They wanta be Fox News so they can rake in all those advertising dollars. Screw you MSNBC.. I am sure you would dump Rachel if she wasn't your most popular draw.

GEM$NBCOMCAST

it would rather stay with GOP tpm and the loser conservative agenda. Oh wait...the M$M paymasters are all GOP donors. What a surprise.

I am not sure it can be done in numbers large enough to justify shows being on the air on either medium.

If there is a way to do it, no one has discovered it yet. Even Rachel Maddow's show in prime time only sometimes gets to 1 million viewers lately. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/09/03/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-september-2-2015/457307/

There are somewhere between 60 and 100 million Liberals out there and she is the only real option at 9pm ET and her numbers are a tiny fraction of Liberals tuning in.

By about 100,000 viewers and they move him to the weekends on Sunday for one hour bad move

Vastly different time slots have different expectations in terms of viewership.

You compare them to the competition in other networks.

Obviously some like Rachel is one voice, but there are so few and far between I think the real issue is there are not enough liberal news anchors, not the other way around.

The audience is there, but they need someone to come along and be on the same page. Until then, it's blogs and internet news imo.

That is the question that needs to be answered.

Someone even to the left of Maddow and Ed, Sharpton and Hayes are all moderates imo. They want someone throwing fire at the GOP daily and you know the M$M will NOT stand for something like that.

IMO.

You would know more about the personalities that make up your profession, maybe there is no market for liberals. However, I believe it is just the right one has not come along yet. For some it is Maddow and even Ed could get really worked up over the GOP. Last I checked they gave Ed his walking papers and the limit Maddow by the time slot she is in imo.

Maybe someone like the Young Turks, you do raise a problem for liberals - so far we have a weak market on TVEE and need to change the format somehow. I just don't think Comcast is going to go for a firebreathing liberal.

He self syndicates and is only carried on 13 stations and Sirius left.

I'm not knocking him, I'm actually envious of how well he has been able to do considering how hard it is for anyone on the left these days on radio, I'm just saying that even what he has is not close to the kind of support you need to have a prime-time TV spot on national television.

I'll bet if you asked him, he would tell you that keeping things above water is a daily and weekly struggle.

Compare that to any of the top 50 Conservative radio hosts who are making a very good living at it almost effortlessly.

It's very frustrating for me and anyone else trying to figure this all out. If I did figure it out, you can bet I would debut a show with that format on the radio the very next day.

Someone like him, with just a little better temperament (no offense Mike) imo. I know the audience is out there, they just need to hear a message that will keep them coming back again and again. Just not enough liberal anchors out there that can do that imo and make sure their bosses (Comcast) don't fire them the moment they 'go there' with discussing the truth on the air.

Part of it is that the news environment is so toxic, you have people that should NEVER make it in news like Chuck Todd now primary anchors when they should be sweeping the newsroom imo.

liberals don't need anyone to tell them what to think.

instead of sit around and watch TV all day (yeah, I'm thinking about Fox News)

Yeah, they want that money, but there is far far more in controlling the national political discussion.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The profit from selling TV commercials is measured in millions.
The gains for the paymasters from controlling the national discussion are trillions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

One war is worth more to the greedmeisters than the profits from decades of soap commercials.

One trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires is worth more than years of beer commercials.

Impunity for Wall Street criminals and protecting the profits (current and future) from their crimes is worth more than car commercials.

Even the soap, beer, and car conglomerates find greater gain in the long term from keeping liberal opinions hidden, silenced, demonized, and made fun of than the short term gains of selling their products to liberals. That's why there were virtually no soap, beer, or car commercials on Air America, and they had to depend on commercials for hypnosis tapes and diet fads.

CorpoPravda's first priority is not selling ads; it is owning and controlling the government and the national political discussion.

fired. And with no other reasonable explanations for their firing. (i.e. Olbermann clearly not being able to get along with people at multiple networks including Al Gore).

We all saw how important and pivotal Foxnews was in deciding the 2000 election, I think the other national brands saw that and wanted in on that power. Now Foxnews gets to decide which are the frontrunners in the GOP presidential primaries. That is power.

It goes beyond party and platforms and ratings.

that he was clearly not the choice of Fox and yet he is the frontrunner by a huge amount. I don't think Fox has been as publicly (meaning on air) negative on him as his folks claim, but from what I see most folks over there would clearly much rather someone else be the GOP nominee.

Having been at multiple different networks, I can say for certain that each one has a distinct feel and way of doing things and the number one priority at all of them is ratings. Even if a segment is designed to have a certain bent, if it wont be interesting to the viewers, it gets pulled.

If it really is all about ratings...I think MSNBC is about to go over a cliff.

