Would MSNBC air a left-leaning lineup?

When MSNBC added Tucker Carlson to its prime-time lineup two years ago, the network appeared anxious to capitalize on Fox News’ success as a Republican network. If cable-news viewers were flocking to a conservative, partisan network, MSNBC seemed to believe, then the answer was to keep up by putting more conservatives on the air.

The result Fox News-lite — featuring a lineup with conservative Carlson, conservative Joe Scarborough, and the politically baffling Chris Matthews, who, within a single program, is capable of criticizing Bush’s Iraq policy, telling viewers that Bush is a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, and hinting at a man-crush on John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. (At one point, MSNBC even gave lunatic Michael Savage a show.)

Viewers didn’t exactly flock to this lineup. There’s already a Republican news network; no one needed a pale imitation. But with Keith Olbermann’s ratings continuing to blossom, MSNBC seems to have come to a realization: maybe there’s an audience for those who aren’t sympathetic to the Republican agenda.

Riding a ratings wave from “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” a program that takes strong issue with the Bush administration, MSNBC is increasingly seeking to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind.

Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox News’s hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC. […]

Under one option, Ms. O’Donnell would take the 9 p.m. slot each weeknight on MSNBC, pitting her against “Larry King Live” on CNN and “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox News.

But even without Ms. O’Donnell, MSNBC already presents a three-hour block of nighttime talk — Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” at 7, Mr. Olbermann at 8, and “Live With Dan Abrams” at 9 — in which the White House takes a regular beating.

And what about self-described “right-winger” Tucker Carlson? An NBC executive told the NYT he’s “in real danger of being canceled.”

So, are we looking at an intentional strategy on MSNBC’s part to move to the left? I kind of doubt it.

“It happened naturally,” Phil Griffin, a senior vice president of NBC News who is the executive in charge of MSNBC, said Friday, referring specifically to the channel’s passion and point of view from 7 to 10 p.m. “There isn’t a dogma we’re putting through. There is a ‘Go for it.'”

And by “it,” I think Griffin means “higher ratings.” Olbermann has soared over the last year or so, and I believe Countdown is the only show on MSNBC’s primetime lineup that beats CNN, and is at near parity with Fox News in the “money demo.” It’s not complicated — if Olbermann is offering reality-based coverage of current events, and his audience keeps growing, maybe that should be a big hint to the network’s program executives.

As for Rosie O’Donnell, it’s hard to know whether this is an MSNBC trial-balloon, but if the network is soliciting opinions, I’d say she isn’t necessarily the best choice for progressive voices. A variety of other names — David Shuster, Rachel Maddow, and Cliff Schecter — come to mind, and each have more stature when it comes to on-air news analysis.

We’ll see how all of this plays out, but I’d like to think this represents some progress on the part of the network. In 2003, Phil Donohue had the highest-rated program on MSNBC, but was cancelled, ostensibly for poor ratings. If the network is prepared to finally air a reality-based prime-time lineup, I think it’ll be pleased with the results.

You put your left side in
You put your left side out
You put your left side in
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around
That’s what it’s all about…

  • They’ve floated the Rosie idea before. Initially Dan Abrams’ show was just to fill in once they moved Scarborough to the mornings. Tucker’s exit seems likely, since his comic sidekick Willie Geist seems to have become a permanent part of the Morning Joe show and Carlson is gone a lot. It’s also worth noting that Tucker is the only show that never repeats later as Hardball, Abrams and Countdown do.

  • I think I would pay money to see O’Donnell versus Larry King in a no holds barred cage match.

  • I don’t have anything against Rosie as a person, but don’t really like her professionally. She’s just not that smart. I’d much prefer they went with someone else. Especially as she’ll be roundly attacked for being a liberal, but really doesn’t represent us particularly well. I nominate Doctor Biobrain for the spot. He’s a real ratings magnet if there ever was one. Spread the word.

  • Why is Tucker Carlson even employed, anywhere? Even conservatives don’t like him. He’s an idiot, and there’s no way to hide it.

    As for Rosie – she gives liberals a bad name. She’s sort of like Madeline Murray O’Hair, who gave atheists a bad name. Being rude, loud, and obnoxious is only acceptable if you’re a male conservative Republican, like Robert Novak or the AM radio windbags.

  • Thou Shalt Not Covet The Daily Show’s and The Colbert Report’s Ratings.

    BTW, I think “politically baffling” has to be the nicest euphemism for “Batshit Loony.”

  • David Shuster, Rachel Meadow or Phil Donahue would be my choice before Rosie. She is funny but she comes with some problems and the message is pretty serious if we are to affect change. I have been watching MSNBC for quite some time now and it is a relief even from CNN. I am glad they read the polls and got the message. I am sure it is not corporate responsibility that is at work here, but rather the bottom line.

  • I’ve completely switched from CNN to MSNBC. I don’t even mind Tucker Carlson’s show, it does give the “other side” and I enjoy that. Nix on Rosie, though, as Dr Biobrain points out, she’s not very smart. I’d love to see Rachel Madow. However, I’d like them to keep Tucker.

    What I WOULD like to see done away with are those incredibly stupid “Dot-Block” shows!
    They are so lame. Particularly the one with the “under-age preditors”. The host on that – don’t remember his name, looks like one of the preditors he’s supposedly catching. And that demented looking white-haired guy? Gives me the creeps just looking at him with the sound turned off. I don’t care what the fuck happens inside prisons; I’d rather see NEWS.

  • Umm…not to nitpick, but it’s Rachel Maddow, and I would love to see her with a network show. She’s brilliant and has a great sense of humor.

  • David Shuster and Rachel Maddow have my vote. After Tucker and Dan can we get Tweety-bird too. His man crushes and pururient interest in the Clinton’s sex life are nothing but creepy. Shuster is a damned fine investigative reporter. And Maddow is brilliant and funny. But please God, not Rosie.

  • As for Rosie O’Donnell, it’s hard to know whether this is an MSNBC trial-balloon, but if the network is soliciting opinions, I’d say she isn’t necessarily the best choice for progressive voices.

    I agree. She’s not the worst, but neither is Alan Colmes.

    Seems to me there would be a good audience for a show that could review the good stuff that’s out on the progressive blogs every day. Find a telegenic leftie and then have them interview the leading bloggers. Josh Marshall would be my pick, but there’s plenty of others I’m sure.

    With Bush in the toilet, it amazes me that there’s still so many people on the air who basically agree with everything Bush says.

  • I enjoy watching tucker Carlson from time to time, mostly for the laughs. His shows tends to be so outrageous at times that I can’t help but laugh my ass off. And every once in a while there is a guest that makes the back and forth worthwhile. However, Rosie is a lunatic – a loud mouth lunatic who is taken seriously only by uninformed morons. She does such a disservice to the left, just as Hannity does the same to the right. Her loud mouth, often unsubstantiated claims only harm the civil, political discourse that this country badly needs at this point. There are a lot of these harmful television, political hosts on the right side of politics, but the last thing the left needs at this point is similar negativity.

    A political show hosted by Rosie would be akin to the crazy talk over in Nancy Grace territory. Insane.

  • “So, are we looking at an intentional strategy on MSNBC’s part to move to the left? ”

    More likely it is an intentional strategy to make money. Not that there is anything wrong with that. They seem to have found an underserved market. Its about time. Its not like wing-nuts are the only people spending money in this economy.

  • O’Donnel is a conservative charicature of what Republican board members THINK left wing bloggers want to see.

    How little they understand us.

    Rosie has only a little more potential than Macenroe.

  • imo, about the only people who take rosie seriously are the bat-shit looney wingnuts whose heads explode every time someone mentions her name. not an altogether bad consequence, but still…..

  • I second the motion for having Doctor Biobrain replace Tucker Carlson. While I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting the guy, his blog is sexy smart and I bet he smells terrific. By his own description, he has shoulders you could land a jet fighter on, and while that might not be so presidential, it surely must be worth a talkshow on MSNBC. So how about it, people? Shall we start a letter writing campaign to get him on in primetime? You bet!

    P.S. If it helps, word on the street says Biobrain could easily kick Carlson’s ass in a lowdown fashion, which could be a regular feature on the show. I’m sure Carlson won’t object, just as long as he gets to stay on TV. Then again, a girlscout could easily kick Carlson’s ass, and that could be a regular part of the show too.

  • Bill Moyers!

    A James Wolcott or Paul Krugman that could play well on TV.

    Hell, Ana Marie Cox would be better — she’s attractive enough, and shallow enough for TV, yet plugged into DC without being a total shill. Snarky, too. Heck, Huffington is a DC player who can be informative and entertaining, if it weren’t for the accent. If I’m their audience, I would never, ever watch Rosie.

    Bill Mahr. Paul Begala. James Carville. Ambassador Wilson. Steal someone from the Daily Show. The Baldwin Brothers Variety Show!!!

    The problem is I know who writes the way I’d like to see TV done.

  • # 4 makes a valid point.

    Rosie would not be the voice of representation that I would want. However, on the Young Turks, Cenk Uygur would bring a breath of fresh air to the stale talk shows on television.

  • More likely it is an intentional strategy to make money.

    AK Liberal got it in one. Anyone who thinks that NBC/Universal is in any way tacking leftward of their own accord and not being dragged their kicking and screaming by the thought of filthy, filthy lucre is kidding themselves.

    And there’s nothing wrong with that – some of us have been screaming for years that an entire segment of the cable news market was being underserved – and that Stewart and Colbert’s ratings were an indication of what you could be getting if you put some smart, funny, left-of-center commentators on your network instead of trying to be “Fox-Lite”. In fact, it often seemed to me that both CNN and MSNBC were running counter to their own financial interests because of the politics of their upper management. It appears that it’s finally reached the point where the politics of the upper management may be interfering with profit – and in any non-charitable organization, profit will win over politics.

    Having said that – Rosie O’Donnel? Seriously? Who would want to watch O’Donnel rant for an hour? It would be as painful as watching O’Reilly rant for an hour, but from the opposite side of the fence. I’ll pass – I like my commentary funny and smart, not ranty.

    Now if they put Rachel Maddow up there I’d be a dedicated viewer. I’ve really missed her show since Air America got dropped here in Columbus. There are a few others, but “outrage television” really is a conservative thing – political humor seems to be a liberal thing. It’s a formula that has worked three times so far – they should keep up with it.

  • Rosie O’Donnell is about as appealing as suffering a urinary infection while a baby screams in the next room. She really is a caricature. You know it’s a bad sign when you agree with someone 90 percent of the time, yet can’t freakin’ stand them.

    I’ve heard great buzz about this Biobrain guy. Maybe he should have a show.

  • I like Rosie, but this would just be a bad fit. And you just know the failure of the project would become an excuse not to create any new liberal programming, the messenger being easily conflated with the message.

  • I know people who would want to hear Rosie rant for an hour. I’m not one of them, bear in mind, but I do know people who’d hang on every crazy word that’d come out of that crazy mouth.

    And I agree with the analysis that MSNBC isn’t thinking about trending left (Rosie excepted) so much as realizing that there’s no longer that much dough in pandering to the right. There were supposedly times when conservative-leaning newspaper owners would still relish independent reporters who’d potentially slaughter the right’s sacred cows, if they deserved to be slaughtered. There’s always a market for truth. Sadly, the market for truth had been stagnant for a while, but it was always there, and no, hopefully, it’s growing. It’s just that the right lies so much that the truth seems like liberalism by comparison.

  • My vote for Rachel Maddow. I love it when Keith has her on.

    Anyone remember when Keith’s fill-in host introduced her as “our own gay bomb” on a segment dedicated to that particular story? The host seemed startled at the words that just came out of her mouth, but Rachel loved it, or at least claimed to. It was pretty funny … also, I’d consider switching teams for her, so maybe it’s true.

  • My god what are they thinking? Not Rosie O’Donnell. I mean her heart may be in the right place but like Rhandi Rhodes on Air America…she’s personality challenged. The first time she pouted in anger over some republican abuse it would alienate thousands simply because of her manner of doing so. Agree with her or don’t agree with her you still at some point find yourself saying STFU because their laughter is so nauseating.

    I hope we get more like Olberman. It’s time that people (in the majority) who don’t support this administration get their views expressed. The Fox news people have been refusing to recognize what the majority wants and have just refused to face reality trying to deny the public could possibly feel the way they do. Here’s hoping.

  • MSNBC will choose Rosie O’Donnell because she is a caricature of what they think a liberal is. The GE management would love to both get liberal eyes for advertisers and someone to feed the image of liberals to the conservatives they really covet.

    If they wanted to really please us, they would pick Rachel Maddow or David Schuster. So I expect they won’t.

  • I’m with all of the previous posters who have suggested David Shuster and/or Rachel Maddow. Either would be much better than Rosie.

    Whoever gets the job should consider making the following left-leaning bloggers regular guests on the show: Josh Marshall, Digby, Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel), Christy Hardin Smith, Jane Hamsher, Duncan Black (atrios), and John Aravosis.

    I’m not sure if CB would like to be on the TV, but if he does, and if he’s as good a talking head as he is a blogger, then I’d happily add him to this list.

  • I think they’ve got it a little wrong at MSNBC: I’m not really looking for liberal/left/progressive news. I want smart, savvy news and opinion. That’s what Olbermann delivers and that’s why I watch him. It just so happens that today smart, savvy news and opinion is going to be, by and large, coincident with a leftward point of view.

    I would never watch Rosie O’Donnell because she’s stupid. Rachel Maddow, on the other hand …

  • The big news media outlets have been just as quick as Congressional Democrats to recognize that a very large majority of Americans hates Bush, wants this stupid war to be over and is hungry for new voices and perspectives on this nation and the world. If the market were really functioning in MSM world, they’d be pushing more product the likes of Olberman than Beck or Tucker. But that’s what happens when you have politically partisan media owners who don’t give a f*ck about fairness, accuracy, honesty or good business.

  • MSNBC, Bring back Micheal Savag and his Savage Nation back… your ratings will go up for sure

  • Is there any question as who is running MSNBC, only dipshit righties think we like Rosie or better yet Moore. Rosie is thew mirror image of Bush, if you don’t agree with her you are scum. Moore does great stuff, but he is better behind the scenes.

    Psssttt. MSNBC, blogs are really popular on the left, so maybe you start thinking outside the box and bring in ‘one of them’. I would love to see Markus, Josh, or Ariana.

    I like Joe, he might be a republican, but he at least has his reasoning skills. He is my parents kind of conservative, not a Y2K conservative.

  • farmgirl @27:

    I once was lucky enough to get a chance to chat alone with Rachel for 10 minutes or so – it was at the very beginning of AAR, and no one else at the dinner we were attending seemed to know who she was. She was just exactly the same person who comes across on the radio (and tv) – smart, funny, natural, honest, and completely unpretentious.

    MSNBC should only be so lucky as to get her.

  • I agree completely. Do not want Rosie – she is not interesting and is NOT the voice of progressives. Yes definitely to Rachel Maddow. Never heard her on the radio – only Olbermann – but she is so smart, funny and informed.

    I think what I really want is non-biased information – telling it like it is. I think with Keith, he brings on guests with expertise and the knowledge to talk intelligently about subjects and they don’t argue, they DISCUSS.

    It does make me often think, doesn’t anybody ever say – “Are you kidding me? We have to really think you think this?” This to me is questioning the bubble beltway mentality on the most ridiculous assumptions.

  • I will personally let MSNBC set up a remote studio in my house—and I will work for a weekly stipend of peanut butter sandwiches and Cherry Coke—before I will even contemplate THINKING ABOUT a program hosted by “scary-thing” Rosie.

    Period.

    I must now take my brain to the laundromat. Pass the industrial strength bleach, please….

  • Rosie O’Donnell is the liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh. Neither one should be given access to the television/radio media.

  • No Rosie. She’s just not that bright and is as divisive a personality as one can expect to find on the left. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a rumor intended to whittle away at MSNBC’s credibility.

    Yes to Maddow; yes to Schuster.

    And does anyone besides me think Maddow resembles Noah Wyle (Carter from ER)? Not to say she looks like a man… she’s very cute, actually.

  • Oops. I guess if this was acknowledged by “two NBC executives”, it’s no whisper campaign. (o;

  • Rachael Maddow’s ability to ignore facts in her points of view is indeed amusing. Typical of someone who has an agenda. Everything Republican is bad! Everything Dems like is good!

    Her whole take on the Katrina mess is typical of the Spike Lee and Farakhan “racist”, irrational, and irresonsable junk political slander we need to get rid of in this country. It’s alwasy easy to paint the political opposition as the evil devil. Especially for people that don’t really believe someone else can believe in something different than they do and still be decent.

    When it comes to complete facts and documetation Maddow is just a piece of swiss cheese

  • When did news executives start thinking rude, ill informed celebrities should have their own shows? No to Rosie, please don’t trash your credibility, you can get ratings the old fashioned way…earn them!

    Rachel Madow’s talent should be showcased and your a little light in the gender representation.

    Tucker was ok. Joe is fine. Chris is great. David is coming along and we like seeing Andrea. Did Tucker just not get the numbers?

    Keep trying, but no supid celebrities, that’s why were not watching ET.

    BMc

  • Comments are closed.