MSNBC Viewers Lobbying For Another Liberal Host
By Nicole Belle Friday Feb 20, 2009 1:00pmTelevision network executives looking for new talent are accustomed to getting pleas from agents urging them to check out their clients.
But in the last few weeks, MSNBC has experienced a different kind of onslaught: a flood of unsolicited endorsements from fans of liberal radio hosts touting them as the network's next potential big star.
The grass-roots campaigns were triggered by the news that the cable channel is contemplating creating a new show for its 7 p.m. time slot, currently occupied by a repeat of "Countdown With Keith Olbermann." That prompted the launch of independent Facebook groups extolling the merits of two radio hosts: Cenk Uygur of the Internet show "The Young Turks" and Sam Seder of Air America.
The lobbying efforts have drawn thousands of supporters and led fans to pepper MSNBC with e-mails in support of their favorite personality. Hundreds of people have posted messages of support online, some even creating their own video spots. (Give the time slot to "The Young Turks," warns one, "or I'll switch back to CNN.") Liberal bloggers on sites like MyDD.com have also weighed in.
They all hope that MSNBC will choose a host cast from the same left-leaning mold as Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who have helped power the cable channel's ratings.
"You have a block with two unabashedly progressive voices that doesn't exist anywhere else on cable news," said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of Daily Kos, who urged his readers to back Seder for the spot. "We want to take advantage of locking up that third hour, if we can."
MSNBC President Phil Griffin said he's not necessarily looking for someone who shares the political leanings of Olbermann and Maddow, but is delighted by the response.
"If people identify with us, I'm thrilled," he said. "Obviously, we're going to have flow between our shows," Griffin added. "But it isn't going to be ideology that drives it. I want that hour to be edgy, to be smart, to be a little snarky."
Both Sam and Cenk are good friends of the site and John's appeared on both of their programs, so we're not taking sides on this one. We'd be thrilled if either one gets the nod. But it's also nice to know that Griffin is sensing which way the wind blows and is receptive to listening to us instead of throwing yet another moronic right winger to spoon feed conservative talking points.
So good luck to both Sam and Cenk. Hope we see one of you (or both, dare we hope!) on the air really soon.
Login or Register to post comments.
Moi?
Go for it guy . . . .
*
maybe we could co-host.
You can be the smart mouth ultra intellectual host...and I can be the snarky interviewer that can debate both sides of the argument.
Hmmm... New
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:17 — Liberal AND Proud
maybe we could co-host.
______________________________________________
Sounds a wee bit eucharistical, don'tcha think?
Me rarely.
Here we get Chris Matthews at 5:00pm. Then a rerun of Chris at 7:00pm with Keith following at 8:00pm and Rachael at 9:00pm. I'm not familiar with either of the guys mentioned, but if one can be a little snarky and a little funny while pointing out the bs on the right, I'm all for him whoever he is.
Now can we please can Morning Joe? Jeez, until Washington Journal comes on at 7:00am, there is nothing worth watching in the morning. The local news is just a rehashing of the evening news of the night before.
... would be Seder. He's awesome when it comes to snark.
*
I won't bother commenting since pissed off patricia has said it all including the schedule for MSNBC in the east.
I would add that the morning local news is just a rerun of the previous evening which is a rerun of...
Sure saves on reporters' salaries though.
Snark is OK, but I hope that Gilbert realizes that the only reason that Olbermann and Maddow are so popular is because they are the only two figures in the entirety of the MSM universe that are actually doing journalism. It isn't because they are liberal or progressive, it's because they are honest and they have the integrity to do the job as it is supposed to be done. People tune in, because they are hungry for facts, accurate analysis and a truthful presentation of the facts. That they are snarky at times just adds to their appeal, but only because their snark is based the kind of irony, sarcasm or satirical can clarify a particular point that they are making. But that's not their oly side. shit, Olbermann's oratory in his numerous special comments is as good as anything that Abraham Kincoln ever did, and are exceptional for the courage and integrity of their messages. All the more valuable because nobody else was speaking truth to power. Rachael and Keith represent the difference between manipulative and lying propagandists and real journalists. What Gilbert should be doing is replacing his entire lineup of stooge propagandists with real journalists of similar quality to Maddow and Olbermann. NBC's ratings would go out the roof and stay there.
