MSNBC's decisions are based on ratings folks. If Sharpton gets a time slot, or if

[themaguffin]

the network maintains two Hardball time slots, it's because it makes sense for them. Period.

Personally I think Cenk is a horrible host and Al would be good edition to the line up, but ultimately ratings will determine each of the fates.

[dennis4868]

1. Rev Al....

is AWESOME....much better than Cenk!

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. +1. I just read on another site that Rev Al's ratings are better than Cenk's?

Al may be pulling in viewers from his radio show, as well as the weekly spot he does on Tom Joyner's Morning Show. Finally MSNBC might add a host of color? Egads! The Horror!

[CherylK]

10. I didn't read that anywhere but I did read this by Jonathan Turley

MSNBC loses major credibility hiring Sharpton

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/19/report-msnbc-close-to-naming-al-sharpton-host-of-prime-time-show/

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. >>>>>

:rofl:

[dennis4868]

43. that's crazy....

Rev Al has more credibility than all of the TV hosts out there put together...and yes, the ratings were up last week in Cenk's time spot....

[vaberella]

64. Turley is a Libertarian blowhard!! He has no credibility with Dems. n/t

[RyanPsych]

41. Isnt Cenk "of color?"

I thought Arab/Turkish (Arab, right?) was nonwhite...

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Cenk could pass for caucasian, Rev Al can't. I don't care why he's gone...

just glad that he is. Every show on MSNBC is interchangeable, which is why I quit watching a couple of years ago. No variety. I've been TIVO'ing Rev Al since last Thurs, and have been pleasantly surprised, and I've let MSNBC know that I'm back. :hi:

[Cal33]

133. The Caucasus Mountains is the area from which the Caucasians

supposedly originated. It's pretty close to the Middle East.

The word Caucasian applies also to the people around the Meditteranian
area, including Iran and the Arab nations. It also applies to the
Asian Indians.

So, the word Caucasian is more inclusive. The Indians, for instance,
are Caucasian, but not white.

[Creideiki]

139. We know. You only shop at Sycophants-R-Us

[EffieBlack]

48. He's Cacucasian, i.e. he's white

When MSNBC hire a few black and Hispanic hosts, then I might not have a problem with people trying to claim that another white guy in a lineup of nothing but white people somehow counts as "a person of color" because he is not Anglo-Saxon.

But considering that the networks haven't hired a single black or Hispanic host, I have absolutely no patience for any suggestion that hiring a white Turk somehow let's the networks off the hook - as if there's one "black" slot and it's already filled by the white Turkish guy.

Bottom line - when I say "person of color," I mean an African American and/or Hispanic host, not a white guy with olive skin and a non-traditional western name. Period.

And to anyone who claims that race shouldn't matter, I suggest they consider whether they'd feel this way if the script got flipped and MSNBC and CNN had a lineup comprised solely of black people. If some of the hysteria at the thought of Al Sharpton replacing Cenk is any indication, I already know the answer.

[vaberella]

65. Are you nuts? I don't believe he's Arab. He's Turkish. And he is WHITE.

In actuality they are the TRUE Caucasians in some respects when you see where the Caucas is located. In Europe, he's definitely not classed as White---just Turkish. By American standards all Turks, Arabs, Persians and so on are White. Unless of course you count if they're Muslim and that change happened because of 9/11. And I believe Cenk is Islamic.

[John Agar]

117. Of course, lots of folks treat Turks and other Muslim/Middle Eastern people...

Very, very badly.

I think they are very under-represented in the media as well.

That said, African-Americans are also few and far between, and I welcome the Rev. Al's contribution.

I just wish that MSNBC hadn't made it a case of "Either/Or."

[JTFrog]

124. I don't know if he claims any religion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/no-tolerance-for-islam_b_17807.html

[Chan790]

135. No.

Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds and the assorted Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian people, as well as Israelis and all other Semitic people are considered to be Caucasian for ethnic and racial data purposes.

[Billy Burnett]

2. Then explain Phil Donahue's firing.

The decisions are based on what is good for the mothership corporation.

[themaguffin]

4. he's a perfect example. if he had had strong ratings, even decent ratings, the network might have

stuck with him, but his ratings started good and quickly dropped as low one's cable ratings could go. If Keith's were low, he would have not lasted long either.

[Billy Burnett]

7. Wrong. At the time of his firing his ratings were going up on the network.

Exit Phil Donahue
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

[themaguffin]

11. let's not split hairs if

his ratings were strong they would have felt compelled to stick with him, but in the context of the ridiculous nature of that time, his ratings freaked them out.

I am not defending it, just explaining it.

[CherylK]

13. Donahue was fired for being anti-war!!!

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency

[themaguffin]

16. sigh. don't you get it yet? unpopular show+unpopular opinion = no $

[CherylK]

21. Sharpton has been hosting for 10 seconds, how is that a good sample size??

He's a big name with a shady past that gets attention. That does NOT mean he is good for the network or that he is qualified to a host a show and be taken seriously!!! Faux News fans love saying that Faux is the highest rated network and that proves they are right and MSNBC is worthless! It sounds like you are making the same argument.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/19/report-msnbc-close-to-naming-al-sharpton-host-of-prime-time-show/

[themaguffin]

24. I'm not making an argument, I'm merely explaining how they operate

[EffieBlack]

36. Lol!

"Al Sharpton doesn't appeal to a big enough audience."

"Actually, Sharpton is beating Cenk in the timeslot."

"That doesn't mean anything. He's only been on for 10 seconds. And besides, ratings don't mean anything!"

Lol ... How long does his tryout have to be before he's deemed worthy?

And since when is Jonathan Turley an expert on who should host a cable news show?

[Dawgs]

75. EVERY host has higher ratings for the first month.

There's no way you can be that stupid. Hopefully it's just your bias.

[Empowerer]

78. LOL!

It must be exhausting digging up and hauling those goalposts all over the field . . .

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PatSeg]

107. He isn't a very good host for TV

A whole hour, five days a week of Al Sharpton is just too much. Some of his interviews are so rude, I think he'll end up running out of guests in a few months. I tend to like Sharpton in small doses, but I've already grown tired of him as a host.

I thought he was a bad choice as a temporary fill-in host, but I believe he'd be a ratings killer eventually if given his own show.

[Kahuna]

29. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

:thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

86. They were still abysmally low

He only had 379,000 viewers, compared to 2.4 million for O'Reilly.

Olbermann was not less liberal than Donahue, but wasn't axed after several months because he managed to pull in a respectable number of viewers. Even on Current TV, Olbermann was able to beat CNN.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. "That's going to leave the yard, folks!"

[CherylK]

6. How about Keith Olbermann and his fabulous ratings?!

Don't tell me anyone believes he wasn't shoved out the door, if so I have a bridge to sell them!!!

:crazy:

Cenk pissed off the powerful by telling the truth about BOTH parties and that is not allowed on corporate media! And that is why some people here hate him...

[themaguffin]

12. Keith's issues have been well documented. Who said that ratings were the ONLY reason

seriously people, come on. We all know that Keith was butting heads with management for a long time.

[Doctor_J]

19. Uh, that was you

You (in OP): MSNBC's decisions are based on ratings

You (in this post): Who said that ratings were the ONLY reason

You're arguing with yourself, and losing.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Agar]

34. So it's not necessarily ratings, then.

End of discussion.

[themaguffin]

52. yes it's necessarily ratings - do you know how networks work? here you go

ratings dominate the decision making process, along with cost and overall programming.

This not absolute, there are factors, like with Beck and Keith etc. But with Cenk and Al, not so much. With Phil, well he dropped to a .1 which is pathetic.

Sure, the climate didn't suit him either, but had he had the ratings, for money alone, the network would have stuck with him, because that's what matters to begin with for them. MSNBC did not have a liberal line up or a thought of one at that time. The only thought was a little counter programming strategy common across all types of networks.

Let's not be dense. I realize a lot people don't understand how ratings and programming work much, but come on, ratings are the major reason for decisions.

"end of discussion"

[Dawgs]

74. Then why did they fire Cenk? His ratings were rising and he was beating the other networks.

Including Fox News in one demographic.

[Empowerer]

76. No he wasn't

His ratings were extremely low.

This blowing up of Cenk Uygur into some kind of mad prophet who instilled fear in the power elite so he had to go is rather bizarre.

He's not a major influence or scary threat to the establishment. He's a blogger/talk show host who most people had never heard of who got a television show that didn't do well on a network that not that many people watch.

We really need some perspective here.

[Dawgs]

79. His ratings were second behind Fox News in every other demographic.

Just like every other host on MSNBC.

They were rising every month, and the MSNBC management agreed that they were good.

Show me a link that proves I'm wrong? I'll be waiting.

[John Agar]

102. Cenk discussed the ratings "issue" on his show last night.

And you are right, he was doing very well, and apparently was told that ratings were NOT the issue.

Video is on the front page right now.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. "Cenk pissed off the powerful by telling the truth".....

I hear Glenn Beck is using that defense as well, but you & I know the truth don't we? ;)

[CherylK]

25. LOL, worst false equivalency ever!!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Agar]

103. How do you know that?

It does seems that he was under some pressure regarding his "tone," which as I read it, and he explained it, had to do with his often scathing critiques of politics as usual in WDC.

Including many Dems.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

115. do you use the phrase "Who's that tripping over my bridge"?

as long as we're stereotyping.... :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. I absolutely do! You caught me. But we won't talk about "types". I think it's against the rules?

:rofl:

[stevenleser]

130. Alerted for purely ad hominem post. n/t

[JTFrog]

113. Spot On. n/t

[JTFrog]

45. Of course you are speaking about "some people" from a completely unbiased perspective...

right? :eyes:

[vaberella]

66. If you believe that, then why is Ratigan not out of a show?

You're reasoning is shit.

[GillesDeleuze]

99. because ratigan's solutions are worse than his critique

right wing

[John Agar]

104. Correct.

[stevenleser]

132. Are you really this obtuse? If you fight with your bosses enough, you get fired anywhere. nt

[John Agar]

33. And for all we know, ANYTHING might be going on behind the scenes.

Creep management fired KO when he was ON THE AIR, and his ratings were just fine.

Sometimes they remove you for what you for other reasons...

Could be ratings, internal politics, pressure from outside.. who knows?

[secondwind]

8. I loves me some Al Sharpton. He serves a purpose! And he is honest and direct.

[TuxedoKat]

9. Keep

Cenk and give Al a show and get rid of Dylan Ratigan.

[monmouth]

18. Now you're talking. I just watched a segment with a British woman and

he constantly interrupted her. It was hard to maintain the thread and totally annoyed her. Cannot stand him, thank god NCIS is on.

[muffin1]

114. That works.

I like Cenk and Al. Cannot STAND Dylan Ratigan.

[Doctor_J]

14. Oh, sorry, thanks for playing

Phil Donahue had the highest-rated show on MSRNC when he was unplugged. The reason given by the network at the time was that they "didn't want to seem anti-war".

So your assertion is simply put, wrong.

[CherylK]

15. +1

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency

[themaguffin]

17. i already addressed this and what about the rest of the liberal line up then, oh that's right there

wasn't one.

[Billy Burnett]

27. Fail.

[themaguffin]

31. "fail?" how old are you? I'm just explaining how they work. Grow up.

[John Agar]

35. It was silly from the outset.

There are scores of potential reasons a network fiddles with its lineup.

To insist on ratings as a motive is just... simplistic.

[tularetom]

28. Shitcan Chris Matthews and Morning Joke

Give Cenk the two afternoon shows and Sharpton the morning slot.

[Larkspur]

30. I stopped Tivoing and watching the 6pm show

I like Sharpton as a guest but am not keen on him as a host. I can only listen to him for about 5 minutes before turning the channel.

I preferred Cenk and thought he was improving as a host. Oh well, I can save the space on TiVo for some other show.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. All is not lost. Al can draw on his radio audience & the 10 million

he speaks to on The TJMS. God forbid MSNBC put a little color in it's evening lineup, FINALLY. If MSNBC didn't go dark after Keith's separation, they certainly won't after Cenk. :hi:

[EffieBlack]

39. Don't you love how they'll give just about any white guy a show

(Who are Cenk or Dylan anyway?!) but when it comes to a black person possibly getting a show, he has to be Edward R. Murrow with a Lady Gaga-sized following - and damned near perfect in practically every other way - before he'll be taken seriously.

