MSNBC - ya wanna know why your ratings suck?

[jillan]

It's Friday.
There was one of those anti-government types shooting up Austin.
There is a peaceful protest at a mall in St Louis.
The taliban is busy in Afghanistan AND a revengeful mother just shot 25 taliban members.
The Ferguson fallout is still strong all over this country.
It's a huge college football day.
And it's black Friday....

And what do you have to say about it?

LOCKUP RAW

Your ratings suck because you deserve it

[Mike Nelson]

1. Agreed!

...have to watch CNN or FOX for news... blech...

[20score]

22. Well, there is Al Jazeera. It's the only one

that is actual news and it puts the other 24 hour networks to shame.

[joshdawg]

71. Heartily agree!

[Enthusiast]

75. Sad but true.

[MrMickeysMom]

101. + E9

[Kilgore]

128. Not sure about Al Jazeera

In regards to how long they are going to survive in the US. Their present ratings are 50% down from the former Current TV, their predecessor, and their ratings were not great either.

Here is an article about a month old.

http://www.thewrap.com/al-jazeera-america-viewers-down-nearly-50-percent-from-current-tvs-numbers/

And another from April with an excerpt;

http://www.thewrap.com/al-jazeera-america-low-ratings-image-problems/

"The network has only been averaging 15,000 total viewers in primetime, and about 5,000 viewers in the target 25-to-54-year-old demo, according to Nielsen. By comparison, TheWrap reported that on a recent Tuesday, Fox News drew 2.3 million total viewers in primetime compared to CNN's 747,000. Fox News pulled 416,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo versus 321,000 for CNN."

[Comrade Grumpy]

131. That would be a shame. I Al Jazeera quite useful. And even RT, depending on the topic.

[billhicks76]

41. Corporate Funded Prison Industry

I agree too. Only a fool would think our liberal positions are represented by Conservative owned Comcast/MSNBC. This is the type of hollow crap you will get with a Hillary Clinton nominee...No Change.

[GP6971]

55. CNN maybe......

never fox

[Terra Alta]

113. not FOX.

FOX isn't real news. I'd rather eat rusty nails than get my news from FOX.

[MFM008]

2. i hate that show

[20score]

17. Well, there is Al Jazeera. It's the only one

that is actual news. Puts the others to shame.

Oops. This was meant for the reply above.

[KoKo]

50. Their show: "Empire" is a good watch from time to time, also!

Listed on their website.

[olddots]

3. ever get the impression that they try to fail ?

There must be a reason for thier stupidity and must be profit .

[Prophet 451]

9. Prison shows are stupidly cheap to make

and attract low but reliable ratings. That's it.

[PADemD]

39. What I would like to know is who is making money off these shows?

Do the prisoners voluntarily appear on these shows? Who does MSNBC pay for the footage? Are these corporate for-profit prisons?

[thecrow]

107. Remember who owns MSNBC

Comcast.
Maybe the cry for decent programming should go to them.

[maddiemom]

120. Comcast was one of the successors (along with Time Warner) of the Adelphia Cable Co.,

formerly THE cable television monopoly. Adelphia was owned by the rabidly conservative Rigas family (several of whom ended up in prison...another story). The reason FOX is the most viewed "news" channel is that it was long included in the basic Adelphia package just like NBC and all the rest of the major networks. CNN, MSNBC, etc. were all extras for which you needed to pay more. I no longer subscribe to cable television, so don't know the current situation. I've always been surprised, however, that this is rarely mentioned as a major reason for the FOX "dominance."

[ecstatic]

60. I concluded long ago that it's someone's hobby

Or possibly a tax shelter.

It's not about money, ratings, or ideology--although the person in charge is most likely independent and open minded. That explains the lack of effort when it comes to weekend programming. It also explains the random firings of some of the network's highest rated anchors, etc. It's just an amusing game for them.

[Wella]

4. Freaking prison shows? Really?

And about that Austin guy, he seems to have been mentally ill.

[spanone]

5. meanwhile....faux never sleeps

[csziggy]

6. Even on days they have news they constantly have clips from right wing programs

I don't want to hear Limbaugh, Darren Wilson, Sarah Palin or Glen Back talk. But MSNBC shows will have clips from all of them. They can cover what is said by people like that without actually playing recordings of them - on every show all day long every damn hour.

Every time they do that I change channels and often I don't go back to MSNBC for hours so they are losing me as a viewer.

[PatSeg]

91. That drives me insane

Giving these nutjobs so much attention is NOT news. It is free publicity for them and it is just meant to be emotionally exploitative. They are not informing people, they are creating outrage. If we wanted to know what right-wing commentators said, we'd watch/listen to them.

