MSNBC needs to reestablish its hard news bona fides to grow its audience

[tableturner]

The network badly loses ground when big news events occur. The fact is that none of the talk show hosts are hard news people, and none of them have experience anchoring breaking news events. In addition, they are not good at anchoring debates and political conventions. When the talk show hosts are leading the coverage of big stories, the flow of those broadcasts is disjointed and choppy. These are the types of situations that should be led by experienced anchors who have reported in a relatively politically neutral way, and a good example of that type of person would be Chris Jansing. Maybe an NBC heavy hitter just below Brian Williams, Lester Holt for example, would be good for this, especially for events such as the conventions and debates.

I’m a big fan of the network, but when big events transpire, I go to CNN or one of the big three networks, and I obviously am not alone. The unfortunate irony is that this situation causes MSNBC’s viewership to go down at the same time that overall news viewership goes up. The succession of big news happenings we have seen over the last year has little by little caused their viewership to erode. I also recognize that Chris Hayes’ inclusion in prime time has hurt the network’s ratings, and that has to be addressed.

Here’s how I would solve MSNBC’s problems:

1. The first five minutes of every half hour, 24 hours a day, should be a hard news digest. I’m not talking about a 90 second news break……I'm talking about a full 5 minute newscast.
2. Whoever has that duty should take over when big news events happen, and if that person lacks gravitas, then more experienced hands should be called in to take over as soon as possible.
3. During such times, the normal show hosts/commentators should be brought in at opportune moments to do their commentating individually or as a group, and this should be moderated by the hard news person who is anchoring the news event.
4. A large scale marketing campaign, both on MSNBC and elsewhere, should be executed to get the word out to the public.
5. Maybe move Chris Hayes to 5 PM, have Ed do the 7 PM slot, with Chris Matthews going to 8 PM (I know some of you do not like him, but with his strong and long time political reporting history, and with his experience inside the world of politics, he knows politics better than any MSNBC host).

As a result of the above, people would know that news events are being handled by news people, and not commentators. They would know that they would ALWAYS get hard news twice an hour, and the public would know that there would be no need to go elsewhere for hard news coverage when big events break.

Look…..for the most part, I respect the lineup of commentators and hosts now on the air at MSNBC. They just are not trained or experienced at anchoring hard news events. I don't want to watch Maddow, Hayes, Matthews, et al anchoring events such as the Boston bombing or other similarly important happenings. I definitely would like to see them be a part of the coverage of these types of stories, but not lead the coverage.

Give us real news professionals to cover hard news events, with the commentators thrown in from time to time, and give us 24 hours a day hard news reports. This would beef up news reporting, and separate hard news coverage and commentary. If that were to happen, there would be a good balance, the MSNBC audience would rebound, and then further growth would occur.

[hlthe2b]

1. They need news bureaus, both domestically and overseas, which are prohibitively expensive, BUT

they could develop partnerships with others who have these Bureaus (BBC, CBC, AP, even Al Jazeera)....

But, they can't let pundits do all the hard core news reporting. Given time, Rachel can get up to speed (and surpass) understanding of about anything, but most of them just talk from preconceived notions, which are quite often VERY WRONG, especially with respect to overseas reporting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Even with national reporting

I sent a long correction on the Filner story from what a certain Hill correspondent reported.

It was just wrong.

Also, since I know the story intimately, nobody is willing to go into the different layers of the scandal. I guess sex sells. We are, still sinking my teeth onto the underside of the hardball politics for it.

That includes ap and CNN. If watergate broke today, I contend it would not end in resignation. In fact, I am now convinced there is no us based news that could have done justice to the NSA. A simple hardball politics that is multi layered, they can't deal with it. Watergate, forgetabputit.

[bullwinkle428]

2. "Chris Matthews...knows politics better than any MSNBC host"

John Oliver was particularly amused with Matthews’ “this is what I do for a living” line.

“Really?” Oliver joked. “Because all this time I thought you were paid to spit on a camera lens.”

