"how exciting is it really if she is just preaching to the choir?"

Amen (so to speak). The reason that many of us here keep coming back to tnr.com is that, as Marty once said, "TNR is not a church bulletin. You want that, there are plenty of them around-- The Nation, National Review...."

Obviously, the money men and the suits at General Electric have run their numbers and determined that the best way to halt Old Media's slide into bankruptcy is to get bloggy: pick a side and attack OtherSide, relentlessly, obnoxiously, unfailingly, and with as much Stewart-ish smirks 'n' sneers as possible. It's worked for Fox's ratings and now it's working for MSNBC's ratings.

Improving the national debate? Screw that. Improving the signal-to-noise ratio? That's for losers.

Ratings are all ye know on earth. Ratings are truth, and truth ratings.

After all the problems MSNBC has had with charges of sexism, it was easy to see this coming (and long overdue). Maddow is smart, and I have a detected a little more balance in her commentary compared to even a year ago or so.  However, I agree with Sacha that the media seems to be perpetuating the red/blue split even as many voters growing weary of it.  While it might help ratings during an election cycle, what happens when fatigue sets in and when viewers might want more substance and little less sizzle?  How many drama queens can we stomach, churning out the latest breaking news that Cindy McCain sprained her arm, or Obama's cousin has 6 toes on his foot?

Pfft. I think those of you who are commenting without watching her in action are being pretty unfair to Rachel Maddow.

She's got far more substance than anything the lemmings at CNN have produced. I mean, would wolf blitzer or anderson cooper have been a better choice? And isn't Joe Scarborough a fixture on MSNBC? Isn't Pat Buchanan?

Sure, she's got a point of view. But she's honest about it, and informed about it, and is consistently one of the most respectful voices in the various "debate" format things that happens. She's far smarter and fairer than most of her colleagues at MSNBC or Fox or any of the supposed "straight news" approaches.

If it's not possible to make money on television (or print, for that matter) with high quality, nonpartisan, non-screamer intelligent analysis, then maybe the Google Boys should consider atoning for the damage their magic algorithms have wrought by subsidizing, Paley-style, a 21st c Tiffany network that will offer intelligent people a compelling network alternative to the slime and stupidity of the O'ReillyOlbermanns.

I don't mean McNeill-Lehrer, I mean round-the-clock, CNN-style lavishly funded original reporting, with news bureaus around the world. A vastly improved version of the BBC.

GOOG destroyed quality media. Maybe GOOG should fund its restoration. Or else DOJ could start looking into that unbelievably opaque, rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose marketplace that is AdWords...

" . . . and with as much Stewart-ish smirks 'n' sneers as possible"

tep, Stewart and Colbert are the satirical take on the phenomenon you're describing, not the the thing itself.  Stewart himself, indeed, attacked exactly that fraudulent and destructive "debate" broadcasting style in a well-known incident.

I understand your broader point, Tep, but you've picked an odd target for your ire.

On your checklist the only thing that applies to Maddow is partisan.

She is NOT a screamer, she's intelligent, and her analysis is pretty good quality. She's usually willing to make declarations against the interest of her position.

And for a very liberal commentator to log as many hours with Pat Buchanan and be unflapped, well, I again think you're being unfair, particularly if you haven't seen her in action.

What Tep said.

This may be a winner for MSNBC, but it's a loser for objective cable journalism. And it does nothing but confirm the McCain campaign's recent complaints that NBC News is in the tank for Obama. I'm all for a little partisanship now and again, but a steady diet of it only makes you fat and lazy.

mice - fair enough, maybe she's an improvement on the sportscaster and Pugilistic Pat, but her appointment is another sign that the networks and other big media we will only get more partisanship, not less, from here on out.

I think that's a big loss to the nation. We need less noise, and more signal. Less bloviation and more serious, vetted, carefully edited firsthand reporting. _Especially_ re foreign events and issues, where both side's bloviators reveal their cluelessness and try, in best American fsahion, to shoehorn everything into their parochial, amero-centric frames.