I used to watch MSNBC pretty much every day. ISIS and Ebola were the final straw. I watched the network twice in the past month or so - once for election coverage and once briefly for the reaction to the grand jury decision in the Darren Wilson case.

[csziggy]

94. Exactly - You said it better than I could

I used to yell at the TV when they had those clips on. All that did was raise my blood pressure.

Now I just change the channel. Too bad for MSNBC that more and more often I don't change back.

[PatSeg]

96. I finally realized that

I was getting addicted to that outrage and I was being manipulated, much like a FOX viewer. I'm really tired of being angry all the time. I want to be informed, but without all the button pushing.

[Cleita]

7. Unfortunately, the prison porn gets them their

best ratings. We need a different system.

Should legitimate cable news channels be publicly funded and non-profit?

It would also be a good way to keep them honest. Cut the funding when they start spouting propaganda and lies.

[Prophet 451]

10. Seriously?

I was under the impression that the prison shows attracted lower but reliable ratings.

[Cleita]

24. Maybe that's it. It was mentioned on one of the liberal radio shows that

the reason they did those shows is because the ratings were better than what was offered as news shows at those times, you know weekends and holidays. It may explain why we don't have Karen Finney anymore and others that have disappeared from the weekends.

[PatSeg]

92. That is pretty much the impression I'd gotten

Prison shows are good for ratings.

[former9thward]

66. And who exactly would determine when "they start spouting propaganda and lies."

I guess you are not a fan of the First Amendment...

[Cleita]

67. Ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

It has everything to do with contracts with the government that require certain regulations and caveats to get government money. The military has contracts with manufacturers and suppliers, the ACA has them with insurance companies and so on. If you don't want government money, like if you are Fox News, you have all the First Amendment rights you want to blather any shit you want, just not on the taxpayer's dime.

[joeglow3]

68. You didn't answer the question. Who decides?

[Cleita]

86. In a news channel or news radio supported with public funding,

the producers and editors would decide. We the people, who would be funding this with our tax dollars, only need to require true journalistic standards be applied. No elected member of any branch of government would be allowed to kill or distort a story. No political party would be allowed to kill or distort a story. No corporation would be allowed to kill or distort a story. Producers and editors would have bona fide journalism credentials and would be held to the highest standards. That is true First Amendment rights.

Today it is the corporate interests behind the news outlets that decide and the journalists do not have First Amendment rights but you seem to think they do.

I grew up in the forties and fifties, when we were all supposed to hate communists aka the Soviet Union. We made fun of Pravda the propaganda outlet of the Soviet Union. We HATED propaganda or so we were taught in school because it was soooo communist. Yes, I know Pravda was state funded, but it was a propaganda outlet for the Communist Party. Today we have our own corporate funded Pravda known as Fox News which is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

[joeglow3]

97. According to who?

I will bet their are plenty of people and politicians who disagree with you and instead see MSNBC, bill maher and Comedy Central news shows as corporate media outlets of the Democratic Party.

[Cleita]

103. Of course they are all corporate outlets.

The only real news is Democracy Now! which is underfunded and relegated to obscure, often for extra cable fee stations, like FSTV and Link TV.

[joeglow3]

105. Again, I have heard people say the same thing about Glenn Beck's station

[Cleita]

106. So?

What's your point?

[joeglow3]

119. Gets back to the original question you have refused to answer

Who will monitor and decide when a line has been crossed?

[Cleita]

121. The producers and editors of the news channel. Is that so hard to understand?

It's the way CNN was run before Ted Turner sold it.

[joeglow3]

122. So the producers decide to cut their own funding if they deem it propaganda

Yeah, that'll work...

[Cleita]

123. what part of your ass did you pull that total straw man out of?

You don't know what you are talking about do you Rupert?

[joeglow3]

124. You really need to read your own shit

"It would also be a good way to keep them honest. Cut the funding when they start spouting propaganda and lies."

I asked who would determine if it was propaganda in order to cut the funding and you said it would be the producers.

[Cleita]

125. I didn't say anything of the sort. Nice way of cutting and pasting out of context.

"..if it was propaganda in order to cut the funding and you said it would be the producers." Your conflation, not mine, worthy of a "we must go to war with Iraq in order to catch bin Laden." It doesn't even make sense.

You really ought to learn English.

[joeglow3]

126. Are you fucking kidding me?

First, you floated the idea of media being not-for-profit and publicly funded. You said that under this system, their funding could be cut for spewing propaganda.

When asked who would determine if it was propaganda, you ignored it and went on about regulations around government contracts.

