Cenk Uygur, the television and Web show host who left MSNBC in a messy public separation this summer, is joining MSNBC’s fledgling competitor, Current TV.
Starting sometime in the fourth quarter of the year, Mr. Uygur will host a show called “The Young Turks” at 7 p.m., serving as the lead-in for “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” the 8 p.m. liberal newscast that had its premiere on Current three months ago.
The move is the first by Current since it hired David Bohrman, a prominent former CNN executive, as the new head of programming and production last month. Current has been seeking like-minded programs to surround Mr. Olbermann’s in an effort to create a rival to the stable of liberal shows on the cable news channel MSNBC.
MSNBC’s 7 p.m. time slot is currently filled by replays of “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” an hour of political talk that is first shown at 5 p.m. MSNBC had no comment about Mr. Uygur’s hiring.
Is it my imagination, or has Rachel Maddow been even more awesomely geeky than usual recently? I suppose being a network's major star, combined with having a place to go if they lose their nerve and decide once again that Alan Keyes Is Making Sense is a great idea to bring in those oh-so-desirable teabagger viewers, gives one a great sense of freedom. And for the viewers, it gives us an even larger assortment of quality news/opinion programming. This is all good news in the age of the DVR.
So....with one web program moving to Current, how about this one being next?
Pundits whose brains are incapable of holding two thoughts at the same time think that MSNBC is "the left's Fox News". But while most (not all) of MSNBC's news/commentary shows lean to the left of what passes for the center these days (which really resembles 1964 Goldwater conservatism more than anything else), there is one characteristic of MSNBC's hosts that does not apply to Fox: With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who's still living in a delusional Republicanland where idiotic mouth-frothing teabagger lunatics don't control his party, MSNBC hosts don't just pull lies out of their asses and pass them off as demonstrable fact. And especially now that they've unwisely jettisoned the oh-too-confrontational Cenk Uygur, MSNBC represents the genteel left. Like it or not, you're never going to see Lawrence O'Donnell (who admirably fought bravely on as Joey "What ABOUT Lori Klausutis, anyway?" the Scar tried to filibuster him yesterday morning) call Rep. Peter King an asshole on the air. And even Rachel Maddow, who is now completely free to do pretty much whatever she wants, as MSNBC's reigning star, tends to wield tiny poison darts at those she demolishes rather than of carrying a big stick -- and doing it all with a smile. It's a successful formula that has managed to survive, and even thrive, in the post-Olbermann era, even as people like me have returned to the Olbermann fold, preferring to watch "The Last Word" as time permits the next day.
But aside from the factual differences between MSNBC's coverage of current events and that of Fox, MSNBC's point of pride is hat it hasn't acted as the propaganda arm of a political party the way Fox News does. O'Donnell is a bit too much of an Obama cheerleader for my taste; obviously still subscribing to the 11-dimensional chess theory of Obama rather than what increasingly looks like the reality -- that at best Obama is twisting himself into pretzels to appeal to and appease the right because of his unique childhood baggage, while at worst he really IS a moderate-right conservative. At least O'Donnell has arrived at his views through a coherent thought proess and is prepared to argue his points rather than just spouting talking points. But as we found out with the jettisoning of Cenk Uygur, MSNBC is first and foremost about access, and when opinion interferes with that access, Phil Griffin steps in.
The best spin on the decision to replace Uygur with Al Sharpton, despite strong ratings, is to add more diversity to MSNBC's all-white lineup (though it seems to me that with Muslims and gays being the hated minorities of choice on the right these days, a lineup that has an out lesbian in Rachel Maddow as its public face, the British-of-Pakistani-origins Martin Bashir on in the afternoon and Uygur, who was born in Turkey to Sunni Muslim parents, is more diverse than ANY on other news channel). So when MSNBC decided to replace Cenk Uygur with Al Sharpton at 6 PM, I had to scratch my head. Sharpton? Yes, Sharpton can be incisive and even funny when talking off-the-cuff, and he stole the show at the 2004 presidential debates, but even cable news is not journalism school. And for a sizable portion of the population, the name "Al Sharpton" is still far too closely associated with the image of Tawana Brawley insisting that "No one manipsnates (sic) me or my family."
Sharpton is a bright guy and has been a media star, or at the very least a media figure, for a long time; and even Rachel Maddow had that deer-in-the-headlights look for a few weeks in the beginning as she became more comfortable with a teleprompter. I'm sure that once he's more comfortable, we'll see the witty side of Sharpton come out, but demeanor isn't Sharpton's only problem. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Sharpton really IS the left's equivalent of a Fox News host -- to the detriment of the MSNBC brand:
On Sunday, Cenk Uygur was interviewed by CNN's Howard Kurtz about Uygur's departure from MSNBC, and Ugyur claimed that Al Sharpton -- widely reported to be his replacement -- vowed in a 60 Minutes interview never to criticize President Obama under any circumstances. When I first heard Ugyur make this claim, I assumed it was hyperbole -- until I watched the video and read the transcript of the Sharpton interview. The 60 Minutes segment was aired on May 19, 2011, and chronicles what it calls Sharpton's "metamorphosis: today he's down right tame. So much so, that he has made his way into the establishment." It includes this:
Sharpton told us that having a black president is a challenge: if he finds fault with Mr. Obama, he'd be aiding those who want to destroy him. So he has decided not to criticize the president about anything -- even about black unemployment, which is twice the national rate.
The segment also described Sharpton as "now a trusted White House adviser" and recounts that "given his loyalty and his change from confrontational to accommodating, the administration is rewarding him with access and assignments."
How can a media outlet such as MSNBC that purports to be presenting political journalism possibly employ someone as a journalist -- even an opinion journalist -- who publicly and categorically pledges never to criticize the President of the United States under any circumstances? That would be like hiring a physician who vows never to treat any diseases, or employing an auto mechanic who pledges never to fix any cars, or retaining a pollster who swears never to make any findings about public opinion. Holding people in political power accountable is the prime function -- the defining feature -- of a journalist, including a pundit; if you expressly and publicly vow never to do that, how can you possibly be credibly presented as being one? And how can the political analysis of someone who takes this pledge possibly be trusted as sincerely held, let alone accurate? Note that this vow was not from three years ago; it was from two months ago.
There's an ongoing battle going on over at the Great Orange Satan about how much to criticize Barack Obama. And even here, I see comments every now and then telling me to STFU about Obama, that to criticize Obama is to want Mitt Romney to be president (speaking of not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time). But when we are seeing play out before our very eyes what happens when people put rigid ideology (and in the case of criticism of Obama, keeping one's mouth shut isn't even about ideology) or party loyalty ahead of the national good, it's difficult to justify keeping silent while President Obama time after time proceeds to blow whatever chance he had at being the transformational leader he could have been. It does the nation no favors, and in Al Sharpton's case, it taints whatever journalistic cred he's trying to build.
So here is MSNBC, a network that's established a niche, that can even point to the high morning ratings of Joey What Happened To Lori Klausutis as showing diverse points of view and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews as the faces of "traditional journalism", that genuinely CAN be described as "fair and balanced" for the most part, getting rid of some of its most formidable talent for speaking too much to power and replacing one of them with a guy who has steamer trunks of credibility-tainting baggage.
It makes me wonder if Sharpton was hired specifically so that if he doesn't get Cenk's ratings, it will be deemed an excuse to abandon its even vaguely left-of-lunatic-right leanings and again try the "Let's Be Like Fox" tactic.
Keith Olbermann, the former top-rated host of “Countdown” on the news channel MSNBC, will announce his next television home on Tuesday, and people familiar with his plans pointed Monday to a possible deal with the public affairs channel Current TV.
Neither Mr. Olbermann, his representatives, or executives from Current TV would comment on the move, but they did not deny that the channel, which counts former Vice President Al Gore as one of its founders, will become at least one partner in Mr. Olbermann’s future media plans.
One of the people with knowledge of the plans said Mr. Olbermann would have an equity stake in Current TV. The people insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized by their employers to comment in advance of the official announcement.
On Monday a public relations agency hired by Mr. Olbermann scheduled a Tuesday morning conference call for an announcement about his next job. “He and his new partners will make an exciting announcement regarding the next chapter in his remarkable career,” the agency wrote in an e-mail.
Current TV has set up a presentation with advertisers for Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan to announce its future plans. The channel may be betting on Mr. Olbermann to put it on the cable map. The low-rated five-year-old channel needs the help. Targeting young people, it originally subsisted on YouTube-style submissions and video journalists. More recently it started producing and acquiring traditional television series, like repeats of “This American Life.”
If you were trying to decide whether to dump Comcast and switch to Dish Network, there's your reason right there.
The usual suspects will snicker about the smaller stage that Current represents, bringing in the inevitable Dan Rather comparisons. But anyone who has actually been watching Dan Rather on HDNet knows that Rather is still doing some damn fine journalism over there, while the networks continue to spend their time on Amanda Knox, Missing White Women™, Sarah Palin trademarking her name, and whether Lindsay Lohan stole a necklace. And if that is what network "journalism" has turned into, why NOT move to a smaller stage and try to turn it into a bigger one?
Besides, this gives Rachel Maddow a place to go when the suits at Comcast decide that the evening lineup at MSNBC should consist of It's Pat, with Pat Buchanan, Suckup Chucky with Chuck Todd, The John [Heileman] 'n' Mark [Halperin] Republican Toady Show, and Dave [Gregory] 'n' Karl [Rove]'s Rockin' Republican Party.
07 Nov 2010 8:51 PM STATEMENT REGARDING KEITH OLBERMANN - SUNDAY, NOV. 7
From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:
After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.
Politico’s Mike Allen added another layer of speculation to Keith Olbermann’s sudden and indefinite suspension on Friday: Olbermann was suspended for refusing to apologize on air. From Playbook:
Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn’t know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC’s prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who make considerably less.
MSNBC’s ratings certainly back up the last line about Olbermann not holding as many cards as he thinks, something Steve Krakauer pointed out on Friday: “Rachel Maddow is getting better ratings than Olbermann in the key A25-54 demographic, and Lawrence O’Donnell isn’t far behind. Olbermann is no longer the center of the strategy either – as the network has unveiled a vibrant, massive new campaign “Lean Forward” which focuses on half a dozen members of the MSNBC talent pool.”
As for whether a public apology would solved all of Olbermann’s problems at the network? History suggests otherwise. Back in 2008 David Shuster apologized on air for his “pimped out” remarks and still faced a two week suspension. So perhaps the likelier scenario is that Olbermann was offered a reduced suspension for an on air apology and turned it down. That said, Olbermann is no David Shuster and his absence on the network, despite any inner strife at MSNBC is huge.
Meanwhile, a thousand more people have signed the Progressive Change Committee's petition to restore Olbermann to the air in just the time it took me to write this, for a total of over 276,000 people.
If Phil Griffin thinks he's going to keep this audience in the 8 PM slot by putting Christine O'Donnell on the air with her lunatic delusions, he'll join Mr. Olbermann in exile very soon.
We'll see if the fine line Rachel is trying to walk here is enough to save her. If not, I can't wait to see Phil Griffin get his ass kicked when the Fox News audience he covets so much refuses to leave its chosen church.
Say what you will about Fox News, but what it has is something marketers always covet: stickiness. Sticky content is a concept normally used in the context of web site traffic, but it applies to television, or consumer products, or anything. It's a kind of loyalty that transcends simple endorsement of a product, becoming almost a kind of cult.
Apple is the perfect example of this kind of marketing cult. Sure, Apple makes great products with cool designs, but when you have people camping out at night like people used to do for Grateful Dead concerts to be among the first to get an iPhone, you're talking about more than just cool products. I've just encountered iPads on two separate trips to visit family and both times have found myself drooling, "WANT. SRSLY. NOW."
