Rachel Maddow’s Viewership Grows By 31%

[Fred Exley]

"As much as NBC News brass appear to want Joe Scarborough to be the face
of MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is the franchise. She is the star that primetime
is built around. Maddow has scored recent interviews with Democratic
presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin
O’Malley.

Maddow’s ratings grew nearly eight times faster than those of Megyn
Kelly on Fox News, because Maddow does something that Fox News doesn’t.
Rachel Maddow attracts younger viewers. Fox News has struggled for years
to attract younger viewers, and the fact that they barely hung on to
defeat CNN in October suggests that Fox’s reign of ratings dominance
could be weakening.

While Fox is sliding, Maddow has one of the fastest growing programs on
cable news. After spending years being bogged down by poor MSNBC
management, the audience for The Rachel Maddow Show is growing again."


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/27/fox-news-ratings-plunge-rachel-maddows-viewership-grows-31.html

[Socrates]

On 10/28/2015 10:49 AM, Fred Exley wrote:
> "As much as NBC News brass appear to want Joe Scarborough to be the face
> of MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is the franchise. She is the star that primetime
> is built around.

Got past the feeling (barely) that I was watching Mr. Rogers
Neighborhood" for kids age 25-54 and watched the first 20 minutes of
Rachel's show tonight. Turns out Dan Rather may have the last word on
the story that ended his career. A new movie titled "Truth" starring
Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett is apparently going to set the record
straight and CBS (Surprise! Surprise!) ain't coming out looking too good.

The film will center on Rather’s 2004 report on CBS’ “60 Minutes
Wednesday” about a series of memos critical of President George W.
Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service record that had been discovered
in the files of the president’s former commanding officer. The
authenticity of those documents was called into question, which led to
claims that the memos were forgeries.

Rather and CBS initially defended the story — released during the height
of Bush’s re-election campaign — but wound up retracting it 12 days
after the initial broadcast. “If I knew then what I know now, I would
not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly
would not have used the documents in question,” he said.

CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and Rather left CBS News in 2006. In
2007, he sued CBS, Viacom and its top management for making him a
"scapegoat" in the story; the suit was dismissed in 2009 by a New York
state appeals court. Cate Blanchett will portray producer Mary Mapes in
political drama “Truth.”

[Fred Exley]

Movies are hardly the final word on veracity. Far from it. 'JFK', 'The
Alamo', 'The French Connection' are but three examples of how
ludicrously far from factual these historical depictions can get.

Wiki is pretty unbiased, and strives for accuracy:

"The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate,
Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six purported documents critical of
U.S. President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in
1972–73.

Four of these documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes II
broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before
the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had
failed to authenticate the documents.

Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the
documents were blatant forgeries, as have most media sources."

Good enough for me. Rather hoisted himself by his own petard.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

[Socrates]

Especially for those who don't like the taste of crow.

The movie is based on the book "Truth and Duty: The Press, the
President, and the Privilege of Power" a riveting account of how the
public's right to know is being attacked by an unholy alliance among
politicians, news organizations and corporate America, how the National
Guard story came to be and why it fell apart.

100 percent of Muslims 'accept' is as factual. ;)

[Fred Exley]

Last I heard they were still looking for the typewriter that used
Microsoft Word fonts -30 years before they existed :)

[Socrates]

>> 100 percent of Muslims 'accept' it as factual. ;)

> Last I heard they were still looking for the typewriter that used
> Microsoft Word fonts -30 years before they existed :)

Stop now while you're in familiar territory (the past).

[Fred Exley]

Having seen Redford's masterpiece 'Quiz Show' a million times, I have an
inkling "Truth" will be a bit more nuanced than simply making the case
Rather was a "scapegoat". I doubt it even goes there at all. From the
wiki description of the movie itself:

"The controversy about the documents being forgeries first appeared on a
blog, which was then investigated and amplified by various talk radio
hosts, bloggers and numerous mainstream media sources, including The
Washington Post and CBS itself.

They found that certain characteristics of the memos, such as its font
and letter spacing, indicated the memos were created on a computer using
Microsoft Word, and therefore could not have been typed on a typewriter
in the early 1970s.

