I'm late to the party, but wasn't Olbermann a good revenue source for MSNBC? Wasn't

[gateley]

his show the highest rated? If so, I just don't understand why they fired him. More than anything, it's a business and their primary concern is the bottom line, right?

There's a large progressive audience out here and MSNBC is our go-to 'network'. I just don't understand the business part of this decision :shrug:

Can someone enlighten me?

[Desertrose]

1. Evidently controlling the message trumps profits....

hmmm....

[gateley]

4. Crazy. Tell that to the stockholders. Makes no sense but I'm not an economist --

or a stockholder! I really thought money/profit was the number one priority.

I wonder if he'll be the first of several. :(

And, I wonder just what the hell he did to bring this on. Sigh.

[Cleita]

2. He actually was the catalyst that improved their

ratings when MSNBC was going down the tubes because he was a refreshing antidote to Tweety and the rest of the drones on MSNBC at the time. He was instrumental in getting Rachel as well, which led to Ed Schultz getting a show and later Lawrence O'Donnell. However, it seems ratings are not important anymore but whose corporate ass you kiss. Remember Phil Donahue? He had the highest rated show on MSNBC and they canceled him too.

[gateley]

3. It just seems like bad business. What will they do if their revenue drops? Maybe

they want another Fox since that seems to be doing well. Unbelievable. Thanks. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

5. That's why those who believe that the media is only after ratings and

money that ratings bring are incorrect, IMO....in their
analysis of why the media does what it does.

The media is a way of controlling public opinion....
by large corporations.

We do not have a free press, just a bought one.

[gateley]

6. I agree to a certain extent (we only hear what they want us to) but don't they have stockholders? nt