• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why has the Rachel Maddow show have higher ratings than Hannity?

braindrain said:
If nothing else this thread has been great for demonstrating who some of this forums most blind partisan hacks from the left are. When even most of the posters on the left admit how bad Maddow is but you have a few posters singing her praises it says quite a bit about those few.

The only difference between Hannity watchers and Maddow watchers are the side of the fence the live on. Both are nothing more then partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

Hannity lies, Maddow doesnt.
 
nota bene said:
If her attitude is "happy and positive," I'm sure Maddow attracts viewers. I've never watched an entire show, and so all I've seen is her being earnest.

And while earning a doctorate may impress some and being awarded a Rhodes even more, neither of these distinctions necessarily translate into producing a successful political commentary show while being likeable often does.
Click to expand...

I've watched both Maddow and Hannity several times and my opinion is that Maddow is both more credible and more entertaining.
 
braindrain said:
If nothing else this thread has been great for demonstrating who some of this forums most blind partisan hacks from the left are. When even most of the posters on the left admit how bad Maddow is but you have a few posters singing her praises it says quite a bit about those few.

The only difference between Hannity watchers and Maddow watchers are the side of the fence the live on. Both are nothing more then partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

Maddow never lies, with hannity its habitual.
 
Television news programming in this country is a consumer product.
Been saying this since the late 1980's...even posted a couple of columns about it right here on DP, with a few thoughts thrown in by people much smarter than myself.

And as long as it remains a consumer product, instead of a nonprofit public service, which it was closer to back in the old days, you're never going to get objective and impartial presentations to chew on.

No matter how entertaining Rachel Maddow is (or Hannity for that matter) the fact is, we need more substance and less packaging.
 
lurchadams said:
I've watched both Maddow and Hannity several times and my opinion is that Maddow is both more credible and more entertaining.
Click to expand...

And I am sure your very left leaning bias plays no role in you forming that opinion.

They are both horrible and are doing little more then selling you a product.
 
Neither of them are journalists

They are entertainers...

And imo, unwatchable

But then I don’t want people telling me what I should think...kinda like to form my own opinions

I would prefer headline news on both channels, and leave the op-ed to the newspaper guys
 
I don't watch either channel that much, at all really. When I did have cable, just stream stuff now, I generally could watch a whole MSNBC segment v about 30 to 45 seconds of Fox. Why, because MSNBC is generally light and funny where as Fox is all hate all the time. Fox is an angry bunch of broadcasters, that gets old very quick.
 
StuPedaso said:
I don't watch either channel that much, at all really. When I did have cable, just stream stuff now, I generally could watch a whole MSNBC segment v about 30 to 45 seconds of Fox. Why, because MSNBC is generally light and funny where as Fox is all hate all the time. Fox is an angry bunch of broadcasters, that gets old very quick.
Click to expand...

??? Really??? Who are the 'angry broadcasters' on FOX?
 
lurchadams said:
I've watched both Maddow and Hannity several times and my opinion is that Maddow is both more credible and more entertaining.
Click to expand...

I don't watch either, but I'm much more familiar with Hannity. Late at night I sometimes scroll past the rerun of his show but rarely tune in. I'd watch anybody, I suppose, who had a guest whose opinions I really wanted to hear (example: Chris Wallace interview of President Obama). But I've read that Maddow's opening monologue can run for 20 minutes. Not sure my TV attention span could handle this.
 
Maddow's climb in the ratings is symptomatic of the backlash against Trump, aka that has marked special elections and which swept Democrats into office in the elections last November. FOX viewership is about the same this year as last year while MSNBC's ratings, while still behind FOX, have risen by fifty percent. CNN, also no FOX like sycophant for Trump, aka, has seen its ratings grow as well.
 
I don't watch Hannity or Maddow but I understand Maddow was very good on ER although I didn't watch that either .......
th
 
Apples and oranges.