Eh, I don't watch any of these programs because of the Blowhardness Factor (formerly known as the O'Reilly Factor, but we must be fair to Olbermann).

But does this mean Dan Abrams is off the air? Woo hoo! I've been wondering for a long time why MSNBC was employing the feminine version of Nancy Grace, let along giving him an hour of primetime.

I haven't listened to Ms. Maddow on the radio, but having seen her step in for Olbermann, I would say that, partisan though she may be, she is more polite and mature than he is.  By many, many miles.  That's not exactly difficult, mind you.

Speaking of a way to improve the cable-news landscape, how about MSNBC reviving the old MONITOR format on the weekends?  Hire a bunch of interesting hosts, do lots of international feeds, maybe throw in some live music.  It's got to be better than the 900th re-run of "Predator Raw" of "Lock Up."

We're living in an age of conservative wreckage, and you're worried about too many liberals on tv.

How many times have I recommended The News Hour to friends who complain about the media only to have them tell me they don't have time for it.  BS.  People are idiots, and blaming bias in the media is a lazy way to excuse one-self from intellectual rigor.

Rachel Maddow may be progressive but in the binary world of cable news she is far less predictable than most on either the left or right.  She will appear opposite Sean but it isn't guaranteed those who do not grovel at his feel can be considered part of her choir.

Not Conservative doesn't mean one accepts or preaches a predictable line. She may not be an iconoclast, then again she pissed off plenty of people who expected a knee-jerk and didn't get it.  Maybe this season makes it too easy to assume there are only two sides to anything? Though Maddow will lean to one side in this contest, people will be surprised when they see she subscribes to a more complicated interpretation of the world. Plus, we can suffer when commentators fear being identified with "the other side", unless on believes truth is never on one side or only on neither. I think of her as biased against and that leaves a wide swath of territory that is often not left or right.

Exciting? I doubt it. And if that was the goal of MSNBC she'll disappoint. I hope she does well and she should, but she's no flip-side of Coulter...

Sacha wrote, "By all means we should have progressive and conservative commentators and analysts." I disagree.

I can live without progressive and conservative commentators. In fact, I do live without them, at least on TV, which I no longer possess and don't miss.

I didn't get rid of my TV because I'm an elitist. I got rid of it because, in part, it was impairing my ability to act as a responsible citizen. Because I'm a slow learner I prefer to read. To really understand something I have to go back over a paragraph a couple of times. I consider myself to be reasonably well informed on just a few issues, poorly informed on most, and almost completely ignorant on many others. Why would I want to reduce the already brief time I have to accumulate the real, valuable knowledge I lack but need by watching TV?

It's amazing what I learn when I read. Last night, for example, I learned from my AARP magazine that more than half of those who voted in the 2006 elections were over the age of 50. That got me to thinking: like many American voters, I remember where I was when the Berlin Wall came down. I remember when abortions were illegal and LSD was legal. When forcing someone to wear a seat belt, let alone smoke outside, was unthinkable. When the cheap grade of Sunoco was $.29/gallon and suburbs were a good thing, somewhere to be proud you lived, to buy a home you could leave to your kids.

Is it so surprising that so many Americans will vote for John McCain? He is so much older than the average TV talking head, but so not much older than the average American voter. And yet many are shocked that his campaign is so competitive. Many of those who are shocked no doubt do not remember where they were when the Berlin Wall came down.

All these thoughts went through my head after I read the sentence in the AARP magazine and then put the magazine face down on my chest and sat there for a moment and thought about what I had just read. There were no images or noises, no continuous flow of largely irrelevant information, to distract me from THINKING.

And of course there's also the issue of civility, which Tep touched on. This morning I saw a great bumper sticker: "Wag More, Bark Less."  Political commentary on TV is mostly all bark and no wag, in my view.

