I don't watch MSNBC to see the same bullshit that is on every cable station. I'm a partisan. I admit it.

and the Republicans' view of these non-scandals.

MSNBC is clearly trying to do a bait and switch, reverting back to the bullshit on every other channel. The miscalculation they made was, they thought Progressives and Liberals are as gullible as TeaBaggers and Republicans. The low ratings of May showed them we're not.

You've seen one you've seen them all.

The day's talking points/headlines are the same for each show. It just comes down to which host and delivery style do you prefer.

It's worth it to be able to learn what is really going on. No station repeats the same stories as much as CNN so that is not a reason.

It's not ways informed, but neither is the hosts' on TV. I don't need someone who knows as much as I do to offer their opinion rather than acting like a real investigative journalist.

TV news these days is a joke - it might be even less reliable than the average DU user, which is amazing or depressing.

I prefer to read news online. I don't enjoy sitting in front of the TV getting upset over things I can't control. It goes down easier when read rather than emotionally delivered on TV.

couldn't tell if Rachel was on Faux Noise or not.. and annoyed the crap out of me. Keith Olbermann would say this is what he's being pushed to say. Rachel probably isn't in the position to try that so she toes whatever they say

anymore. I, too, got fed up w/ the endless 'scandals' that weren't. Rev Al seemed to be the only one who got it. I'm glad to see he has taken up the Free Clinic ball that was dropped when Keith left. Tweety is still the worse/most excitable among them.

I'm tired of Rachel's 15 minute backgrounds, rarely tune in before the 20 minute mark if at all. I actually found Ed refreshing after his absence but being on at 2pm on the left coast on Saturday & Sunday takes real determination to catch him.

I have to pay an extra $5 dollars a month to get MSNBC. A lot of people just get basic cable, which includes Fox.

I also like Chris Hayes, but for us old union thugs and true believers, Ed talks to and speaks for us. I don't even watch that much teevee anymore, but set my DVR for Ed's show.

and prison porn. He belongs on the evening line-up. I like Chris Hayes, too, but not nearly as much as Ed.

You just have to admit the sad truth. People don't want the truth. They want THEIR truth.

They want escapist stories.

They don't want to think too hard about things.

They don't know or want to think about things like the Fed experimenting with the economy in ways that have never been done before because congress won't do its job--that we have no idea what the long term effects of QE will be, and that with the partisan divide we live in today makes democracy impossible.

What did Jodi Aries say? Who is on Piers Morgan tonight?

Let's default on our debt but pay all the bondholders, while cutting medicare.

No one knows, no one cares. They are outraged about the silly things that television tells them they should be outraged about--and all the while we sink further because no one sees the important things.

Maddow is one of the few people who at least try.

That means the American viewer has no use for her.

Just bury your head. This thing is done. And the people can point their collective fingers in the mirror to the cause. But that won't happen either.

Sad.

Like reading a book or newspaper, volunteering somewhere, painting or knitting, helping kids with homework, or watching an old movie from the 1930s.

I frankly don't feel I need to watch the MSNBC shows much anymore. I already know the basic stories and facts by the time they come on in the evening, and it's a lot of yadda yadda yadda most of the time. Sadly, it gets boring.

on last Friday night, the most recent night where we have ratings for her show, Rachel got only 203,000 in the 25-54 demo yet she got 622,000 in total viewers which includes older viewers. So two thirds of her viewers came from outside of the 25-54 demo.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-friday-may-24_b181152

Also Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes et al are not reporters. Their interns rely heavily on the internet for the stories they present but Ed Shultz went out and got his own stories.

what the Republicans do or say.

I'm just tired of political commentary shows, period. I don't watch often. I still podcast Rachel's show and I sometimes watch Larry O's show, but that's about it.

I think Al Sharpton is refreshing because he's playful and effusive.

Everyone else is too wonky.

Without Ed, they are missing a "regular guy" pushing for union workers' rights and reminding everyone about how important it is to address the needs of the American middle class (and the poor).

We needed his voice to reach the working people. We'll see how he does on the weekends, but honestly, that timeslot is horrible because most people are out and about at 5:00 or watching games on Sunday afternoon.

We'll see...

I stopped watching at the start of the year. Too much focus on Republican BS. Yes, that needs to be explained, but I don't need a blow by blow of what Lindsay Graham or Louis Gohmert did today. Of course they did the opposite of what is right and good. I could have told them that.

in occasionally for LO. But as others have mentioned, it's like every show has the same damn producer. We're treated to endless loops of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, not to mention the nutjobs at Fox. I don't tune in for that. If I wanted to listen to Rush, I have a radio. Keith made this formula popular, but it's time for some updating.

