Rachel Maddow loses to Megyn Kelly in ratings. A conservatives viewpoi (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

Kelly - more intelligent, win

Syracuse - BA Political Science, Albany Law School - JD

vs

Stanford - BA Public Policy, Oxford Univ - PhD

He said more intelligent...not more educated Personally, I think you are splitting hairs on the intelligence thing.

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholarship is?

Does it matter? At one point, We all thought we knew what a Nobel Peace Prize was too.

Peace Prize? They'll give that to anyone. They don't give away the good ones. Well, Kary Mullis did win the Chemistry prize. That seemed a little iffy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kelly:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7415993-foxy-megyn-kelly-strips-for-gq-magazine

Megyn Kelly is very attractive, but she's no Brooklyn Decker.

Let's remove all doubt, I realize that's a model shoot etc but that's damned fantastic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Maddow report on the McAfee millionaire doing expert consulting for the Congressional GOP and appearing on Fox about what's wrong with the 0bamacare software is pretty funny.

 

[joffer]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

She often treats her audience like children and takes 20 minutes to make a fairly obvious point.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

 

[the moops]

Kelly - more intelligent, win

Syracuse - BA Political Science, Albany Law School - JD

vs

Stanford - BA Public Policy, Oxford Univ - PhD

He said more intelligent...not more educated Personally, I think you are splitting hairs on the intelligence thing.

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholarship is?

Bobby Jindal was one.

So was Pat Haden.

And?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

I remember Booker when he was running for mayor in Newark, he was up against one of the worst machines in the country from what I recall, a repeat mayor who goty reelected like 5 times and just ran Newark into the ground. And people just kept voting for him. Booker stood up to him, lost, then won. I was a big fan and hoped that someone like that could be mayor of New Orleans. Still hoping for that.

I sense a bit of a split from Obama though, I think this is a guy who might maybe really could or would work on both sides of the aisle, we'll see.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kelly - more intelligent, win

Syracuse - BA Political Science, Albany Law School - JD

vs

Stanford - BA Public Policy, Oxford Univ - PhD

He said more intelligent...not more educated Personally, I think you are splitting hairs on the intelligence thing.

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholarship is?

Bobby Jindal was one.

So was Pat Haden.

And?

And well at least one of those guys is not considered genius level.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

How many other POTUS candidates have "rescued someone from a burning building" on their resume?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

She often treats her audience like children and takes 20 minutes to make a fairly obvious point.

That could describe Maddow too, and she has a long windup, reminds me of Paul Harvey sometimes.

 

[Joe T]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

How many other POTUS candidates have "rescued someone from a burning building" on their resume?

6.5?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

She often treats her audience like children and takes 20 minutes to make a fairly obvious point.

That could describe Maddow too, and she has a long windup, reminds me of Paul Harvey sometimes.

That's who I was talking about.

 

[DrJ]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

How many other POTUS candidates have "rescued someone from a burning building" on their resume?

Mitt Romney helped someone find their lost kid...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

She often treats her audience like children and takes 20 minutes to make a fairly obvious point.

That could describe Maddow too, and she has a long windup, reminds me of Paul Harvey sometimes.

That's who I was talking about.

ooops.

 

[fatness]

By the way, I don't think that Rachel Maddow is an ugly woman. She's not pretty in the way that Kelly is, but she's not ugly either. Some of you guys are pretty rude.

Pretty boy Maddow.

You're trying too hard, too often.

A decent looking women is always going to grab more ratings than an ugly guy.

Surprised this hasn't received more hate, libs usually flip out when I suggest Maddow might not be a woman.

I only tune in to either of these stations in once every couple of years to watch these people foam at the mouth on election night. It's especially good on weed. That Maddow dude is the only thing I've ever seen that's close to as angry as Nancy Grace.

I'm not even aware of her sexuality. She just looks manish.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

By the way, I don't think that Rachel Maddow is an ugly woman. She's not pretty in the way that Kelly is, but she's not ugly either. Some of you guys are pretty rude.