And the beat goes on . . .

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. It's unreal isn't it?

:shrug:

[Larkspur]

59. Wasn't Cenk Olive skinned?

I don't have a problem with a black person hosting. I just don't care much for Al Sharpton.

I don't watch Lawrence O'Donnell either and I'm half-Irish.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Who could've imagined that the two of us would ever disagree.

:rofl: Needless to say, Rev. Al's demo wouldn't necessarily care for Cenk, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his "olive skin". We know that Rev. Al has been in the trenches for over 3 decades, with actual skin in the game. And most of us also know that Cenk is a "recent convert", and that doesn't make him a progressive, by any stretch. It makes him an opportunist.

Cenk's problem was that he was garden variety, just another in a long line of paid professionals, who changed their political stripe to suit their career trajectory, sorta like Arianna & Ed. Phonies, one and all. :hi:

[vaberella]

67. Cenk is White. Turkish, Arabs, and Persians are Whites.

Skin toned be damned.

[Zen Democrat]

37. Get rid of the double Hardballs -- Once is enough for Tweety.

[jzodda]

38. Cenk is better than rev Al as a host

That's my opinion-I love Cenk and love the nightly TYT broadcast, which thankfully is going nowhere.

I don't like Rev Al all that much and won't be watching anymore...

I would love to see Cenk get a hosting gig at current tv as they add more commentators.

I understand its a ratings game though-I had NO idea the ratings were bad :(

[JTFrog]

42. Cenk is an asshat.

Cenk has been an embarrassment to MSNBC in the ratings dept.

I doubt we'll be seeing him on any major network for very much longer. And that is A-Okay with me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I hear there's room over at Current TV, which is on in about 20 homes nationwide.

:rofl:

[jzodda]

50. Current TV just needs time

and more quality programming than KO repeated 5 times after the main broadcast.

It also could benefit from a move to basic cable as well as HD since its only in SD for now. For the audience that its available to the ratings have not been too bad so far from what I have read, although the ratings were down in its 2nd week on the air.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Nothing against KO, but I hear the ratings were WAY DOWN from it's debut.

And I think Current TV is probably an appropriate outlet for Cenk. JMHO. :hi:

[vaberella]

69. It was like I needed an excuse not to watch KO.

Once he left, I lost all interest in his show. Rachel, Al, and LOD keep me informed enough.

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. I heartily agree. Although, I stopped watching KO long before his departure.

I think it was right after the BP disaster.

[mwooldri]

138. Yep, Current TV needs much more content.

Otherwise the channel will become KO-TV.

They're obviously starting out small.

[vaberella]

68. ...

:rofl:

[ecstatic]

128. LOL! nt

[GillesDeleuze]

88. beating CNN, FoxBusiness and CNBC is a joke?

me thinks you don't know what you are talking about.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Agar]

105. The ratings part of your statement does not seem to be true.

Do you have evidence for this that contradicts the numbers Cenk shared yesterday?

The video is on the front page here.

[JTFrog]

111. I haven't seen the numbers he shared yesterday.

But I have seen some sample numbers.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-tuesday-may-24_b68322
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cable-news-ratingsd-june-10-2011_b71147
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-tuesday-june-14_b71641
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-wednesday-june-29-2_b74289
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-wednesday-july-6-2_b75350

To be honest, I don't really care what his numbers were. He never deserved to be on a major network to begin with. I'm sick to death of these supposed "former" republicans who voted for the worst President this country has ever had pretending to have had a complete 180 change in their politics and yet they have nothing positive to bring to the table. The constant attacks against the current administration make their claims laughable at best.





*edit link

[John Agar]

116. So, you just hate the guy.

I got that.

Of course, ratings are RELATIVE.

You should listen to what he had to say in the video.

It was quite modest, really.

[JTFrog]

118. I have an opinion of the guy, but it's not steeped in emotion like "hate".

Like I said, he just has nothing positive to bring to the table.

Why would I listen to a guy who attacks Democrats under the guise of being a "reformed" republican? Have you ever heard some of his "progressive" views about women? FFS.

Good riddance.

You have your opinion and I have mine. See how that works?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. "We need a third party system because"......

So you're openly advocating a third party at (D)emocratic (U)nderground? Hmmmmmm..... :wow:


"i feel a divide is happening within the democratic party"


There certainly is a "divide", but it's not coming from "within" the Democratic Party. One guess as to where it's originating. ;)

[EffieBlack]

53. Or maybe Cenk's ratings were bad because people just didn't want to watch him

Cenk is not some kind of brave, truth-telling prophet.

[vaberella]

70. Thank you.

How is Al scoring higher ratings than Cenk at the same time? Must be because he's pretty good. But he just can't get his dues. And what kills me the most about this shit. They offered Cenk another time line and he didn't want it.

[Empowerer]

71. The double standard goalpoast shifting is fascinating, isn't it?

First, we hear that Rev. Sharpton won't be able to pull in viewers. Then, when it's pointed out that he actually drew MORE viewers than Cenk, suddenly, the argument shifts and ratings don't matter - in fact, Cenk's poor ratings are proof that he was TOO good.

Then we hear that the host for this time period must be a bona fide progressive and Cenk Uygur- who has done nothing but observe and talk (and talk and talk) and who only left the Republican party a few years ago - is the TRUE voice of progressivism. But when it's pointed out that Rev. Sharpton has spent a lifetime as a progressive activist - and not just a progressive talker - his skin-in-the-game history just makes him nothing more than a common "hustler."

And, of course, when all else fails, here comes the bizarre "Cenk is olive skinned and not Western European, so he offers the racial diversity that MSNBC needs" claim.

Absolutely amazing . . .

[GillesDeleuze]

92. "left the republican party a few years ago" WRONG

he's been progressive for over 1/4th of his life. 1/2 of his life he was too young to have real views.

[GillesDeleuze]

89. except youre wrong.

Cenk was #2 in all key demos.

[Empowerer]

93. No he wasn't

He was behind FOX, CNN and CNN Headline.

[GillesDeleuze]

95. thats simply not true.

fox #1
msnbc #2
cnn #3
cnbc #4

[Empowerer]

98. Cite?

[GillesDeleuze]

100. LOL - i knew you didn't have one.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/msnbc-continues-to-top-cnn-in-prime-time-may-2011-ratings/94382/

[Empowerer]

106. I have a cite to back up what I'm saying, but yours is bogus

This is what you cited to: “MSNBC Live” hosted by Cenk Uygur delivered its strongest A25-54 (164,000) and total viewer (665,000) audiences since its launch in January 2011.

How does this back up your claim that Uygur was second in his timeslot?

In fact, Uygur consistently came in DEAD LAST behind CNN, FOX and Headline News. And Al Sharpton's ratings have been higher than Cenk's best week.

For example, on July 1st, Cenk scored a mere 114,000 viewers. His ratings on other days hovered in this territory.

On the other hand, since he stepped in as guest host, Sharpton's LOWEST rating was higher than Cenk's HIGHEST rating.

In other words, the facts just don't support your claim.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-friday-july-15-2_b77126

[EffieBlack]

121. crickets?

Hmmm

[JTFrog]

123. Indeed. n/t

[jzodda]

55. "Half of DU despises progressive values"

I may agree with some of that-I strongly believe we need Dem political leaders to get tougher overall but half of DU people despise progressive values? That I would tend to doubt big time.

[Mosaic]

57. You're not a troll

The truth hurts. We have a two party system which is inadequate for true believers on either side. I believe we need a parliamentary system with four parties. Cenk was a treasure, he'll survive in one way or another even without his corporate gig.

[bigwillq]

58. You take a message board way too seriously (nt)

[bvar22]

56. Except....

in 2003, MSNBC canceled their highest rated show, Donahue.

How do you explain that?

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Problem is, Cenk wasn't the highest rated show on MSNBC, or anywhere for that matter.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MouseFitzgerald]

62. Thats not true

Cenk beat Fox in the 18-36 demo in May and June. Hes had great ratings over the past 2 months.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Link? And how were his ratings compared to Al Sharpton's in that demographic?

"Cenk's ratings are lower than norm on MSNBC":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LibRule/al-sharpton-msnbcs-next-host_n_901313_97819084.html

-----------------------

"In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Griffin denied Mr. Uygur’s accusations and sounded disappointed that he had decided not to accept the weekend position. “We never told Cenk what to say or what not to say,” Mr. Griffin said... Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/media/sharpton-close-to-being-msnbc-anchor.html

[Empowerer]

72. Maybe MSNBC wants to reach out to other demographics . . .

[Dawgs]

77. Cenk was SECOND behind Fox News in all other demographics.

The same as every other MSNBC host.

[quiller4]

126. That is only partly true

Cenk dropped to third a good deal of the time.

[NorthCarolina]

81. If what you say were fact, then Cenk would still be on at 6pm. His ratings

were good. The numbers don't lie, only people do.

[Empowerer]

82. Actually, his ratings WEREN'T good

In fact, they were pretty bad . . .

[NorthCarolina]

85. So, you are essentially claiming that Cenk posted entirely false ratings numbers

in his explanation of why he is no longer with MSNBC?

[GillesDeleuze]

90. Numbers vs. "pretty bad" LOL

he was #2 behind fox. ahead of CNN, ahead of Fox Business, ahead of CNBC

[Empowerer]

94. Cenk was behind FOX, CNN and CNN Headline

I don't really have a problem with that since I don't think ratings tell the whole story about news programming. But I do think it's disingenuous for people to insist that somehow Rev. Sharpton is not worthy of a television show because his ratings were supposedly so low, yet when it's pointed out that that his ratings are higher than Cenk Uygur's, then be told that ratings don't really matter or to have his ratings blatantly mischaracterized as better than they were.

For me, the bottom line is that Cenk Uygur, an honorable and good progressive guy was not a very good host, in my view. While some people loved him, many more people were apparently put off by him. MSNBC made a business decision to look around for a replacement. They seem to have found one in Al Sharpton, who is also an honorable and good progressive man with a strong following who can expand the network's demographic.

There is no need to inflate who and what Uygur is or to demean Rev. Sharpton. MSNBC made a business decision. We are going to have a new progressive voice (at least new for MSNBC) and we will all survive and the nation will not go down in flames either way.

We're just talking about television here, people. Television that hardly anyone watches anyway . . .

[GillesDeleuze]

96. wrong.

fox #1
msnbc #2
cnn #3
cnbc #4

if by dead last you mean he was second behind fox (except for the month of june, where he was #1)

[jzodda]

109. As the other posted stated you are WRONG

unless you believe that he is lying or making up numbers. His numbers for June as he listed them were very very strong!

MSNBC didn't make a business decision-they made a political decision because Cenk would not go along with their crap.

Many younger people on DU love Cenk- watch some TYT and you can see why. Its partly generational. An old guy like Rev Al just does not and cannot connect with the younger viewers like myself.

[EffieBlack]

122. I hate to break this to you

But the 18-24 DU demographic is probably not MSNBC's target audience.

They certainly aren't the ONLY audience members that matter.

"An old guy like Rev. Al" might not be interesting to YOU, but he is VERY interesting to lots of people who aren't all that impressed with the other fare MSNBC is offering. There are lots of folks out there in the real world who just aren't as excited as you are by what moves 20-year olds.

The world is bigger than a very narrow scope. I think it's great that MSNBC seems to recognize that.

[jzodda]

125. Didn't you watch his video?

He was talking about the 25-54 demo-the important one. That's where he was doing very well...So ratings were not the issue. Cenk is not the kind of guy to play ball like that. He is anti-establishment mostly.

I am sure he will get a chance somewhere again. As much as a few of you really seem to hate him here (I can't see why) he has lots of fans.

[Vinca]

83. I couldn't disagree more. While I like Rev. Al and think he's a good guest,

he's a terrible host so far. Maybe he'll get better. Cenk kept you awake . . . Rev. Al puts you to sleep. I hope Cenk goes to Current.

[Solomon]

110. And I feel just the opposite. Never could watch the Cenk guy.

Even his videos on DU.

[GillesDeleuze]

87. LOL.

ignored.

[Enrique]

101. lol, "period", really?

i can't believe i'm reading this preposterous claim on DU, which has discussed the corporate media's shortcomings at length, for years.

[snot]

108. Sorry, but ratings &/or $$ factors as sole motive for media's rightward swing is untenable.

There are just too many counterexamples going both ways -- i.e., lefty persons or shows that get cancelled even though they're popular, and righty persons and shows that are retained no matter how badly they do.

It's the politics, not just the money.

[ForeignandDomestic]

112. What does it all mean?

I assume the "Reverend" Al Sharpton has a show now on one of the major cable news networks that will probably run throughout Obama's re-election campaign similar to how the comedian DL Hughley had a show on CNN during Obama's 1st campaign in 2008 and stayed on air up into the conclusion of the election and then promptly canceled.

Oh what psyop games we play, but on who really, and for what purpose?

[Empowerer]

120. Huh?

What does DL Hughley have to do with Al Sharpton?

One's a comedian, one's a former presidential candidate who has been a longtime Democratic activist and commentator.

They have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

Oh wait a minute ... There's that one thing ...

[ecstatic]

127. Sometimes I get the feeling MSNBC doesn't care about ratings

They fired Phil Donahue. They fired Keith O. David Shuster. Dan Abrams (nobody watched him but I liked him).

I think the company is a front that doesn't care about ratings. That being said, I didn't like Cenk and I think Al S. has been great! He's made me LOL quite a few times.

[ejpoeta]

129. i have read many of these posts and don't understand what all the fighting is about. al sharpton

and cenk are two different styles of shows. It is understandable that not everyone would like them both. Not sure why it would have to be an either or situation. Besides the fact that Al filled in for Cenk because Cenk left, there is no reason to compare the two. Al Sharpton could have been given a show completely separate from Cenk getting a show. This is not a situation where Al Sharpton getting the show is at the expense of Cenk.

First of all, I have not seen either show. I do not have cable or satellite. At most I might have seen clips online of Cenk's show. So I cannot really speak to any opinion regarding whether I like Al's show. I am glad that he got a show. We should all be glad he got a show. Whether you like his style or not, or his politics, he has done a lot to forward the democratic movement and ideas. Give him time to see how he goes. I think it's really unfair to say his show is bad if he is new. And it is not fair to blame him for Cenk not having a show either.

Cenk left MSNBC by his own choice. Per his account, they offered him more money to change time slots AND to tone down his show and he wasn't going to do that. Whatever you think of his show... whether you liked it or not, the fact that he would walk away from more money because he wasn't willing to tone it down says a lot about his character. It says a lot to me. I happen to like some of his reporting when I get a chance to see it which isn't often. And he comes across as honest.

And so what if he wasn't always a democrat. How many of us have changed our thinking about the world in our lives because we have lived and learned? It does happen. And it makes us stronger and better advocates for it.

I think it's a shame that people are actually arguing about these two people. Bickering about two tv show hosts like this. I think there is a bigger issue here. It has to do with the MSM trying to control the flow of information and how these hosts decide to cover the news. Pressuring hosts not to cover things in certain ways or toning it down is more concerning to me. Getting rid of hosts who don't tow the line is concerning to me. Whether you agree with the host or not is one thing. But trying to control what and how they present things is another thing entirely.

[cascadiance]

131. Perhaps MSNBC didn't like Cenk leading the keynote speeches at Net Roots this year?...

They got after folk like KO on "partisan" activities like that. MSNBC just wants hosts to "talk politics". But can't have those politics be too partisan now! Rachel amazes me on how she navigates around that. I'm guessing that's a reason why she wasn't prolific at Net Roots this last year too.

As a person who myself spent a good part of my youth living in Turkey, I hope Cenk gets a shot at the big time at some point. He's been a pretty damn good voice for us, and he needs more voice. Hopefully he can join KO over at Current and help them grow that channel even more.

[grahamhgreen]

134. Untrue. 174 prime time is GREAT RATINGS! They based it on right wing bias.

[harun]

136. One needs to look no further than Fox News to know how false your statement is.

Ratings are a part of the equation, nothing more.

If a show has high ratings and no advertisers want the time slot, is it still about the ratings?

[themaguffin]

140. of course that plays into it. Jesus people come on.

I was not suggesting absolutes, but if you know how broadcast and cable work then you know that ratings are THE most significant factor. Of course other issues come into play, but the vast majority of the time programming lives and dies by ratings. Period.

[Sportsguy]

137. Well, Al Had One Week

Let's see if that stands the test of time.