Dito here.
cenk would be a good choice. his style would fill some gaps and provide some solid perspective.
I don't see why not - duo's on these shows work very well - and no - one doesn't have to be a woman - but if they wanted a woman - they could bring Stephanie Miller on board and create a male/female team.
The reason I think this would work is that Cenk is very dry and Seder is very funny -- both are on top of their political game and would be an asset to any station's lineup.
*
I say this out of purely selfish reasons, because if she became a TV host we would lose her radio show! I think Steph and Chris and Jim could host a terrific liberal TV program, but I need my Stephcast!
But she'd be a great half to any duo. That would take production pressure off her and she could still do her radio show.
*
We are listening to completely different Stephanie Millers. I think she's just a hair smarter than a box of rocks. If it wasn't for the two guys with her in the morning (on XM), I wouldn't even bothering listening to her. How many times do they correct her? Alot.
Thom Hartmann could run circles around Miller if he were sitting down.
...had long nights with the box wine. My vote is to put Mike Malloy in the slot to scare the fuck out of conservative old people.
That would be awesome!!
*
That would be way funny!!! Malloy would definitely have them scared. Jeez, he scares me... not really.
Intelligence is overrated.
Intelligence is overrated?
Give me a break.
Maddow is funny and smarter than the vast majority of political people. Intelligence is seriously underrated.
Dick Cheney is intelligent. 'Nuff said.
Besides, if the Left has a flaw it's the fact that a lot of its adherents lack a sense of humor.
Comared to his old
bosslackey, maybe, but that ain't sayin' much.There's no reason - since we're talking about Liberals - that you can't have both. Look at Colbert and Stewart. There's no reason to overlook a combination of smart and funny. It can be done and they'd probably have a ratings bonanza on their hands.
*
The only time I have ever seen or heard her was when they were looking for someone to take Imus' place. I didn't care for her. She just seemed like she was trying too hard to be funny and missing the mark.
I saw one of those shows - she definitely was NOT on her game.
*
I don't believe you give her enough credit.
*
If you are talking to me, I said in my comment that I had very little exposure to her, but what I did have didn't appeal to me. Maybe she was nervous being on tv or something.
I don't think he was talking to you but Stephani Miller is a little sophomoric to be on TV. He deal on the radio is alright for drive time AM radio but the humor is a little childish. She does do well when she is a guest on other shows like Larry King and she used to do a little Tweety but I don't think she will have he on any more because she called him a right wing tool or something like that. lol
She's remarkable for AM radio. She IS smart - but if you don't hear her very often, that could be missed because of the heavy input from her two co-hosts. It's a routine and they're good. I don't think she'd be my first choice for a TV show - but best as a foil if anything.
*
I still listen to her, because it's on TalkLeft (XM)...but not a day goes by where I roll my eyes at some of her sophomoric schtick. I much prefer Maddow's brand of smarts and giggles.
Hartmann would run circles around just about ANYONE. And he'd be halfway to the next county before they even knew he'd been there.
The only other big brain in that category that comes to mind at the moment is Moyers.
Rather than another young(ish) wide-eyed "progressive" I would go another way...someone like Jonathan Turley - a more even-tempered guy who's able to explain complex issues (particularly legal ones) in a devastatingly easy-to-understand manner. And he does not come across as a wild and crazy progressive. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)
But I like that Abrams guy that used to be in Rachels spot.
I think MSNBC would do well to get him back on my teevee.
Turley would be great. But you know what? I know of an even better slot for him: Supreme Court justice, a replacement for a complete dickwad like Scalia or Thomas.
Whoever they get should be against any more gun control and be vocal about it, especially on this new Bill coming up.
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
http://technorati.com/search/hr45?language=n&...
This gun control bill's starting to get heat and if the Dems get behind it the Pugs will take back the House and Senate in 2010 because of it.