Pretty boy Maddow.

You're trying too hard, too often.

Conservatives absolutely love to do this with anyone and everyone, and particularly women. Go check a conservative forum, you cant miss it.

 

[humpback]

Maddow interviewing Booker just now. Two Rhodes Scholars engaging in discussion is pretty good TV.. at least for me. Booker has everything he needs to become President. There's absolutely nothing stopping this guy.

Meh, wouldn't be "historic".

 

[drummer]

I'm very similar, I've been much happier turning it all off. I've seen both though of course and Kelly does seem more journalistic, fact based (or trying to be) and real world. Maddow is ivory tower stuff and she has the problem that everyone on msnbc has which is basically they're fed info from the producers which they all utter across all their shows that day (even the substitutes) and then they invite in like minded liberals to smack high fives. Worse than uninformative, it's boring.

Something we agree on actually...singling out MSNBC on this is Fox has plenty of this garbage as well.

I just want to clarify my point since I'm in the quote up there:

If Maddow had a show where she was a newscaster for 2 hours of her show, reporting on normal everyday happenings, while having guests on every so often, her credibility would be up there with Kelly. I'm not really comparing the two. In fact, I'm pretty much saying I think it's hard to compare the two because they seem to have different jobs. Just wanted to get that out there.

You are assuming they both do not have input into what goes into their show. I think Kelly choses to have a more credible show while Maddow wants to be an activist.

 

[drummer]

By the way, I don't think that Rachel Maddow is an ugly woman. She's not pretty in the way that Kelly is, but she's not ugly either. Some of you guys are pretty rude.

Pretty boy Maddow.

You're trying too hard, too often.

A decent looking women is always going to grab more ratings than an ugly guy.

Surprised this hasn't received more hate, libs usually flip out when I suggest Maddow might not be a woman.

I only tune in to either of these stations in once every couple of years to watch these people foam at the mouth on election night. It's especially good on weed. That Maddow dude is the only thing I've ever seen that's close to as angry as Nancy Grace.

I'm not even aware of her sexuality. She just looks manish.

DrJ is just mad she has a better closet than he does.

 

[nobiz]

Booker is a black, gay Clinton-wannabe. I don't think it will sell natiionally.

 

[The Commish]

Kelly - more intelligent, win

Syracuse - BA Political Science, Albany Law School - JD

vs

Stanford - BA Public Policy, Oxford Univ - PhD

He said more intelligent...not more educated Personally, I think you are splitting hairs on the intelligence thing.

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholarship is?

The scholarship supported by the Rhodes Trust? Yes. You?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Does Megyn Kelly have to wear mini skirts or is it a choice? I notice a lot of leg oops on Fox throughout the day. Not complaining it is a definite draw.

 

[Apes with Guns]

By the way, I don't think that Rachel Maddow is an ugly woman. She's not pretty in the way that Kelly is, but she's not ugly either.

Agreed. Maddow is butch but not ugly. She was actually quite bangable pre-butch.

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/when-they-were-young/rachel-maddow.jpg

Suzy Kolber?

 

[squistion]

Kelly - more intelligent, win

Syracuse - BA Political Science, Albany Law School - JD

vs

Stanford - BA Public Policy, Oxford Univ - PhD

He said more intelligent...not more educated Personally, I think you are splitting hairs on the intelligence thing.

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholarship is?

Bobby Jindal was one.

So was Pat Haden.

And?

And well at least one of those guys is not considered genius level.

Yes...poor Bobby.

 

[jon_mx]

By the way, I don't think that Rachel Maddow is an ugly woman. She's not pretty in the way that Kelly is, but she's not ugly either. Some of you guys are pretty rude.

She would have made a lovely Harry Potter.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I DVRed the Monday show and watched it, and I thought it was pretty good.