Dish Network is another one. The Brilliant household has been a Dish customer for over a decade. Recently, following a basement remodel and the purchase of another flat-screen TV, we had a choice to make: Do we stay with Dish Network and get another connection and receiver for the basement, or do we succumb to the Evil Empire over at Verizon, where we could get TV, FiOS internet, AND phone -- for about half (well, for two years anyway) of what we pay now? We stuck with our current cobbled-together setup of Dish, a good old fashioned land line phone, and our Verizon DSL. Why? Mostly because we just like Dish Network as a company. Recently, Cablevision, the company which has a monopoly in my town and in the general area, was unable to broadcast any Fox channels due to a rates dispute with News Corp. This blacked out a good chunk of the World Series, Giants football, and the popular Glee. News Corp. wanted to extort DOUBLE the fees out of Cablevision. The problem is that Cablevision is so loathed by even its own customers that it was able to garner no sympathy from its customers, and ended up capitulating to News Corp.'s demands. And now Cablevision customers face yet another rate increase. It's interesting to note that while Cablevision was busy losing its battle with Rupert Murdoch, Charlie Ergen, the almost cult-worshipped CEO at Dish, was quietly negotiating a far better deal with Fox.
Fox News is also an entity that boasts this kind of devotion. CNN has completely destroyed its credibility in recent years by trying to be more Fox-like, and instead of pulling away viewers from Fox, it's simply ruined its own unique journalistic brand. Fox viewers are not going to leave Fox. It's their club, their cult, their religion, and they're not going to leave it just because Phil Griffin puts some wingnut in Keith Olbermann's chair and cries out, "Look! Shiny!"
In 2003, MSNBC yanked Phil Donahue off the air, even though he had the highest-rated show on the network. No, he didn't get the ratings Fox had, but it was MSNBC's highest rated show. An insider report revealed the network's view that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war." Donahue was replaced by the very same man whose fingerprints were all over the Olbermann suspension yesterday -- Joe Scarborough, and the network hired right-wing hatemonger Michael Savage for a Saturday program.
It wasn't until MSNBC recognized that Keith Olbermann's audience is "sticky" that the brass there decided to take the chance on left-leaning political talk in primetime. And it's worked for them; perhaps not as much as Fox, but certainly better than any of the Alan Keyes/Michael Savage/outer wingnuttia experiments they did in trying to strip off Fox News viewers.
Even Olbermann's biggest fans acknowledge that he's often bombastic and self-important. Only rarely, as with his on-air eulogy for his mother (for which he won the 2010 Edward R. Murrow award) and his sharing of his late father's journey through the health care system to which people with money have access in the context of health care reform, does he come across as someone you might conceivably want to, well, have a beer with. His Special Comments, while passionate and often on-the-money, are so easily turned into parody that it's difficult to watch them now without thinking of the Ben Affleck parody. But anyone who thinks that Olbermann is simply a knee-jerk cheerleader for Democrats is delusional. If he has not been as tough on the Obama Administration as he was on the Bush Administration, it's because despite the former's appalling embrace of some of the worst national faux-security excesses of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration isn't as relentlessly destructive of American values. Obama has taken more crap from Olbermann than ANY officeholding Republican has EVER taken from Fox News.
Rachel has it right here. Keith Olbermann's personal political leanings are no secret to anyone. No one watches Olbermann to get passionless, so-called "objective news." And Keith Olbermann never claims to be "Fair and Balanced" -- as if saying so makes it so. What both Olbermann and Maddow do not do, however, is just pull stuff out of their asses (like claiming that President Obama's upcoming trip to India is going to cost $200 million a day) and push it out over the airwaves so that it can become the proverbial lie told often enough that it becomes truth. Both shows are COMMENTARY -- and are presented as such.
Yesterday on the Today show, Meredith Viera looked as if she was going to have hot girl-on-girl action with Christine O'Donnell any minute, so fawning was she over the loser of the Delaware Senate race. Funny how she didn't have Sharron Angle on. The whole thing smacked of an interview for a job on MSNBC -- perhaps in Keith Olbermann's spot. I can almost hear the MSNBC front office suits talking about having two people named O'Donnell on at night would be a sure winner.
As Kos points out, Pat Buchanan donated money to Republicans between 2005 and 2008 (not to mention what a virulent hatemonger he is) and he's still on Morning Schmoe on a regular basis.
This morning Meredith Viera had a cuddle with Christine O'Donnell, who in case anyone forgot, LOST her election bid on Tuesday, but is somehow still a more valuable commodity on television than the guy who actually WON.
I can add 2 + 2, can you?
Meanwhile, Faux Noise doesn't seem to care about its on-air talent advocating for candidates on their own time with their own money. Here's a list of Sean Hannity's donations.
Lawrence O'Donnell is smart, informed, and like most of his fellow evening hosts at MSNBC (Tweety notwithstanding) and everyone at Fox News, doesn't just pull stuff out of his ass:
Lawrence O’Donnell, whose career has taken him from the halls of the U.S. Senate to the writing room of a top entertainment show, is now getting his own prime-time show on MSNBC.
The cable news network announced Tuesday that O’Donnell, a longtime political analyst for MSNBC who has been a regular substitute for Keith Olbermann, will helm a show that will air weeknights at 7 p.m. PT/10 p.m. ET, replacing the repeat of Olbermann’s nightly program.
MSNBC President Phil Griffin said O’Donnell fits perfectly with the rest of the network’s lineup, calling him “smart, progressive and based in fact.”
Maybe it's all those job cuts at the New York Times. But tucked away below the fold today is a rather peculiar article expressing wonder that MSNBC, which despite three hours of the Idiocy of Joe Scarborough (or if you prefer, Joe Scarborough's Presidential Exploratory Committee's Fifteen Free TV Hours Every Week), and Chris Matthews' Excoriation of Bad Girls Who Get Themselves Pregnant(sic), is regarded as "the liberal network" actually criticizes the Obama Administration -- from the left:
While much attention has been paid to the feud between the Fox News Channel and the White House, the Obama administration is now facing criticism of a different sort from Ms. Maddow, Keith Olbermann and other progressive hosts on MSNBC, who are using their nightly news-and-views-casts to measure what she calls “the distance between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.”
While they may agree with much of what Mr. Obama says, they have pressed him to keep his campaign promises about health care, civil liberties and other issues.
“I don’t think our audience is looking for unequivocal ‘rah-rah,’ ” said Ms. Maddow, who calls herself a liberal but not a Democrat.
The spectacle of Democrats sniping at one another is not new, but having a TV home for it is. MSNBC — sometimes critically called the “home team” for supporters of Mr. Obama — has even hit upon the theme with a promotional tagline, “pushing back on the president,” in commercials for “Hardball,” Chris Matthews’s political hour.
“Our job is not to echo the president’s talking points,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC. “Our job is to hold whoever’s in power’s feet to the fire.”