“Look, if making sound predictions is what Chris Matthews does for a living, then he may have a bit of a problem. Because finding sound bites of people saying things that directly contradict the claim they just made — that’s what we do for a living,” he added.

Oliver continued, bringing up a few of Matthews’ more embarrassing predictions, including his 2008 claim that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would win the White House and his 2012 claim that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) would be the GOP presidential nominee.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/13/daily-show-mercilessly-mocks-chris-matthews-by-showing-some-embarrassing-presidential-predictions/

[hibbing]

8. bubble boy

Hey,
Matthew's has been so caught up in the beltway circle of cocktail parties for decades I really expect nothing more from him then spouting the corporate narrative.

Peace

[tableturner]

10. Nobody makes perfect predictions

To me, the key is his day in and day out reporting and analysis of politics. THAT is what's important in my book.

[quinnox]

3. Now with Al Jazeera America and RT news available, MSNBC has had it

IMHO, they have always sucked hard anyway.

[renate]

17. I am loving loving loving Al Jazeera America

I'm so happy that our cable provider has it and I'm hoping so hard that the name of the channel doesn't scare viewers away. There are lots of familiar faces; I'm impressed with their recruiting.

Still, nobody will ever take Rachel's place in my heart. I respectfully disagree with you about MSNBC; I think it's good to show that a left-leaning channel can survive, especially after Air America and Current died.

[pscot]

4. They're a one-trick pony

NBC doesn't use its network to good advantage. Corporate appears not to be interested.

[Boom Sound 416]

5. Start with the highest rated show on the lineup

Rinse and repeat because they have to stop the hemorrhage

I agree a "first act" hard news digest would be great, but that's a considerable amount of real estate and its the time for the host to hook you. If we don't see the host for that act until after the break, it can become very confusing as to what you're watching.

I think they're biggest problem is the narrow scope of issues. CNN and even fox have a much wider spectrum of issues.

Lastly I watch msnbc for politics not what the Republican Party is doing every single minute of the day. Hosts and panels talking about nothing but them. I know more about what's going with them than I would by listening to fox, rush or the rnc website. But memo to msnbc, we already know and already disagree. So lean forward to another topic.

[tableturner]

9. Good point about hooking the viewer in the first few minutes of a show....

Maybe establish the news digest at 5 and 35 minutes after each hour, giving the talk show hosts the time to make an impact early.

[FSogol]

6. Ok, you're hired as the MSNBC News Director.

Please get to work.

[grasswire]

11. this is why Keith Olbermann was an absolute gem.

He could do it all.

I, too, turn to CNN when a big story is breaking. Despite my disgust for Blitzer, I know that CNN has the assets to get the film and the goods.

Why don't you send your thought to Phil Griffin, the decision maker at MSNBC? Sometimes he even writes back. It appears he listened to us by getting Ed back on evening schedule.

[Samantha]

12. Yes, he could and he had no fear of the consequences

Here is one item I would specifically like to hear him address:

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

Of course, that will not happen since he has become a sports broadcaster, but I can't help imagine what he would say about that issue.

Sam

[tableturner]

13. Thanks for the idea of emailing to Phil Griffin.....I just did that!

[JRLeft]

14. I've stopped watching MSNBC after November and am happier for it. AJA, is where I can go now besides

Democracy Now, BBC, CBC, and AJE.

[bluestate10]

15. The network has done a credible job during breaking news events.

A five minute news update when there is no real news happening will quickly become redundant and useless. I have watched Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow do a remarkable job covering breaking events like school shootings and tornadoes. They had the advantage of bringing in expert opinion when appropriate. I like the news format as it is, I wish the network would reduce the prison shows and move Chris Hayes back to weekends.

[tableturner]

16. I disagree...

I like all of those hosts.....I really do. However, covering breaking news is not their forte, and their breaking news coverage has been mediocre. There is ALWAYS five minutes worth of news to broadcast. As for redundancy, that is part of the point: Viewers will know that they can always get the news twice per hour, which will increase the utilitarian value of the network in the minds of potential viewers, and which will help establish the network's bona fides ahead of time for when big stories break.

[msanthrope]

18. Stop the prison porn. nt