It was about how terrible Obamacare is. For the most part, it stuck to legitimate criticisms of it instead of made-up, wacko, extremist criticisms. For example, one segment was about Obama's false representation that people would be able to keep their insurance policy and their doctor if they liked them. As it turns out, many people can't keep their insurance policies because they don't meet the minimum standards. To stay with the same insurer, they have to get a more expensive plan. They can get a better deal by using the exchanges, but then they don't necessarily get to keep their same doctor. Megyn had a lefty guest on who was defending the policy (paraphrased: "some insurance policies are so crummy as to be exploitative of the consumer, and those are the ones that are no longer available"), but she drilled him on the fact that Obama's representations were false.

There were some promos leading up to another segment hinting that Democrats actually want Obamacare to fail, and wait till you hear why!! (It's because they want single-payer instead!!). The promos consisted of made-up, wacko, extremist stuff, but in the actual segment itself, there was a lefty guest and a righty guest, and Megyn agreed with the lefty guest that the conspiracy theory about Democrats wanting Obamacare to fail is stupid. (There's a better chance of getting single payer if Obamacare succeeds, Megyn agreed. "We went part of the way and it worked great, so let's go all the way" is a lot more persuasive than "we went part of the way and it failed, so let's go all the way.")

The one exception where I thought Megyn bought into some pretty stupid analysis was on the number of people who've signed up so far. They ran a good, The Daily Show-style montage of a bunch of White House representatives saying that they have no idea how many people have actually signed up. Then they had some estimated numbers from an independent agency saying that their best guess was that 129,000 people had signed up so far (or something like that). Megyn pointed out that they need about 7 million people to sign up by March for the program to work financially, but at the current rate, only about 1 million people will have signed up by March. This is a fairly stupid extrapolation, IMO. There's no good reason to assume that the sign-up rate will remain constant. People procrastinate, and besides, the website isn't working very well right now. The sign-up rate should increase over time, so an extrapolation from the recent past rate is kind of pointless. (Nonetheless, the danger that not enough young, healthy people will sign up is a legitimate concern.)

Overall, I thought Megyn did a good job of not being stupid. She didn't give her guests a free pass on being stupid, either, whether they were righty guests or lefty guests. She also did a good job of managing her guests, not letting them interrupt each other, etc.

 

[tommyGunZ]

more importantly MT, what was she wearing?

 

[The Commish]

I DVRed the Monday show and watched it, and I thought it was pretty good.

It was about how terrible Obamacare is. For the most part, it stuck to legitimate criticisms of it instead of made-up, wacko, extremist criticisms. For example, one segment was about Obama's false representation that people would be able to keep their insurance policy and their doctor if they liked them. As it turns out, many people can't keep their insurance policies because they don't meet the minimum standards. To stay with the same insurer, they have to get a more expensive plan. They can get a better deal by using the exchanges, but then they don't necessarily get to keep their same doctor. Megyn had a lefty guest on who was defending the policy (paraphrased: "some insurance policies are so crummy as to be exploitative of the consumer, and those are the ones that are no longer available"), but she drilled him on the fact that Obama's representations were false.

There were some promos leading up to another segment hinting that Democrats actually want Obamacare to fail, and wait till you hear why!! (It's because they want single-payer instead!!). The promos consisted of made-up, wacko, extremist stuff, but in the actual segment itself, there was a lefty guest and a righty guest, and Megyn agreed with the lefty guest that the conspiracy theory about Democrats wanting Obamacare to fail is stupid. (There's a better chance of getting single payer if Obamacare succeeds, Megyn agreed. "We went part of the way and it worked great, so let's go all the way" is a lot more persuasive than "we went part of the way and it failed, so let's go all the way.")