I don't know if it would be popular, but I would love to hear people's ideas.

I think it can be done, just that the main great media hosts (imo) are now doing late night talkshows or are on pay per channels. How do we transition them into a main anchor chair or could they give tips to up and coming journalists that want to change media back to something more unbiased.

It would be great to get some feedback on how we can change the M$M back into something with a standard for journalistic integrity. I have friends in other countries that tell me they see no difference between RT and our M$M and that is just sad and wrong to a point.

It was never about informing people or ratings, but controlling the nations mindset.

Their ratings were embarrassing. Is this going to help? Maybe not. Their only interest is Nielsen ratings. If they don't have viewers what's the use?

Chris Hayes is one of the smartest , sharpest and deepest political commentators on TV.
There is maybe some justification for including a wider political range of commentary, if they want to be seen as a for-real (unlike Faux News) "fair-and-balanced" station. But replacing smart , knowledgeable,serious with banal, especially during a presidential election, is irresponsible journalism.

you've got to be kidding me..this is.....

Geist is almost as bad as Luke Russert, maybe MSNBC can replace Rachel with Luke!

MSNBC is obviously striving to be Fox. You already can't tell them from CNN. I used to watch MSNBC all the time, but now it makes more sense to watch CNN since they seem to get breaking news faster.

I like Chris's Hayes but IMHO, he lets guests run all over him before he manages to get a word in edgewise. Geist is relatively neutral to me not unlike Chris Jansing was. Am noting the removal of the firebrands... But then they appear to be going the (original) CNN "news" route.

Sad so many seem to forget that

Not comparable to Chris Hayes in any way.

I doubt he's up for that.

Terrible idea.

They seem to want to run it into the ground and then they can rerun prison documentaries or even religious biased news like the history channel runs religious biased history. It's cheap to produce because there are vaults of this stuff produced in the past to draw from.

Fuck MSNBC and the rest of the M$M, they all suck and would sell their grandmother for a wooden nickle.

Who cares?

Comcast?

and there's been NO change in the substance of his material.

You're making wildly incorrect assumptions about a show

you clearly don't watch. -- Try again.

Remember that MSNBC train wreck?

They'd probably bring back Savage Weiner, or even the lame Nachman, too, except that he's dead.

Am I missing anyone?

I am going to contact Direct TV and ask about replacing MSNBC with FreeSpeech.com in my access. Unfortunately I have 2 years left on my contract with them and I have watched about 2 hours tv a week since this began.

just before the 2016 elections. She had signed a new contract in August of 2011 for "several years" as was reported back then. I'm guessing it was for five years. I don't know why they would slay the golden goose, unless there is another agenda behind this other than profit.

run it into the ground to get rid of one of the few channels that actually had liberals on? As a contribution to rw politicians? Instead of buying ads for them they got rid of the competition.

Part of controlling the media is not only to spread propaganda, but to make sure much of the real news doesn't get published or aired. Too bad journalists who could dig up what's behind this will not be allowed to put it out there, Rachel being one of those.

It seems like this is a job for so-called fringe reporters like Glen Greenwald to find out what Comcast's real plans are for MSNBC. I don't buy that they are trying to be Fox because of low ratings one minute.

been let go and the few that are still left look into this and somehow get the message out there.

I can't see this as just a way of getting another conservative channel. They already have all kinds of them.

station as your only business then you give the public what they want to maximize viewership. But if you own a TV station and your primary business is stealing trillions from the public coffers then you don't care what the public wants, you instead offer programming which will provide cover for you while you rob the taxpayers blind.

I was down to Chris and a half hour of Rachel anyway, so no big loss. Stupid move on MSNBC's part, though.

a winning strategy, i'm sure

How can we be more like Fox? I know!

I liked Hayes Up! show better, but would rather watch him than Willie Geist.

It's been a very long time since I watched MSNBC prime time for more than an hour here and there, so no big deal to me.

I guess we'll just have to wait til they are done to see what the result is, but it looks like they are shifting weekdays to Fox-lite and trying to cram the progressives into weekends. Rachel and Lawrence O'Donnell should be next to go.

fuck m$nbc

It's pathetic.

I'm done with all of MSNBC. They're even expanding 'Morning Joke; wtf!

I guess I'll have to get used to Al Jazeera America

Al Jazeera. Between those two news channels and Free Speech TV which carries Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, I don't need anything from M$NBComcast.

Liberals don't tend to listen of watch opinion media for the simple reason they tend to think. They don't need someone to tell them how to feel about an issue, they won't be lead like so many conservatives are. We have no need for someone to tell us what to think therefore we need no broadcast opinion outlet.