Rachel MADDOW Covering Stewart/Cramer Interview. GOOD FOR HER!

[Hissyspit]

Talking about it now. Ratings up 400% and WH Press Secretary Gibbs discussion today. Says Washington Post today announced it is eliminating its business section.

From Crains New York: "A Comedy Central spokeswoman said Friday that show featuring Mr. Cramer drew 2.3 million total viewers, making it second most-watched episode this year and one of the top 10 most-watched episodes in the program's history."

Kudos to her. :toast:

:toast:

:patriot:

[SalviaBlue]

1. Yea Rachel... you go girl.

[Hissyspit]

2. I think Keith and Rachel agreed she should cover it. That's just my opinion.

Maybe as a compromise with the bosses.

[originalpckelly]

6. Pffftt...

sounds like an excuse.

We'll find out though. There will be some news on the interwebs about how she wasn't supposed to cover it.

[Hissyspit]

9. I have nothing to base that on. I was just trying to imagine the discussions in the offices today.

I'm not being an apologist for him. I just think that's what happened.

[Medusa]

11. They have talks on what to cover and not cover?

So how come they so often talk about the same subjects each night? That's a bullshit, dreamed-up excuse to explain why KO was the ball-less wonder on not covering this story.

[Hissyspit]

13. I have no idea and as I said above, it's not an excuse. I just happen to think that happened.

It's just as possible that Keith didn't think it was worth covering. He occassionally doesn't cover stories DUers thinks he should. More often than not, he does and he's the only one (besides Rachel.)

[Hissyspit]

16. Here's Keith on the issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3781930#3782137

The assumption that we would automatically do a story on a story Jon Stewart did is not a good one.

There is no interaction between his show and mine, and while it's possible that we did some significant segments on any of his previous smackdowns or vivisections (as good as they might have been), I don't remember when that would've been. So it's either not happened, or it hasn't happened in a long time.

Also the premise of corporate no-touch orders to keep what happened "quiet" is silly. That horse (in fact, an entire stable-full) left that barn as soon as the video hit the internet. My understanding is Rachel's doing a little something on this.

There is also - and of course I know this from being on the other end - the element of competitive gamesmanship about this. If there had been anybody of Cramer's heft on Fox Business, subjected to Stewart's hammering, I don't know that ABC, CBS and Fox would've been quite so interested in covering it. Conversely, I recall Stewart doing a lot of hammering of Foxies and it's not like I've turned all of those into 10-minute segments on this show.

and this:

I've been at the Mets game all day (65+ / 0-)

So I'm reading the TVNewser post for the first time.

Frankly, the guy who posted this, the site's Associate Editor, Steve Krakauer ("SteveK"), is well known around the industry as being entirely in Fox's pocket.

His "MSNBC producers have been told" not to mention this, is, frankly, bullshit.

Have a look at his posts on this otherwise successfully neutral site: they are Fox News and Fox Business Channel press release rewrites, and anonymous criticisms from "industry sources" of people at CNN and MSNBC.

The Fox Business stuff is particularly egregious and particularly relevant to this. If a newspaper with a circulation of 500 people runs a feature on somebody on that channel, SteveK summarizes it, posts a picture from it, posts a link to it. I mean, seriously, if there's been any publicity for this channel that has yet to get a measurable audience after a year on the air (that means they're under 15,000 viewers), that hasn't gotten a link on TVNewser courtesy SteveK, it'd be a shocking upset.

Rachel could get the cover of Newsweek and he wouldn't link to it.

So, did Stewart do a good job? Obviously. Did we get ordered not to run it? Nope. Was stirring up rumors about a ban in the interest of a Foxophilic blogger with the credibility of a bush league Drudge? You bet.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/3/13/182441/605/3...

It seems he posts at Dkos sometimes.

[NYCGirl]

12. The news about "MSNBC under orders not to cover" was spread by a Fox guy

according to Keith:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/3/13/182441/605/333#c333

I've been at the Mets game all day (21+ / 0-)e

So I'm reading the TVNewser post for the first time.

Frankly, the guy who posted this, the site's Associate Editor, Steve Krakauer ("SteveK"), is well known around the industry as being entirely in Fox's pocket.

His "MSNBC producers have been told" not to mention this, is, frankly, bullshit.

Have a look at his posts on this otherwise successfully neutral site: they are Fox News and Fox Business Channel press release rewrites, and anonymous criticisms from "industry sources" of people at CNN and MSNBC.

The Fox Business stuff is particularly egregious and particularly relevant to this. If a newspaper with a circulation of 500 people runs a feature on somebody on that channel, SteveK summarizes it, posts a picture from it, posts a link to it. I mean, seriously, if there's been any publicity for this channel that has yet to get a measurable audience after a year on the air (that means they're under 15,000 viewers), that hasn't gotten a link on TVNewser courtesy SteveK, it'd be a shocking upset.

Rachel could get the cover of Newsweek and he wouldn't link to it.

So, did Stewart do a good job? Obviously. Did we get ordered not to run it? Nope. Was stirring up rumors about a ban in the interest of a Foxophilic blogger with the credibility of a bush league Drudge? You bet.

[Hissyspit]

15. Thank you. nt

[lamp_shade]

17. I agree with you. Even when they cover the same story, the always look

at it from different perspectives.

[Janice325]

3. Good for Rachel!!!

On a slightly different topic, did anyone catch Rachel's interview a couple of minutes prior of Adria Richards????

[MadMaddie]

5. The pretty techie lady? Why yes I did!!

[Janice325]

10. Thanks for replying, MadMaddie and valerief.

Ms. Richards was a cutie pie. Kinda reminded me of a younger Alison Stewart. I was glad Rachel brought up old Normie boy and his latest "problem."

[Hissyspit]

14. I had it on, but I don't remember what they were talking about!

[valerief]

7. The techie lady was terrific. nt

[Oilwellian]

4. Finally!

I just posted on your Greenfield thread that I haven't seen anyone talk about Stewart & Cramer. Olbermann was a huge disappointment, and after seeing Rachel's intro, it didn't look like she was going to report it either. I was thinking GE lawyers telling them to clam up. Thanks for the heads up and glad to see Rachel at least make a comment on it. So Washington Post cut their business section, quietly, last night? Verrrrry interrresting. :D

[City Lights]

8. Three cheers for Rachel!

:toast: :bounce: :woohoo:

[nichomachus]

18. 2.3 million viewers plus

all those who watch it in reruns the next day -- TDS runs about five times the day after -- plus the ultrabazillion people who watched the episode on the Intertubes.

Not to mention Jim Cramer who will see it in his sleep every time he has a pepperoni pizza before going to bed.