The one exception where I thought Megyn bought into some pretty stupid analysis was on the number of people who've signed up so far. They ran a good, The Daily Show-style montage of a bunch of White House representatives saying that they have no idea how many people have actually signed up. Then they had some estimated numbers from an independent agency saying that their best guess was that 129,000 people had signed up so far (or something like that). Megyn pointed out that they need about 7 million people to sign up by March for the program to work financially, but at the current rate, only about 1 million people will have signed up by March. This is a fairly stupid extrapolation, IMO. There's no good reason to assume that the sign-up rate will remain constant. People procrastinate, and besides, the website isn't working very well right now. The sign-up rate should increase over time, so an extrapolation from the recent past rate is kind of pointless. (Nonetheless, the danger that not enough young, healthy people will sign up is a legitimate concern.)

Overall, I thought Megyn did a good job of not being stupid. She didn't give her guests a free pass on being stupid, either, whether they were righty guests or lefty guests. She also did a good job of managing her guests, not letting them interrupt each other, etc.

Actually watched her show for the first time ever on Monday as well. Is it relatively new? Anyway, I generally agree here with what you say sans the "sign up" part and the extrapolation. The system is what it is. She based her numbers on current conditions and I have no problem with that. There's no guarantee that things are going to drastically improve so her "as of right now, in it's current state" numbers were fine with me. It sheds light on the monumental fail of the rollout. You know it's pretty bad when John Stewart takes time from his GOP bashing to destroy this mockery of a rollout. Sad thing is, this company that is the main writer of this thing is bearing the brunt of the issues. It SHOULD get better, but there's no guarantee it WILL get significantly better.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I DVRed the Monday show and watched it, and I thought it was pretty good.

It was about how terrible Obamacare is.

I kind of figured each show would have its own theme. But I just skimmed through a lot of Tuesday's episode and then watched the introduction to Wednesday's episode, and they were pretty much the same shows done over again -- all Obamacare, all the time -- but with different guests, and with Megyn dressed in different outfits.

Before tommyGunZ asks, she has been very well dressed and very well made up in each episode. Her hair looked great, too. Fox News has a darn good hair, wardrobe, and makeup department, apparently.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I DVRed the Monday show and watched it, and I thought it was pretty good.

It was about how terrible Obamacare is.

I kind of figured each show would have its own theme. But I just skimmed through a lot of Tuesday's episode and then watched the introduction to Wednesday's episode, and they were pretty much the same shows done over again -- all Obamacare, all the time -- but with different guests, and with Megyn dressed in different outfits.

Before tommyGunZ asks, she has been very well dressed and very well made up in each episode. Her hair looked great, too. Fox News has a darn good hair, wardrobe, and makeup department, apparently.

Not sticking up for anyone, but I would think Obamacare is pretty much the topic on every political talk show now. Hard to ignore what's going on right now. Unless you mean something other than the website failure. In which case, I'll see myself out.

 

[Joe T]

can we get some more pics plz. TIA

 

[Da Guru]

Trying to watch her now and just can't stand it.

After reading this thread I did try to watch Maddow just to see. After 5 minutes I wanted to turn the show off but gutted it out another 10 before I had to shut it down. Totally unwatchable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The MSNBC ratings keep getting worseJust when you thought things couldn't get any worse for MSNBC, along came the quarterly ratings reports.

In both daytime and prime time, MSNBC endured its lowest quarterly demo numbers in a decade, and its total viewership since the final quarter of 2007. Prime-time viewership was down 45 percent in the demo from the first quarter of 2014, while daytime viewership was down 39 percent in the demo.

On Tuesday, while Fox News and CNN were boasting their own quarterly numbers -- Fox News remained dominant, CNN made major strides in the demo -- MSNBC chose to focus on the month of March instead, where it boasted gains in prime time and a victory for "Morning Joe" over CNN's "New Day."

But things are still looking grim for MSNBC: Between the hours of 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Monday, for instance, more people were watching Al Jazeera America than MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Roberts and "The Cycle."

As we reported in mid-March, MSNBC is now planning a major reorganization of its lineup to stem the ratings losses. In the months ahead, high-level sources at NBCUniversal told us, the network is likely to shake up the bulk of its programming, moving some shows and canceling others.