Maddow got a degree in public policy at Stanford, and is a Rhodes Scholar. She got a PhD in politics at Oxford.
Maddow has a good show, it's a benchmark for intelligent, in-depth analysis, top-quality, professional guests, and the ability to explain complex issues with a well constructed narrative. You can tell there is a lot of behind the scenes research specific to the show, lots of excerpts from published material and interviews makes it easier to follow. Especially right now, the most juicy and intriguing stories are all anti-Trump (Trum's defining feature is a he's a deplorable that loves making scandals for "ratings"). You will not find in-depth investigations stories like hers on any other network that I'm aware of. Watch Maddow for a while then watch Anderson Cooper (different formats/shows I know), but it makes him look like an air-head next to her. Obviously a liberal show.

Hannity is college drop-out who made a name for himself by being an asshole on college radio, attacking gays/lesbians, you know his style. Roger Ailes saw that and thought he'd be perfect for Fox. He's a shock-jock on national TV, completely clueless,. He represents some of the worst of the mainstream right-wing conspiracy peddling. The guy coordinates with the Republican party and the president directly on messaging. Many of his guests are hacks, and he treats opposition guests with no respect...it's the perfect type of show for Trump-types. .

That Maddow has better ratings, not sure how important that is other than...yay.

She's obviously spent her life learning about the subject and history of politics and policy, and is commenting largely on politics and policy as her career. Hannity tows the right-wing culture-wars and liberate-hate propaganda. Entirely different people and shows, purpose and life goals.

And that's being generous.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Why does Maddow get all the good press do you think? I dont spend a lot of time at MSNBC but Chris Hayes has the far better show in my opinion. And the few times ive watched Ari Melber, Ive liked him too. Maddow is unwatchable mainly due to her delivery, but nobody talks about these other two hosts. Not sure why that is.
Click to expand...

It's really a matter of personal taste. I actually think Ari would be more popular if he had a later time slot. I do like Chris Hays. Maddow appeals to my partisan nature and my sense of humor. That's why I like her. Can't speak for others of course. What do you think of Steve Kornacki?
 
I like Maddows historical stuff. Whenever she does show and brings up a video or newspaper from the 60's, 70's it makes me after tuning out go look up what she was talking about.
I love Melberg, sometimes I have to look up his rap references but I like him. I also love seeing the old white guys go head to head with rap personas. It's funny in a real world way.
Hannity I've watched a few times here and there but I wanna know what's going on in this presidency, this Congress not in the make believe Hillary presidency. Sometimes I feel like Fox was ready for Hillary to win and had the show written for the whole 4 years of her presidency.
As far as I'm concerned she is a washed up has been and I don't know why anyone still talks about her.
 
bearpoker said:
It's really a matter of personal taste. I actually think Ari would be more popular if he had a later time slot. I do like Chris Hays. Maddow appeals to my partisan nature and my sense of humor. That's why I like her. Can't speak for others of course. What do you think of Steve Kornacki?
Click to expand...

I actually dont mind any of them, except Maddow. She is unwatchable not because of her content but because of her delivery: The constant pauses, rolling of the eyes and smacking of the lips and she talks as if she has an audience of 5 year olds. I flick over to her because I cant stand Hannity, but finding myself turning off the tv entirely after about 30 seconds.
 
bearpoker said:
It's really a matter of personal taste. I actually think Ari would be more popular if he had a later time slot. I do like Chris Hays. Maddow appeals to my partisan nature and my sense of humor. That's why I like her. Can't speak for others of course. What do you think of Steve Kornacki?
Click to expand...

Omg kornacki is hilarious. The night of the Alabama and Pennsylvania special elections was when I knew I would be watching him for future elections.
 
Mach said:
Apples and oranges.

Maddow got a degree in public policy at Stanford, and is a Rhodes Scholar. She got a PhD in politics at Oxford.
Maddow has a good show, it's a benchmark for intelligent, in-depth analysis, top-quality, professional guests, and the ability to explain complex issues with a well constructed narrative. You can tell there is a lot of behind the scenes research specific to the show, lots of excerpts from published material and interviews makes it easier to follow. Especially right now, the most juicy and intriguing stories are all anti-Trump (Trum's defining feature is a he's a deplorable that loves making scandals for "ratings"). You will not find in-depth investigations stories like hers on any other network that I'm aware of. Watch Maddow for a while then watch Anderson Cooper (different formats/shows I know), but it makes him look like an air-head next to her. Obviously a liberal show.

Hannity is college drop-out who made a name for himself by being an asshole on college radio, attacking gays/lesbians, you know his style. Roger Ailes saw that and thought he'd be perfect for Fox. He's a shock-jock on national TV, completely clueless,. He represents some of the worst of the mainstream right-wing conspiracy peddling. The guy coordinates with the Republican party and the president directly on messaging. Many of his guests are hacks, and he treats opposition guests with no respect...it's the perfect type of show for Trump-types. .

That Maddow has better ratings, not sure how important that is other than...yay.

She's obviously spent her life learning about the subject and history of politics and policy, and is commenting largely on politics and policy as her career. Hannity tows the right-wing culture-wars and liberate-hate propaganda. Entirely different people and shows, purpose and life goals.

And that's being generous.
Click to expand...

Indeed. People who try to equate the two as being equally propagandistic are simply either intellectually lazy or can't be bothered to actually watch them both.
 
Fletch said:
I actually dont mind any of them, except Maddow. She is unwatchable not because of her content but because of her delivery: The constant pauses, rolling of the eyes and smacking of the lips and she talks as if she has an audience of 5 year olds. I flick over to her because I cant stand Hannity, but finding myself turning off the tv entirely after about 30 seconds.
Click to expand...
I get that. I felt that way too for a while, even posted as such a few months back that I couldn't take her expressions/delivery. I would just flip back and forth, not able to watch it. At some point, certain segments I got into the substance, and it apparently changed my outlook of her. Now I don't mind it, it's her way of expressing emotion without being an aggressive twit that we see from Hannity, Dobbs, and their guests.

Of all the shows I watch, her show focuses the most on the big-picture, behind-the-scenes analysis of politics. What's going on, more than "what's being said", backed by quoted facts. I think Hannity tries that too, but it's more often than not blatant conspiracy theories, and it's held together with anger and insinuation, and fake shock. He's just like Beck and Rush, etc., it's big money for phony bull-dogging. Her show is definitely biased though, I didn't watch in during Obama so I have no idea how much it changes when the other party is in power.
 
independentusa said:
Rachel Maddow Tops Sean Hannity, Becomes Most-Watched Cable News Host – Variety
For years Fox News has had the highest rated show on cable, first O'reilly and then Hannity. Now all of a sudden the Rachel Maddow show is starting to take over the top spot. I think it is because she always has the facts to back up her talking points. She at least uses sources that a majority of people still believe in even with the attacks against those sources by Trump and the GOP. I also think that the day of right wing conspiracy theory propaganda is coming to an end, now only believed by Trump supporters and the far right wing. People are beginning to turn into a show that they consider will give them what they consider more realistic news. I don't know if what Maddow puts out there is real or not, but at least it doesn't use Brietbart news as a source. So my question to all of you out there is why do you believe that the Maddow show has made such inroads into the cable news audience?
Click to expand...

LOL. Maddow has always been a blowhard nothing. The reason she is doing better now is because the FOX News brand and related blowhards have fallen from grace. In other words, Maddow is really no different at all, it is FOX News which is tumbling.
 
Mach said:
I get that. I felt that way too for a while, even posted as such a few months back that I couldn't take her expressions/delivery. I would just flip back and forth, not able to watch it. At some point, certain segments I got into the substance, and it apparently changed my outlook of her. Now I don't mind it, it's her way of expressing emotion without being an aggressive twit that we see from Hannity, Dobbs, and their guests.

Of all the shows I watch, her show focuses the most on the big-picture, behind-the-scenes analysis of politics. What's going on, more than "what's being said", backed by quoted facts. I think Hannity tries that too, but it's more often than not blatant conspiracy theories, and it's held together with anger and insinuation, and fake shock. He's just like Beck and Rush, etc., it's big money for phony bull-dogging. Her show is definitely biased though, I didn't watch in during Obama so I have no idea how much it changes when the other party is in power.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with most of that. I just dont see myself ever getting to the point of tolerating her delivery. Just as well, though. Its good to turn off the tv at some point and get other things in life accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom