SLUDGE REPORT: MSNBC dropping some talk shows for taped reports

He doesn't have a link up yet-just a 'developing..' thing.

If true, who will be on the chopping block? I ssume tucker's a given, with his crap rating and all. Joedeadintern would be a contender. Would the bastards can Olbermann? And will Matthews continue to enjoy ineplicable backing by the network (he must have pics of GE execs with farm animals or something)?

Who hires these people?

MSNBC started with lofty goals, but have catapulted themselves into last place by making some crappy choices..

They have access to enough Dateline shows to repackage "taped" shows from here to eternity.. People won't watch them, so it doesn't matter really..

Their only hope is to cancel the righties and to broadcast to a NEW and starved audience of lefties, but they are too chicken to do that, so they will just fade away... good riddance (except for keith)

What they need is a non-time-limited call in show..a la Washington Journal on steroids.. THAT would be popular...but their corporate big shots would never agree to that, so they will recycle junk from the net and from old NBC shows and leave keith outt there in the wasteland until they find a way to let him go too..and then they will just fade away.. they are losing money and perhaps that's the plan they have chosen..

Maybe it will get cheap enough that Ted Turner might buy it and start all over again with the anti-CNN..

I would PAY to watch that:)

get better ratings.. as it is you either have the choice to watch your local news or tucker... most people take local news for the weather and sports highlights.

for having the guts to put people like Rachel Maddow on. he's one rightwinger too many on TV, but he's nowhere near as bad as Hannity or Glenn Beck

Tucker's only hope is a co-host like Bill Press. They did well together on CNN's "The Spin Room" and neither Press nor Carlson are good enough to outshine the other.

Dr. Maddow, an unfeatured panelist on Carlson's show, needs to be featured in primetime! She needs to be away from the Stewart/Colbert block, where she's in direct competition for her core audience.

They ignore innocent until proven guilty and trial by judge and jury.

The crucify everyone that they have picked to suffer, guilty or not.

I think every screaming, talk-over lawyer and host should get dumped out on a remote road hundreds of miles from a camera or audience and then argue against each other until they are parched and have to stop never to continue their stupid arguments for ratings.

A lot of people enjoy watching trials and have an interest in Law. Some hosts get better ratings than others. Some obnoxious lawyers drive viewers away and that means lower ratings.

It is a very democratic system.

So, you may not enjoy crime trial coverage but do not presume to speak for the audience. Just turn the channel please! Leave the genre in place for those who have a larger interest in trial coverage than you.

And, here's a radical thought, let the people decide what they want to watch. Unfortunately, the only way to do that currently is by statistical extrapolation from diaries and little boxes. Ratings, in other words.

did you get that from? Yes, this is a democracy and I spoke for myself.

It borders on rude and it is rude to tell people what they should do or not do.

I spoke for myself only and if you can point me to where I didn't, I'll edit my entry if I agree with you. I don't touch dials for people. I could care less about right wing corporate ratings.

Since you haven't been writing much here, you may not recognize me as belligerent about the takeover of major networks by right wing corporations - specifically = GE Murdoch Time-Warner-Viacom and all their linked corporations and stockholders. Networks that can't move without getting their marching orders and talking points from the White House are traitors.

I lament the fact that what most people watch is pathetically partisan propaganda with only token spots for Dem's. I resent not getting equal coverage for Dem Candidate and for Dems in office and in congress.

My list is long.

I resent that only a handful of approved and accepted Dem representatives get to speak for Dems on a regular basis - Brazile, Schrum, etc. Because I resent the way they bow to the predators, are unoriginal, and give the country wishy-washy predictable words I resnt, in turn, their corporate network acceptance.

So I am speaking for myself. I don't tell others to think the way I do or react the way I do.

And I won't repeat everything - but right wing corporate networks are cooperating in a plot to dumb us down - if they announced tomorrow that all trials will take place on MSNBC - 25% of the country would say that was a good idea because they are idiots about their rights and can't even imagine reverse control of the WH, Congress, and Supreme Court with the executive precedences set by the right wing under our boy king.

Your personal belief seems to be that I should be denied access to hosts and lawyers whom you find objectionable. You really don't understand that your expressed opinion would infringe on my rights? What you advocated is not turning the channel for me; instead you think it fine to dump offending hosts away from any camera so they are not on any channel I might select.

In this Republic, I don't believe any of us has any business suggesting that any other citizen should be denied access to an audience. So, when you write: "I think every screaming, talk-over lawyer and host should get dumped out on a remote road hundreds of miles from a camera or audience ..." you go too far.

However, now that you've revealed to me your belief that a plot exists to dumb us down, it does put a different perspective on your earlier post. Do you not understand that your assertion that ANY Network is treasonous is identical to Dick Cheney's assertion that the NY Times is treasonous? It is the same tyrannical principle!

My desires are so simple. All I want is cameras in every courtroom. I can tell a trial story far more effectively on television with tape than I can without. I can show sleeping judges and inept attorneys. I don't have to describe a witness' stunning demeanor, you can see it for yourself.

It was a pretend statement to show my contempt for them.
I can't believe that you believe you would be affected.

I think you failed to get my point about the pomposity of their conducting juries on television. I think it might be wise to ignore what I write.

Obviously, I'm one of them: a real working television journalist who objects strongly to the ignorance of the role of the Press displayed on this board. So many posters seem to think the Press has a Constitutional obligation to be objective. In fact, there is no evidence the Founding Fathers even imagined an objective press corps since they had no experience with anything except heavily partisan broadsheets.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal concept to which the Courts are bound. The Press isn't. And, as I have told many a judge, it is not my job to protect the jury pool. The Courts have plenty of options in securing an unbiased panel and protecting that panel from outside influences.


The notion that journalists are lackeys controlled by some cabal is such total nonsense that most of my few posts have been in reaction to that type of conspiratorial bunk. Everyone who knows anything about the media objects to the consolidation of ownership. Your objection is shared by many.

My job is to above all, get it right. My credibility is my livelihood. No manager tells me how to cover a story and it would be against my basic beliefs to accept such an order. Despite your errant beliefs, the fact is most working journalists paramount concern is accuracy.

Ratings are powerful because they mean dollars and the main concern of my management is to make money. Keith Olberman is protected by his ratings. He can tell managers to 'shove it' knowing with certainty that if MSNBC fires him, CNN would love to have a guy with Keith's ratings. He'd survive and prosper because of ratings. The very thing that so rankles you.

right wing corporate networks who work in near perfect partnership with right wing WH's and who have partnered with right wing to steal elections.

I would not object to the value of tv or radio rating contests for any companies who are not corporate networks who the unknowing populace listens to with untter unawareness.

I feel journalists are most decent when they attempt to get is straight for citiens and guests who are not privileged and who can get battered within the bureaucratic and possibly dishonest overseers.

No one will ever convince me that creating right wing corporate networks was not in the plan of of the right wing and successfully accomplished.

No matter how you cut it - my opinion is that corporate networks are out to tear down the division between entertainmentnews/propaganda on the one hand and courts on the other. I honor the fact that Democrats and Independents have propaganda to spread, but they have no high volume network assisting them. The opposite is the truth. They are cut out and grossly undercovered or represented.

I cannot take your position. Perhaps everyone else on DU has been won over by your arguments by now. Since I can't be convinced, I'll probably keep spreading my meessage just as you will. Good luck and good night!

The danger is in the temptation to believe you are far brighter than almost everyone else and certainly smarter than the masses. In actuality, you probably are. That is not flattery but an observation based on your writing.

The evidence of your submission to temptation is in your last post: "... unknowing populace listens to with untter unawareness ..."(sic) Yes, the trouble with mass media ratings is the same basic flaw in democracy: everybody gets the same one vote. That means that much of the news on television and in print is aimed at the same people who make American Idol a smash hit.

The temptation has long plagued journalists too. We call it the "blame the readers" syndrome. I feel it every time I watch 'Jay Walking' on Leno and understand that those people help determine my ratings.
And then I remember that those people are the ones who most need to be reached so that they become informed and interested.

So logic tells me it is in the interest of the Republic to involve as many people as possible in the public debate. There is no value in 'blaming the audience' anymore than there is in blaming 'stupid voters'. In the end, you must accept that there is 'wisdom in the masses' because there is no alternative. It is not the fault of stupid voters, it is your fault for failing to enlighten them. Yours and mine.

Keep trying.

If they mess with Keith, we should storm the gates.

Be assured if it was Olbermann's head, Sludge would use that as the headline.

Dan Abrams was brought in to clean up a lot of messes. First...his daily show probably will fade into the ozone. Next, I suspect it's time to pull the plug on Tucker and his show that draws more flies than viewers. What's real embarassing is not only does the Daily Show have nearly 6 times more viewers than Bowtie boy, but even the reruns on Faux and CNN beat him. They're just waiting for his contract to expire.

Next, surely Rita Rita Aruba maid has been another big bust-out. She's no Greta or Nancy Grace and the ratings say she'll never be.

The ones I consider safe are KO...he's bringing in key 24-54 numbers...the money demo that few news shows are doing and Joey Scarface who can be surprisingly candid at times. The rest of the network has been an albatross and how many more management changes does this network have to go through? Isn't it time to drop the MS part, too...IIRC, Micrsoft no longer has anything to do with this venture.

KharmaTrain is right. If there was so much as a hint that KO was out of a job, Sludge would be singing it from the highest rooftop...whether or not it was a sure thing. Nah, they know that his show and Softball are the highest-rated shows they've got.

I would definitely dump Rita Rita Aruba maid (Rita Skeeter for all you Harry Potter fans) first. Tucker and Joedeadintern are not much better.

They may drop the MS part indeed, although it's been a big part of their identity, and if I were them I'd just find a way to "make the 'MS' stand for something else."

He signed a 10yr contract some time back for huge dollars so they are stuck with him.

he was on during morning news with one of their news dolls.

that Countdown is along the lines of "the daily show"........ now, I could be wrong, and I haven't heard it again, but that's what I thought I heard. Something like Countdown is along the lines of "the daily show". Did anyone else hear this??

DU's KO/Countdown group...check'er'out :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=315

And, no, not on Skinner's Group chopping block with about 200 posts a day :toast:

Edit to add link!

One senior NBC executive said, "There will probably be one to two hours of long-form taped shows every night in prime time." The executive spoke on condition of anonymity because the decisions were not final and would affect some of the prime-time hosts, like Rita Cosby, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough, now working on the channel.

Two of the channel's hosts, Chris Matthews of "Hardball" and Keith Olbermann of "Countdown," clearly will not be affected, because MSNBC's managers consistently cite those programs as long-sought breakthroughs. "We've just got to build on those two shows," Mr. Griffin said, sitting beside Mr. Abrams in the conference room at MSNBC. "It's critical. We have to capitalize on their success."

That success has been relative, rather than sweeping. But MSNBC, which has lagged badly behind its rivals since its creation a decade ago, is clearly encouraged by some growth in ratings for the two programs. Mr. Matthews has been the channel's leading figure for years, but "Hardball" has ticked up in the ratings over the past year, especially among viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 — the group that is the chief sales basis for news programming. Mr. Olbermann, meanwhile, has picked up both viewers and some strong word-of-mouth for his irreverent style. His show is up 36 percent since January in that 25-54 group. MSNBC points out that during the same period, CNN and Fox have been down that those hours.

Of course, a little bump goes a long way at MSNBC, where ratings have been mainly dwarfish over the years, especially next to Fox News. Even with Mr. Olbermann's surge, for example, he draws well less than half of what Bill O'Reilly of Fox does in that age group — and only a fifth of Mr. O'Reilly's total viewer number. But Mr. Griffin noted that MSNBC's two big shows were going in the right direction now, gaining viewers, while most of those on Fox and CNN were showing declines. CNN especially is a target of opportunity for MSNBC, Mr. Griffin said, because Mr. Olbermann has beaten that network on many nights recently.

he would be free to work full time on the frat boys' defense.

The guy has zilch experience and it sounds like he had "backers" who wanted him in there. Something just isn't right that they pick a guy with no programming experience to make decisions about who stays and goes at MSNBC..and what are these "taped reports" that will replace their talk show line up? Taped Propaganda?

They've already brought back Monica Crowley to do "news segments."

right-wingers at the same time, just to make it seem copacetic.

Ratings don't matter nearly as much as people on DU seem to think. It's the *message* that comes first. They try to get the best ratings they can while *staying within the acceptable range of debate*. I've no doubt that Eric Alterman or Katrina VandenHeuval could get great ratings on MSNBC, but they will never get the chance because they don't push the "right" message.

This smells an awful lot like the Armed Forces Radio move recently- they're getting rid of Hannity and Rush after years and years of uninterrupted propagandizing. They're doing it because moderate liberals have finally made their way in. The people in charge will *not* allow Al Franken and Ed Schultz to broadcast there, but they can't just cancel the two non-nazis. So they canned them all.

Hope I'm wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

We're heading into election season, and the gop is trying to put a strangle hold on info dissemination. I won't breath easy until anouncements are made.

I hope they get rid of Rita Cosby though. I can't stand her. I don't mind Scraborugh or Carlson. Oh, and don't repeat Hardball and the Arbrams Report in the same night.