Give this fuggin' issue back to the fascist-Repubs where it belongs, I'm tired of hearing about.
As much as I am in favor of controls, reality must intrude: The Left has lost the gun-control debate.
If they do it, that will be on my TV for sure!
bring back Phil Donahue?
Just asking.
Or give Bill Moyers his own nightly show.
Does it seems odd that we replace the news, you know, north east west and south, with opinion of any kind? I watched a bit of BBC International the other day. How refreshing not watching some tv personality giving their opinion on the news, but simply reporting it. One of the new readers was giving a report with his 'walker' in the picture with him. Has anyone ever seen a handicapped newsie of any kind on the tube in the US?
We seem to have our priorities screwed up. I hope, not beyond repair.
.
I can get unbiased news from the BBC. I depend on MSNBC fot eh anti Fox perspective. By that I mean left leaning without the lies that Fox seems to enjoy so much.
BBC America definitely leans right. I don't know about BBC Int'l.
I wish we could get real news. We have DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman and you hear people calling her Debbie Downer and crap. Hey, it's news, not infotainment.
You have to admit that Democracy Now is left leaning. Especially if you are going to say that BBC is right leaning. It may be the truth but it is left leaning.
I drunkenly lean
Why I'm not personally lean.
Also I have never heard Amy Goodman referred to as Debbie Downer but I did email the show once asking if Amy ever had any fun. I could not live in that reality world she is in. I listen to her but sometimes I'm glad when I don't have time or something.
It's not as if Uncle Walter was ever the life of the party back in the day either.
If you don't mix it up some - you'll just have people turning it off. That's why Maddow works so well. Straight news can be overwhelming - C'mon -- we all know things are downright ugly out there right now. There has to be an injection of humor or hope occasionally.
*
All MSM, printed, radio or televised is poisoned. In the US and elsewhere. They never tell the whole story, they only tell the side of the story that benefits the six owners and this rarely has anything to do with the truth.
The only reliable sources are the ones financed by the listener/reader/viewer. The ones financed by corporations that manufacture weapons systems are obviously not.
Everyone needs a map in their heads of the corporate sponsor's names, same as the pundits. I guess it is easy enough to find out...
The U.S. media is owned as you say by six corporations, and only produces corporate marketing material aimed at increasing profits. We need to use anti-trust laws to break up those media monopolies!
...listener/viewer funded group should not include NPR, which turned to the dark side a long time ago. they are perhaps one of the worst of the neocon propagandists, because they enjoy a residual of trust from the time they actually had integrity and because they are more polished in the way they deploy their propaganda.
I agree, it's sad what's happened to NPR. The only place I trust is the web and anonymous liberal users, or in other word average joes who are infinitely more honest than any conservitard or corporate outlet.
There was a reporter, I can't remember his name but he was in a wheel chair during all his reporting.
The way I see it, Norm is going to need a job, and he has experience as a liberal Democrat. Offer him enough money, and I'm sure he'll switch back...
*ducks* *runs from room beneath a hail of shoes*
And he's already had cosmetic surgery on his mouth -- he'd come "camera ready"
*
It ca easily be both of them. 7:00 PM Pacific for one and 8:00PM Pacific for the other. Now what kind of line up would that be? Start off with Tweety at 4:00 PM move over to Olbermann at 5:00 PM and slide right into Rachel at 6:00 PM and then Cenk Uygur at 7:00 PM and then Sam Seder at 8:00 PM. Man, MSNBC could have the best lineup on the Tele.
You can't put a correction for an error under an erroneous banner headline:
John Gibson Compares Eric Holder to a Monkey with Certain Bright Blue Parts
The banner headline needs to be changed (and made larger if possible) to state flat out that the video was a hoax. Ethical conduct demands this or your credibility is going to go to hell real fast.
What you talkin about boy?
The retraction is at the bottom of the page under the blaring headline.
Ok, I see what you are talking about and I have to agree with you. We on the left are better than leaving the headline up there.
Go to the C&L home page and scroll down to the post that was posted at 5:30 this morning.
and his battered partner, meeka are entitled to three hours of nonstop lies/bullshit/smears, the least msnbc can provide is another hour to progressives to set the record straight.
Someone without a dead intern in their closet.
*
Could I be wrong? Is there anything on the air in the US that is just news, no comment? BBC I is the only thing I have seen that resembles the old style of presenting the facts. BBCi is what you see on BBC America TV. They don't have a US version of the news in the regular timeslot.
What you leave out of the news can slant views without any comment whatsoever.
I care less about the host and their personality than I do about the format. Seriously, I could give two sh!ts about yet another freakin talking head sitting at a desk facilitating two or more other people's arguments. There really should not be room for even one more of these monotonous, ridiculous shows. If they get someone to do research and more in-depth interviews, rather than trying to be all kitchy and snarky or frantic and manic, I would probably watch. But even if they're just bringing in Cenk to yell at stupid people, I'm probably not particularly interested. Again, because the format is so played out I'm embarrassed for these people.
i have to somewhat agree. i find myself needing longer interviews less quick sound bites.....less not never.
i like the charlie rose approach also reuters and world focus. maybe a little less emotional art and more science/research.
well let me throw bill mahers out there hes a sneering douchbag but he does have a way of being a dolt know nothing who seems to think hes funny! i keed i keed! nah hes better off acting like hes smart!
I think that MSNBC needs to sharpen it's pencil, get out it's checkbook and make it happen!
Cenk Uyger is an unapologetic Genocide denier who actively claims that the notion of the Armenian Genocide is the result of an Armenian "propaganda campaign." He is a frequently cited source on Armenian hate cites like this.
But beyond the insult of Genocide denial, Mr. Uygur has proceeded into active hate and cruelty. He named his show The Young Turks as a constant, in-your-face, twist-of-the-knife to the Armenian people. "The Young Turks" were the political group responsible for the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottomans during the First World War.
Yet, Mr. Uygur not to deftly tries to conceal this fact from the uninformed. On The Young Turks website, you will see that Mr. Uyger has defined Young Turk as follows:
However, when compared to the actual American Heritage Dictionary definition (for example, here), which reads:
Mr. Uyger clearly has deleted the primary reference to the genocidal political group and elevated the secondary definitions to primary status. His slight of hand has been quite helpful in that the political situation in the Ottoman Empire during the Genocide is not commonly known even among otherwise informed people.
Yet, among those who have a modicum of historic knowledge of the area and period, Mr. Uyger's choice is roughly the equivalent of naming his show: The Gestapo.
Good point.
I seem to be a minority here, I've never heard anyone else express this, but I actually think that Cenk Uygur is not quite ready for his own show. His message is fantastic, and he definitely knows how to find the facts out there that mainstream doesn't, but I find his delivery unpolished. No offense to Mr. Uygur; I think he will go places, but I think it's early yet for him to be hosting a major show in Prime Time.
Sam Seder, on the other hand, has my vote! I'll watch if Cenk Uygur gets the show, but Sam's my choice.
Just my 2 cents.
Mine too - I think he's great. Smart and funny.
*
...is to dig up I.F. Stone, give him his own show, and have Norman Thomas take on the role that the unfortunately ubiquitous Pat Buchanan plays now, 23 hours a day. Of course Mr Thomas too will have to be exhumed.
Wait...am I dating myself? Every presidential election, when asked, I say I'm voting for Norman Thomas. I live for the looks I get. And by the way, I'm not that old. Just a good ol' boy Socialist.
I think Randi may be looking for a job.
Haven't heard about this - or is it because of the financial troubles of satellite radio?
*
Nova M Radio, who was paying Randi's salary, has filed for bankruptcy. One of the co-owners, Sheldon Drobny, has been hospitalized "for problems stemming from the stress of dealing with the network."
As for Randi, the best I've been able to determine from Google News is that her contract was supposed to contain a clause to cover her legal costs in the event that she got sued for something she said on the air, but when she actually read the contract, this wasn't in it.
The best explanation I've been able to find so far is here: http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/$rol.exe/headline_id=b11400
P.S. As much as I like Randi, I don't think she would be a good fit for MSNBC. What she's been doing on radio is what she's good at.
