Has MSNBC's 'The Rachel Maddow Show' Lost It's Luster?
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 9:45PM | Leedog The Rachel Maddow Show has recently seen it's ratings starting to slide in the demographic of viewers
aged 25-54. While peaking in the middle of January at 27%, the show has fallen down near 20% in the past six months. Just recently, Rachel Maddow's show did worse than a re-airing of Lou Dobbs. When you can't beat Lou Dobbs in the ratings, especially a re-run, you might as well pack it in! As for me personally, I'm not a big Rachel Maddow fan. In the past, her show has devoted too much time attacking former President Bush's policies and very little time on issues concerning all Americans. Maybe that's the problem facing her show today, since the last administration is gone, her show has become stale because she has no one to pick on. It's not like she would criticize Barrack Obama and the current admin - istration... that would go against MSNBC/NBC policy. It appears without Bush in the White House, the show has lost it's way and the viewers can now see the truth.... The Rachel Maddow Show is dying a slow death.
Having your show sandwiched between two episodes of Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown... doesn't help your cause either. That's why it doesn't make sense that you portray your style and show themes just like Keith does? It's like your a female clone of Olbermann! Now that's a scary thought! There is one difference between you and Keith though, Olbermann and his producers have the capability to book a well-known guest/pundit to appear on his show. I can't remember the last time Rachel Maddow had a good/well known guest appear on her show? It's been months. I'm thinking that when Rachael or the show's producers ask for high profile guests to make an appearance, the guests must be replying back... "sorry, I'd like to but I'm much too busy to appear." While really thinking to themselves... "I'm not going on that loser show... No Way!" Also, please do your viewers a favor (all 6 of them), and get rid of that last segment on your show called Pop Culture. Not only does it constantly fail at being humorous, but your little side-kick buddy (forgot his name) annoys the CRAP out of me! He's a NOOB!
Well, when Rachel Maddow's show gets cancelled.... and I'm sure it will, she can always get a job as a bartender. The way she's been going around the t.v. circuit promoting her drink mixing skills, has only proven to me that being a bartender is her true calling in life. Bartender Maddow... I'll take a Rum and Coke with a lime slice.... and make it fast!
source: www.therightscoop.com - www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser - nielsen
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (13)
With television over 60 years old, it amazes me that producers still can't understand that boring TV yields low ratings.
Wait.. female version of keith?
I can say that I really used to enjoy Maddow's show. That is, until I saw what seems to be her sole purpose in life, and that is to validate and normalize homosexual and lesbian behavior. She constantly vilified anyone whom might raise the question, is perverted sexual behavior normal for a species?
My comment doesn't mean that I don't like her personally. She is a very intelligent, beautiful, and gifted. I however, believe there is a more noble journey destined for her.
Cable News is down all over, not just The Rachel Maddow Show. Those numbers are comparing her to The Election year numbers. WOw. Any The Rachel Maddow show will not be cancelled any time soon. I would put my money on that........
I agree, her show does seem to be losing it's luster!
Who cares take Madcow off the air!
that dikes show never had luster. what a boring dike g.e. employee
god, i'm the first comment in 3 months? what a boring website this is. this site should team up with maddow
I know she's smart, but she's not able to understand more than her point of view. I simply cannot watch her, with that caustic tone. Who wants to listen to one point of view? and in such a way that tells the world she's so right? Now, are we not a country of people who like to hear the NEWS and maybe even several points of view so we can decide? Not Rachel.
Change the channel now!
The personal loans suppose to be useful for guys, which are willing to organize their own organization. By the way, it's not hard to receive a secured loan.
was dicgusted witn interiew of man from "Fair" - group allegedly involved in drafting Arizona's controversial immigration law. She took the position that pointing out esoteric and brief links that a few people who are or were at one time associated with "Fair" had with organizatinos or publications that at one time did or permitted publication of statements taht she found anti-immigrant or racist tarnished "Fair's" reputation.
Towards this end she did not ask a single question about the organization or its work. Then she cogratulated herself on her brilliant interview. The man from "Fair" was right. She sounded like a brand new attorney who writes all of his questions down before he cross examinations a witness. Meaning what? Hisa questions deal largely wiht subjects that are irrelevent to the trial and go nowhere.
Rachael: So what if someone worked for a magazine (before being associated with "Fair" taht published an article that you believe is racist? So what if someone gave a speaach before teh CCC. Howq many "non-racist" Republican Senators did the same? YHou did not touch the organization. I learne nothing about the organzation. I did learn taht the man from "Fair" was patient and desireous of having a real interivew. I also learned that you were not. YOu wasted my time. You insulted my inteligence. Your slef congratulation at the end for revealing what was really nothing about "Fair" would be comical if it wasn't so sad. I thought better of you.
was dicgusted witn interiew of man from "Fair" - group allegedly involved in drafting Arizona's controversial immigration law. She took the position that pointing out esoteric and brief links that a few people who are or were at one time associated with "Fair" had with organizatinos or publications that at one time did or permitted publication of statements taht she found anti-immigrant or racist tarnished "Fair's" reputation.
Towards this end she did not ask a single question about the organization or its work. Then she cogratulated herself on her brilliant interview. The man from "Fair" was right. She sounded like a brand new attorney who writes all of his questions down before he cross examinations a witness. Meaning what? Hisa questions deal largely wiht subjects that are irrelevent to the trial and go nowhere.
Rachael: So what if someone worked for a magazine (before being associated with "Fair" taht published an article that you believe is racist? So what if someone gave a speaach before teh CCC. Howq many "non-racist" Republican Senators did the same? YHou did not touch the organization. I learne nothing about the organzation. I did learn taht the man from "Fair" was patient and desireous of having a real interivew. I also learned that you were not. YOu wasted my time. You insulted my inteligence. Your slef congratulation at the end for revealing what was really nothing about "Fair" would be comical if it wasn't so sad. I thought better of you.
...