You can read my full report on MSNBC's ratings woes, on the coming changes, here.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/the-msnbc-ratings-keep-getting-worse-204812.html

As ratings plunge, MSNBC faces shakeup Insiders say to expect more news, less bombast, and fresh voices.

It would be hard to imagine a news event better tailored to MSNBC’s Venn diagram of “lean forward” liberals and “place for politics” political junkies. Yet when Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ presumptive 2016 presidential nominee, held a news conference about her private email use last week — a media frenzy that functioned, albeit inadvertently, as the informal launch to her highly anticipated campaign — less than 13 percent of the total cable news audience was tuned to the network.

The low turnout wasn’t a fluke: Year-to-date, MSNBC’s daytime viewership is down 21 percent overall and 41 percent in the coveted 25-to-54-year-old demographic, putting it in fourth place behind Fox News, CNN and CNN’s sister network HLN. Its prime-time ratings are down 24 percent and 42 percent, respectively. In both daytime and prime time, MSNBC is bringing in its smallest share of the demo since 2005, the year before Keith Olbermann’s scorched-earth admonitions of the Bush administration ushered in the current era of Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton.


In a memo to staff in December, MSNBC President Phil Griffin conceded that the network is suffering: “It’s no secret that 2014 was a difficult year for the entire cable news industry and especially for MSNBC,” he wrote. But change was coming, Griffin promised, with “more announcements in the New Year.”

The extent of that change could be vast: In the months ahead, MSNBC is likely to shake up the bulk of its programming, moving some shows and canceling others, high-level sources at NBCUniversal told POLITICO. With a few exceptions — notably “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Morning Joe” — every program is at risk of being moved or canceled, those sources said. “All In with Chris Hayes,” a ratings suck that currently occupies the 8 p.m. time slot, will almost certainly be replaced. Network execs are also considering moving some weekday shows, like “Politics Nation with Al Sharpton,” to weekends.

“The plan is to re-imagine what the channel is,” one high-level NBCUniversal insider with knowledge of the network’s plans said, “because the current lineup is a death wish.”


The changes, which Griffin has already set in motion with the cancellation of the little-watched daytime shows “Ronan Farrow” and “Reid Report,” are likely to be hastened by the arrival of new NBC News Group Chairman Andrew Lack, who will serve as Griffin’s boss.

Lack, a former NBC News president, is likely to rein in MSNBC’s ever-leftward drift and focus instead on creating more news-driven programming, with more involvement from NBC News talent. This could become a radical change of course for MSNBC, where partisan, opinion-based programming has come to dominate the vast majority of the network’s lineup in both daytime and prime time. Lack is likely to keep Griffin at MSNBC’s helm, network sources said, because his seven years as president make him best-suited to implement the changes.

Griffin and Lack declined to be interviewed for this article. Rachel Racusen, a former Obama administration spokeswoman who now serves as the network’s vice president of communications, denied that the network is considering plans to move or cancel Hayes and Sharpton: “Contrary to rumors that have already been reported on, there are no plans to move either Rev. Sharpton’s or Chris Hayes’ shows,” she told POLITICO.

For many media watchers, Griffin’s decision to pull the shows of Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid — both have become “correspondents,” in one form or another — seemed to reflect an acknowledgement that opinion-based programming wasn’t working in daytime. (Griffin replaced the shows with a two-hour segment of “MSNBC Live,” which is more news-focused and less overtly ideological.) By the same token, MSNBC’s defenders will often argue that the network’s woes are due to Americans’ waning interest in politics and liberals’ disenchantment with President Barack Obama. This argument usually ignores Fox News’ sustained success — it is and has long been the No. 1 cable news channel, through administrations Republican and Democratic.