Hmm, if MSNBC hires away all of AAR's good people, maybe AAR could take her back.
She hasn't been on the air in over a week, maybe two by now. Nancy Skinner has been filling in and doing well.
How about a slot that rotates among folks like Randi, Tom, Cenk, et al?
Sorry, I disagree that "Nancy Skinner has been filling in and doing well."
She started babbling the other day about, "I'm a Pisces, so..." I switched it off.
If I wanted to listen to talk about silly superstitions, I could listen to S. Palin talk about witchcraft instead.
Mike Malloy would be a riot if he was on after Rachel Maddow. I know he's a bit radical but Faux is so radical that it is needed to create some balance in the corporate media. Other than Malloy I like Thom Hartman or Cenk. Cenk was on tv this afternoon on Shuster's show btw. Coincidence, I don't think so.
He's an ex Republican, similar to John Aravosis and just like Aravosis, I exect he'll begin leaning conservative once the memory of Bush fades a little more.
I vote for Thom Hartman. Ed Schultz or Cenk would also be okay. I'm not a big fan of Randi Rhoades. She's a little too abrasive and rantie for my taste. We need someone with credibility, someone who will be taken seriously and can converse intelligently.
Instead of another blowhard like Olbermann or another Chris Matthews fan like Rachel Maddow, how about a real liberal, one who understands what our philosophy is all about?
I nominate either Thom Hartman or Marie Cocco. They're good because they talk to Americans as adults, not as Leftish versions of Rush Limbaugh (i.e, Ed Shultz).
Some of his Special Comments on serious political issues... and constitutional issues... have been COURAGEOUS. He is NOT a light-weight by any means, and I think his wit and biting sarcasm are right on the money about 98% of the time.
If you study his presentations, he too often gets his basic facts wrong.
Secondly, I find it very arrogant of him to basically define himself as the next Edward R. Murrow. Perhaps Keith-O should do some in-the-field reporting as Murrow did before assuming his mantle (and I don't mean talking about sports).
Finally, he should have the courage to debate his positions with opponents like Hartmann does instead of talking to guests who simply affirm his pronouncements.
So yes, Olbermann is a blowhard.
Exactly where he is wrong?
The internet is at your finger tips. Surely you can provide us with some articulate points to refute Olberman's points.
Link us to an unbiased source of info.
Fux Nutwork, Rush Limbaughlls, Ann Coultergiest or Drudge will not cut it.
Take your time.
And these are all from the Left:
Here's something from TPM:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.c...
And a couple from the Daily Howler:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042508.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091308.shtml
Or, Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/0...
And on this piece that I wrote for Talk to Action, please note Max Blumenthal's comment:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/13...
I don't think you know the left or right from the libertarian. Greenwald avoids the left/right distinction like the plague in his posts. His viewpoint aligned with the left over the abuses of the last administration, and that's about it.
But with that said, how do you explain all the others? Somerby and Blumenthal are clearly on our side of the fence.
As a liberal I don't want any more immature ranters (Randi Rhoades, Ed Shultz, Marc Maron) defending the philosophy of FDR, Truman, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Adolf A. Berle and RFK!
and was getting The Young Turks from a Salt Lake city relay radio operation in the afternoon on the way home from work. NOBODY goes into SERIOUS ANGRY RANT MODE against Republicans better than Cenk. His show never missed a beat regarding the Iraq War build-up and the Cark Side with Dick Cheney.
If MSNBC wants SNARKY and EDGY... they should put BOTH TYT and one of the others mentioned on... for half-hours. It would be really quick paced... hit the best stuff each has every day... and FEEL like a FULL PLATE every night.
Seder all the way. He was the best radio host on Air America, quite often outshining his co-host (we all know who that was). Despite the fact that Sam had absolutely no radio experience (or political experience), he really grew into the role and was/is a consumate professional.
...don't forget Maron!!!! They should just transplant Breakroom Live
into MSNBC's evening lineup. MVSLive is pianoforte!!!
Login or Register to post comments.