I never miss Melissa on Saturday, because she doesn't rely on rightwing soundbites to deliver her show. She covers a wide array of topics, and manages to get lots of great guests. That makes a show interesting for me.

I've been a big fan of both Rachel and Chris Hayes, but I've noticed they NEVER discuss unions,

striking workers, and very RARELY economic issues in general
The other night, Chris Hayes brought up the Immigration Issue in depth, without EVER mentioning the "deal"

on H1-B Workers that ALLOWS, for the first time, Science, Tech and Engineering companies to HIRE Foreign Workers OVER

Americans in the same field!

This "sell-out" of American workers for the Cheap Labor of H1-B Foreign Workers is what "sealed the deal" with Republicans.

I tweeted Chris Hayes to speak on the H1-B Visa issues, but so far, nothing.

Is MSNBC muzzling them?

... don't want the truth.

The first few posts on this thread are a demonstration -- people who said they weren't watching because they didn't want to hear about the latest so-called 'scandals'.

Well, that is exactly why there is so little progressive talk radio and MSNBC suffers ratings losses: a lot of liberals and progressives are fickle and just as desirous of only wanting to hear what bolsters their already formed opinions.

Now, I do think MSNBC has made some programing mistakes lately. I tend to like agree that moving Schultz was an error. I think MSNBC needs more 'hard' news reporting.

Actually, I think MSNBC ought to change its name, too. What is an MS when accompanied by network NBC? (I know the history, I'm just saying that their name doesn't portray 'news and opinion').

And, jeez, this grumbling about Chris Matthews gets old -- another example of having no tolerance for someone of a liberal persuasion that doesn't agree 100 percent with the lefty-line. Matthews does see things differently, he is an old pol and has experience -- don't agree with his assessment, but more often than not he knows what he is talking about.

and used to be a HUGE Rush listener on her morning commute...It's not like she ever liked it; she knows it's all RW lies and bullshit...Her perspective was always "What's the point of always watching something I agree with? You have to know what the other side is thinking, how the other side reports the news, and what angles the other side will attack from..." I try to tell her to get that info from online and stop giving the RW nuts ratings, but she's set in her ways...

And the "scandals" repitition, after I check into them in more detail and there's no "there" there, are redundant and boring.

I know they each have to fill a one-hour show, but sometimes that one-hour is awfully long when there's no news or the little news that exists is dragged out to fill the time slot.

It's summer and I'm gardening and jet-skiing. Way more healthy for me.

Some nights recently, her show was just a continuation of the day's disaster coverage. Boston Marathon bombing, tornado destruction, all important, but they had been covered all day and by the time Rachel came on, there was no news, just repetition of the same.

By that time, I had reached "saturation", and with nothing new on her show, I switched it off.

I'm sure she had a show planned for those nights, but the powers-that-be want to milk disasters for all they can.

it is probably the only show I've watched that has some consistent level of intellectual chops. Even the puff pieces are done with some panache. I think her show doesn't work with some demographics who need their info shoved down their throats immediately.

Rachel's stories are usually long and intricately woven together. When the current crisis du jour is talking about Obama doing X (something bad), she will bring out examples of previous administrations also doing X, and were all cheered for doing so. Not only does she show the example, she bludgeons the argument of doing X is bad by showing how much more severe the prior administrations were in doing X and how much the nation or a party accepted and approved of the X action.

It's important because history is important and Rachel does not let us forget history. While others, especially Fox News, not only purposefully or incompetently rewrite history, Rachel pulls out actual historical facts out of the news archives. Whether it was some decision on civil rights or Nixon's treasonous sabotage of the Paris Peace talks to end the Vietnam War or Reagan's cut and run after the bombing in Beirut, she doesn't hold back to call a spade a spade. She brings in the the totality of history to shine a light on how we are dealing with the immediate.

That is what is so important about watching Maddow and that is why I never miss her show.

I guess some people don't like her because she has this level of smugness in that she's claiming "I'm more right that you," or "I'm never wrong, so nyah-nyah-nyah." Maybe she should do a show one day where she gets most of her facts wrong and when her guest shows up and she asks, "So, Mr So-So, did I say anything there that is incorrect or inaccurate?" The guest should be able to point out where she was wrong. That might be an entertaining episode, just to keep both the guest and the audience on their toes.

I personally like her style because it's as close to contemporary-news-as-documentary as it can get. She's the David Attenborough of current events.

Well thought out and written.
(I'm guessing you're a professional writer!)
+1

K&R

She's excellent on that, which is why it's so weird to see she's low in viewership.

I watch her and DVR the weekend Up, I like to hear people who have time speak on a topic.

Then Maddow and Gang got on the whipping-Obama-bandwagon and I was sickened. Haven't watched in weeks. I did turn it on over the holiday weekend to catch their reporting on something I read online, and they were playing "Caught On Tape."

I've switched to Stephanie Miller in the morning and the laughs are much better than the politics of hate I see everywhere else.

He voted for Michael Steele over a good progressive like Ben Cardin!!

And he's been the loudest and most obnoxious of all the hate-Obama clan. I turn it off. I have no interest in watching Tweety or most of the shows outside of Rachel (sometimes) and Larry O. (voice of reason).

do want to know what they are saying about it so I watch.

MSNBC is ok. They will probably surpass them again with too much fan fare.

Where the hell is C. Mathews? He's the worst.

has two slots.

We can say all we want about Ed--like him or not--he was a great preview to Rachel. Chris Hayes bores me to death. I'm not saying that he's not smart. On the contrary: he's great and incredibly brilliant. However, Chris in that spot could lead people to tune out after his show.

The problem with the evening lineup is that there are too many wonky commentators. We needed Ed's voice in there. Right or wrong, like him or not, he comes across as a regular guy rather than some overly brilliant, wonky egghead.

They really screwed up by messing with Ed's show.

Rachel is great but she repeats her points 4x before she moves on...it drives me nuts!

The lineup should be:

5PM Tweety
6PM Joy Reid
7PM Cenk Uygur
8PM Keith Olbermann
9PM Rachel
10PM Ed

You have something there!

1. Why do they need to air Hardball twice on weekdays? Plug in another show with a different focus. (Hint: Joy Reid.)

2. "All In" is all out as far as I'm concerned. It's boring. Chris Hayes is almost as annoying as Chris Matthews. Matthews won't shut up so his guests can answer the questions he asked them. He just keeps talking, and talking, and talking. Hayes acts like he's on speed or something. He's jittery, jumps and bounces around in his seat, uses his hands and arms too much--not for emphasis--but as a normal part of his appearance. I think this is just his personality, but I find it bothersome, and he's hard to understand at times because he talks too fast.

3. The Ed Show should have never been moved to weekends. Ed focused on things that the other MSNBC shows didn't: specifically, labor and the corporate assault on the average American worker.

4. Love Rev. Sharpton, he also covers things some of the other shows don't, so you aren't hearing the same story over and over again.

5. Rachel Maddow is great, but by the time she's on, we've already heard the political news several times. She can hit on it, but unless it's a really big story or unless she has a different spin on it or something new to share, she shouldn't spend much time on it. I think she should focus on pointing out the hypocrisy and lies of the right wing. She's good at that. She pieces together interesting stories and presents them in an entertaining manner. She should spend more time doing that and less time repeating news we've already heard. I also like her Geek segments, maybe she could do a "worst person in the world" segment like Olbermann did, only call it something else. The Hubris special was great, she should do that type of thing more often, she's very good at it.

6. I won't watch The Cycle because of S. E. Cupp. Why does a progressive network feel the need to have the right wing represented? The right wingers already dominate the news media, let progressives have a place where we don't have to be fed the same garbage Faux News viewers get fed.

7. Morning Joe needs some work. Joe is quite simply a jerk. All we hear about is when he was in Congress, decades ago. He spews right wing propaganda and isn't called on it. Mika should stand up to him more often, I think she's much smarter and instead of sitting there as a set decoration, she should be given equal status on the show. She has a much better understanding of women's issues, and she doesn't buy into the right wing crap as much as Joe.

I think there's too much repetition on MSNBC. Each show should have a unique focus and target different areas of the news. Also, I think MSNBC tries too hard to be middle of the road, when they really need to move more to the left. They can start by showing Sippie Cupp the door, and giving more time to people who deserve it, namely Joy Reid. I also like Krystal Ball most of the time, and many of MSNBC's regulars could be given expanded roles.

How about a show for Howard Dean? How about getting some of the progressive radio personalities on the air? Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, etc.?

Edit to add: Dump Prison, Caught On Tape, etc. If MSNBC wants to be a serious cable network, these juvenile shows are insulting to viewers. Why Prison after Maddow on Fridays? Is O'Donnell permanently never available to do a Friday show?

How about a show called "Exposing Fox" pointing out the lies and hypocrisy? If MSNBC really wants to be the leader in progressive programming, they need to take on and challenge Fox. Olbermann did regularly, and his ratings were very good. Oh, and how about Olbermann? Perhaps he is a pain in the neck, but a lot of people still like him, and a lot of us remember he was the ONLY person who shared our values during the early Bushco years, and he didn't hesitate to say what he thought.

Also, Phil Donohue. He's great in an audience/talk format. Lots of people still respect him as well.

Why do we have to point out the obvious? Aren't there highly paid people at MSNBC that are supposed to know how to do this? Ask your audience, we will tell you what you're doing wrong and how to correct it.

show some repeats rather than 100% original programming because it's very cheap to fill an hour with a repeat rather than another program. And the same thing applies to the prison shows. They are cheap and generally get better ratings than news programming on weekends gets.

and privatization of prisons.

Some people who watch those shows probably believe that more people should be locked up. That's also the opinion of the private prison owners (corporations). More bodies = more $ coming in.

It's no more far-fetched than lots of other things that have been going on since 2001.

because they don't want us to keep our eyes on the suite criminals.

"How about a show for Howard Dean? How about getting some of the progressive radio personalities on the air? Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, etc.?
Edit to add: Dump Prison, Caught On Tape, etc. If MSNBC wants to be a serious cable network, these juvenile shows are insulting to viewers. Why Prison after Maddow on Fridays? Is O'Donnell permanently never available to do a Friday show?"

...if they haven't had Stephanie Miller on lately because her show now airs on a channel that considers itself a rival of MSNBC. I found some old videos of her appearing on the Ed Show, but those were all before her show was added to Current's lineup. I also noticed how Eliot Spitzer didn't start appearing on MSNBC until he was dropped in favor of John Fugelsang. It seems to be a pattern there.

Also, I agree about the prison shows. Get rid of LockUp and Caught on Camera. Who even watches them anymore? Caught on Camera is Drysville, and LockUp can be quite depressing. At least when How to Catch a Predator was still airing new episodes, it was a little funny seeing the pedophiles get busted. But LockUp is all about hearing inmates tell us everything we already know about how dreadful it is behind bars.

because...well...need I say more?

Larry O and Al Sharpton really are the only two voices of reason on that network in these times.

Larry O, in particular, has been outstanding! Simply amazing!!

The same goon who put on a fake accent and threatened to beat people up on his tv show? He's a blow hard.

He a "liberal" clone of the blow hards Fox News puts out. He's the Hannity of MSNBC. Lawrence basically reads talking points and defends the party no matter what.

That doesn't mean that the substance of his arguments are invalid. Rachel makes mistakes and she always admits when she does. We're human, not superman.

I still like Larry O. I think he has a great deal of offer. And last night's coverage of James Comey was brilliant.

in the demo his time slot but he seldom if ever does that anymore.

Or is sandwiched between. Unfortunate.

Morning Joe is a bore. Then every show from then to the end of the day tells the same stories with the same slants, they just change the person telling it. I liked Ed, Martin Bashir is good, but not a big Maddow fan, the hipster thing annoys me, same with Chris Hayes. Maddow and Hayes are way better when they are giving interviews or participating on a discussion panel ie: Real Time. But MSNBC needs to have a real identity. They are liberal during election time, then start to trail off a bit and see something shiny then regurgitate the same crap CNN and FAUX are telling but with better looking people. They really need to go full bore on being the lefts version of FAUX News or be content as the #3 or #4 news network.

Cable news sucks though, across the board...

Anyone who wants to tune in and watch that shit goes to Fox or . Typical MSNBC viewers have no interest in it.

least one MSNBC news program a day until after the election. Then the news was all downhill and I just can't stand being bludgeoned with Replublicon bullshit that I can't do anything about. Frankly, it's depressing.

But, without his program being on tv during the week, I stopped watching Rachel as often, and concentrated on only catching Lawrence O'Donnell's program.

I never watch CNN, so I don't even know who Erin Burnett is.

Is Keith Olberman available?

Big mistake letting him go. Yeah, he might be a pain in the neck but he had a loyal following and his show stood out from the rest.

Phil Donahue was a mistake as well.

Welcome to DU, Brewh!

Don't ask me why.

No.

about how his show is unwatchable now because he supports Rosen. People here don't want opinion, they want their partisan talking points. If you ever stay from that you get thrown under the bus.

I used to like the Rachel and then Keith line up. back in the five years ago old days?

The current Chris-Rachel-Lawrence line up is good EXCEPT for the redundantly re-covered stories. It's like they need a producer that oversees all three shows and each subject is only covered once an evening, instead of three different points of view on the same subjects, prepeated three times.

I do get a bit of schedenfreude when a hotshot all knowing tv exec tinkers with shows to make the ratings "better" and then proceeds to ruin the ratings of three shows simultaneously.

With Hayes replacing Ed and the line up of continual twenty something pundits there is an aroma of AGE DISCRIMINATION in pursuit of higher ratings. I want wisdom and accuracy and keen insight and I don't care how old the host is.

Three hours of MSNBC prime time is a big chunk out of anybodies life, additionally.

-90% Jimmy

a table/desk-chatting and espousing Their opinions with no way for Us to participate...No passion of the actual issues, No "Fire"--is Boring.
A friend of mine just yesterday mentioned she's shut them ALL off-"jes takin' a break"...
They All have the Same Story--offering slightly different words to describe and issue the Same fkn message.
I'm sick of it also.
Olberman and Schultz are missed.
The Fourth Estate is Long gone with the introduction and subsequent events since "GOP TV" (now fox) was introduced...and several POTUS removing FCC Rules--It's a Monopolized Infotainment System who likes to convince Us it's still relevant. They Do Not fulfill their intended directive/mission of being the information souce aka "Government Watchdogs" to inform us. We are taught nothing-we learn nothing from these sensationalistic "Journalists" who's bosses would rather pull their Own teeth than to allow for In Depth Credible, Full and Complete Investigative stories about what Is going on...Instead we get "Balloon Boy, Fake Scandals, Anna Nicole Smith" and so on. Todays "jounalists" believe We should be outraged and stand with them to protect their protections. Why? What is left to protect? Again, thanks to those who converted the Fourth Estate into a propaganda machine. Are we "outraged" over what credible investigative reporting/News used to be, what we want it to be or have we accepted what it has become?

....than Bach or Mozart.

So there ya go.....

I have not been watching much MSNBC the past month. I do not want to hear the lies being propagated by the right wing.

another case. It takes to much time. Plus usually I drop off watching a lot of news in the summer. I miss Big Ed. I like Chris but for some reason I just can't get into his show. I like when he is a guest on the other shows.

Its a mix of her taking way to long to get to the point and "the greatest youtube video ever!". I miss her radio show.

There really isn't anyone on corporate news that I enjoy.

I do the same thing , my psychologist said it was common in adhd adults. Not saying she is but only that I noticed it because it's been pointed out to me as well when I'm having a conversation with people.

When I lived in NJ, all the cable ready TVs without cable boxes could get CNN and Fox, but not MSNBC. I think to get MSNBC, you had to buy a more expensive package than to get the others.

with the same positioning in cable tiers that they have now? As far as I know no cable provider has changed their channel slot recently.

Chris Hayes was fantastic on his morning show, but he clearly is not ready for prime time. Bring Ed Schultz back right now and put Hayes back on the morning show. Maddow's ratings are hurting because Chris does not provide a strong lead in to her show.

Get rid of Chris Matthews completely, if not then at least eliminate one hour. Move O'Donnell into his first hour and Bashir into the 2nd hour.

Replace Morning Joke with prison shows, or better yet with Chris Hayes. Even that clown with the cowboy hat that used to be on there would be an improvement.

Get rid of SE Cupp. Or maybe just get rid of the whole horrible show.

Find a better slot for Alex Wagner and give Joy Reid more air time.

And finally, criticize the President and administration if you want to but for crissakes, at least criticize them for the right reasons. Benghazigate, IRSgate, and APgate, are not the right reasons. NotfiringEricholdergate, cuttingSocialSecuritygate, suckinguptoWallStreetgate, and dronegate are.

"And finally, criticize the President and administration if you want to but for crissakes, at least criticize them for the right reasons. Benghazigate, IRSgate, and APgate, are not the right reasons. NotfiringEricholdergate, cuttingSocialSecuritygate, suckinguptoWallStreetgate, and dronegate are."
And I like the rest of your suggestions also

suck it MSNBC

but for right now I am kind of taking a break from the day to dy crap.

I do miss Ed Schultz, though.

then I watch TRMS

There's too much overlap and redundancy in the way that the present lineup covers the news. They all try to cover the same hot topics of the day for an hour as if each host were operating in a vacuum. Each needs to figure out what they're really knowledgeable about -- economy, foreign affairs, electoral politics, social issues -- and try to focus on that.

They should all sit together for a nightly newscast at 7 and cover the day's topical news from a progressive point-of-view, sort of like CBS Evening News used to be.

I'd much rather tune in for a general news feed and come back later in the evening for more in-depth coverage than to try to sit through three or four hours of the same topics from less than 2 degrees of difference.

Most of these Shows are full of speculation and innuendo to fill that huge amount of air time..
Americans are tired of being lied to or given spin instead of Facts...
I know I am..
Harder than hell anymore to find those Facts for yourself as it is now...

Now, that's the truth...spin, spin, spin.

need to ease off the sleaze but instead of integrity they go with popularity bullshit .

We used to watch it all the time in the evenings. Now hardly watch it all since ED has been gone from the nightly lineup.

MSNBC news and truth...but only during some times of the days.

I loved Ed and now just forget to check him out on weekends...really, REALLY bad timing.

Rachel does great work.

BUT, I admit...I've not turned on the channel for months...it's TOO depressing to not only
read what the TeaPukers are up to (reading here) and then to see it on MSNBC as well.

And Current...what the hell? Al Jazeera might as well just tell them to shut it down.

Boston, the Arias trial, the tornado, etc. all are more natural stories for CNN and they hyped it all up with 24/7 coverage of crime and disaster. It's kind of disgusting but it worked for them and they also became less serious and more like HLN since Jeff Zucker took over.
MSNBC also has problems. They focus too much on politics and 2013 is not an election year. They had higher ratings in 2012. Plus, people miss Ed and have not warmed up to All In. I like Chris Hayes but many preferred Big Ed. There is no blue collar labor guy on primetime anymore. I pretty much only watch some of Rachel anyway and all of Lawrence as I need to put my kids in bed around 8/9.

I've cut WAY back on my MSNBC viewing since we won the election. It's like decompressing on a vacation.

I've also been unsubscribing to many of the left-wing letters I get. I just don't have time for them these days, and I really can use a break from the barrage.

Yes - Rs are rabid and never sleep, even when they win. But let's face it, the demographics are against the future of the Republic Party. The insanity we're witnessing are the death throes of the few remaining zealots of a party headed for history's trash heap.

I'm taking the tack of staying out of the way of a self-destructing entity. I'll reconnect next year as the election approaches. At 58, I think I'm entitled to a break.

BTW - I did watch Ed's show on Sunday. I thought this was a bad move for him, but he seems to be thriving. I like his new more-extended format with a guest panel that hangs around for more than 5 minutes at a time. It might be a bad move for MSNBC, but it looks to be working out for Ed, who has made adjustments to his format that seem to be working in his favor.

The most intelligent show, with the least attention to scandal du jour and the most attention to real social concerns. Smart guests -- many different people and not just the same old few.

I only watch Wagner and Bashir regularly. Sometimes O'Donnell. Rarely Tweety. Phooey on the rest of it. Hayes makes me anxious and Rachel is uneven.

..but Alex is awesome...

If I watch from 6 to 9 I hear the same stories repeated 3 times. It gets old for me.
Rachael is good but she is so brainy that it seems I am getting a lecture in class.
MSNBC should not fight for ratings but somehow it has to be more entertaining.

Chris is too much like Rachel. Ed is good at firing people up, then you relax a bit and watch Rachel and Lawrence. Too cerebral and not enough anger...

Consider Ed's reaction to Obama and chained CPI--and then consider Chris, Rachel, and Lawrence and how they treated it (slow to react to be sure). Heck, Alex Wagner had the governor of NOW spouting the Pete Peterson swill...

It isn't just Chris Hayes however... Sometimes it seems MSNBC is confused as to when it really should be critical of this administration..other than Tweety encouraging the reiteration of GOP talking points.

. . . so I watch her show on the Internet. Satellite television is far too expensive for this disabled vet. The Rachel Maddow show is the only one I watch.

Otherwise, I get my news from Internet sources (the BBC, Voice of America, here) and more archaic methods (newspaper delivery, magazine subscriptions to Navy Times, the Economist, Foreign Affairs) - I secretly suspect our village Postmaster of reading my magazines before I get them.

I wonder if such ratings include those who watch television shows on the Internet?

James, on the Left side of Nebraska.

He was too pro labor and would sometimes knock Obama or his admin.