I then asked again who would decide if it was propaganda and you said "the producers and editors would decide."

And you talk about learning English.

[Cleita]

129. What is wrong with cutting funding for not doing their job?

Are you not fired when you don't do your job? Running a Fox News or CNN today type news organization is not doing your job. Also, the air waves belong to the people by law. It's about time we took them back.

Also, my suggestion for public funding is just that, a suggestion. If you have anything else to suggest please put it up, because negative accusations are not what constructive debate is about. If you are truly a Democrat and a patriotic American citizen, you cannot say the present situation is acceptable.

So I'm waiting for your suggestions for a solution to this problem that is tearing down the fabric of our democracy by rendering now two generations of Americans ignorant and uninformed.

[joeglow3]

130. I am still vetting out your idea

You are once again talking about taking back the airwaves and shutting stations down. Obviously, someone has to make that determination. I was just wondering who that someone would be.

[Cleita]

132. I never said anything about shutting down stations.

What I'm suggesting is having a public funded 24/7 news outlet that follows journalistic standards and isn't subject to outside influences even the govt. that funds it. That means by default propaganda would not be allowed. Otherwise producers and editors would decide how it's operated.

In the interest of First Amendment rights, those other stations like Fox News and CNN and Rushbio would be allowed to blather on all they want. They would have to be 100% privately and commercially funded. Not one dollar of public funds for them.

We once had NPR And PBS but they have been infiltrated by corporate and special interests and their programming and news shows reflect it. We need something different that can't be corrupted.

[lpbk2713]

8. The prison channel.

They have some kind of fetish for prison life that I just don't understand.

[Prophet 451]

11. Ridiculously cheap to make n/t

[honeylady]

12. I hate Lockup

Will not watch it. Why oh why do they insist on keeping that going? Must have some multi-year contract. They should have news shows everyday. News is always happening.

[calimary]

44. Welcome to DU, honeylady!

Glad you're here. Man, I hate "Lockup" too!!!!! I hate the show and the whole idea of programming it, and Prophet 451 nailed it: ridiculously cheap to produce. One camera crew and the pretty anchor recording intros and bumpers. Costs much less. Just always with the bean counters. I remember when news wasn't there to make a profit, it was there to inform and educate the public. Not anymore. And then spanone added another spot-on observation: "meanwhile... faux never sleeps." Color me not one bit surprised.

[WillowTree]

13. Ain't this a Great Country?

Where else in the world do the prisons get their very own TV channel?

[LittleBlue]

14. Their ratings suck because they got rid of all their interesting personalities

Ashleigh Banfield, Keith, Donahue, etc.

Stopped watching after Keith left, but he was just the last straw. The network had been falling for a while.

[truedelphi]

28. And rachel M. sometimes had interesting things to say,

But she got one dinner invite to the WH, and forever after that became such a cheerleader for the president that she lost all credibility.

Her approach during the Bush years and even into 2010 was to go out and actually wallow in the muck. This she did literally after the BP Ctastrophic Destruction of the Gulf of Mexico. She was out in a little boat with some top notch but industry-besmirched scientist, looking with him at what BP was doing wrong, and by extension what the President was doing wrong. (Obama let BP handle the mess, and also allowed BP to keep 99% of reporters and photo journalists out of the area! This is a treasonous situation - BP is a foreign company and why should they ever be telling people here, inlcuding OUR Coast Guard, what can and can't be done!)

I finally stopped watching her as every time I turned her on, her show was filled with weird quotes from palin and other RW nut jobs. I want news, not the easy to find and easy to collect idiotic statements of RW nut jobs.

[RBInMaine]

33. Oh Christ, can we please have a break from the Obama-bashing ultra-left nonsense?

[truedelphi]

35. I guess you don't live near the Gulf of Mexico.

Some of my friends do. Their livelihoods were destroyed, as were their communties.

I'll let up on the topic the moment I once again feel it is safe to eat shrimp or other seafood delicacies from that area of the world.

http://texasaquaticscience.org/oceans-gulf-of-mexico-aquatic-science-texas/

[Ineeda]

47. I do live there,

on the Gulf of Mexico (a block from the beach) and my area is thriving. Thankfully, our beaches saw little if any impact; most of our shrimp came from East Asia, and still does, but other local seafood like grouper and snapper has been just fine. Tourism is way up, home sales off the charts. There's a ton of building going on, from single family homes to high-rise office and condo buildings to big retail establishments and eateries. I hate all the growth, intensely, but it is happening. What's gone on and continues to go on under the water might be another story environmentally, but the hugely negative impact of rampant growth has its own destructive aspect. (Think water.) It's just not as dramatic. So can you find a way to pin that on President Obama? I entirely agree with your points about BP, but your hyperbole is superfluous.

[truedelphi]

61. Ninety percent of America's brown shrimp came from the Gulf Area.

Last edited Sun Nov 30, 2014, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Your remarks don't indicate that you are familiar with any of the information that is coming from any of the tradititional fish industry farmers.

The Corexit alone impacted the marine life.

The BP catstrophe put the brown shrimp and blue fin tuna into a near catastropic decline. And if those two species suffered, it indicates a lot of terrible news for people wanting to eat seafood from that region. Shrimp and tuna are bottom feeders and they are eaten by other fish who occupy a higher position in the food chain. If those 2 species are in decline, it indicates a lack of health in most of the marine life there.

Here is what the National Wildlife Federation had to say in a piece written in 2013:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/04/national_wildlife_federation_s_1.html

I don't dispute that the area is experiencing massive growth, but growth doesn't necessarily translate into a clean bill of health for the fishing industry there.

After all, America's number one resource is DENIAL.

[packman]

73. Tuna are bottom feeders?

I think not, except for the occasional snack on crab larvae-

"While there are many different species of tuna that live in all the world oceans the tuna fish has a rather consistent diet. Small fish ranging from 1.5 inches up to 6 inches are the mainstay of their diets. Tuna are also know to eat squid and will occasionally eat available crustaceans, though rarely. Some of the fish that tuna eat are: skipjack, flying fish, lancetfish, puffer fish, and Juvenal surgeonfish, triggerfish and rabbitfish. One of the favorite crustaceans of the tuna is crab larvae "

I, too, live on the Gulf and wept when I saw those tar balls on the sugar-white shores on the Emerald Coast beaches. I will hate and despise BP till the day my ashes are scattered in the Gulf. I still am waiting for that pool of oil to manifest itself that I just know is laying at the bottom of the Gulf. But, if blame is to be placed on someone it is the lack of inspectors and a government-which Obama had nothing to do with - that slept in the bed of corporate corruption.

[truedelphi]

133. I meant to say shrimp and crab, and wrote a longer remark about

The risk invovled in eating tuna, due to its mercury content. I snipped the comment wrong in an effort to have a more concise statement. And thank you for correcting me.

In any event, in the months after the BP event, I used to post the link to the young scientist that Rachel Maddow ahd interviewed. He had been isntructed by whatever lab he worked for to care for fish in a tank where Corexit was present. He was then advised to present the finding that the Corexit did not harm the fish, as at the 7 day mark, the fish were all fine.

However, this researcher didn't release the fish, at day 8, but instead kept them to study them longer. (Having a 7 day study is total foolishneess - even a fifth grader doing a science project uses longer time frames to prove or disprove their hypotheses) Anyway, at around day 10, the fish started dying, while the control group of fish, in a tank wherein there was no Corexit dontinued to do okay.

Here is a link to what is being written about the fisheries in the Gulf, published on the internet in 2013, and referring to peer reviewed studies published in a leading journal:

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/03/13/voices-from-the-gulf-do-not-eat-our-food/

If any group would have a motive to lie and misrepresent the safety of the food supply in the Gulf, it would be the very people who make their living from fishing the waters. Yet, even these people are stating in no uncertain terms that there are very serious dangers associated with ingesting the Gulf’s food supply. For example, Kathy Birren, owner of (Florida’s) Hernando Beach Seafood, told a gathering of concerned Gulf residents that the shrimp fisherman have every financial reason to declare the seafood of the Gulf to be safe…..” Birrren further proclaimed that “fishermen do not want to lose our credibility or deliver contaminated seafood to market and make people sick.” Chris Bryant, a Gulf commercial fisherman stated that “…if a commercial fisherman who makes his living off of those products doesn’t want to deliver them to the public, the public needs to know why.” Tracy Kuhns, a Louisiana Bayoukeeper, stated that “The tissue testing of this seafood is inadequate and testing for the toxic dispersants is non-existent.” While President Obama and other public officials continue to persist in their claims that the Gulf food is safe, these noble fishermen have clearly stated that the spraying of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico is ongoing and they’re concerned that seafood pulled from impacted waters is unsafe for consumption.

Scientists at The University of Southern Mississippi and Tulane University have echoed Thomas and Perry’s findings which found oil in the post-larvae of blue crabs entering coastal marshes along the Gulf Coast signaling that oil is entering estuarine food chains. Dr. Perry observed that “I have never seen anything like this.”