I'd be inclined to agree with tep, except that the flip side to his complaint is the bogus-objective reporting of the "on the one hand, on the other hand" school that used to dominate so many new programs.  You know, the "balance" doctrine that insists that, if you have someone who insists the earth is round, then you must have a flat-earther to offer a different "perspective," etc.

In the case of television news, I don't really know the solution for this except for precisely what has happened: having left and right wing cable news outlets.  Since television is almost by definition for those with short attention spans, you are never going to get the cable equivalent of the New York Times, or a sort of PBS 24 hour news channel.  After all, both Fox and MSNBC are coming into your living room via the same box, and you have the remote.  Maybe the competition will actually improve the quality of reporting--look what happened to "Crossfire."

Uh, let us stop the handwringing. She is awesome, and as others pointed out, she is realy substantive. Seriously, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

When Maddow first starting showing up on Olbermann several years ago as a guest, she was pretty shrill and strident, but she has really evolved into a top notch commentator.  I hoped she would replace Matthews, but it looks like there will now be 3 talking heads in a row on MSNBC.  Again, probably an overload of political reporting that will come off looking stale and redundant when shown back to back to back.

Ditto on Tep/BHL,etc. -- nothing against Maddow, but great, that many more people whose understanding of the news will be warped (regardless of direction).  

I have to agree that Rachael kicks butt on multiple levels; I guess I'll be adding another series recording to my DVR. Abrams is no loss; I was not impressed by any stretch. I think Maddow makes an excellent counterpoint to Sean "Shillin" Hannity.

Sacha sez: "but I am not so thrilled about this trend toward partisan networks and news"

I have to agree with the sentiment, but I think it is misplaced when talking about Maddow. While she is obviously left of center, in all the hours she spent discussing the Democratic primary and covering for Olbermann on Countdown during this year I have never heard one thing to suggest she is a "partisan".

As for Keith, i think the concern is also misplaced. I'm not gonna say he "never" spins a little or pushes the envelope, but I think probably the only anchor who has done a better job than him in terms of fair-mindedness and avoiding outright partisanship, for any station, is Maddow.

As for redundancy, MSNBC seems to do a decent job of coordinating their talking points so that they aren't sharing talking points or rehashing debates even though they share the headlines. I wouldn't worry too much, although three hours of talking-heads, per se, might be a little much for anyone in the first place.

What Sacha said.

meh...I agree with Tep that cable TV news (the big three are dead, long live the big three) needs more relativeness and smarter commentary. But his one example of the Lehrer News Hour is exactly why we dont' see that kind of real indepth news and commentary on TV these days. It's TOO nuanced for the average person, let alone the partisan pimple heads of the world. It offers no drama! Who wants to watch Gwen Ifill give an in-depth analysis in a calm voice about the state of affairs in Georgia or Afghanistan?  I enjoy the Lehrer News hour and I actually like to listen to it on the radio. The NPRness of it fits that medium so well.

But I'll continue to get my news via NYT online or BBC (cable or www) and a few other vendors of news that don't have that cable TV news flak feel to it. I'd rather read like Mr. Yard than watch TV news. It's vacuousness is unlimited. I do make exceptions for the long running Frontline series, Cobert and Stewart but if I want over-the-top commentary on the social state of America I'll watch South Park. It's smarter and funnier. Other than those exceptions the TV box gets used for Netflix rentals. Flag of Our Fathers tonight folks.

Sacha,

Maddow is not Olbermann.  I think MSNBC made a smart move and I plan to watch her show.

Neil

speed - the world's more ful of drama than you can imagine. My biggest gripe with the bloggerish, partisan pissfest is its extreme parochialism: every sparrow that falls on God/Gaia's green earth is due to the fell hand of the (American) Sharks or the (American) Jets.

There's no space, in this airless room, for evaluating that 99% of consequential events and issues and conflicts and market moves and demographic or political or other issues that have f-all to do with the Great American Kulturkampf. Given that events and policies in Russia Georgia China Iran Germany Japan India Brazil France Iraq Saudi etc are only going to have more, not less, influence on our lives here in the good ol' US of A, I believe that our media should start to make a determined and heavy-duty effort to help us understand that outside world. On its own terms, not through the myopia-inducing blog mentality.

I could be wrong, but I don't see a partisan activist like Maddow as improving this situation. A real journalist with many years of experience abroad, by all means. Anne Applebaum, Bill Keller, Clive Crook, Christopher Caldwell-- sure, bring 'em on. But not someone whose frame of reference is limited to this tiny patch of territory.

Tep...

Agree. My biggest gripe with TV news and national news in particular has always been the paltry coverage and in most cases lack thereof of real international coverage that is longer than the 30 seconds it normally gets in the news. I will say that printed coverage, both newsprint and internet can be more in-depth if one looks for it. My contention is that your average 'Merican doesn't even understand what's going on in the world, let alone even pay attention to it. I've at least tried to maintain a relative understanding of what has gone on in the world outside of the borders of the U.S. whether through historical or current affairs books, international news like the BBC, etc. and thanks to the WWW it's far easier to get that international viewpoint and news about things that affect the US directly and indirectly.

I can't even remember the last time I watched either the big three or cable news for any semblance of news. Domestic or otherwise. I've found it to be full of fluff and every piece is covered with a melodramatic narrative to it. I'll thank my Welsh grandmother for getting me hooked on the BBC and NPR at an early age. It's stuck with me and made me appreciate that there's a world out there we're a part of despite the American Exceptionalism protestations to the contrary.

tep -- sometimes when you look at the forest, you can miss the trees.  Your trenchant criticism of the growing tendency towards parochialism in media is undoubtedly right, but to lay this at Rachel Maddow's feet is unfair and unfortunate.  She is one of the best political analysts that I have run across.   Her presence on Olbermann has never failed to lift the level of the conversation.  To criticize her for not being an international expert is like criticizing Jonathan Papelbon (closer for the Red Sox) for not being a good hitter.  To be a valuable resource she doesn't have to be all things to all people, just damn competent at what she does, which she abundantly is.

Here's an analogy you might appreciate: suppose Obama were to pick Joe Biden as his running mate.    I assume you would be thrilled (I certainly would be).  Nevertheless, there would be those who would criticize the choice for not helping him with any of the critical states he must win to be elected.  True but, in balance, a worthwhile trade-off, right?

Giving Maddow her own program (particularly in light of the fellow she's replacing) will similarly be a huge net plus.  Bad forest, good tree.  

What does she add? What is incremental about her commentary?

Thanks to these here innernets I can now access a thousand commentators, pundits, analysts, holders forth etc. Another such voice, reasonable as it may be, adds nothing at the margin. What's extremely hard to find is credible, well-sourced, solid _reporting_ on thousands of that don't pass the Drudge or GoogleNews or blogosphere filters. Is she going to source such stories? Are her filters better or broader?

If not, then what makes her voice more interesting, wittier, better informed etc than, oh, the voice of jhildner wmyard icarus, adaglas, sullydog, ratnerstar boneill micelf moomaw.... ?

Why should I sign up to get TV for the first time in over a decade and then tune in to her? I can get the rest of the gang's pearls for free.

Rachel Maddow is kind of a Doppleganger to Andrew Sullivan more so than to Fox News.  She obviously approaches life from the Lesbian perspective and tries to take a balanced approach.

I can't take her or Olberman.  Screechy and reactive they are just too high & mighty and only criticize.  O'Rielly has a lot of positive pieces and looks at things a lot more independently than most TV Talkers.  

It's funny how all the problems in the Olberman/Air America world are the result of greedy corporation and uncaring Repoublican policies.  Couldn't be Democrats on the take or lazy people.  And Olberman obsesses on O'Rielly.