He did less of the latter over the years but he would still get in a critique every now and then.

Hayes and Rachel are wonks and TWO wonks in a row?

Ed is the "little guy" He was the most unique amoung the line-up (still is on weekends) his stories, along with Maddow's followed their own line, the rest seem to often to rehash the same storylines.

Keith got the boot.
They tried to give Cenk an analyst role when he was getting good ratings and even admitted there were complaints out of DC.
Ed was banished to the weekends.

I loved him as a pundit but as a person he was known for being extremely tough to deal with. I wish he could get a second chance though. Ed...who knows. Not about the administration to me, more about MSNBC trying to get younger viewers. Same with The Cycle, a show with all younger Gen X hosts. Chris Hayes does not seem that young to me as we are about the same age but I have heard lots of complaints about that and that Big Ed was more of a blue collar/labor guy. I like them both.

...again.

MSNBC seems not to understand that their past ratings success came from tapping in to a progressive Democratic segment of the population, ranging in age from teens to seniors. Shows that did well...from KO toEd to Rachel Maddow...knew their audience. Current management seems not to know this, OR...not to care.

First of all no one wants to here about the republican obstruction. Then who wants to pay for it? Before I write, I dig deep.

I guess I'm in the minority.

I never liekd Schultz. He seemed too much of a cheer leader.

I watch All in or the Rachael Maddow show, I feel like I'm actually the smarter for it. I've actually learned something. I'm not just getting "repubs are bad!" and regurgitation of things I already believe.

I liked Chris on weekends, and catch him once in a while on weeknights at 8 if there's not a good PBS show on.

I ALWAYS record Rachel, and watch her the next day, skipping throught the 12 minutes of commercials that fill her show.

I love them both, they are very insightful, have great research and background info to present, and keep the mind active while watching. Rachel is a little closer to my heart, just because I know her show pace better after her several years on-air.

and they get some good guests on. I usually watch one or the other depending on my schedule. I especially like the fact that Hayes and Maddow cover environmental & energy topics, the elephant in the room. I like Hayes and Maddow very much.

While I agree that Ed's leaving weeknights was a negative, everybody forgets that it was by his request because he had to cut back his insane schedule.

Give Chris a chance--he is so sharp and is doing a really top notch job in some areas. That being said, yes need another Ed on MSNBC--maybe they could find an Ed to replace Tweety (which I never watch & don't like his rabid dog style).

Every show discusses the same topics with the same silly people. None of them are even really news anymore. It's all commentary. People get tired of this. It's true for all networks, not just MSNBC. There's a distinct pattern shows take. There will be one main story, usually over-hyped or controversial. One side will say one thing and one side will say the opposite. Nothing will change. People look at it and realize it's just a circus with commentators being trotted out and preened for ratings. They don't represent "real" people. They aren't affected by the situations being spoken about. They can't be related to by the average person. They don't come from that background. They are groomed and preselected "opinions" that everyone apparently has to accept as true. They're corporate sell outs. All of them. When was the last time one of them went hungry or worried about paying the bills? College? Maybe? They aren't real people.

And then every show trots out their experts and talks about the same issues and no one cares because it doesn't matter what these people think about our issues. There is no creditability to their words.

It used to be hard working average people who were reporters. Many of whom put themselves in REAL danger to get a story. Today the voices of American news live in metaphorical penthouses and and don't know what being an average person is like. How can you be trusted if you can't relate to someone?

Even Rachel, who is my favorite of all of the current breed of reporters, doesn't get it right. Sometimes she'll be talking and I'll sit there and can just visualize people's eyes glazing over. Even if what she says is factually important, there is very little connection with the average person. How does the Harry Reid and "nuclear option" directly affect me? Well?

We have not watched MSNBC one time since Hayes took over EDs spot. Every day we watched Ed, Rachel and O Donnell.
They also need to dump all those freaking lockups and become a mostly news channel with the occasional documentaries shows. Hell Ive even been watching Anthony Bourdain on CNN.

As in rolling news, all day long, like 1980s CNN used to do. Forget the agenda, forget the commentary, just good quality anchors with quality reporting from around the world. Forget the personality-driven shows, forget the right-versus-left screaming fests.

Or am I asking for too much?

I agree with you completely. Why does everything need to be pre-digested for me, presented by opinionated "personalities"? I can form my own opinions, thank you very much.

--"gloomy truth" is all we've got from MSNBC right now. Because it's their job--they have to try to make sense of the insanity in Washington. But it takes a toll. It's hard to watch the ugliness night after night.