Scientists at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab shows oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster has made its way into the Gulf food chain as well. These particular scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico which is a clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they have easily entered the food chain.
In the first peer-reviewed challenge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) safe levels for cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a new study says they were overestimated in Gulf seafood following the BP oil spill by up to 10,000 times.
SNIP
Harriet Perry, a research biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory and Bob Thomas, a biologist at Loyola University in New Orleans have independently discovered that the crab larvae has been infected with both oil and the toxic dispersant, Corexit. These independent discoveries are an ominous sign that the Gulf’s vast food web has been seriously impacted thus imperiling food safety “for years to come.” Thomas further stated that oil and dispersant toxicity has reached the level of where it is “moving up the food chain as opposed to just hanging out in the water.” Thomas further concluded that “something likely will eat those oiled larvae…and then that animal will be eaten by something bigger and so on.”

[whathehell]

72. Is it safe to swim in?

I love the ocean and the beaches, but since the BP disaster, I've been afraid to go in.

[Enthusiast]

76. There is no "Ultra-Left".

And I assure you, Obama bashing is not nonsense.

[Kermitt Gribble]

98. Traditional Democrats are not "ultra-left". n/t

[elleng]

53. You miss a lot,

if you don't watch Rachel's show. She breaks more news/issues than most others.

[Duval]

36. Agree, LittleBlue n/t

[Triana]

15. All weekend every weekend - prison shows.

My mom watches MSNBC and that's her biggest gripe is they seem to pretty much go off the air on weekends and holidays - just turn on the prison shows and go home. Pfft.

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. hmm...that must be a station on the teevee.

[TeamPooka]

18. It just shows the true, elitist, country club, day-off, long weekend type attitude they have.

They would not think of making their staff work a holiday or Black Friday long weekend day like CNN or even FOX.
It's what junior staffers are for, to work holidays.
But MSNBC thinks we're stupid and don't deserve news.
#LazyMSNBC

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Rachel Maddow mentioned the show has high ratings....

With WHO???

Former inmates feeling homesick?

[OLDMDDEM]

20. Excellent

I couldn't have said it better.

[JI7]

21. that crap does well in ratings

[TeamPooka]

99. and McDonald's sells the most burgers. But they still suck. nt

[tooeyeten]

23. 2 words

One person, Phil Grffin.

[jalan48]

25. Pressure Relief Valve

MSNBC is just a pressure relief valve for the left. It's purpose is to give a place for liberal and progressive outrage. If it ran 24/7 like FOX people might start taking change seriously. Can't have that.

[jillan]

26. Bingo! They take us right up to that line, and as soon as someone dares to put their foot on that

line - bam! They are gone.

Just ask Martin Bashir who repeated Palin's own words in his rant, and then he was gone.
Donahue for asking questions.
Keith for being Keith.

[truedelphi]

29. You and I can see where we would be if we had Phil, Keith, and

Other hard hitting folks behind the news desks.

Apparently the station heads can also, and they do not want this to remain a democracy, but an idiocracy.

[Enthusiast]

77. +1 an entire shit load.

[Hoyt]

27. Yeah, I'd rather see a test pattern than that stuff.

[PatrynXX]

30. Yeah couldn't believe they had that on smh

should be pulled off the air.

[Gothmog]

31. The MSNBC scheduling on weekends is frustrating

[Bortman33]

32. You forgot to add Killer joe and

his sidekick mika, who appears to be suffering from abused wife syndrome.

[Blue_Tires]

34. At least they have their news partnership agreement

with Glenn Greenwald to fall back on!

[wyldwolf]

37. 100% on the mark. But just as a mental exercise..

... what would you personally do, if you were the CEO of MSNBC and had the desire, to increase the ratings?

[Ken Burch]

42. Bring in younger hosts on the weekends...incorporate culture(music-including hip/hop)on Sat/Sun,

Maybe have musicians or actors do some of the hosting, especially on weekends, when the fight is going to be getting people to tune in when their natural inclination is to go out clubbing or to concerts or movies. This doesn't mean watering-down the news content, but using cultural forms to make it more vivid to young viewers, and to give those viewers a sense that the network is taking them seriously.

A lot of it is about the sense of energy a network exudes...MSNBC has great programming, but(other than Rachel and 'The Rev')a lot of the time it seems staid in the presentation.

[wyldwolf]

43. YES!

Appeal to a younger audience at night and weekends. But be careful of the young boring hosts like their 8 o'clock guy. Yeah, I know he's smart but zzzzzz

The Cycle should be their prototype show with a few changes.

