All In with Chris Hayes
Posted Mar 29, 2013 @ 10:51 AM
To start things off, here's an article by sometime-Up guest Ann Friedman about Chris's policies about guest diversity. One word: quotas. My reaction? Yay!
Posted Mar 29, 2013 @ 11:44 AM
Edited by bulldawgtownie, Mar 29, 2013 @ 11:51 AM.
Posted Apr 1, 2013 @ 8:02 PM
Posted Apr 1, 2013 @ 8:33 PM
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 9:06 AM
Things I liked:
- Chris still doesn't have to wear a tie
- Other guests were also tie-free
- Bernie monkey-flying Sanders
- 15 minutes of prime time on Keystone xl
- Whiteness of the first panel balanced by non-whiteness on the second. Diversity!
- Set design: enough like UP to make me feel at home, but new colors and sharper lines.
Perhaps they should give everybody bar snacks to make up for the pastry plate?
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 9:25 AM
Perhaps they should give everybody bar snacks to make up for the pastry plate?
In the other thread, I suggested wine and cheese. Very refined and think of the merriment!
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:12 AM
Charles Pierce weighs in on the first story of the first show:
Everyone's Favorite Death Funnel. Heh. We're keeping that one, methinks.
Chris Hayes now has a show on the electric teevee every night. In a truly civilized society, this would occasion parades. Last night, on the debut, Hayes dealt with the Atlanta school-testing scandal, and he signed aboard the resistance to the unspeakable cartel that is the NCAA. (As someone who's been banging his head against that particular wall for nearly 40 years, I welcome some younger allies.) But, right at the top of the show, they talked about the massive tar-sands spill in Arkansas, and what it might mean for everybody's favorite death-funnel, the Keystone XL pipeline. But, as his the case on any show Hayes runs, the discussion — held among actual experts, of whom most of you have never heard because they are experts and this is, after all, cable news...
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:41 AM
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 11:29 AM
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 3:46 PM
Sans a breaking news story, this is what I want in my nighttime cable news: deep discussions, experts on the topics.
Hope the show is a big success.
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 7:00 PM
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:32 PM
I hope this will be successful. Tough time slot, but I hope he can do it.
Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:45 PM
Edited by jenny1234, Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:46 PM.
Posted Apr 3, 2013 @ 7:44 AM
More of these shows is a great thing. There are similar shows on Current and Free Speech TV (and in a different vein on the financial news networks) but those nascent networks lack the production values and tend to bring in a bit more of the B Team or Not Ready For Prime Time experts.
These shows are just fantastic. I never knew the issues with tar sands oil and the aging pipelines that crisscross the country. If I don't know, then most don't know. And those prone to consume propaganda from the right will be easily led to misunderstand the actual facts, and will instead be led by the rhetoric of corporate profits and political divisiveness. Shows like this shine a light into dark, obtuse corners and are helpfully educational. I can now be a bigger know it all ass at cocktail parties.
It's interesting how, comparatively, Morning Joe doesn't go deep on any issues, and is instead personality driven blather.
Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 4:06 PM
I always thought it was wrong that his divorce record was unsealed solely to feed the press' curiosity. And then the world finds out the Jack Ryan liked to go to sex clubs, tried to get his wife to go to sex clubs and maybe even pressured his wife into going a few times. I was surprised by the panel's reaction. My thoughts are that if consenting adults want a little rough play or want to be exhibitionists with other exhibitionists more power to them (As long as it's not in the public square). It may not be for me in real life but who am I to throw shade on what two adults want to do with and to each other.
I got a real "S&M is bad" vibe off of what they were saying but I don't think the type of sex someone likes is a predictor of the type of leader they may be.
Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 4:58 PM
Additionally, it was awkward that Jack Ryan's wife's occupation never came up. Under typical circumstances that wouldn't stand out but I thought part of the fuel to the story was that she is a celebrity, which gave the story an additional hook. I get why Chris might not want to name her (I recall her staying out of the race), but ignoring that there was a TMZ-appeal to the story that made it bigger and a more embarrassing scandal for Jack made the conversation a little awkward. After all, the question was why some scandals stick while others don't, that was a big part in making Ryan's scandal stick.
Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 6:46 PM
Next we'll have "Balls to the Wall with Ezra Klein."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That would be the ONLY thing that would make me watch a show perpetually anchored by Ezra Klein.
I am actually shocked by how little attention has ever been paid to the Jack Ryan situation. David Vitter falls into the same category. We have to remember that these are REPUBLICAN politicians who want to get into office so that they can get the government off your (economic) back, and at the same time deep, deep into your (ACTUAL) vagina. If they are kinky and deviant it is absolutely relevant that at the same time they are judging - and REGULATING - the sexual decisions and sexual impulse control that other (mostly poor) people are impacted by.
Edited by babypinkfish, Apr 4, 2013 @ 6:47 PM.
Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 9:46 PM
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 8:36 AM
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 9:27 AM
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 9:57 AM
Honestly, I always thought the Jack Ryan accounts sounded a little rape-y. It sounded like she made it clear she didn't want to go to sex clubs but he tried to coerce her to attend but he tried to find ways to push her in that direction, so hearing the media focus decried bothered me.
Don't get me wrong, I can see his actions being sketchy or borderline sketchy. But I also took into consideration that it wasn't exactly an unbiased account we were receiving, it was an account given as part of a divorce/custody action. I have no doubt that their incompatibility in this area contributed to the divorce but I doubt it was the only reason they were divorcing.
To me there are two scenarios, was she scared or was she pissed? If she was angry that he would take her to those clubs when she had already expressed disinterest and/or she was angry that he would disrespect her on that level but she wasn't scared for her safety, then I don't think those issues necessarily play into his ability to be a good politician. If him taking her there made her actually scared for her safety because of what she thought he was capable of then I think there is a case that it was something the public should know.
As it was I don't think we got either question answered. I just thought it was so wrong for the media to petition to have those records unsealed when they were originally sealed at the parents request to protect the interests of their minor child. Unsealing them blew up the Ryan campaign and made for some nice bylines in the media but overall I don't think it was a good thing. And given what we don't know about the relationship between the Ryans I thought the panel's take was full of uncritical sanctimony.
I'm glad Chris did a panel on Roger Ebert. It was nice to put a face to David Edelstein's voice and I would have loved to hear more from Jay Smooth and less from James Lipton. Roger Ebert was the kind of critic and writer that I want to be. He was cogent, he was knowledgeable and accessible. Accessibility is something that a lot of (self-styled) critics lack because they try so hard to be the smartest guy in the room. If you're smart and you know your stuff, you can still be smart and express yourself in ways that your audience will understand.
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 12:24 PM
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 2:04 PM
The depth of coverage and time on each topic makes me remember when Olbermann was still there. From Countdown to TRMS seems to be the same change as from TRMS to All In. Not the same numbers, because Maddow's show hasn't changed much, but the ratio.
As such, I think the broader show should go first.
I've tivo'd every episode, but haven't watched last night's yet.
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 3:44 PM
Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 5:08 PM
Posted Apr 6, 2013 @ 2:00 PM
I agree, it's the hypocrisy that's relevant. There's a lot less outrage when a Democrat gets caught up in a sex scandal because they don't claim to be some kind of moral authority and enact policies that restrict what consenting adults can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
If they are kinky and deviant it is absolutely relevant that at the same time they are judging - and REGULATING - the sexual decisions and sexual impulse control that other (mostly poor) people are impacted by.
Posted Apr 7, 2013 @ 6:40 PM
Eh, I don't think it's a problem yet. New shows always take some time to find their audience, and Chris's audience isn't likely to be Ed's. If they still suck three or six months from now, then that's an issue. Now, not so much.
He's going below Ed's ratings already. Not good at all.
Posted Apr 7, 2013 @ 9:15 PM