I suppose that when you're in a profession which has decided that "some say..." is an authoritative source, and that known lies have to be given the exact same weight as the truth simply because some lunatic in Pocatello said it at a teabag rally (or Fox News said it at any time of the day or night), the idea that it is possible to knock your own teem must seem rather alien. Or perhaps it's just that "journalists" like Brian Stelter, who write this piece, are no longer capable of stringing two thoughts together. But the fact that it is news that the most liberal of MSNBC's hosts are ctiticizing Barack Obama ought to underscore just HOW much Fox News is nothing but a water-carrier for the GOP.
For all that lazy so-called journalists elsewhere insist on the meme that MSNBC and Fox News are exactly the same, the Liberal Trinity of MSNBC in the personae of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and the I Still Don't Trust Him Ed Schultz, are quite open about the fact that their shows are offering analysis of news through the perspective of their shows' hosts, rather than God's Own Truth As Reported By Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Fox News will trot out Greta Van Susteren, who I guess constitute "balance" simply because she's not totally off her rocker, or the pathetic Alan Colmes or the embarrassing Juan Williams, as evidence that they're "balanced." But that's sort of like saying that a school's pupils embraces diversity because the school's star linebacker beats up the kid with cerebral palsy every day. Every day at MSNBC, after I Got My Job Because My Dad Is a Raconteur Willie Geist fills up a half-hour of airtime, you get three hours of Joe Scarborough clutching his pearls about Barack Obama bowing to the much-shorter Japanese Prime Minister or whatever offends him that day.
The day that Fox News replaces its Three Morning Idiots with Break Room Live with Maron & Seder, then we can talk.
I've reached the acceptance stage that MSNBC is not going to bring the late and lamented Break Room Live to the 10 PM slot. But I would be consoled if they give this guy a show. Because unlike Tweety, Lawrence O'Donnell has been on fire, not hesitating to call a lie a lie, instead of a "false rumor":
I couldn't believe this front-page article I read in the New York Times this morning, about how the corporate masters at Faux Noise and MSNBC told their warring on-air personalities, Billo the Clown (I can still call him that because I don't work for MSNBC) and Keith Olbermann to knock it off:
For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.
It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to help bring it to at least a temporary end.
At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.
Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN).
“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.
The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.
“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”
The only part of this feud that's regrettable is that it has resulted in lazy so-called "journalists" like Brian Stelter insisting that the two men are identical except that they come from different sides of the aisle.
Keith Olbermann is opinionated, he can be bombastic and pompous, and his intermittent Special Comments, for all that they are passionate and by their very nature as commentary, sometimes go over-the-top, he knows the difference between his opinion and facts; something Bill O'Reilly does not. In this video, O'Reilly tries to distance himself from his own responsibility in incitement to violence in the murder of Dr. George Tiller:
And you don't see Olbermann pull shit like this (perhaps because wingnuts are too cowardly to appear on his program):
Olbermann has a huge ego. So does O'Reilly. That happens with guys who are on TV and are good at what they do. The issue is not who's more bombastic. The question is who does reporting and commentary on actual facts, and who just pulls stuff out of his ass. And O'Reilly pulls stuff out of his ass.
But the issue isn't about keeping discourse civil, or which of these men is a putz and which is a saint. I probably wouldn't want to know either one of them. The issue is the extent to which corporate ownership controls the media message, and when we are now seeing signs of that same corporate media deciding that the presidency of Barack Obama must be destroyed barely six months into his term because corporate management prefers Republicans, then there is no meaning to democracy in this country.
Glenn Greenwald points out what we've already seen from corporate media, and also notes that Richard Wolffe, who did a reasonably credible job of reading from a teleprompter while subbing for Olbermann last week, is a corporate lobbyist at a company run by former Bush Administration spokesman Dan Bartlett:
So now GE is using its control of NBC and MSNBC to ensure that there is no more reporting by Fox of its business activities in Iran or other embarrassing corporate activities, while News Corp. is ensuring that the lies spewed regularly by its top-rated commodity on Fox News are no longer reported by MSNBC. You don't have to agree with the reader's view of the value of this reporting to be highly disturbed that it is being censored.
This is hardly the first time evidence of corporate control over the content of NBC and MSNBC has surfaced. Last May, CNN's Jessica Yellin said that when she was at MSNBC, "the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this [the Iraq War] was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation"; "the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives ... to put on positive stories about the president"; and "they would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive." Katie Couric said that when she was at NBC, "there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations" not to be too critical of the Bush administration. MSNBC's rising star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then fired after she criticized news media organizations generally, and Fox News specifically, for distorting their war coverage to appear more pro-government. And, of course, when MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show in the run-up to the Iraq war despite its being that network's highest-rated program, a corporate memo surfaced indicating that the company had fears of being associated with an anti-war and anti-government message.
And now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC -- ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer -- because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE. The corporations that own our largest news organizations have extensive relationships with the federal government. Anyone (like Charlie Rose) who denies that those relationships influence how these news organizations "report" on the government -- driven by the desire which corporate executives have to avoid alienating the government officials on whom their corporate interests depend, or avoid alienating potential customer bases for their products -- is completely delusional. GE's forcing Keith Olbermann to cease his criticism of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is a clear and vivid example of how that works.
Don't let their allowing Rachel Maddow on the air fool you into thinking MSNBC is on our side. As much as I worship the ground she walks on, Maddow is for better or worse playing the same role in the Corporate States of America that the Democrats play in our political system: to give you the illusion that someone other than rich white guys in executive suites have any say whatsoever in American policy.
I've never really trusted Ed Schultz. I don't know if it's the dyed red hair, the faux-Limbaugh bombast from the other side of the fence, or if I'm just still remembering the things that Randi Rhodes said about him being a phony lo these long years ago. But there's just something about Big Ed that I don't like. For that matter, I wasn't crazy about the idea of Cenk Uygur getting the MSNBC 10 PM slot either. I know that many people adore the Cenk-man, but to me he'll always be that guy strutting through the lobby at the Chicago Hyatt two years ago at Yearly Kos like he was King Shit of Turd Mountain. It's no secret that here at B@B, we've been stuffing the ballot box at the various media site polls for Sam Seder, though now that Break Room Live is starting to come together in the way Morning Sedition did after ITS first six months, it would almost be a shame to lose Seder to the constraints of network television. But you could make a strong argument that a show with either or both of those two would certainly help give MSNBC a lock on the coveted 18-49 demographic that the network so clearly craves.
So why on earth the suits at MSNBC decided that Schultz, who sounds like a throwback in so many ways, was the way to cement that demographic, I have no idea. I recognize that there's something to be said for giving a dinner hour slot to an unabashedly pro-union, "shower after work" kind of guy -- a sort of liberal Joe the Plumber only with a brain in his head. After all, Rachel Maddow has become more comfortable of late with showing her endearingly dorky side, such as in last night's interview with the guy who invented the motorized bar stool that seemed to be monopolizing last night's news. But despite her supportive-big-sister affability, she's still too ferociously and obviously intelligent and scholarly to bring in the so-called "Reagan Democrats" that seem to be Ed Schultz' demographic.
From a political point of view, if Schultz can bring in the people who need to hear the stories they're not getting on the John King/Wolf Blitzer whore-for-the-GOP CNN, then he's worth tolerating, if not watching enthusiastically. But if any MSNBC brass are reading this, you might consider checking out what's going on over at Air America Media from 3-4 PM on weekdays. Because there are a lot of young viewers who are not interested in watching David Gregory ask dumbass "gotcha" questions on Press the Meat on Sunday mornings, who might want a more irreverent take on the news. Right now they're watching the previous night's reruns of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report from 8-9 PM during the week, then switching over to Rachel Maddow as the lead-in to the 10 PM Countdown rebroadcast. Imagine if you could turn Sunday mornings into a moneymaker instead of running yet more sleazy prison documentaries.
MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.
That experiment appears to be over.
After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.
The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.
“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.
Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.
[snip]
The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin’s plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way — which MSNBC then reported.
“The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing,” said a senior MSNBC official. “We were told, ‘No, it’s not Sarah Palin and you don’t know who it is.’ ”
Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.
Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had “gone too far” at times, but emphasized they were “not the only voices” on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.
Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. “To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair,” he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
"Incendiary"??? You're damn right. How can you NOT be incendiary when we see a 72-year-old man with a history of anger management issues, a complete lack of insight into foreigh policy OR economic affairs, whose ONLY claim to the presidency is a sense of entitlement that he was shot down over Vietnam 40 years ago and held captive -- as if he were the ONLY one with this experience, demanding a free pass from the media because he was a POW? How can you NOT be incendiary when an obvious theocrat who is lauded for spewing hate-filled bile at her party's convention is hailed as the Republican Party's newest rock star because she popped five kids and some American men think they'd like to nail her?
And all this is happening as Rachel Maddow prepares to debut her new show tonight. Who knows what kind of muzzle they're going to put on her?
And why IS everyone so frightened of the Republicans anyway? Is it because the election is already fixed and they don't want to get on the bad side of the New American Authoritarian Theocracy?
A free press is the hallmark of a free society. When the campaign of a presidential candidate can make a few phone calls and get an entire network to try to silence its public faces, then our relentless march towards a propaganda-driven dictatorship is all but complete.
Here at Casa la Brilliant, we're like Stimpy doing the Happy Happy Joy Joy Dance, because while we loves us the Messrs. Olbermann and Stewart and Colbert, the closest we've had of late to a really kickass female presence on something resembling a regular basis on something resembling progressive media here in the burbs outside of New York is Katherine Lanpher subbing for John Hockenberry on "The Takeaway" on WNYC-AM.
The network will be formally announcing this tomorrow, but I am pleased to inform you in this fully authorized leak, that as of Monday, September 8, our mutual friend Ms. Maddow will become host of her own show, on MSNBC, at 9 PM Eastern Time.
And, yes, we will be making another unofficial announcement of this on tonight's edition of Countdown. My guest to analyze the Rachel Maddow news will be Rachel Maddow.
Let me answer the key questions in advance: 1) No, she will not be serving as a VeeJay introducing music clips or cartoons. 2) No, I don't think we have the name of the show chosen yet. She wanted to use "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" and I said, that's where I draw the line. 3) No, the format isn't set, though there have been a lot of discussions out there and they have all centered on how to best allow her to both give her laser-quality insights while soliciting the opinions of others. 4) Yes, I had something to do with it. 5) Yes, you had something to do with it. 6) Yes, this is why I never really responded to any of the 41,754 comments that all pretty much read "And get Rachel her own show, nitwit." 7) No, I'm not sure it will replay later in the evening but I bloody well hope so. 8) Yes, I did like the description of her in The Nation: "Everything about her radiates competence and a deft, bright careerism." 9) Billy Loes. A teammate of Hodges in 1950, an opponent of Adcock in 1954, an opponent of Colavito in 1959, a teammate of Mays in 1961. 10) No, this actually happened pretty quickly. Less than five months between first paid appearance and own show is pretty fast. I believe I still hold the MSNBC record: I came back to guest host for three days in 2003 and 39 days later I had a contract to do the 8 PM show. With people as talented like Rachel, getting it locked down quickly is a good thing. 11) No, I have no idea who will start guest hosting Countdown. Took me five years to find her. Dammit! Why didn't I think of this! She can't be the guest host any more! I knew I'd forgotten something! 12) No, there will not be pie. Well, you may bring your own pie, but I can't be bothered with pie now! I have to go find another guest host. Dammit.
Hey, Keith...I'm available for guest hosting. And I can even pass for late thirties if the lighting is flattering. I'm told I was pretty good on Sirius last week, too.
But amidst the joyful bells that pealed throughout the land, a churlish voice was heard from the Villagers with their pitchforks and torches, angry that an upstart with no Botox has risen so far so fast. Exhibit A: Howie Kurtz:
Rachel Maddow has been sounding off about politics on MSNBC so often she might as well have her own show.
And now she does.
The liberal commentator and Air America host, who has become a breakout star for the cable channel during this campaign, is taking over the 9 p.m. slot following Keith Olbermann, who she often subs for on "Countdown." Olbermann broke the news in what he called a "fully authorized leak" this afternoon on the left-wing Web site Daily Kos. Dan Abrams, the former MSNBC general manager who had been hosting "Verdict" at that hour, will continue as NBC's chief legal correspondent and will be a daytime anchor for MSNBC.
With the promotion, which takes effect Sept. 8, Maddow, 35, breaks into what had been criticized as a boys club at the network, led by Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Hillary Clinton's campaign frequently ripped MSNBC for what it called sexist coverage during the Democratic primaries. Maddow, who lives with her girlfriend Susan Mikula in Manhattan and Northampton, Mass., may also be the first openly gay woman to host a prime-time program.
Her appointment is certain to draw criticism that MSNBC is moving further left in an attempt to compete with Fox News from the opposite side of the spectrum. John McCain's campaign has repeatedly assailed the network's campaign coverage as biased.
Awww...ain't that terrible? Poor widdew Johnny McCain sez MSNBC is MEAN to him. WAAAAHHHH!! I guess in addition to being entitled to the presidency, McCain thinks he's entitled to dictat who the cable news networks hire.
Delusions of grandeur much, Johnny?
Jealous much, Howie?
UPDATE:
Because we had to get our beauty sleep, we didn't get to watch this until this morning. But Mr. Olbermann is, like us, positively giddy at this development:
I thought Williams did relatively well today, but it's Brokaw who's going to do Press the Meat till Election Day.
Combined with the earlier announcement of David Gregory doing Race for the White House through Election Day, all signs still point to Dancin' [with Rove] Dave as the permanent sub, and if there is a Goddess, Rachel Maddow in the 6 PM slot on MSNBC.
That may be the only thing worth looking forward to after Election Day.
Insiders tell TVNewser Tucker Carlson's 6pmET show Tucker is getting the axe, but Carlson stays on as a political contributor to all MSNBC shows at least through the 2008 election. The official announcement, expected tomorrow, will include details about who will replace Tucker at 6pmET as well as other political programming additions. Sources say the network is going to beef up its schedule with more NBC News talent.
In recent days, Jossip, as well as other blogs, ratcheted up the talk that Tucker would be replaced "for a new project." In its 33-month run, Carlson's show has had two names, four time slots and multiple formats. At 6pmET, it builds on its Harbdall lead-in on some days, but loses audience on others.
I know, I know, Rachel Maddow has just gained an additional hour on her radio show, which looks an awful lot like AAR trying to keep her off of Countdown. But she's the logical choice to replace The Effete Fratboy. Besides, if Maddow jumps to MSNBC, that leaves the 6-9 PM slot open for the Seder Maron Experience.
Amidst all my attempts to insist that there are no generational differences between me and my younger progressive sisters, I'm often made aware that there are. I don't refer to the time in college when I was held down on a bed in a guy's room and told that either I have sex with him or my clothes will be forcibly removed and tossed out the window as rape, largely because I don't think about it at all. I'm not convinced (though I don't judge anyone whose mileage differs) that calling it "my rape" would have been constructive to my mental health over the long term.
I've lived through enough retrogressive social history where women are concerned, and seen how enough of what's known as feminism has been about language rather than real change to have lost patience with it. My thought tends to be that we have more important things to worry about than whether we want to spell "woman" with a "y" so it doesn't have the word "man" in it or any of the other fodder for misogynistic standup comics that feminism has come up with over the years. My brand of feminism has been about things like creating a society in which a woman who chooses not to marry isn't a pariah, or a woman who is gay doesn't feel she has to hide herself behind marriage, or giving women access to the same jobs as men, or not tossing women out of the workplace at 40 because young men no longer want to fuck them.
I'm not judging younger feminists who think differently. As I said above, I was a child in an era when my mother was a neighborhood pariah for working outside the home and when the books they gave you that explained menstruation to you still warned of the dire consequences of sitting in cars and "petting" (which at age ten I didn't understand, because to me petting was what you did to the dog and I couldn't imagine what that had to do with boys), and using Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh as examples of love in the movies.
Sure, I was angered by the comedy stylings of Andrew Dice Clay, and while I may laugh uproariously at Family Guy, the way the character of Meg is treated sometimes makes me so angry I can hardly watch the show. And of course I'm the founder of Sweet Jesus I Hate Chris Matthews, because even I can recognize a pattern of misogyny when I see it.
I wasn't watching when David Schuster talked about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" into a more active role in the campaign. I agree that using the expression "pimped out", as if the Clintons had Chelsea out turning tricks for votes, was a pretty offensive choice of words. But I have to wonder, given the fact that a) Don Imus was playing a song called "Pimp-slap the Ho'" for years before his suspension for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed ho's"; b) a song called "It's Hard out there for a Pimp" won a fucking OSCAR®, for God's sake; and c) MSNBC has been a frat boys' club for years before Tweety finally went over the edge and said that the only reason Hillary was a Senator was because her husband cheated on her; why the sudden hue and cry over this one remark?
I'm not defending what David Shuster said. Using the metaphors of prostitution to describe any woman who is not an actual prostitute ought to be verboten in polite company. And I would hope that this incident gets the suits at MSNBC, as well as the guys in front of the camera thinking about the way they talk about women. And no, Keith Olbermann isn't exempt either, because he too has gotten on the Bash Hillary bandwagon, not to mention the fact of his gleeful snark about troubled young women like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and the late Anna Nicole Smith. And yet, the "Keeping Tabs" segment has been running with nary a peep out of feminists for a long time. Do those women somehow "deserve it", because they put themselves in the limelight? Is that why there has been no protests about that? And if so, how does that differ from saying that a woman walking down a dark street in a miniskirt was "asking" to be raped?
I'm just askin', is all.
I wrote the other day about how ridiculous it sounded when a caller to Randi Rhodes indicated that sexism is more pervasive than racism. When you look at Media Matters' rundown of appallingly misogynistic remarks coming from the Boys of MSNBC over the last few years, the only thing that's surprising is that it hasn't come to a head until now. And yet given that Chris Matthews, a much higher-profile talking head than Shuster, was able to get away with a simple apology (and having both Joe Scarborough and Shuster stick up for him on Morning Joe the next day), I'm getting a sense that David Shuster is simply the "waferr-theen meent" that causes the male privilege Mr. Creosote that is MSNBC to explode.
I watched last night's Real Time With Bill Maher today, and with the Shuster episode still raw, P.J. O'Rourke's remark about Hillary Clinton's posterior seems similarly gratuitously cruel. Perhaps we've just become accustomed to men making appallingly nasty cracks about Hillary because they've been doing it virtually nonstop for the last sixteen years. Or perhaps it has more meaning when it comes from what's supposed to be news programming, for all that news has become more like Entertainment Tonight than the kind of programming Edward R. Murrow once delivered.
Keith Olbermann, for all that he faux-humbly denies that he's in Murrow's league, clearly sees the chain-smoking anchor of the 1950's as his role model. Somehow, despite the rampant sexism of the 1950's, I just can't see Murrow ever descending into the kind of locker room stuff coming from the mouths of the MSNBC boys.
The irony is that there IS a legitimate point to be made that it's disingenuous to have Chelsea Clinton be a public face of her mother's campaign and then say she's off-limits to the press. The problem is not with having candidates' adult children out on the campaign trail, it's about having them out there but somehow in need of protection. Chelsea had to endure being called the family dog by Rush Limbaugh when she was just thirteen years old, and this year's likely Republican nominee, John McCain, said in 1998 that the reason she's so ugly (which she isn't, and wasn't then either) is because Janet Reno is her father. So it's understandable that the Clintons want to protect her from the likes of Limbaugh and McCain and Matthews, and alas, now even David Shuster, whom we thought knew better. But when Cate Edwards and the Romney boys have been out there campaigning and WERE accessible to the press, the Clintons do seem to be operating with a double standard. And that's what should have been the story. But by using the language of whoredom to describe the situation, Shuster blew his chance to make a legitimate political point.
Perhaps the suits at MSNBC believe that now that they have a lesbian progressive appearing occasionally in the person of Rachel Maddow, they no longer have to worry about what their male anchors and correspondents say. However, I don't think that when Maddow signed on to be an analyst for MSNBC, being Keith's and Chris' and David's and Tucky's beard was exactly what she had in mind. If Rachel Maddow had something to do with the line now being drawn in the sand, that's all to the good. But suspending Shuster and having Keith Olbermann apologize for him does no good if the behavior continues -- as it seems to be continuing with Matthews.
It seems to me that perhaps all of the MSNBC anchors need to get some psychotherapy and find out just what it is about women that makes them so frightened, and particularly what it is about Hillary Clinton. God knows there's plenty of reasons not to vote for her, but her looks, her legs, her cleavage, and whether or not Matthews or Shuster or Scarborough want to fuck her daughter ought not to come into play.
And while we're doing some soul-searching on this, why don't we lay off the Britney suicide watch as well? In fact, let's keep Michael Musto and his snark about these troubled young woman away as well. Because if we're going to start treating women like human beings in the media, let's extend it even to those disturbed young women being devoured in the maw of show business fame as well. Because NO woman, ANYWHERE, is "asking for it."
UPDATE: Imagine my surprise when I found that Amanda, who God knows has first-hand knowledge of what sexism there is in presidential politics, kinda sorta is on the same wavelength as I am.
It snowed in Baghdad yesterday. In a scene straight out of solemn black and white stories of cease fires at Christmastime, residents of the war torn city marveled at the beauty of the white crystals falling, even if they melted upon hitting the torn apart streets. It hasn't snowed in Baghdad for as long as anyone can remember.
We are living in strange times, my friends.
This past week has been backwards crazy like that; on the heels of Olbermann's O'Reilly puppet theater the other night, in which O'Reilly unsuccessfully messes with Obama security, and then reports of Hannity being chased through NH by Ron Paul supporters, stirred up because Faux News didn't allow Paul to participate in the debate... Along came Dan Abrams complaining that he felt lately that Hillary was being shoved at us by the media! Oh really? The sweet indignation of just realizing what has been happening all along.
....and now Obama is suddenly the second coming!? What was Dan thinking when he was the program director of this very station and he supported the chronically low ratings of Scrappy-doo-Tucky-Carlson, the Libertarian fool, and the non stop rantings of Tweety Matthews, acting as if Hillary was a done deal and there was no point in even discussing other candidates. So sure were the M$M pundits about Hillary, that I started switching it off, because I am just fucking weary of being told what to do by pasty white men.
Yeah, Abrams' outrage rings a little hollow. NOW Dan is with us, in the face of the big bad M$M machine? Well, its possible, I suppose, since MSNBC is maybe the best of the worst of the M$M, but God, who in their right mind allows the likes of Willie Giest to ascend to the role of snide janitor, much less sidekick to the repugnant Morning Joe, and who kept Carlson employed against the usual formula of ratings and sponsors? I wasn't a fly on those walls, but if appearances mean anything, Tucker rode along on his relationships rather than ratings, long after it was clear that any retooling could help him in any way, and once the suits got involved there were slap-downs of Tucker and the "rumors" that Tuckie was on his way out (...also, didn't Tucker thank his 10 viewers on air, and then get reprimanded for it by the bosses?)
Granted, they have got Rachel Maddow on every show in a row, just about every night! (and, having quietly shot a pilot already, maybe she can get Kent Jones a gig there...he is sorely missed on Rachel's AAR show!) One good move doesn't clean the slate, but if they do start to build a decent lineup based around Keith, with Rachel taking the nine o'clock slot, it could be great programming for the upcoming Democratic majority! If New Hampshire is any indication, the snotty conservative pundits who used to have a stranglehold on all of the airtime they wanted, haven fallen from favor, along with their masters in the White House...
After writing the above rant the other day, I was surprised, pleased, and honored to receive an invitation to join Jill's newest project: a blog called Sweet Jesus I Hate Chris Matthews! Not only was I pleased that she would consider my pitiful missives that are coming pretty irregularly lately, but also I'm kinda thrilled that we are all on the same page about this thing. I spend alot of time wondering if I'm just a crazy fool who was born at the wrong time, in the wrong world, and when I get any sort of confirmation of my sanity and/or remaining humanity around me, I feel so much better! Thats what got me started writing this opinion sort of stuff (and who watches more MSNBC than me??) and thats whats allowed me to go on through the morass of the Bush years and the press playing along like some sort of hired PR team.
And, it wasn't only me and Jill; it was also the entire newscycle, that left old Chris, by last Thursday, saying things like "the popular feeling is that the media...well, me actually..." influenced the outcome of the elections.... So, after years of being a sort of political kingmaker, in servitude to whosoever's stock was going up, and manipulating the American people by playing along with the farce that is his shtick; that no one could have known that any one thing or another was gonna turn out badly in this nightmare called the Bush years; no one could have known? I knew! So many of us knew! How come there were printed bumper stickers, way back then, that said "ATTACK IRAQ? NO!!," (to which has been added a new horrific array of other versions and countries,) right here in my neighborhood?
And regardless if who Tweety Matthews has ever written a speech for or been on staff with, it is an inarguable fact that he, and most of the other M$M pundits were decidedly leaning towards the talking points that were coming out of the White House in their reportage of the news leading up to this fiasco, and ever since. Its not even like any of the press would have had to look far or confirm all that much of the reams of information that was being dumped in their laps, already having been researched and confirmed. The only would have had to put their jobs on the line to report it.
So, when Tweety Matthews and his producers felt it prudent to give the stage to Michelle Malkin, as if she deserved to be on any show further towards the mainstream than the Jerry Springer Show; when they chose to allow old Tweety to literally drool on Ann Coulter, as if this is the kind of woman that anyone (especially a college crowd, which he was entertaining that week,) should aspire to be like some mean trannie with an ax to grind and books to sell, its so far beyond the pale, and begs some programming and social questions at the very least....Unless, of course, MSNBC aspires to be more like Fox News.
The pale? Well, here is a guy who finds all of this politics stuff so fun and interesting, like alot of us do. He rubs his hands together and turns all red, practically jumping up with anticipation of the upcoming primaries and what they could possibly mean. But somewhere along the line, he seems to have disconnected with the reality of what he is doing ,and what it means in the life and death struggles of not only our soldiers around the world, but of the growing number of Americans who are suffering due to the economy and our lack of health care.
So, even with the turn back towards the middle, and the network's seeming attempt to start to show a little deference to what is actually happening in the country, there is still a bit of problem with the ongoing bipolar swings of not only Tweet, but the bunch of them. When you start to wish that all pundits could be as stable as old Pat Buchanan (even if you disagree with him,) you're in trouble. When you start to think from time to time that Morning Joe has a point or two right, you're in big trouble...but across the board, we all think that something is wrong, and getting wronger, with Tweety.
On the heels of this week, came word that Timmeuh Russert is going to give Hillary an entire hour on Sunday; and entire hour! Not only was Timmeuh featured on Hardball to promote this hour, but Tweet went on about how it was going to be the hardest hitting, most important interview in the whole wide world!! And this, as part of the umpteenth time that Tweety was musing on how Hillary should and would concede; bow out of the whole show, gracefully...you know, back off.
It makes me think of how Kos has supposedly been trying to manipulate the republican primaries by having dems vote for Romney...met by such outrage! Such venom!...on both sides....But How are we supposed to view a 1 hour "hard hitting" commercial for Hillary to display her newest self? And how are we supposed to take an entire segment of Timmeuh and Tweet's delight at being able to present her newest self?
Crazymaking; after so many months of beginning every interview with anyone even remotely involved in the election process with a question like "With Hillary as the obvious candidate of choice for the democrats, what do you think of....?" Then planning her fall...now he views this interview as the most historic, interesting, and hard hitting thing to ever happen! Either he is just trying to go with the flow as he sees it day by day, he is seriously bi-polar and not in control of which way his mania is leading him on any particular day, or this has all been a plan to try to shape the discourse....And, if so, I don't think that its working. Its clear anyway that he is not all that fond of Hillary...or women in general.
The feeling that I'm getting is that in the shadow of being so wrong all the time lately, fearing that his power is slipping as a new generation of more liberal pundits makes their way into his world, and the reality of electing a woman as president looms large, he is very confused about how to act, but is sure that he must keep being the boisterous Chris Matthews that he always was. Whats clear is that something is wrong. Ive watched him almost daily for years, as something that I turn on in the background while I putter in the evening, and something that my entire family watches, and there is something amiss there.
Look for Tweety to pull out some of his personality to match Hillary's new campaign of showing people more of who she is emotionally. I want to start a pool about tears; the tears of Hillary, the tears of Tweet, the tears of all the clowns! (cue: circus music)
1) The arrests in the disappearance TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO of blonde nubile ripe luscious (sic)...and (sick) fantasy-object teenager Natalee Holloway
2) Some story about another guy named Peterson who probably killed his wife. She's missing too. She's white too.
3) A young black woman who's been missing for a week. I guess they took their bad press seriously last time a young black woman disappeared and they said nothing
4) 10 explosions in the Green Zone in Iraq today.
And we wonder how anyone can think Rudy Giuliani is somehow a leader?
Not even Keith Olbermann is enough to redeem MSNBC for crap journalism like this. Dan Abrams, when you fire that asshat Tucker Carlson, take yourself off the air, and put on a one-hour panel news show featuring Sam Seder, Marc Maron, and Rachel Maddow every night, then we can talk.
Riding a ratings wave from “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” a program that takes strong issue with the Bush administration, MSNBC is increasingly seeking to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind.
Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox News’s hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC.
During the nine months she spent on “The View” before departing abruptly last spring, Ms. O’Donnell raised viewership notably. She did so while lamenting the unabated casualties of the Iraq war and advocating the right to gay marriage, among other positions.
Under one option, Ms. O’Donnell would take the 9 p.m. slot each weeknight on MSNBC, pitting her against “Larry King Live” on CNN and “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox News.
But even without Ms. O’Donnell, MSNBC already presents a three-hour block of nighttime talk — Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” at 7, Mr. Olbermann at 8, and “Live With Dan Abrams” at 9 — in which the White House takes a regular beating. The one early-evening program on MSNBC that is often most sympathetic to the administration, “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson at 6 p.m., is in real danger of being canceled, said one NBC executive, who, like those who spoke of Ms. O’Donnell, would do so only on condition of anonymity.
If you want a lesbian, activist, experienced voice, then Rachel Maddow brings far more gravitas to the table -- and none of Rosie's baggage -- and also a sense of humor. If, like me, you think these "talks" are about to squander the best opportunity to add a quality reality-based program to the MSNBC lineup, send e-mail to viewerservices@msnbc.com or snail mail to:
Phil Griffin Senior Vice President NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
