Chris Matthews explodes at MSNBC: Quit putting ‘goddamn’ right-wing ads on for free

[deminks]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/chris-matthews-explodes-at-msnbc-quit-putting-goddamn-right-wing-ads-on-for-free/

MSNBC host Chris Matthews lit into his own network on Tuesday, denouncing it for playing commercials paid for by “piggish” conservative groups, Talking Points Memo reported.

“The cloth-coat regular Republican voters who send their kids to war are not the ones who pay for these ads. They’re totally different people,” Matthews told colleague Thomas Roberts, after Roberts played an ad paid for by the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America on his show. “The ones who send their kids to war and come home maimed and wondering what the hell they were doing it for, those people are not impressed by these goddamn ads.”

The commercial criticized Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) following his entry into the presidential race, accusing him of being weak on foreign policy. Bloomberg View reported that the ad will also air in several states holding early primary elections.

“I certainly wouldn’t put them on free, Tom. That’s what we should stop doing,” Matthews said to Roberts. “Stop running right-wing ads for free on our network.”

BINGO.

[L0oniX]

1. Tweety's rare extended moment of clarity.

[fredamae]

2. Second time in as

many weeks...he's called Bullshit in a magnificent way.

(I might have to start watching him again once in awhile....)

[PeteSelman]

3. He's right.

But at the same time no one is watching, so what does it matter?

[RavensChick]

4. Good point.

I stopped watching M$NBC altogether when KO left so for Tweety to go off like that, while good for a change, is as rare as it gets.

[zeemike]

5. Maybe they are trying to get us to come back.

Well not me because I gave up TV for good some years ago.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

44. me too. I only know about teevee stuff from what's reported here.

Works for me.

[whathehell]

6. Where do you get that "no one is watching"?

We obviously are.

[PeteSelman]

9. MSNBC draws flies for ratings.

The top rated show only gets like 600,000 viewers.

No one watches.

[AlbertCat]

12. No one watches.

600,000 do.

[PeteSelman]

21. Why is this corporate cable station such a sacred cow?

They get piss poor ratings, all of them do.

Why is this so upsetting to people?

[RavensChick]

53. I'm not one of them.

I have a job and I get home late anyway, so anything that goes down with them I hear about it here.

[WhiteTara]

13. MSNBC is on the higher tier programming

while fox is on the cheapest plan. If they were smart, they would get on the same tier as fox and their ratings would pick up dramatically.

[Jamaal510]

27. That, and

maybe add more variety in what the talking heads discuss instead of the same few stories all day. But I doubt Phil Griffin is that smart...

[mopinko]

38. not their call. cable kicked them up there for a reason.

they used to be on the basic package, and were removed.

but, but, its all about the money. yeah, right.

[Kingofalldems]

18. I watch.

Who the hell are you anyway?

[PeteSelman]

20. Yeah you're right.

The whole country watches this with bated breath.

Why so touchy about the fact that no one cares about cable news?

Geez, you'd think I peed on Bernie Sanders.

[AlbertCat]

24. Why so touchy

I dunno.... I mean who really cares about ratings except TV execs?

Perhaps it's that thing where conservatives compare MSNBC to FoxNews. "It's the libtard FoxNews." ... when it clearly isn't.

And of course at the same time conservatives also like to point out it has low ratings.... as if that has anything to do with quality or content.

[erronis]

40. It's only the marketing execs who give a sh1t and they lie when they do

Madison Avenue, Nielsen Ratings, porting events, Academy/Oscar/whatever awards - these are just figments of imagination to milk $$$ out of companies that want their product to get more eyeballs.

Oh, throw in all the new internet click-follower. It's all a bunch of statistics that can be molded into whatever form you and the client want. Focus groups, man-on-the-street interviews. More of the same.

We'll get lots of feed/blow-back from types that say these companies need the multimillion contracts to ensure that they are reaching the right demographic. Has anyone ever published a cost/benefit analysis (that wasn't run by some academic that was funded by the marketeers)? My guess is that 90% of the advertising is wasted - some of this is actually negative.

I'll get interested in streaming information (and I mean information, not advertising and crap) if anyone can present it on a T.V. without offending me. Otherwise, I love being able to surf to stories on sites that interest me. I keep a pretty broad (not including virulent) set of US and overseas news sites I visit regularly. I rely on good and trusted friends to point me to new places of interest.

