Jump to content

All In with Chris Hayes


  • Please log in to reply

220 replies to this topic

#1

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Mar 29, 2013 @ 10:51 AM

Now that a name for the new program has been announced, we might as well have a thread for it.

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!
  • 0

#2

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Mar 29, 2013 @ 11:44 AM

I'm ridiculously excited for this show. Lambchop and Rachel in back-to-back timeslots just makes sense. Now if MSNBC were to replace Lawrence O'Donnell with the uber-gorgeous Karen Finney, that would be my dream lineup.

Edited by bulldawgtownie, Mar 29, 2013 @ 11:51 AM.

  • 0

#3

jenny1234

jenny1234

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 1, 2013 @ 8:02 PM

I thought it was a very impressive first show. Chris is great at taking time to go in depth on issues and his words on the Louisville college basketball player Kevin Ware was very moving and insightful.
  • 0

#4

irisheyes

irisheyes

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 1, 2013 @ 8:33 PM

Loved it! I like that he is trying to stay with the format of Up. It's nice to watch a show in the evenings where everyone gets the chance to have a conversation rather than just 10 - 15 seconds to repeat talking points.
  • 0

#5

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 9:06 AM

Color me disappointed that they didn't go with 'Allinskys' as the show's hashtag. 'Inners' is okay, but 'Allinskys' is downright awesome.

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?
  • 0

#6

Eliot

Eliot

    Stalker

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!
  • 0

#7

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:12 AM

Wine glasses are too tip-over-able, at least in my world. No reason they couldn't put it in mugs, though. I agree it would be festive!
Charles Pierce weighs in on the first story of the first show:

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...

Everyone's Favorite Death Funnel. Heh. We're keeping that one, methinks.
  • 1

#8

Morbs

Morbs

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:41 AM

I know it's a silly complaint, but I hate the name of the show. Next we'll have "Balls to the Wall with Ezra Klein."
  • 2

#9

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 11:29 AM

Actually I have more room in my schedule for this show at 8 than Rachel at 9. I may wind up watching him more, and catching either a rerun of Rachel or listening to her podcast instead. I did like the toss & the last minute of his show was in her time slot. Way to go, lambchop!
  • 0

#10

Alias Fanatic

Alias Fanatic

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 3:46 PM

Love him, loved the premiere of the new show, loved the new set.

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.
  • 0

#11

Gregorio

Gregorio

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 7:00 PM

That was great. I love that he still kept it true to the original Up format, with a really knowledgeable, policy-oriented panel, discussing policy. I hope this proves there's room for policy above politics in primetime.
  • 0

#12

Kali12

Kali12

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:32 PM

Great, great, great. The idea that in-depth intelligent discussion of issues with experts in primetime cable news is unusual really says a lot. Go, Chris! Also, I love how he is so smart and knowledgable that he can just listen to the discussion and you can see him thinking then he says something that he wasn't necessarily thinking 5 minutes earlier.

I hope this will be successful. Tough time slot, but I hope he can do it.
  • 0

#13

jenny1234

jenny1234

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:45 PM

After two shows, it is already my favorite show on MSNBC and in cable news in general. Keep it going, Chris!

Edited by jenny1234, Apr 2, 2013 @ 10:46 PM.

  • 0

#14

Landsnarkk

Landsnarkk

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 3, 2013 @ 7:44 AM

As long as the former "UP" holds the line and remains strong on weekend mornings, All In represents an additional policy-driven discussion show with panels of experts hosted by a mediator who has done tons of research and is biased (left-leaning) but knowledgeable and open.
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.
  • 0

#15

Your Grace

Your Grace

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 4:06 PM

So, while I appreciate Chris broaching the topic of scandal and redemption for a politician, I do have a quibble about the panels continued disapproval of Jack Ryan. Their whole reasons for why Ryan's situation was different was steeped in a moralistic view of his private sexual activities or inclinations.

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.
  • 1

#16

Al Funcoot

Al Funcoot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 4:58 PM

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. If he wasn't listening to her objections to the point that she thinks she had to divorce him to end that, that's something that connects back to ideas of "legitimate rape" and girls who "rape easy".

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.
  • 2

#17

babypinkfish

babypinkfish

    Loyal Viewer

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.

  • 0

#18

Sharpie66

Sharpie66

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 4, 2013 @ 9:46 PM

Loved the extended tribute to Roger Ebert. He and Gene Siskel were hugely influential in the development of the movie obsessed culture of the Boomers and Gen X. My own favorite reviews of his were for A Christmas Story (in which the ongoing theme us "Of course") and a little known but fantastic SF/action flick called The Hidden, which Roger really liked, for many of the same reasons I did.
  • 0

#19

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 8:36 AM

I liked the Ebert segment too, at least until James Lipton appeared and slowed the conversation to his usual crawl. Give that man some Red Bull! Meth! Anything!
  • 0

#20

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

    Stalker

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 9:27 AM

But he still had time to mention he was on Arrested Development. I still can't believe Lipton didn't change for the show. All he really needed was a shirt and jacket - how long does that take to change. And, not even the jacket - just a nice shirt. Heh, he probably just wanted a reason to say he was on AD.
  • 0

#21

Your Grace

Your Grace

    Video Archivist

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.
  • 3

#22

Sharpie66

Sharpie66

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 12:24 PM

Mark Caro's tribute to Ebert in today's Chicago Tribune mentions that for Anthony Bourdain's The Layover ep on Chicago, he did an informal survey of Chicago writers and other notables to ask "Who is the quintessential Chicagoan?" and Roger Ebert was the number one choice. A very appropriate way to remember the man, I think!
  • 0

#23

pivot

pivot

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 1:06 PM

Wow, Chris Hayes's ratings have really taken a fall since his debut. He's going below Ed's ratings already. Not good at all.
  • 0

#24

RichardTheGreat

RichardTheGreat

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 2:04 PM

I actually think the show would work better with Maddow's going first.

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.
  • 0

#25

pivot

pivot

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 3:33 PM

They'd never move Rachel's show. She gets huge ratings.
  • 0

#26

RichardTheGreat

RichardTheGreat

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 3:44 PM

Yeah, I know. LOL, it doesn't affect me either way anyway. I watch TRMS at work the next day anyway. I hope they decide to start podcasting All In. I wonder how they make that decision...
  • 0

#27

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted Apr 5, 2013 @ 5:08 PM

It's annoying how they don't end the show on time. I listened to the podcast of Rachel's show, so I erased my recording unwatched, but then the Ebert segment of Chris' show was cut off.
  • 0

#28

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 6, 2013 @ 2:00 PM

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.

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.
  • 0

#29

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 7, 2013 @ 6:40 PM

He's going below Ed's ratings already. Not good at all.

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.
  • 0

#30

Al Funcoot

Al Funcoot

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 7, 2013 @ 9:15 PM

News program ratings are a long term game and judging a show requires looking at long-term trends, seasonal factors (viewership for everyone tends to drop during major holidays and the effect of certain stories. There's not enough data to judge All In and anyone who tries to say there is enough data (or generally tries to draw a conclusion based on a small number of data points) is not worth paying attention to.
  • 0