Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

All In with Chris Hayes

How would you rate the debut of "All In"? I hate the name (Paula Broadwell ring a bell) and the format seems...off; however, it's hard not to enjoy Chris' enthusiasm.

Ultimately, he's going to learn that he can't repackage Up...especially because he doesn't have 2 hrs to delve into topics. Yesterday's lead story was unbelievably boring...with the exception of a woman from a nonprofit (350.org?) who hit a couple one-liners out of the park. At least he can read a TelePrompTer...unlike Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews.

by Anonymousreply 804/05/2013

I personally loved it and that he led and spent almost half the show devoted to the most recent tarsands oilspill.

It is the type of story that is incredibly important to what is going on in our country but that you don't typically see covered much in the newscycle.

But then, I guess I fall into the type of demographic the show caters to.

And yes, if nothing else Chris is actually competent at hosting a show unlike some people who try.

by Anonymousreply 104/02/2013

Chris Hayes' new show sucked. I like him as a guest but not as a host. This whole "nerdy, wonky" dreck is boring. Yes, I know he's smart. I had lost interest in "UP," his Saturday morning show. But the wonky crap every night, I don't know if I can take it. He may lose me.

I'm a political junkie, and I like the debate and discussion, but Chris' first show sucked. His second show was better, but not by much.

Rachel does wonk much better.

by Anonymousreply 204/03/2013

2nd episode was slightly better, but not by much.

by Anonymousreply 304/03/2013

I like Chris Hayes, but I think he is wrong for this time slot. This slot has been used for much more passionate hosts like Ed S. and Keith O.

According to www.tvbythenumbers.com, the first week ratings have been horrible. And worse yet, the ratings for Rachel and Lawrence have also plunged.

I don't see MSNBC putting up with this for long. That 8pm eastern slot is the anchor for the rest of the night.

by Anonymousreply 404/05/2013

At first, I didn't like Lawrence O'Donnell as a host instead of as a guest.

I thought Lawrence's show was not very good.

But then I got accustomed to Lawrence as a host instead of as a guest, and his show came to life and excellence.

I wanted to hear and still want to hear Lawrence O'Donnell's opinions and points of view - and inherently when he or anyone is a host rather than a guest, less of his opinions and points of view will be given time or opportunity.

by Anonymousreply 504/05/2013

There are not currently any issues which can garner large audience numbers.

It's a slow period in the news - except for the failing gun control.

CNN's Jake Tapper's new show at 3pm central called The Leap has had poor rating numbers too.

by Anonymousreply 604/05/2013

I concede your point R6. It is a slow news period.

Even so, the numbers for All In have not been good. I watched the first night and thought I tuned into C-Span by mistake.

by Anonymousreply 704/05/2013

R4 I agree with you that Chris's format does not fit the 8pm time slot. Didn't we all say this in the other MSNBC thread?

Apparently, cable news viewers like their evening news show to be personality-driven and their day time to be more newsy. Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell suits daytime taste.

They should have moved Al Sharpton's show (I prefer that it be canceled but... ) to the weekend and given Chris Al's time slot.

About the ratings... ALL cable news shows have leveled off a bit post-Election 2012 coverage. That's to be expected. However, Rachel's show is seeing an uptick in the coveted demo, while Fox is losing that demo.

by Anonymousreply 804/05/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.