Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

The Liz Smith Column | 03/11/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith: What Is It About Rachel Maddow's TV Success?

From Maddow to Jane Fonda, Our Gossip Girl covers news, theater, film and food …
Rachel Maddow © AP
“To my mind, what really makes ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ special is how it embodies the rise of what I think of as sarcasm news. More and more news programs are likely to go absurdist,” writes Alissa Quart in an examination of the MSNBC broadcasting trend. This is in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Quart traces this kind of skeptical, humorous TV examination back to “Saturday Night Live,” to politicians making fun of themselves on “Leno” and “Letterman” and then up to the present with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, making fun of everything. 

Writer Quart obviously believes that even more ironic anchors and absurdity will be serious stuff for viewers who increasingly seek opinion instead of straight news.

——————————

"La Cage aux Folles” has just won the famed Olivier Award as the best musical revival in London. When this Jerry Herman, Arthur Laurents, Harvey Fierstein musical of men in drag, men in love, men pretending to be “straight” was brought to Broadway in 1983, it was a hit. It was nominated for eight Tonys; it won six, with “best musical” included.       

The French film from which it was adapted was a sheer masterpiece, and I thought the movie Mike Nichols made from it, titled “Birdcage,” was also first-rate. (Every time it comes on TV, I sit down and watch Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Gene Hackman, Calista Flockhart, Dianne Wiest, Hank Azaria and Christine Baranski all over again.) Now we will surely get the English, musical, stage version back on these shores.

Oh, and not so incidentally, it was America’s “Jersey Boys” that won the Olivier’s best musical award.

——————————-

Speaking of all this, there is an intellectual smash hit on the boards at the Eugene O’Neill theater and it boasts two major stars – Ludwig van Beethoven and Jane Fonda! He is incomparable and incomparably acted by Zach Grenier, with the wonderful Diane Walsh at the piano, playing the music created in Beethoven’s deaf head.     

And Jane is glittering, stylish, glamorous, sardonic, cold and stunningly competent in her role as the musicologist out to determine why Beethoven wrote 33 variations on the minor music of history’s Anton Diabelli. (The play ranges from 1819 and 1823 to the present. It is, in part, a mystery.)

Miss Fonda and Mr. Grenier are joined by a superb, totally appealing cast: Don Amendolia as Diabelli, Erik Steele as Beethoven’s aide, Susan Kellermann as a meticulous German records keeper with an insight into sexual satisfaction, an attractive Samantha Mathis as Jane’s daughter and Colin Hanks as the girl’s lover – who happens to be a male nurse. Yes, there is illness in this play but I don’t want to give away any plot. It hardly matters. Miss Fonda’s progression in the story is amazing and deft. She appears before us now completed as a truly fine actress, a position she seems to have been seeking since she was a teen and through all her various changing and even Oscar-winning selves. (Her own 33 variations?)  

But it is Moisés Kaufman’s book and brilliant direction and staging, plus a dazzling set by Derek McLane that are the true stars of this drama. This is an evening like nothing I remember since Jack O’Brien’s staging of Tom Stoppard’s astonishing “Coast of Utopia.” This was a compelling night in the theater.

It is risky to call a play by a number because the audience may dread progressing from one to 33. But this time, it worked. It seems, however, that I am alone in my excellent review. Generally, the New York critics were less impressed with “33 Variations” than I was. I just never understand these guys. They always moan about quality theater, but when they get it, as in “ever so rarely,” they turn their backs on it.   

227 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

DeBúrca obj
Rachel Maddow has a PhD in Political Science, never yells at people, is always polite, always equipped with facts, information and ready for intelligent discussion. THAT is what makes her so admired by people who want intelligence and civility from their political commentators.
By DeBúrca obj on 03/11/2009 11:15 pm
Lori F.

But NO ONE watches her! She has NO TV Audiences!

How can this be a success? Maddow has No audiences!

By Lori F. on 03/12/2009 4:01 am
Z ****
Obviously at over 1 million, she does in fact have an audience and her audience, as well as, the Olbermann and others continues to grow — the Fox audience has become stagnant because people are tired of vitriole.
By Z **** on 03/12/2009 8:42 am
Mike Hunt
Wednesday Mar 11, 2009 The Scoreboard: Tuesday, March 10 25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 365 | CNN: 194 | MSNBC: 151 | HLN: 180

Prime: FNC: 640 | CNN: 315 | MSNBC: 277 | HLN: 294   5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p: FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O’Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O’Reilly:   662 532 553 797 599 525 501 CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:   189 219 269 226 333 386 247 MSNBC Matthews: Shuster: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:   119 122 202 294 291 247 110 HLN Prime: Prime: VMitchell: Grace: Dobbs: Grace: Showbiz:   88 92 204 350 218 330 301

Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
By Mike Hunt on 03/12/2009 2:38 pm
Z ****

Don’t you just wonder why Fox is hurting so badly financially?   The stock of Fox News parent, News Corp, is down 70% for the last 52 week while competitors Time Warner, Disney, and even the Washington Post were only down in the 45-55% range. News Corp suffered its worst loss ever of over $6.4 billion. And going forward, they advised Wall Street that income will decline another 30% for fiscal 2009.   

Could it be that the all might advertising dollars are not rolling in?

By Z **** on 03/12/2009 2:55 pm
Queenie .
Great research, Mike.  Thanks for posting that.  Can’t wraggle with Nielsen.
By Queenie . on 03/12/2009 9:25 pm
Mike Hunt
It didn’t come out right. Here is the link, updated daily. Maddow has 3 people watching her. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
By Mike Hunt on 03/12/2009 11:16 pm
Al ias

Rachel is sad, very sad.  I honestly gave her a chance but I just prefer more factual talking heads.  The headline is yet another attempt by the diviant media to paint as normal someone so characterized by inanity…

Gosh, how long can MSNBC run a business with such toilet ratings?  It is clear that maybe only their family members are watching the shows… the second and third place shows COMBINED could not even equal the leaders, who would sponsor such losers ????

By Al ias on 03/13/2009 5:14 pm
Z ****

Actually, if you look at the actual profitability of the networks — Fox is the one that seems to be losing advertising revenue.   They are down 70% from last year at this time — compared to 45% for MSNBC.     And, at least be honest — the only way you are going to "give her a chance" is if she mirrors the antics of O’Reilly and his bunch.   

Beyond that, could you explain how numbers showing the right wing has more couch potatoes sitting around watching people rant on TV somehow is a good thing — I don’t get that.   

By Z **** on 03/14/2009 9:09 am
Al ias

Z, thank you for your reply.  Advertising revenue percentage loss in a down economy is not the key indicator of profitability in business.  Your use of one statistic to paint a broad generalization is as invalid as the headline of the story.

I am honest and your accusation that I prefer Bill over Rachel because of antics is false as you do not know me or my viewing habits.  In fact I said I did not prefer Rachel and stated my reasons succinctly.  However I will state that your presentation of percentage data is less than genuine.  Neilsen confirms my statement in that it is obvious that advertisers are pulling back for reasons other than viewer preference. 

Actually what Neilsen measures are the choices that homes make in viewing.  It is used to frame advertising costs and other research and marketing schemes.  People do not watch MSNBC because they fail to present a balanced view on their shows which are replete with opinion.  I watched MSNBC for several years but became increasingly aware of this lack of journalistic integrity.  I prefer balance in information presentation as well as do the overwhelming majority of other viewers. 

I would tend to agree, anecdotally, that revenues are down across the board due to the failure to regulate Fanny and Freddie, but I would argue that even with a 70% loss in advert rev, FOX still earns more than MSNBC per TV hour; yet another measure of success of their business model.  Few people prefer Rachel Maddow and the reasons are obvious.  Few people like Keith O, the evidence is clear. 

I never mentioned the so-called right wing nor FOX.  I simply pointed out that MSNBC and their talking heads are not popular, I wonder how they stay in business, and the most respected evaluator of veiwing preferences confirms my point.  I hope you have a wonderful day ;)

By Al ias on 03/15/2009 6:18 am
Z ****

Hi Al……thank you, I almost always have a wonderful day.   I would suggest that none of us is an expert at everything and the ability to recognize what we don’t know is important.  To state that you somehow know why people would watch Fox or MSNBC is false — you don’t know.   Advertising dollars drive media — Nielson does not confirm your statement at all.  

Obviously, profitability is a key indicator or how any business is doing.   Advertising dollars drive media profitability — Fox’s decline in profit demonstrates that advertisers are pulling back from Fox in greater numbers than other media.

Oh……and to suggest that Fox somehow presents a balanced view is ridiculous.

By Z **** on 03/15/2009 8:26 am
Al ias

z, thank you for your comments.  Again you confused profitability with a decline in advertising revenue.  Profitability cannot be measured by only one metric as you seem to suggest.  As well your portrayal of the two data points (one decline of 70% and the other of 45%) does not take into account actual revenue.  For example if Fox is taking in $150 and MSNBC is taking in $65 then FOX would still be more profitable than MSNBC, but your presentation does not reflect that element.  Therefore the only two pieces of information we have to use in this comparison is "percentage of advert rev decline" and popularity data that all networks base their advert rates upon.  As you can see here it is not possible to logically arrive at your conclusion based on this single data set.  It may very well be that Fox’s 70% and MSNBC’s 45% are equal in actual dollars but you do not present those figures.  My point is that you can see that ratings are high on other networks, advert rev is down on the two you compared, so the only logical conclusion is the FredFanny economy is the cause because it is certainly not ratings which helps to set rates for advertisers.

I also stated that I prefer balanced information presentation which Rachel does not do; I did not make an opinion of any other network.

I hope you have a good evening, GBY :)

By Al ias on 03/15/2009 1:28 pm
Z ****
Hi Al……..unfortunately, I believe you are the one that is confused.    Percentages cannot be equal in actual dollars unless the total actual dollars each percent is figured on is the same — that is basic and virtually imporssible.   Your ONLY logical conclusion is completely flawed.
By Z **** on 03/15/2009 1:36 pm
Al ias
Please show me my flaw.  It is simple math.
By Al ias on 03/15/2009 2:23 pm
Z ****

>>>It may very well be that Fox’s 70% and MSNBC’s 45% are equal in actual dollars but you do not present those figures.<<

Unless Fox’s revenue a year ago was equal to MSNBC’s (it wasn’t) — given your example with the premise that Fox’s revenue was greater than MSNBC a year ago.  A 70% decline of a greater revenue is bound to be worse than a 45% of lesser revenue….that is a simple business premise, because revenue is based on income minus expenses.   In the case of media, revenue loss indicates declining advertising dollars — like it or not, Fox may have a core group of listeners — but, advertisers are not interested in advertising on the network.    

By Z **** on 03/15/2009 2:42 pm