine Glenn Greenwald, Digby and Matt Taibbi, with Paul or David or Chris,  or John Emerson, or Robert in Monterey or educationaction, or Nancy Bordier, with, say, Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders as special guests.

It's the cumulative effect that makes the difference. If you watch Democracy Now for a month, for example, a very different, and very much richer picture of America emerges. It almost reminds me of hitchhiking in the Sixties, or reading On the Road, both of which were truer images of the nation's promise than David Broder could ever imagine, even after a month of electroshock treatments, and extended acid therapy.

in fairness ... (4.00 / 1)
Rachel Maddow frequently invites Jane Hamsher, David Sirota, and Steve Benen to appear.

Not every blogger is going to find TV to be a suitable medium; writing is very different than swapping sound bites in a three-minute segment.

True, Not Every Blogger Will Do Well On TV (0.00 / 0)
But you don't find talent if you don't go looking for it.

And you don't develop talent if you don't (a) start with promising raw material and (b) work on it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Glenn Greenwald (0.00 / 0)
does well, and sometimes she has him on too.
[ Parent ]
i've only seen segments (4.00 / 1)
but if the show was more focused on analysis by people who know about various issues, less focused on commentary, and did more reporting and investigative journalism, it would be better (sort of like amy goodman's show, but even more, and on television).  the advantage that progressives have, as opposed to conservatives, is that they don't actually have to lie and can highlight realities int eh world - it would be good if someone was able to combine being entertaining, hoenst, and did that work.

also, this goes without saying and doesn't just apply to maddow or the rest of msnbc, but to the whole media: the level and depth of coverage and the approach towards could be improved on migration law reform, all issues that affect 'the global South', and anything else that would run against major media narratives or fill gaps where no one is doing reporting.  For example, there are 280,000 or so people in camps in Sri Lanka right now.  Camps!  This is unconscionable.

Naive (0.00 / 0)
You are assuming that the role of the media in this country is to inform, when it has become transparently obvious that they have become profit centers for their corporate owners, and moreover are constrained not to disturb the bottom line.

See recent revelations of Olbermann having to cool his dispute with O'Reilly because O'Reilly was exposing some uncomfortable truths about GE.

Without being a regular viewer, my impression is that these shows are basically sports shows, covering the on-going Repubican vs Democrat contest.  It would be interesting instead to see Klein and Krugman vs Hamsher and Greenwald on heathcare reform and Rahm's deals with big pharma.  It would be a match-up of policy vs politics, on an issue that has profound impact for society in this country.

As far as international news: try to get the BBC or even CNN International, to see just how pathetic the news media is in this country.

[ Parent ]
i don't livei n the u.s. anymore :) (0.00 / 0)
and i've worked in the media and written media criticism pieces before.  what i was doing was suggesting a direction for improvement and effort, not saying it would be easy :)
[ Parent ]
HOW TO MAKE THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW BETTER (0.00 / 0)
Get a new host, preferably, one who doesn't smirk.
Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford, Cynthia McKinney... (4.00 / 2)
...Matt Gonzalez, Vincent Warren, Gloria La Riva, Margaret Kimberly, Winona LaDuke...etc.
Anna is hot, put her on every day (0.00 / 0)
Sexy, smart, funny.  I want the anna marie cox show.
Honestly (0.00 / 0)
I don't really care to see bloggers on TV.  Some of them are good in person (Sirota, Markos, Andrew Sullivan), but really what they do best is write and investigate specific topics.  

I would suggest a better format would be for Rachel to pick a blogger or an issue each day (or semi-weekly?), give credit to the blogger, then use her resources to investigate and dig deeper into the issue.  For example, she could choose the quiet revolution happening in Iran, based on Andrew Sullivan's great work, then use her credentials to dig deeper into the issues and explore what is really happening in Iran.  It gives credit to Sullivan, it expands awareness of the issue, and ultimately it might uncover new info for Sullivan to work with going forward.  Win/win/win.

Just having a discussion panel with bloggers isn't as good IMHO.  We have enough talking (plus Bill Maher is covering the guest blogger angle pretty well already), what we need is a springboard for deeper, better reporting of the topics.  Or if you prefer, a better synergy between bloggers who uncover information/new ideas and reporters who then take that ball and conduct a fuller, more expensive investigation.

Making the show "better" is relative (0.00 / 0)
This seems like a continuation of the discussion last week on whether or not to allow conservatives on the show.

From a progressive stand point, modifications should be made on with following criteria in mind: audience make-up, the purpose of the show, and the possibilities unique to  the television format, which ideally should not overlap with what is already available.

Audience make-up: the audience is primarily progressive. This group is already likely to be familiar with the main threads of discussion in the blogosphere. I personally find it a waste of time to go over the same material over and over again, especially when Olbermann has touched on the main themes, who has himself drawn the material from progressive blogs. I subscribed to cable for the first time last year to follow the elections and I was surprised to find that Oblermann merely repeated the same basic information already readily available on the Internet at familiar sites. I noticed at the time that Maddow followed the same template. There was hardly any reason to watch either, frankly. A cost/benefit analysis leads to dumping both of these shows as a worthwhile source of knowledge in the long run.

However, what made these formats somewhat palatable, in the case of Maddow, is that she occasionally had interesting guests with divergent points of view. Rather than having the same people I already read on the web, and whose arguments are far more in-depth, persuasive and detailed in written form, I'd rather see Maddow engage with public figures, namely politicians from both sides involved in the legislation process, and have them grilled. At least it's something you don't get on the web, leads to new information, and potentially gets some of these people to say something out of character and memorable.

Even older more traditional types of consumers are accessing their information on the web now. In Maddow's case, given she's addressing progressives for the most part, should offer something that cannot already be easily found on the web.

The purpose of the show:

What is the purpose of the show? I think it's one of three things: therapy for progressives, especially when the Republicans are in power, or when the fangs come out; to rally the troops to action (I mean it took them long enough to get involved in the health care debate);highlighting ongoing debates that have already been beaten to death elsewhere. Can anyone at this site claim to have learned something new watching this show? I continue to believe there is an assumption that shows like Maddow's are addressing a mythical middle-ground viewer that can be persuaded through rational argument. I think the opposite is the case: viewers already very ideologically decided, and there is very little in the show itself that will persuade anyone to adopt a different point of view, especially given Maddow is openly liberal. It's mostly entertainment, but with potential openings into novel areas if the platform is used to bring in unconventional guests, or guests with divergent point of views. The latter point is important because it is often in seeing a clash of point of views that the weaknesses of the opposing argument become visible (for viewers not already decided, if any).  

Television format: already covered, not to mention bloggers are a geeky lot, ex, Kos.

In other words, I don't think bringing in more bloggers will make the show necessarily better. I suppose for people who only watch television, and only watch that show, it could might be better, but for the new generation of viewers -- people like us, who the show is explicitly addressing--it will just be redundant, since we get our information from multiple sources.


[ Parent ]
The Rachel Maddow Show (0.00 / 0)
Just in case you hadn't notice, it's called the Rachel Maddow Show not the Paul Rosenberg Show.  When you get your show you can make all the changes/adjustments you like.
Making Maddow's Show Better | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox