Is MSNBC Shifting Away from Leaning Forward?

Television and radio are prone to sudden and dramatic shifts in schedule, in editorial tone, and even in complete formats. In the case of programming that caters specifically to liberals, these changes can often be almost inscrutable. For instance, though liberal talk radio has always had difficulty getting a

Keith Olbermann handing off to Rachel Maddow.
Those were the days.

market foothold for a variety of reasons, it has often been the case that a station (or chain of stations) will abandon the format for programming that gets worse ratings.

It's not hard to feel like there's something more at work than mere market forces sometimes. As a long-time consumer of liberal-oriented information (not to the exclusion of all else, mind you), I'm very, very, very familiar with this phenomenon. I had to chase The Randi Rhodes Show all over the internet, through two or three sudden complete disappearances, and finally her rather abrupt retirement. Other favorite hosts have come and gone with no word, and poor Stephanie Miller is now operating out of her house!

So, I rather scoff at the old "liberal media" trope. It's a moldy, lazy, inaccurate assessment of how things really are. So, if it is indeed true that MSNBC--struggling this year in the ratings--is about to abandon its liberal leanings, it won't surprise me much, though I'm not happy about it. For one thing, their biggest star is Rachel Maddow, whose eponymously named show is unlikely to shift focus without both irritating its host, and losing its audience. What she needs is a stronger lead-in, or a shift to 8:00 pm, putting her in the actual lead spot that Countdown with Keith Olbermann used to occupy.

I like Chris Hayes, but he's a bit dry, as is the curse of many a scholarly liberal (see: Thom Hartmann). And I like Lawrence O'Donnell, but he's better at his current spot. Still, I'd prefer either to a return of the likes of  Scarborough Country, Joe Scarborough's old gig before Morning Joe. By the way, can we talk about Scarborough for a second? His very presence as host of a three-hours-per-day show on MSNBC ought to single-handedly dispel any "MSNBC is the flip-side of FOX 'News'" comments. At least until Ronan Farrow or Joy Reid show up as hosts of the oddly named Fox & Friends. But I digress. . .

Frank's kid (I mean come on) is out at MSNBC,
at least as host of his own show.

If Rachel Maddow finds herself smack-dab in the middle of Right Wing World in a format shift, she'll balk, and probably walk. If they lose her, they might as well change the format of the channel to something completely different. There's very little chance MSNBC can compete with FOX as a cloned or "lite" version of that channel. They could instead go hard news--Maddow might even welcome that, and hell, they'd be unique if they did--but would ratings actually go up for that? Righties still wouldn't watch, because reality has that unfortunate "liberal bias" they don't have to worry about on FOX.

I don't envy the position Phil Griffin is in, being in charge of programming there, and undoubtedly with corporate overlords breathing down his neck to improve ratings. But quick fixes don't come easily, especially when you consider that the situation may correct itself with the political and news cycle and the 2016 election. Getting rid of Farrow and Reid can't hurt, and putting in Thomas Roberts again is actually heartening. He's newsy and known to be (gay) liberal, so he's a good blend without feeling traitorous to the audience. Some shuffling around with the schedule? Fine. A wholesale change in tone? A mistake with a capital "M." It all comes down to this, I think: Does Comcast care if MSNBC improves in the ratings, or are they trying to squelch their liberal leanings before a big election? After having seen Clear Channel's treatment of liberal formats on radio, I think that's the most germane question.

[Excerpt]

MSNBC Shifts Ronan Farrow, Joy-Ann Reid; Thomas Roberts Returns to Dayside

First on TVNewser: A year-old experiment at MSNBC is coming to an end. As TVNewser first told you earlier today, “The Reid Report” is being canceled, and we can now confirm that “Ronan Farrow Daily” is also being shelved. Both Reid and Farrow will take on new roles with the network. . .

Read more at: TV Newser
 

Al-Jazeera Buys Al Gore's Current TV

Apparently, Al Gore got tired of trying.
Image from source, LA Times

I've wished our cable company--Cox Cable--would carry Current TV since Keith Olbermann was hired as their star attraction. That didn't work out so well, but apparently not much did. Like Air America Radio, it would seem that for all of the charges by the right-wing that we have a liberal media, actual liberal media has a tendency to fail. Sometimes it's the content, sometimes it's the behind-the-scenes machinations, and sometimes it's an unfair playing field. I mean, even the MSNBC/FOX "News" battle isn't a fair one. MSNBC is often either not carried or is far up the dial, out of the "basic" cable tier. They've finally become actual competition for FOX. But Current never even came close to full coverage, and is further into the dial than C-SPAN3 or The Filipino Channel.

When Olbermann was hired, it looked like Current would finally become a contender. But--again, like Air America--the channel didn't seem to be up to the task, Olbermann became unhappy, and got himself fired. It was a real shame too, because it looked like the station really kind of got their act together right about the same time, bringing in some talent and some fun programming. As a huge fan of The Stephanie Miller Show, I'm particularly bummed, as she's been simulcasting her radio program on Current for a while now. Outside of the occasional web clip, I never got to check it out.

Once again, I say "liberal media, my ass."

[Excerpt]

Al Jazeera completes deal to buy Current TV

Current TV, the small cable news channel that was co-founded by former vice president Al Gore, has been sold to Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based media company. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times

Liberal Talk Radio Quake in San Francisco

Image from BradBlog

In 2008, my state of Nevada voted for Barack Obama. Were it up to the most populous county--Clark, home of Las Vegas--it would have been a landslide. But, Las Vegas has never had a liberal talk radio station. Conservative talk hosts and fans say that "the market has spoken," and that there is no market for liberal talk. But I don't believe that. In fact, it would be a difficult conclusion to draw, when a serious attempt at the format has rarely been tried on an equal playing field.

Air America Radio was an experimental liberal talk network, launched in 2004, ahead of George W. Bush's re-election. It was fronted by Al Franken (now a Senator), Rachel Maddow (now a successful MSNBC host), Janeane Garofalo (acclaimed actress), and Randi Rhodes (the queen of liberal talk). Unfortunately, the money guys and others behind the scenes weren't radio people. And most of the stations they secured were low-powered, with spotty reception. AAR hung on for several years, with much tribulation, and then went out of business. But by then, the stars were gone anyway.

Shows like The Stephanie Miller Show, The Ed Schultz Show, The Thom Hartmann Show and others survived (or were never a part of) AAR. They've managed to do well, but with a far smaller terrestrial radio reach. Most of the time, when the format has been tried, it has been on those low-wattage, smaller stations. When the format has succeeded in its market, often it is dumped anyway. In fact, a Madison, Wisconsin station dumped liberal talk, and ended up re-upping when the replacement format tanked. It then became one of the strongest liberal stations in the country. I have been listening to liberal radio since the birth of AAR on my computer. It's the only place you can get it here (well, and nowadays on your smart phones).

My image for my burned CD of the Sexy Liberal Tour.
Feel free to steal it, if you want it!

Right now, Stephanie Miller's Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour has been taking her show on the road, with John Fugelsang, Hal Sparks and local celebrity guests. The show is burning up the stages, outpacing many other established acts. Their online concert album is doing extremely well on iTunes and Amazon.com. They're selling out auditoriums in states that have no liberal media presence. But that didn't stop the owners of the only San Francisco liberal radio station from monkeying with the format. San Francisco. The most liberal city in America. See, there's no market for it. Bullcrap! "Liberal media," my gay, moonbat, lefty, liberal ass!

PS. Steph, bring Sexy Liberal to Las Vegas, please? And bring Chris LaVoie and Jim Ward with you!

[Excerpt]

Clear Channel Allows Progressives to Stay on Air in San Francisco, but Adds Glenn Beck to Line-Up 

You might call it splitting the baby. Sort of.
Progressive radio will be allowed to remain on our public AM airwaves in San Francisco, though with major schedule shake-ups, the removal of its popular progressive branding and several bizarre additions to the line-up, including far Rightwing extremists such as former Fox "News" phenom Glenn Beck in the place of what had been one of Green960's most popular morning shows. . .

Read more at: BradBlog

Huffington Post Bought by AOL

I'm one of those weirdos who still uses AOL with frequency. Every day, in fact.  I use it at work, and I use it at home. A lot of the reason for that is that my personal email address and our work "base" address (other addresses are forwarded to it) are @aol.com. Having used those addresses since the mid-90s, I just never wanted to give them up. Plus, I quite like the AOL Desktop interface over any of the browsers out there.

Internet Explorer and Firefox have both gotten very good at what they do. But they can't replicate the way I work, a way I developed from using AOL for 16 years or so. Still, I know the (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) reputation AOL has. It used to be considered the internet with training wheels, and now it's just deemed obsolete. So I would have thought someone would have bought AOL before AOL bought somebody else. Apparently though, AOL is flush with cash, and wanted a big meaty content provider.

They found it in The Huffington Post. Arianna Huffington's baby grew into a media empire, and now they will be part of AOL, with Huffington in charge of content. It will be curious to see if HuffPo divests itself of its liberal image, or if AOL becomes LeftNet or something.  I used both quite a bit, so I'll be watching for sure.

[Excerpt]

AOL to buy The Huffington Post for $315 million




AOL Inc will buy Arianna Huffington's influential website for $315 million, looking to the high-profile liberal pundit to rescue it from the dustbin of Internet history. . .
 
Read more at: Reuters

Captain Obvious: The Liberal Media is a Myth

With the firing/retiring/whatevering of Keith Olbermann at MSNBC, there are fans who are feeling sad, and FOX fans who are dancing a Snoopy dance. He had the channel's highest rated show--in fact the highest rated news commentary show not on FOX "News." The most recently known ratings for these shows has Glenn Beck (frequently but wrongly called Olbermann's flip side) at 1.780 million viewers to Olbermann's 1.106 million. Hardly a chasm of difference there, yet "nobody watched" Olbermann's show or his channel, according to detractors.

There's a lot of talk from both sides about Comcast's role in this, if any. There are people worried (or hoping) that this will lead to similar departures by Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell. Most people couldn't name all of those people. But that right there is pretty much the list of the top liberals in the media.  On talk radio, where the percentage of conservative-to-liberal shows is in the high 90s in the conservatives favor, there are a few other names: Randi Rhodes, Tom Malloy, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller.  None of them has the name recognition of a second or maybe even third tier conservative host.

Nobody watches Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Nobody's heard of Randi Rhodes. Air America Radio is dead, and almost nobody can tune in to liberal talk radio on their car radio, even if they want to. Newspaper sales are down. Newsweek practically went out of business. CNN gets anemic ratings, only rarely stepping up into MSNBC's "nobody" zone. FOX "News" is the king of cable "news"--and yes those quotes are required. Comcast's takeover of NBC (and thus MSNBC) puts ownership of media in the United States into even fewer hands. All of those owners are enormous corporate entities with conservative leanings.

So somebody tell me please. Where is this "lamestream media" Sarah Palin keeps whining about? Or the "drive-bys" that Rush Limbaugh sputters about? Let's just face it. The right-wing talkers who used to be the far right fringe are now squarely mainstream. The most moderate, most middle-of-the-road, objective reporter now looks like a leftist by comparison. And the actual left are now called "far left." So they can stop complaining about the liberal media. They can stop squinting their eyes and finger wagging about the mainstream media. The conservatives have it. They are the mainstream media. But they're still not news.

Does Media Reaction to Reconciliation Disprove "Liberal Media Bias?"

Image found at Root.no

Tell any conservative that there is no such thing as "the liberal media," and they're likely to spit out whatever they're drinking, laugh, or get angrily defiant. Or some mixture. Point out that almost all of the media is owned by six huge corporations--"liberal" MSNBC by defense contractor GE--and they'll still argue. Point out that President George W. Bush got a virtually free pass from September 11, 2001 until at least 2004, and they'll still not concede.

There are countless stories that cast a rather large doubt on the liberal media myth. Here's yet another one. If the media were so tilted toward the left, why did they pretty much ignore the many reconciliation efforts of the Republican Congress in the past? Why are they focusing so heavily on that procedure from a Democratic Congress now? Why are they taking Republican talking points--lies at the moment, if not always--and reporting them as fact?

[Excerpt]

How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't

For weeks, the news media have been obsessed with the question of whether congressional Democrats would use a legislative mechanism known as "reconciliation" to pass changes to the health care reform legislation that passed the Senate in late December.

Unfortunately, that obsession has not actually resulted in reporters consistently getting the story right. Basic facts that should be central to the debate over the propriety of reconciliation have gotten lost in the mix. . .

Read more at: Media Matters

Sarah Palin on Media Treatment of. . .Hillary Clinton

Image from Sun-Sentinel

I found the following in the comments section of NewsHounds ("We watch FOX so you don't have to"). Sarah Palin's recent resignation as Governor of Alaska has given way to heavy right-wing spin, basically saying that the librul media done run her out of town. She--the spin goes--has been unfairly attacked relentlessly, by an unscrupulous, wicked press. She's blameless in the equation, of course.

And if you followed the David Letterman dust up, you know that Palin complains when "attacked." A lot. So how interesting it is to read what she had to say when the media was "attacking" Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Take a look.

Sarah's thoughts on the media before...

NEWSWEEK: Sarah Palin, you are a Republican and a conservative one at that. It's unlikely that you and Hillary would agree on too many issues. But, yet, as a woman, chief executive—someone who's been through the grinder—when you look at the coverage and you listen to the conversations, what do you see?

SARAH PALIN: Fair or unfair—and I do think that it's a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that's unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you're getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it's reality and it's a given, people just accept that she's going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. That's what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.

(hat tip Hillary supporter, Politico)

Balancing Act 07.05.09 - 7:26 pm

Source: NewsHounds

Has Media Been Unfair to Sarah Palin? Too Nice to Obama?

Ask these questions to any group of people, and you will likely draw the crowd into two camps. A large section would likely say, "Not particularly." A smaller (but very vocal) group would say, "You betcha!" I'm in the first group, but I'd have to add (to quote Sarah Palin herself), In what respect, Charlie?"

See, at first, when we didn't know who Palin was, the media focused on what little dribs and drabs they could. Thus, when it came to light that there were sordid rumors about her coming from Alaska, the media and blogs and the like reported on that stuff. Much of it was personal and family related. Then, as more and more things were learned about the Palins, the media drew back on the more personal stuff.

It turned out that Palin had some questionable dealings in her state. And as she slowly allowed herself to be interviewed, we came to realize she was a dolt. A simpleton. A blithering idiot. She had learned the skill of the "pageant answer" quite well, an act of talking and talking without actually saying much of anything. I challenge you to try and diagram any of her sentences.

It became apparent that Palin had never been properly vetted by the McCain campaign. And as we got to know Palin, she began ratcheting up the rhetoric against Barack Obama, working her crowds into a lather by likening Obama to terrorists and worse. Through it all, most of the media reported upon her actions. And FOX "News" sang her praises.

Now that Palin has abdicated her responsibilities as Governor of Alaska, there is a growing meme in Right Wing World. The media done it. They viciously and unjustifiably pilloried this poor, capable woman, and now they've either a) run her out of town. . .er. . .state, or b) she's purposefully ditching the press by "going underground" to prepare for the 2012 presidential election.

At the same time, we're told that the mainstream traditional media (which includes everything except FOX "News", right-wing talk radio and right-wing blogs) absolutely adores Barack Obama to the point of carnal lust. His election was inevitable because the media greased the skids for him. Which is hogwash of course.

How many weeks did the Bill Ayers "pallin' around with terrorists" issue get batted around in the press? How long did the Reverand Jerimiah Wright issue get hung around his neck like a millstone? Doesn't anyone remember how ridiculous the issues were that would be talked about endlessly on cable news, with so many pundits on screen it looked like the opening of The Brady Bunch? Remember how they said he hadn't "passed the commander in chief test?"

Every negative ad run by McCain/Palin was discussed at length in the press. Democrats grumbled, "Why isn't Obama tougher? Why won't he hit back?" It turned out to be a winning strategy, but to claim that it was because the press went easy on him is revisionist history.

Tea Bagging, Whiny Conservatives, and Juvenile Humor

Image from ModerateLeft

As you can see with only a cursory scanning of my posts, I'm a big fan of The Rachel Maddow Show and its host. One of the reasons she was hired is that in addition to being wicked smart, she's quirky, sarcastic, and has a penchant for immature humor--all while being affable. It's a great combination.

A lot of conservatives have their collective panties in a bunch over how Rachel reacted to their incoherent "tea parties" a couple of days ago. I found it odd that she was being criticized for riffing on something in a way that she would any similar subject. But it wasn't just Rachel of course. The frivolity spread to other MSNBC hosts like David Shuster and Keith Olbermann. Even over on CNN, Anderson Cooper yukked it up. And if you don't know what's funny about it all, you're probably conservative.

The first, easy answer is that "tea parties" by their very nature sound dainty. Little girls have been having imaginary tea parties for as long as there has been fine china. And while most liberals don't think being feminine (read: gay) is a bad thing, most of the participants of the "tea parties" find slights to traditional gender roles to be the ultimate insult. Add to this a slang term for a sexual activity (tea bagging), and you've got a recipe for some really hard to resist double entendres. [Heh, heh! I said "hard!"]

If you watch FOX "News," listen to right-wing talk radio, or read conservative blogs, you will find quite a bit of whining over how the "liberally biased" media has responded to all the tea bag humor. They even make the claim that their side never referred to any of these protests as "tea bagging" in the first place, and that it was the damned media who made that up an ran with it. This is false, as the photo above proves. The reaction to the way this has all been reported also proves that hardcore conservatives have no sense of humor. But we knew that.

My pet theory is that some conservatives used the "tea bagging" double entendre as an insult toward Barack Obama and other Democrats. But the slur backfired, and was turned around on them. . .and that really pissed them off. Good, serves 'em right.

If you want to see a typical whine about this whole silly political back-and-forth, here is an excerpt to one of the more strident conservative "news" sources. Check it out.

[Excerpt]

Shuster's 'Teabagging' Double Entendres: 'You're Going to Need a Dick Armey'

The good folks at MSNBC have been disparaging tax protesting Tea Parties by referring to them as the sexually charged double entendre "teabagging."

As decency prevents a clinical explanation of the term, curious readers not in the know should check the Urban Dictionary with an objectionable content forewarning. . .

Read more at: "News"Busters

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Incitement to Hate

Say what you want about Keith Olbermann, his politics and his show, he's passionate. And there are few like him on television. For all of the cries of a biased, liberal media, there are few examples of it. And certainly, few better than Olbermann.