MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Beats Chris Matthews As Worst Interviewer

The Lion didn’t think anyone could conduct a more annoying interview than MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, a man who never shuts up, who interrupts his guests constantly, and puffs himself up as something really special.

But he’s been outdone by Dylan Ratigan, who comes on in the hour before Matthews. Ratigan’s gift differs from Matthews’. Matthews will rattle off rapid fire questions and demonstrates vast impatience with anyone who actually tries to give a coherent answer. The viewer is left learning pretty much nothing.

Ratigan, however, never asks a question that is less than five minutes long and during which he rambles all over the map, all through time and history, and brings in every disparate element that apparently rattles through his brain at the moment.

By the time Ratigan gets to the end of his speech, virtually nobody knows what the hell he’s talking about or what the question is. The guests sit through these bumbling rambles looking as if it’s all they can do to not actually roll their eyes in irritation.

At least he usually lets them answer the question, although The Lion can never be sure if they’re answering the question Ratigan originally intended to ask or if they’re just riffing in the general area of the issue because they haven’t a clue what he’s talking about either.

Both these guys need some serious training in interviewing, reporting, and public speaking. The Lion doesn’t know or care what their ratings are, but if ratings were based on skill they’d be somewhere below the lowest basement level at the Nielsen building. Right now MSNBC is wasting three hours a day on Ratigan and Matthews.

Matthews and Ratigan might as well be handing ratings points to Faux News.


8 Responses

  1. Ratigan has utility during the finance stories. He takes the convoluted sphere that is business and breaks it down coherently. That’s when I like him. Like Matthews he can browbeat his guests silly…which is just annoying.


    • I dunno, seems to me like he takes that convoluted sphere and turns it into a reverse double dodecahedron and then breaks it into incoherent non-Euclidean triangles.


      • 😆 That’s totally what I meant 😆


        • It’s good to be a geometer.


  2. I don’t want to defend of these guys. For the most part I agree with your criticism. But I wonder if Matthews steps on people’s answers by design- thinking the more he interjects, the less liking the eventual response will be filtered through spin. As for Ratigan. He thinks most viewers are ignorant of even 2+2 of American economics. So he revisits context with most every question.

    You’re probable right.



    • Matthews may well be acting the way he does because he has a design. Problem is that it’s a lousy design. It doesn’t elicit coherent information, it just fragments it. I get the sense that he’s trying to make himself look good, at the expense of the information the viewer (theoretically) wants.

      As for Ratigan, I don’t know what the hell he’s doing. Maybe he’s trying to be comprehensive, but he ends up being confusing more often than not.

      Matthews knows his politics, yes. Ratigan knows the finance ins and outs, yes. But both make it damn difficult on the viewers, I believe. Anyway they drive me to fiddle the channel buttons on the remote pretty consistently.


  3. “Hacks Hack!”

    Hardly a headline.


    • Perhaps a cough drop is in order… 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: