“The Rachel Maddow Show”

When I am watching what at this point can only be loosely called “the news” on television, I suppose there is a part of me that wants to know a little bit about the anchor behind the desk. I don’t need a lot of backstory, just enough to know that the person delivering information holds the minimum qualifications for the job. If ratings are any indication, what sets me apart from millions of viewers across the country is that I have little to no interest in hearing the news read to me from a “personality” who insists upon imposing his or her character into every story. The closest I ever came to finding that watchable was Dan Rather, whose folksy turns of phrase added a little zing to certain stories, but even that was only tolerable in small doses.

Rachel Maddow has no interest in adding just a little zing. She wants to assert her views into my skull with a power drill. If she wants to report a story about how inept Sarah Palin would be as a vice-president, she should do so without feeling the need to add her frankly mundane verbal jabs. She’s not unintelligent, but I also don’t find her intellect (or wit) captivating enough to entice me to watch for any length of time.

The first segment was decent. Actually, it was better than decent, it was terrific. Maddow used a brilliant analogy to frame the economic discussion, and the subsequent interview was insightful. It seemed like a substantive discussion of the current state of the market and the government’s bailout was finally occurring on what is ostensibly a news program. I have to give credit where it is due, and this was a good bit of television.

The second segment started strong, too, and it looked as though this might be a decent series. Then came Pat Buchanan.

I am sorry, but Buchanan burned his pundit-bridge a long time ago. Any show willing to be a mouthpiece for his invective loses a lot of points with me. And Maddow treated him like he was her cantankerous yet lovable relative. You know, “don’t mind grandpa, with his cute old-man farts and his cute little prejudices.” If, and this is a big freakin’ if, you are going to put Buchanan on your show, you sure as sh*t had better take off the kid gloves and treat him like the bastard that he is. Otherwise, you might as well rerun some old Adolf Hitler speeches… at least that scum-sucking maggot had charisma.

The third segment, somewhat stupidly entitled “Ms. Information,” was a bland concept. Maddow reads a headline, then follows it up with a snarky comment. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Segment four was a look at Sarah Palin, featuring an interview with a Republican State Senator from Alaska. I suppose I should appreciate the show, if for no other reason than Republicans are willing to appear on it. But Maddow wasted the interview by talking about the largely irrelevant “Trooper-gate” as well as the role Palin’s husband might play as the husband of a vice-president. Idle speculation about hypotheticals doesn’t interest me.

Segment five, the “Talk Me Down” segment, was one part editorial, one part rant, and one part formulaic interview. Maddow’s view-of-the-night: With four disasters during his term in office, Bush must be the worst president in history. I never would have guessed.

The sixth and final segment was parting fluff. “Just Enough” is, to paraphrase Maddow, the segment where she is given just enough pop-culture news to keep her in the know. Topics included new Rock & Roll Hall of Fame nominees, the start of Oktoberfest, and a woman who claimed to have had an affair with John McCain in 1957.

My summary of Maddow’s show is brief: Don’t watch this show. Watch other shows. Watch better shows. Watch “Countdown” if you want to see this style of program executed more expertly. If you’re looking for something else to watch during Maddow’s timeslot, allow me to suggest the nightly reruns of “Justice League” on Boomerang.