[Ken Burch]

49. Maybe also break it down into shorter blocks to deal with attention-span differences

Younger viewers often process information in more compact packages.

[Ken Burch]

38. Yeah...they really, really need to get rid of the weekend "prison porn".

Or at least pre-empt it in situations like this.

There's no possible way the ratings for LOCKUP could be that much higher than the programming MSNBC does on the weekend. And running those shows basically runs counter to everything else MSNBC claims to stand for.

[Marthe48]

40. Don't watch any reality shows except Pawn Stars

So we don't watch MSNBC Friday night or weekends. When they show idiot republicans, we change the channel. I don't understand why we can't have news about what Democratic people are saying and doing. Republicans already have a platform on every other news show, msm, or cable.

[davishenderson265]

45. They need to get Olbermann back.

They went south once he left.

[Bette R. Daize]

51. Well, Ain't That the Truth!

But I can't imagine KO ever wanting to have anything more to do with them.....

[krawhitham]

46. Without Prison Docs, MSNBC’s 2013 Ratings Were Even Worse

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/without-prison-docs-msnbcs-2013-ratings-were-even-worse/

[greenman3610]

48. I never did get the freaking prison reality shit

what is up with that? who do they think their audience is?

[saintsebastian]

52. MSNBC's Problems Go Deeper than Prison Documentaries

The only tolerable shows in my book are All In with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry. The other personalities seem utterly incapable of criticizing President Obama. In fact, Rev. Al Sharpton, host of PoliticsNation has said publicly that he has "decided not to criticize the president about anything".

They seem to frame every debate as a choice between supporting the White House full-stop or aiding and abetting the Tea Party. Take Benghazi, for instance. The death of our ambassador could have forced us to discuss the disastrous effect that US military intervention had in Libya. This would have been a perfect time for the allegedly liberal network to hold the president's feet to the fire. Instead, they devoted a hundred percent of their efforts to defending the White House from right-wing conspiracy theorists. So instead of asking whether or not bombing Libya was a wise thing to do, we were talking about altered talking points and kangaroo courts.

We used to criticize Fox News for being the Bush White House's own personal news station, yet we all gather 'round to watch Now with Alex Wagner -perhaps without ever being made aware of her ties to both the Clinton and Obama White Houses. We used to scoff whenever Bush's insiders would leave their jobs at the White House to take up gigs at Fox News, yet we didn't blink an eye when David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs became "commentators" at MSNBC.

I agree with some of the other commenters that the departure of Keith Olbermann signaled a change for the network. Consider that it was Mr. Olbermann who said that there were "no moral constructs in which" the Affordable Care Act can be supported. He would call, nightly, for the bill's defeat in Congress because he had reservations about "heinous mandates" that forced us to buy into the profit-oriented way of doing things. He called the ACA a "cheesy counterfeit". Would Olbermann, who lifted the network from obscurity, be allowed anywhere near a mic on today's MSNBC?

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. I wish i could kick & rec your post. :) n/t

[jillan]

56. I have to ad Lawrence to your list. He is really unique. He doesn't follow the daily story line.

When I watch him I always hear something I haven't heard all day on every other show.

He was the first one to bring down witness #10.
He always seems to dig a little deeper.
Yes, he can sometimes be a little off and spend too much time reliving his days of The West Wing but overall, he is the one msnbc daily show that I have on my DVR.

That said - I really miss Martin Bashir who was terminated for nothing! All he did was repeat Palin's own words in the middle of a rant. Damn. I miss him more than Keith.

[saintsebastian]

58. I Like O'Donnell's Personality

O'Donnell is funny and his "Rewrite" segment is often very well delivered. Though, he comes from a background in television drama, so that may not be surprising. He's also very bold and never willing to play nice, which can make for enjoyable television. E.g., when he confronted Herman Cain for not participating in the sixties-era civil rights movements, or when Morning Joe had to abruptly cut to commercial because O'Donnell was shouting down former Bushie Marc Thiessen. Then there's that time he challenged, on-air, one of Mitt Romney's sons to a fist fight. He does indeed have a flair for drama.

[SunSeeker]

88. Lawrence O'Donnell is great.

His Ferguson analysis has been brilliant.

[RVN VET]

109. He can play smash-mouth pundit, for certain

But I remember watching him go gently with a RW air headed woman complaining about how hard the ACA was going to affect she and her family. Turns out the woman did not even know what kind of health insurance her husband had, or whether it would in any way be affected by ACA. Turns out,there was no reason to believe she was going to be in any way harmed by ACA, but she had already made the rounds of FOX and other a-hole news networks spreading the falsehood of her victimhood. Yet Lawrence was very gentle and kind with her, keeping his voice, well, mellow, as he slowly led her (albeit temporarily) into the light of truth. He didn't push her, but he did get her to admit that there was a lot about the ACA she knew nothing about, and that there was also a lot about her own insurance coverage she apparently knew even less about.