And FNC is in 3rd place in terms of ratings gains, MSNBC 4th both networks are focusing more on political stories than infotainment like Jodi Arias and the tornadoes.

http://rewired.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-msnbc-falls-below-559923

Also neither mention that MSNBC isn't on most basic cable packages anymore while the other 3 networks are on a lot of basic cable packages.

It's like Inside Edition lately...very hyped up on one or two stories all day long. Not much about politics. Faux and MSNBC are very politically focused. I guess there are lots of people that like to watch that kind of infotainment. Rachel has been doing better this week as has Lawrence. Both beat CNN on Tuesday and Wednesday. Maybe it was the Michelle Bachmann thing last night?

because he talks fast.

Boston Bombing etc.

CNN is very repetitive but when it comes to non political coverage people tune in to things like the arias crap and more important stories like the missing girls in ohio

Half of the time the guests on these shows are hosts of the show that was on before!



"News" in this country is a joke.

They don't want to be subjected to anything preachy, or bogged down by snarky, formulaic humor. We are smarter than that. What we need is the smartest minds presenting the best programing possible. I get people on this board don't like the way I talk but, whatever.

they want information. Not commentary or commentary on the commentary, etc. I am so glad I don't have cable television anymore.

But that really sucks that Maddow's numbers are down. The Arias trial was turned into a three ring circus by the likes of Nancy Grace and her thugs.

Her goal is to simplify events so that the average viewer can comprehend the world.

Yes, replacing Ed with Chris has hurt by lowering the lead in audience for Rachel and Lawrence, but what has hurt more these last 4-6 weeks is having these commentator/hosts anchoring big news events. They are not trained to do this, nor do they have the necessary experience to do a good job while in the big event/anchoring mode. That's not a real criticism of those hosts. I'm sure none of them would claim to be well practiced at doing that.

Here's what I think would improve their ratings:

1. Put Ed back at 8 PM M-F.

2. When big events happen, bring in experienced news anchors to run things, with the commentators interjecting their opinions every now and then. For instance, Chris Jansing and Tamron Hall are two examples of people at the network who are good in that environment, and there are others available for that type of duty, also. I would extend this to events such as the Democratic and Republican conventions, and also include major election nights and presidential debates in this category.

3. They should have a reporter doing hard news/business news every half hour during the last 6-8 minutes of the first segments of every half hour. For example, in the first segment of the hour, Rachel would come on and give her preview of what the show will cover, and then bring on the hard news during the final part of the first segment. When they return from that break, Rachel goes on with her show. Then at the half hour, have her give a preview of that half hour, followed by the same few minutes of news.

Numbers 2 and 3 above relate to MSNBC adding some hard news bona fides to what they offer. It would not take long for people to know that they could always get a digest of real news twice per hour, and that seasoned broadcast pros would handle important breaking news events.

The way it is now, no.....I don't think Rachel or the others are good at handling big events, so I go elsewhere when that happens, as do a lot of people. When that situation is occurring night after night, like when the Sandy Hook, Boston, Oklahoma, and Hurricane Sandy stories hit, MSNBC's ratings take a hit.

Dump Chris Hayes, or at least just have him as a guest occasionally. Seems like a super smart guy, nice, but just not ready for prime time. Move Ed back (if he'll do it). Tweety needs to go to one hour, but he obviously has some hold over the suits. The Cycle is ridiculous; it tries so hard to be "hip" and misses by a mile. I do like Steve Kornacki though, too bad they put him on so early on weekends; there's no way I'm getting up at 4am (or whenever it is) on the West Coast. And I don't like "taping" these shows as the news isn't news anymore by the time I'd get around to watching it.

Forget KO - that will never happen. He seriously needs some anger management classes. And, FOR SURE, don't even think of Cenk - he drives me bonkers - his ego is almost as big as KO's.

I'd like to see Eliot Spitzer on, his show on CNN was great, he's intelligent and can really get to the heart of the matter.

Phil Griffin has single-handedly undermined MSNBC ratings from the get-go...starting with how he handled Olbermann. Moving Ed Schultz out of prime time was supremely stupid.

J

anniversary of the Iraq war during the the primaries.

MSNBC did not have Kucinich on to explain his no vote, instead they had Edwards on a couple of times that week ... I do not need to watch lies on the so called "liberal" channel.

Edwards was an advocate for the invasion and the "liberal' media endorsed his lies.