In fact, MSNBC’s problems run deeper than the news-opinion divide, several industry insiders said. The network’s programming has grown stale, they say, while its principal rival, CNN, has been ascendant. Much of the younger talent consists of entertainers with no reportorial chops who can be hard to take seriously. Veteran hosts seem to have grown tired of trumpeting liberal outrage night after night, these critics say, and have become caricatures of themselves. The calculus for Griffin and Lack, then, is not just about balancing news and ideology. It’s about creating compelling programming.

“MSNBC got boring,” one former NBCUniversal executive said. “You’ll hear a lot of people talking about it being too far left, too political — all that matters is that it’s entertaining.”


The MSNBC of today is a radically different animal than the one Lack helped create as president of the news division in 1996. At the time, Lack and his colleagues envisioned the network as a smarter version of CNN, with straightforward news programming and analysis from across the political spectrum. MSNBC would effectively function as a 24-hour cable platform for NBC. In theory, the channel would give NBC News a huge leg up over its competitors, who were limited to their morning and evening broadcasts.

That all changed in 2006 with Olbermann’s diatribes against the Bush administration, Republican lawmakers and conservative media. Inspired by Olbermann’s success, the network began to rebrand itself as the liberal answer to Fox News — a savvy business calculation, given Roger Ailes’ success in turning that network into the right’s most influential media platform. Griffin became president in July 2008, when “hope and change” were sweeping the nation, and gave Rachel Maddow, Olbermann’s substitute host, her own show the next month. It soon became the highest-rated show on MSNBC.

Since then, and especially after Olbermann’s departure in 2011 (he had been suspended for political donations), Griffin began building the prime-time lineup around Maddow. Liberal opinion shows began to dominate more and more of the lineup, bleeding backward from prime time into the early evening and the afternoons. Maddow’s own influence within the network grew as well. In March 2013, her own disciple, liberal magazine writer Chris Hayes, was given a prime-time show at 8 p.m.


For some NBC insiders, the failure of “All In” — Hayes is a distant third place to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, both in total and in the demo — is indicative of the limits of Griffin’s reactive approach to programming. Unlike Ailes, Griffin didn’t set out to create a partisan network because he believed in the ideology. He did it because it made sense from a business perspective. Olbermann was popular, so he gave Maddow a show. Maddow was popular, so he gave Hayes a show. The problem is that not every disciple is as good as the mentor. Maddow was a groundbreaking liberal voice, an entertainer and the first openly gay prime-time news anchor. Hayes was just a smart kid from Brown University.

Hayes is now the most likely host to be moved from prime time, according to several NBCUniversal sources. Schultz and Sharpton, the network’s loudest trumpeters of liberal outrage, could also be relocated, possibly to weekends. Schultz, who was already moved to weekends once before, is seen as unpalatable, a Rush Limbaugh of the left. Sharpton is a walking conflict of interest for the network because of his role as a prominent civil rights activist. (Racusen, the MSNBC spokeswoman, said there were no plans to move either.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/as-ratings-plunge-msnbc-faces-shakeup-116207.html#ixzz3W44NeH2S

 

[avoiding injuries]

So they'll double down on what's not working, and when that doesn't work, they'll revisit it again and double down once more. It's like they're stuck in quick sand and refuse to let anyone help them out.

 

[The Commish]

So they'll double down on what's not working, and when that doesn't work, they'll revisit it again and double down once more. It's like they're stuck in quick sand and refuse to let anyone help them out.

Strangely enough, it's like they are the GOP

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's a horrible network. I don't know why anyone would watch their shows.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow in years. I like her personally but her show is so damn boring. So is Chris Hayes.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow in years. I like her personally but her show is so damn boring. So is Chris Hayes.

Chris Hayes is basically the female version of Maddow except with less personality

 

[jonessed]

It's going to be hard to re-brand out of such an entrenched position. They have really mucked things up over the last decade.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Maddow still getting pummeled in the ratings every night.  Smart woman, but awful TV personality and the format of her show is atrocious.