Subsequently, the person who produced the documents admitted that he'd
lied about their provenance."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_Show_(film)

[Socrates]

On 10/28/2015 9:29 PM, Fred Exley wrote:
> On 10/28/15 10:05 PM, Socrates wrote:
>> On 10/28/2015 8:05 PM, Fred Exley wrote:
>>> On 10/28/15 8:58 PM, Socrates wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/2015 7:31 PM, Fred Exley wrote:

>>>>> Movies are hardly the final word on veracity.

>>>> Especially for those who don't like the taste of crow.
>>>>
>>>> The movie is based on the book "Truth and Duty: The Press, the
>>>> President, and the Privilege of Power" a riveting account of how the
>>>> public's right to know is being attacked by an unholy alliance among
>>>> politicians, news organizations and corporate America, how the National
>>>> Guard story came to be and why it fell apart.
>>>>
>>>> 100 percent of Muslims 'accept' it as factual. ;)

>>> Last I heard they were still looking for the typewriter that used
>>> Microsoft Word fonts -30 years before they existed :)

>> Stop now while you're in familiar territory (the past).

> Having seen Redford's masterpiece 'Quiz Show' a million times, I have an
> inkling "Truth" will be a bit more nuanced than simply making the case
> Rather was a "scapegoat". I doubt it even goes there at all. From the
> wiki description of the movie itself:

A million times? Don't ever put that on a resume.

> "The controversy about the documents being forgeries first appeared on a
> blog, which was then investigated and amplified by various talk radio
> hosts, bloggers and numerous mainstream media sources, including The
> Washington Post and CBS itself.
>
> They found that certain characteristics of the memos, such as its font
> and letter spacing, indicated the memos were created on a computer using
> Microsoft Word, and therefore could not have been typed on a typewriter
> in the early 1970s.
>
> Subsequently, the person who produced the documents admitted that he'd
> lied about their provenance."

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_Show_(film)

Not really interested in "Quiz Show" but thanks for the trip down "he
said, she said" memory lane (again). Most everyone is familiar with the
back and forth history of the story as the various parties pitched it.

If the book: "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the
Privilege of Power" /does/ offer "a riveting account of how the public's

right to know is being attacked by an unholy alliance among politicians,

news organizations and corporate America" it would of course mirror my
perceptions. But like you, I haven't read it and don't intend to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_%282015_film%29

The reviews of the book (who trusts /them/ anymore) go both ways with
the con being the harshest. Best line: "Notice the ill-informed,
illogical and insulting five-star "reviews" that the book has attracted
from left-wing extremists." LOL, you could have written that one
yourself.

We see what we want to see, we hear what we want to hear so for those of
us who think Dumbya is the perfect nickname for a spoiled rich kid 'who
suffers from brain malfunctions resulting from prolonged use of alcohol
and drugs, has problems speaking intelligently, has a low IQ and suffers
delusions of greatness' the story needn't be rehashed. Out of sight out
of mind for Dumbya.

Rachel was all over this with her usual drama. Of course it did occur
to me that it could be more about smearing the competition than
validating Dan Rather's version of events. Nah, she /they/ wouldn't do
that.

[Fred Exley]

Ignorance is bliss. You just 'know' the nuances and theme of the movie,
sight-unseen, because you've heard of the scandal. Your er, 'knowledge'
sounds faith-based to me, just as TedW just 'knows' he's got the real
truth. Investigating for ones' self is a waste of time, eh?

As for "Quiz Show", Robert Redford was nominated for the Academy Award
for Best Director, the Academy Award for Best Picture, the BAFTA Award
for Best Film, the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, the Golden
Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama, and the Directors Guild of
America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film.

But hey, why bother seeing for oneself a film with such high praise?
You already know it all.

[Socrates]

LOL, you now inject teddy??? Who laid claim to knowledge or faith?

> As for "Quiz Show", Robert Redford was nominated for the Academy Award
> for Best Director, the Academy Award for Best Picture, the BAFTA Award
> for Best Film, the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, the Golden
> Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama, and the Directors Guild of
> America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film.
>
> But hey, why bother seeing for oneself a film with such high praise? You
> already know it all.

Aside from having nothing whatsoever to do with what Rachel Maddow was
covering the other night (George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard
service record and the soap opera that developed when reporters tried to
document it), a movie that chronicles the Twenty One quiz show scandals
of the 1950s is of no interest to me, not now not twenty years ago.