[brett_jv]

51. If all these 'exec' types didn't have the 'wrong idea' about advertising ...

There would be next to nothing available in the way of what we call 'media' ... period.

We'd still have some Movies ... though probably a lot less of them given that product placement has become an obvious funding source for many movies these days as well ... and the fact that 'advertisements' are how many people find out about movies to begin with ... and if not there, then in some other media format that relies on advertising revenue ... basically without adverts there'd be way fewer.

Same goes with books ... we'd pretty much have academic books only, because without advertisement, nobody would know about new 'fun' books being released.

And there'd be next to no TV shows, obviously.

Course we'd have message boards ... but very to little to talk about because nearly every story we ever read is ultimately being paid for by ... yup ... advertisers.

And there be could stuff like 'netflix' and 'hulu', but again ... the amount of content would be a joke, because like 95% of what they 'show' ... would never have even been made if not for advertisements.

I agree that it's garbage that we pay exorbitant cable fees for the privilege of getting to watch a shitton of adverts, but when I get right down to it ... I'm glad for them. We just 'beat the system' by fast-forwarding or at the least muting and looking away when ads come on.

But like I say there'd be a tiny fraction of the quality entertainment that exists in the world now if it weren't for these execs failing to figure out that advertisements just don't work or produce positive cash flow.

And this is obvious because we all know how everyone in the USA is so smart and so NOT easily manipulated into doing ANYthing by TPTB.

Not at all implying I don't respect your decision to 'stand firm' cause I do, but ... if your thought process was everybody's, I'd not have squat to watch/read/listen to, so ... I'm glad it doesn't

[erronis]

52. I guess I'm a lot less "entertainment" driven than most

I don't know who any of the current batch of "stars" are and can barely remember the ones form the 70's when I last gave-a-shoot. I don't watch the Emmys or Academies (don't have a T.V. and don't get out to the theatres more than once every two years.)

I do care a lot about science, history, philosophy, literature, people, life, even politics. But I prefer to get this through more "trusted" channels, altho the "trust" is frequently lost and sometimes regained. Discover was a good channel until it got coopted by someone with a different agenda.

And I do realize that all aspects of broadcasting, even the NPR.org-style, are subject to paid advertising and coercion by the powers-that-be.

So, there is a ton to read, watch, listen to without being subjected to a sponsor's dictates. For now, the internetubes still provide a world-wide set of opinions, entertainment, videos, and more.

Cheers!

[whathehell]

30. Nope

600,000 watch.

[nxylas]

36. That's the highest rated show

I dread to think what the lowest rated shows get.

[stonecutter357]

45. Nope

Nope wrong.

[Fla Dem]

46. MSNBC close to CNN in numbers. All cable news, including FOX are no where close to network news.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/04/07/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-april-6-2015/385444/

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/04/07/world-news-with-david-muir-is-the-most-watched-evening-news-program-for-the-first-time-since-2009/386021/


CABLE NEWS RATINGS





NETWORK NEWS RATINGS

[trueblue2007]

22. I'M WATCHING !!! Chris Matthews slings crap at the right wing /GOPigs all the time

[PeteSelman]

23. I watch him too.

But in the grand scheme, no one else does.

600,000 out of 320,000,000 is nothing. If he even gets that many.

[SwankyXomb]

7. He's right

that's what the regular programming is for.

[CK_John]

8. IMO, Tweety is trying to save his job.

[dorkzilla]

11. But the braintrusts at MSNBC say they’ll no longer be liberal...

...i wasn’t aware they were to begin with. They SAID they were but all those “natural gas” commercials and Morning Joe said otherwise.

[Jamaal510]

28. +1

[Blanks]

47. MSNBC/GE isn't going to be liberal a long as...

Liberals are against war and GE is a big defense contractor.

That's just reality. Liberals decide to go to war, they will get all of the networks (except Fox) singing their praises.

[project_bluebook]

10. Big money buying our elections makes it official

The US is a banana republic.

[world wide wally]

16. The goal should be to get people to stop watching Fox News

[Jamaal510]

29. Bingo.

Though, a few of the people who do watch them are media watchdogs like MMFA and RWWatch.

[calimary]

39. The only problem - if people stop watching MSNBC then there'll be NO voice for

our side. There certainly won't be anyone correspondingly giving up on Pox Noise.

