What's with all the Kos hate here?

And is the fact that one doesn't like him good enough reason to be so blase about Joe Scarborough calling the shots for all of MSNBC?

supersede questionable censorship practices on a news channel.

(never watched msnbc - ever)

First, much of the discussion on this topic involves a couple of inaccurate claims. This fellow wasn't "blacklisted." As others have noted, this word has an actual meaning, and deserves to be used correctly. Also, mourning Joe didn't make the decision to not have Kos on MSNBC. His boss did.

Second, there does appear to be some dislike of the fellow. Part of it is easily attributed to his attempt to identify himself as being blacklisted. Perhaps it is an error made by a person who is allowing emotions to cloud his judgement; perhaps it is a purposeful misuse of a word by a person attempting to manipulate other people's perceptions. The second option fits with many people's concerns that DKos is a vehicle to manipulate the perceptions of the democratic left, and the public's perception of the democratic left.

Personally, I don't know enough about the guy to have a firm opinion of him. But I definitely understand and appreciate other people's concerns.

So it's OK that he isn't allowed on MSNBC because some don't like what he says or how he says it? Forget his using the word blacklisted, should Joe Scarborough be able to decide who can or cannot be on Rachel or Keith's show?

I'm not aware of either Keith or Rachel's shows having problems getting other capable guests to speak for the left. And, again, Joe didn't make the decision. It's simply inaccurate to make such a claim. Likewise, using the word "censorship" is inaccurate (post #3). Like "blacklisting," it has an actual meaning.

boss that he didn't want a certain person on MSNBC, not the Joe Scarborough show, but all of MSNBC, and his boss complied.It certainly is censorship, it wouldn't be censorship if he was banned from one particular show, he's banned from the whole network. I don't understand why it would make a difference to anybody whether there are other people who can speak for the left, is Joe Scarborough"s ability to get speakers banned from the network only important if it's a speaker popular with the left?

nothing more. You have no idea what, if anything, Joe said to his boss. Obviously, Joe is a flaming asshole, but the decision to not have Kos on that channel belongs solely to the boss. And it is not censorship: Kos has no "right" to be on MSNBC. None. No more than Glen Beck has the right to post his ranting on DU, or that if Skinner TSed him it would be either censoring or blacklisting him.

Rather, Kos is experiencing a consequence for his actions. The lesson he should learn is that whenever a wise man argues with a fool, you have two fools. Kos will not be learn from this, so long as he continues to claim victimship ....something that demands the improper use of words.

the guys who own and run this site don`t have that problem.

joe does`t call the shots at msnbc. kos took a bite out of the hand that fed him.

news channel, they would all be silent.

I think dkos is a valuable site.

i think is a pompous jackass.

wielding that level of influence that he could veto guests on the network if he feels insulted.

I think the response would have been markedly different if Mika had been able to delete Joan Walsh from the network when they got into it and the point would register quite a bit more.

People worry too much about individuals and not enough with broad implications.

Good analogy.

:shrug:

activists back when Bush invaded Iraq and many of us DUers were meeting in D.C. for the protests. he makes me think of rahm emmanuel for some reason.