It will be interesting to see how GE Spins this.  Dan Abrams has a pretty good background and has written for NYT among others.  He is directly employed by NBC.

The Ellen show may be filmed at NBC and Shown on NBC, Warner Bros really produces and distributes it.  Will NBC hire the Lesbian direct?  Groundbreaking news here.  Wonder if we'll hear about that on NBC or Fox.

Olberman already has me switching from NBC news to ABC as a Boycoitt for his stupidity.  I bet a lot more people will follow when Rachel Maddow and her Air America idiocy hits the air.

"boycot for his stupidity ". Thats a little rough. "Will NBC hire the Lesbian direct"? Jesse helms in alive.

fseidle, I really don't care if NBC hires her, and have nothing against Lesbians.  

My point is directed at NBC.  To this point, they have not had a Gay anchor.  Is this really the one they want to be first?

I am really surprised that Andrew Sullivan is not on TV right now.  His background is outstanding and he is well known in the political world.  I remember the minor fuss when he was named to lead TNR 20 years ago.  Either he is not telegenic enough, or the networks are afraid to put a Gay man on air.  I think it's the later.

And Jesse Helms is a great american regardless of what Air America tells you to think.

I see, the channel that not long ago canned their most popular show (Donahue) for fear of seeming too liberal is now the liberal equivalent of Fox News. Good try, but totally inaccurate. Sure, MSNBC has Olbermann, who is liberal, but even he criticizes other liberals, particularly those who are disfavored, such as Hillary Clinton. And the sexist manner in which he trashed Clinton and the sexist segments he loves to feature on his show make him distasteful to many liberals. After that (excluding Maddow), you have nothing. The rest of the channel is filled with "Reagan Democrats," perfect stooges picked by Jack Welsh to pretend to be Democrats while systematically destroying the character of Democrats who do run for office. Exhibits A and B are Chris Matthews and the late Tim Russert. Matthews never saw a male Democrat who was not a phony or a Democratic woman who isn't a bitch (he must hang out with Maureen Dowd). Russert was famous for his tough questioning, but the toughest, most unfair questions were always reserved for Democrats. For example, his meet the press interview of Gore during the 2000 race where Russert flat out lied to make Gore look like a liar. Or how about Dick Cheney's meet the press appearance, during the time when the country wanted answers about Iraq, Russert lobbed softball after softball to Cheney. No, MSNBC is not in danger of becoming too liberal, but then again, neither is TNR.

Frankly I don't see the point of most of this comment.  MSNBC is going to work their apparent formula as long as it pulls in ratings (and presumably cash).  Don't like it?  Don't watch it.  Or start your own network.  But the age where any network of any kind felt the public was "owed" anything in terms of thoughtful comment is long dead and gone, and it ain't ever coming back.  It sucks, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.  

Fox, to its credit, tries to live up to it's "Fair and Balanced" motto.  O'Reilly is a bit disingenuous about his supposed open mind, but he does have a lot of guests representing the other side.  And Hannity, too, for that matter.  Hannity's sidekick, I readily admit, is pretty weak.  But, he is also vociferous on the opposite POV.

MSNBC is pretty much a joke.  With the exception of having Buchanan to counterwieght the heavy trend.  And, Buchanan, for different reasons than the rest, was against the Iraq invasion, though he supports our doing what's necessary to win since we're there.

I dont mind TV channels with a particular view as long as it's clear they have it -- better than the faux pretense of objectivity when that's a euphemism for superficiality (he says, she says).

As for the nation only ever hearing one side of the story, I wouldnt worry too much ... people flip stations a lot, you know. During ads and what not... I'd strongly doubt there's any big share of people who only ever watch one station.

The decay of serious journalism and Rachel Maddow's new show -- Glenn Greenwald

www.salon.com/.../index.html

Mommy, Where Do Wankers Come From? -- Chris Bowers of Openleft

www.openleft.com/showDiary.do