[Rolando]

15. MSNBC

I have a lot more time since I gave up watching TV altogether, especially MSNBC and CNN, both repetitious and ultimately boring. But the real reason for withdrawing came from my awakening to the thievery of the cable companies (delivery systems). I'd like to see some ultra-liberal legislator set some limits on those companies, on insurance companies, and other such as are stealing from people daily.

[cui bono]

31. I haven't stopped watching TV but I cut the cord and just pay for a few streaming services.

I did used to watch MSNBC online but now you have to have a cable/satellite service in order to sign up to watch. In any case, a lot of those shows end up just being tabloid politics. I get better info from radio shows such as Ian Masters' Background Briefing (www.ianmasters.com) or Democracy Now! and others on Pacifica.

Welcome to DU!

[Duppers]

17. Bam!

Was listening live when he said this. "Bring it Chris," I yelled at the tv.

[dinger130]

19. I think I'm falling in love.

He's ringing my bell......ding, ding, ding

[The Wizard]

25. Remember how many news outlets ran

the Swift boat ads as news thus making them sound legitimate. The news media played and active role in the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 04.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Matthews talked about the Swiftboaters more than anyone else on tv, giving them "free" air time!!!!

Talk about a bloviating hypocrite!!!!

Matthews talked about the Swiftboaters for 26 straight days on his program in 2004, lending them legitimacy, as you aptly pointed out.
He even ran the Swiftboaters ads over and over again for free, just so he could talk about them.

I worked on the Kerry campaign in 2004 for nearly 11 months.
After the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Kerry's poll ratings were sky high.
But, then the Swiftboaters started running their ads, and Matthews carried their water for them for the entire month of August!!
Kerry watched his poll numbers plummet to the ground every single day for 2 whole months.

Matthews never questioned Dubya's bs military credentials.
Instead, he only mentioned that other veterans' groups had questioned Dubya's military record in passing.
As if it happens all of the time when a veteran runs for President!

Matthews is the biggest, lying, Brand XXX shitbag on MSNBC!!

[erronis]

42. Since I didn't watch TV then (or now),thanks for that information

Nobody turns their coat as fast as a political analyst. And they can do it again, and again.

What gives these bloviators the right to talk to us as if they know something other than their script?

Sure they can bring on pundits that think alike or think differently, but these bloviators are running the show and all the participants understand that they better be good kids or they won't get their $,000 again.

[JonLP24]

43. I can't believe Matthews either forgot or for some reason

didn't mention Bush was against nation building in Rand using the phrase as a shot to the crowd the supports Bush era foreign policy. Baffling.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4315725/george-w-bush-nation-building


George W. Bush

I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Squirel, nut

clock, twice a day.

[raven mad]

33. TWEETY did this? I might actually have to buy a television.........

LOL!!

[barbtries]

34. who is that guy he's talking to

just acting like, you didn't just say that. i'll pretend you didn't just say that. weird.

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. Better yet, stop running right-wing ads, period, on msnbc.

[SheilaT]

37. The best part about not owning a TV is that I never get to see

the ads.

I do watch Rachel via the internet. I think I could be watching all of the MSNBC lineup that way if I wanted, but I don't bother.

[JonLP24]

41. It is ironic Matthews says by Paul saying he is against "nation building" was a shot to the Bush

crowd.

Bush said he was against nation building himself too. The words "nation building" I immediately associate with Bush because it was recurring phrase Bush used in the 2000 election.

[dogman]

48. Didn't he buy it then too?

If he's buying the BS Randy's selling or is he attempting to sell it for him? He was a total suck up to Jack Welch when he was head of GE and was totally willing to pay lip service (do a commercial in disguise as news and opinion) for the company line then. He tells it like it is when he can use it to push his choice to the front.

[JonLP24]

49. I think so

or from what I read from of others but I didn't become interested in politics until 2002-03 (I even remember nation building though) but I will say I believe Rand Paul is more honest when he says it as it is a consistent part of Libertarian ideology & the foreign policy views expressed by him & his father. I think he will try to appear more hawkish to become more electable in a primary.

I'm not saying that as an endorsement of Rand Paul as I can point out several policy views on private business or government policies that are very bad ideas not to mention abortion & LGBT rights and I think Rand Paul is his own worst enemy as even if you get him talking on something he makes sense on, he'll eventually go off the rails. He famously does it all the time in the Senate.

[dogman]

50. Like saying he would take the Reagan approach?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016119594