Now that we've gone to bum-fuck Egypt and back, go back and read my
original post. It was nothing more than an overview of Maddow's show.
The only judgement or presumption I made was consistent with my oft
stated beliefs about today's corporate media: "CBS (Surprise! Surprise!)
ain't coming out looking too good." HTH

[Fred Exley]

You're an ignoramus of staggering proportion. If I were half the moron
you are I would draw the same conclusion about the movie "Truth". But I
know I don't know a thing about the movie, other than its broad subject
matter. So I look forward to seeing the film. If it's half as good as
Redford's "Quiz Show" it's well worth the time.

>
> Now that we've gone to bum-fuck Egypt and back, go back and read my
> original post. It was nothing more than an overview of Maddow's show.
> The only judgement or presumption I made was consistent with my oft
> stated beliefs about today's corporate media: "CBS (Surprise! Surprise!)
> ain't coming out looking too good." HTH
>
>

The topic of this thread was Maddow's ratings. It had nothing to do
with Rathergate. If you want to post about your delusion that
Rathergate has been discredited, why not post your own, new thread?

Instead, you hijack this thread with your own bullshit, and then exhort
others to go back and read 'your' original post? Fuck your post and
fuck you buddy.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 10/29/2015 3:41 PM, Fred Exley wrote:

> Instead, you hijack this thread with your own bullshit, and then exhort
> others to go back and read 'your' original post? Fuck your post and
> fuck you buddy.
>
>

Speaking of movies, this is a good one:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107050/

[Mark Warner]

You two need to get a room.

--
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Fred Exley]

Just what Socrates and I need -a woman thrown into the mix :)

[Socrates]

On 10/29/2015 12:41 PM, Fred Exley wrote:
> On 10/29/15 11:17 AM, Socrates wrote:

>> Aside from having nothing whatsoever to do with what Rachel Maddow was
>> covering the other night (George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard
>> service record and the soap opera that developed when reporters tried to
>> document it), a movie that chronicles the Twenty One quiz show scandals
>> of the 1950s is of no interest to me, not now not twenty years ago.

> You're an ignoramus of staggering proportion. If I were half the moron
> you are I would draw the same conclusion about the movie "Truth".

LOL, what percentage of ignoramus in relation to me does it require to
carry on a lengthy exchange that gets you to stuttering, stammering and
resorting to name calling. I think you underestimate yourself. You are
well past the "half" moron level.

> But I know I don't know a thing about the movie, other than its broad
> subject matter. So I look forward to seeing the film. If it's half as good
> as Redford's "Quiz Show" it's well worth the time.

Good for you. Try not to think of me while watching, I wouldn't want
you to choke on your popcorn. ;)

>> Now that we've gone to bum-fuck Egypt and back, go back and read my
>> original post. It was nothing more than an overview of Maddow's show.
>> The only judgement or presumption I made was consistent with my oft
>> stated beliefs about today's corporate media: "CBS (Surprise! Surprise!)
>> ain't coming out looking too good." HTH

> The topic of this thread was Maddow's ratings. It had nothing to do with
> Rathergate. If you want to post about your delusion that Rathergate has
> been discredited, why not post your own, new thread?

She had Rather on her show. For most high school grads a discussion
about content would be consistent with a discussion about ratings.

> Instead, you hijack this thread with your own bullshit, and then exhort
> others to go back and read 'your' original post?

Not "others" Fred, just you. (one fish at a time) ;)

> Fuck your post and fuck you buddy.

No offense Fred, but for a guy who champions a rational conception of
objectivity you seem a little irrational and nonobjective. Easier said
than done, eh?

BTW, I stumbled upon a hilarious (and accurate) definition of your
heroine (Ayn Rand) in the Urban Dictionary. I gotta admit, you do
conduct yourself (at least here) as a devoted, uncompromising disciple.

Ayn Rand:
"Mid-20th century pop-philosopher who first propounded objectivism in a
set of rather poorly written cult novels of dubious quality. Her
philosophy is founded on unremarkable restatements of the obvious,
prizing material achievement, self-centered pride, and unfettered
commerce as virtues over love, humility, generosity, and faithfulness."

"Followers of objectivism, called Randroids, tend to be a rude, selfish,
condescending bunch, intolerant of anything that does not perfectly
match their ultra-naturalist, laissez-faire dogmatism."