I admired the civilized, dispassionate way he handled the woman's ignorance. I love Keith, too, but he would have eviscerated the poor, dumb woman. I cringe to think of it. (Well, OK, part of me smiles at the thought!)

[KoKo]

63. Interesting Read....

Recommend.

[nationalize the fed]

64. k/r excellent analysis

for those who may have missed (or "forgotten&quot Olbermanns words

Long version

Not long after these special comments, Kieth was history. But every citizen now must pay vile despicable health insurance companies for their entire lives. If this exact same law was passed by Republicans, the outrage from Democrats would have been deafening and there would have been marches on the Capitol.

[SunSeeker]

87. And go back to 15,000 dying each year with no coverage?

No thanks.

[saintsebastian]

115. Straw Man

Of course the choice wasn't whether or not we should reform health care at all; the choice was how to do it. Anyone who was actually watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann back then will remember that after Olbermann's father passed away, health care became the topic that he was impassioned about seemingly above all others. He and other progressive naysayers at the time, like Gov. Howard Dean, wanted health reform just as badly, if not more so, than the next guy. They wanted health care for all, though. They wanted a public option.

Of course, had we heeded their sage advice we may not have ended up with "the Medicaid gap" -but that's another conversation.

[SunSeeker]

118. Bullshit. We didn't have the votes for a public option.

Lieberman refused to vote for the public option. The only way we could get him--and the blue dogs--to vote for healthcare reform was to drop the public option.

I would have loved a public option. But it didn't have the votes in the Senate. We could have continued holding out for perfection while 15,000 Americans died each year for lack of coverage, or we could pass a compromise bill that at least covered millions of uninsured Americans and protected the rest of us from some of the worst insurance company abuses, like pre-existing condition exclusions.

[kimbutgar]

57. And if I watch another show that talks about what republicans need to do to win in 2016

I have been trying to wean myself off MSNBC since the election. I want to scream when they talk about how republicans can take the white house in 2016. It's as if they are cheerleaders for the republican party. If I want to hear that talk I can watch Fox or CNN. I've been watching more Free Speech TV and Al Jam now. Unless we get another flame thrower against republicans like Keith, Martin Barshir, Cenk Ugar and John Fuglestang I'm done with the channel.

[polichick]

59. Why do they air all those prison shows? It's always struck me as

weird beyond words. Who watches that stuff?

[Calista241]

62. The real question is...

Does Lockup Raw get higher ratings than their news shows?

[shenmue]

65. They have Lockup on for eleven thousand hours

It's on so long, I thought I was in jail.

[HeiressofBickworth]

69. I once was actually a captive audience for prison shows.

About this time last year, I was in the hospital. There was a young woman in the next bed (2 to a room; one TV) and since she had been there before me, she pretty much had control of the remote. I don't know how she did it but there were more prison shows than I ever knew existed. I think she topped out at the show about prison facilities in Russia. Fortunately, I slept quite a bit, but it seems every time I woke up, there was another prison show. She was released a few days before me so once she left, I enjoyed quiet and a better selection of programming.

[PatSeg]

95. I have suffered through

some of the worst reality TV shows when I've been in the hospital. It gave me a fresh understanding about our society. There are people who watch this kind of crap ALL the time! It is really scary.

[dreamnightwind]

70. They could aso try being an actual news channel

We seriously need a news channel that doesn't suck. The competition isn't that tough, CNN and Fox are corporate and RW dreck, nauseating to many people.

MS-NBC has very little news coverage, it's mostly political shows. And even though several of their hosts come from the left side of the fence, there's very little discussion of anything our corporate masters don't have squarely on their agendas. No radical analysis, no alternative views of the MIC, at best they represent the corporate Democratic positions.

And that's at best. The rest of their programming is RW BS or sick prison shows.

Personally I'd love to have an actual 24x7 news channel that wasn't constantly lying to me, which is my sense of CNN and Fox. Not so much to ask for.

The CNN hosts are so phoney I can't even stand to look at them or listen to them, Fox is probably worse but I haven't watched Fox in years so other than clips I see on MS-NBC or Stewart/Colbert I have no idea what Fox is doing these days.

[Enthusiast]

74. Kicked and recommended! I refuse to watch prison shows.

[libodem]

78. I'm with you

And I won't even watch any of that 24/7 CSI bullshit from every city and the 'special victims' seems especially heinous for the exploitation of our morbid curiosity.

[Enthusiast]

81. They® have really dumbed down TV.

TV has great potential as an educational tool.

CBS even hired Frank Luntz. I have noticed a clear decline since.

I will no longer watch one moment of network news.

[libodem]

85. Seems designed to soften us all up

To blindly accept the inevitability of America being a Police State.

[usaf-vet]

79. Absolutely true

Makes no sense spend all week delivering news and commentary. Then at 9:00 CST shut the doors draw the curtains flip on the prison video loop. See yaaaaa...... Monday morning.

[DeSwiss]

80. ''Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.'' ~A. J. Liebling

- In the oligarchical corporate-state, cosmetic democratic processes (like a ''free press'') helped to establish its foundation and to control the narrative of what they were actually doing.

Over time as that oligarchical corporate-state succeeds it metastasizes. And all things of real asset value begin to be drawn within its domain -- and eventually everything accrues toward it. Like iron filings are pulled into and under the influence and control of a magnet.

In the end, this is what the ''mass'' in mass-media looks like......

[center][/center]

K&R

[librechik]

83. ^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

[Enthusiast]

127. Those 6 corporations agree that the citizens are unfit to receive accurate information.

We are ripe for being hoodwinked, however.

[usaf-vet]

82. Absolutely true

Makes no sense spend all week delivering news and commentary. Then at 9:00 CST shut the doors draw the curtains flip on the prison video loop. See yaaaaa...... Monday morning.

[dembotoz]

84. down to basic cable now and dumping that next week

just have the internet and rabbit ears tv

do miss a cable news channel of some type...

a web based thing that i could just put in my favs would be really nice.

had some semblance of that couple times but they come and go....

sad

[SunSeeker]

89. I wish MSNBC would put news programming on weekends.

The weekend prison shows suck. Sadly, they get higher ratings than some of their other shows and are cheap to make. Doesn't look like they are going anywhere.

[PatSeg]

90. Well, to be fair

if a major musical celebrity had died, they would have covered it nonstop 24/7!!!

[maddiemom]

114. Yeah, that's another thing: a celebrity dies and the coverage IS 24/7

without exaggeration. The same few bits and clips are played over and over and over...I wonder how many viewers, like myself just stay away from those networks for a couple of days. Surely their ratings must plummet...or maybe not (?)

[PatSeg]

117. I suppose when they temporarily

lost us, they gained others who can't get enough tabloid news.

When Michael Jackson died, you'd have thought that the world had stood still. There apparently was NO news other than his death. It could have been reported in one or two minutes, but they found ways to stretch the story out for hours and days.

[belzabubba333]

93. kickareeno

[femmocrat]

100. Does anyone know how to send this entire thread to MSNBC?

They should see what democrats think of them.

[Cleita]

104. They have contact information on their website.

You can send them the link.

[MrMickeysMom]

102. Next up… HUNGER GAMES!

What is the difference?

[Vinca]

108. When they weren't in prison mode they had the sappiest coverage ever.

There must have been an office pool to see who could drum up the stupidest story about shopping to cover. If MSNBC ever wants to see a decent rating it needs two things: bona fide journalism and availability to the masses free (in the same way Faux is free).

[The Wizard]

110. They fired the guy

who put them on the map, Kieth Olbermann. it's called bad management.

[indivisibleman]

111. I have right wingers throw the Lockup shows at me

as a statement about how lame MSNBC is and I have to admit that it is the one thing that they have correct.

[Sparks224]

112. TV News.

TV News is owned by the oligarchs.
The internet is the only thing functioning as a free press, which is why they need to shut it down.

[shaayecanaan]

116. Their ratings suck even harder without those prison shows...

For total day viewership (6 a.m.-6 a.m.), we noted that CNN moved into second place, with MSNBC not too far behind. But when you remove MSNBC’s crime documentaries series — which constitute an unusual break from the network’s editorially progressive political content — their demo ratings (A24-54) sink lower, handing that category over to CNN as well.

When you include MSNBC’s series Lockup, Caught on Camera, Undercover, Predator Raw, and To Catch a Predator in the network’s all-day (6a-6a) viewership, they rack up 133k in the key demo, placing just a thousand demo viewers ahead of CNN.

Remove those controversial documentaries, however, and MSNBC’s total day demo ratings fall to 117k, placing them third behind CNN and only 4k ahead of HLN’s 113k demo rating. See below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/msnbcs-lockup-documentary-or-reality-tv/2011/06/03/gIQAQ8853H_story.html