Cenk was removed due to "political pressure", Phil Griffin: MSNBC is "part of the establishment"

After giving a nearly six-month tryout for the Internet talk show host Cenk Uygur, the cable news channel MSNBC is preparing to instead hand its 6 p.m. time slot to the Rev. Al Sharpton.

*snip*

Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/media/sharpton-close-to-being-msnbc-anchor.html?_r=1

------

So MessNBC basically answers to the White House....no wonder Keith got pushed out.

And it's no wonder that cheerleader O'Donnell replaced Keith, and it's no wonder that cheerleader Al Sharpton is replacing Cenk.

Love the unbolded part of the quote.

It has nothing to do with the fact his show's ratings stank compared to Al Sharpton's, right? :sarcasm:

How dare you????

than diarrhea.

I am a realist/pessimist. I used to be an optimist.

If somebody wants to post a FACT then I would gladly read it, but when facts are blurred into the realm of political dogma then I sense a smell not uncommon to farms and stock yards.


Unlike excessive blue links (designed to becloud and really lead nowhere) or endless argumentative snark ("because my president right or wrong...") facts are stubborn things: difficult to argue against.

modus operandi, and suddenly people start to ask for "facts" to back that statement up? Statements such as this are in the same vein as those employed by Sen. Jon Kyle to give a specific "perception" to planned parenthood and are "not intended to be a factual statement". Your part is simply to believe it as truth. Is this concept really so hard to understand?

He typically had the lowest ratings of any show between 5PM and 12AM. Before you flame me I'm a big Cenk fan. I love TYTs. But to say his ratings were great is hard to say. Go to the mediabistro.com and see for yourself.

But that is equivalent to saying "I beat a one legged man in a foot race." CNN's ratings are pathetic also. (Persons 25-54 which is most desirable to most ad agencies/advertisers.)

you don't have to take him at his word.

Cenk's ratings were very good, but comparing them to Sharpton's ratings makes no sense since Sharpton's show just started.

"In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Griffin denied Mr. Uygur’s accusations and sounded disappointed that he had decided not to accept the weekend position. “We never told Cenk what to say or what not to say,” Mr. Griffin said... Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/media/sharpton-close-to-being-msnbc-anchor.html

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You're not that funny.

Thank you Cenk, and thank you for standing up for Ratigan too! Don't want to see him go, but at times I wonder if they're going to let anyone stay! Except for maybe Tweety & O'Donnell! Rachel, she's in a class of her own!

We all sort-of know that the pressure gets applied but it makes me, for one, feel less paranoid to have such explicit confirmation.

My hat's off to Uygur for turning down the money. Not many value their souls over their wallets...


On the other hand, the denials are kind of funny to hear... :+

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


You funny.

But it sounds like the reference was to the host being disrespectful or maybe too much like a radio talk show host. Those guys can be more offensive than TV hosts. Rush Limbaugh could never do his same show on TV, for instance. That's what it sounds like to me.

You can make your point w/o being Limpballs-like.

But I never saw the show. Maybe he wasn't that way.

Maybe they wanted to avoid having another KO form on their network?

may not be fantastic to someone else.

What job do you have, do you mind my asking, that you are home before 5 p.m. CST? I often wonder about that. Shift workers? I work in an office, so I don't get home until about 6:30 CST/7:30 CST. If I'm lucky, I can catch part of Hardball.

I called in and spoke and debated with him more than once. did the filibuster of the filbuster with him for two days. now I just see clips on DU.

Cenk rocks! I love how he told the story instead of hiding it. It IS the news. He is so right. I love honesty.

at that time, long commute and listening on my beloved satellite radio. And typically switching to CNN ot POTUS when Cenk was coming on. You can have strong opinions, even if they are not the same as mine, no problem there. But he knows only one tone - LOUD, he is not a good debater, little substance and lots of noise, etc. SImilar IMHO to Schultz, but worse. I don't want the liberal equivalent of Hannity, I want something with lots of brains and substance, who can make a strong a valid argument (Rachel), not somebody who just tries to shout louder than the other side.

shifts, eg. Not everyone works 9-5. Stay-at-home moms also are home at that time. Retired people, nurses who work nights, teachers who work with kdg or preschool, people who work from home etc.

When I first saw it, I thought it was a Saturday Night Live spoof of a right-wing television show. That was maybe 1991...? Anyhow, perhaps he's jumped too far over the shark these days to actually sustain a tv show.

==========================

but then, i like Sharpton too.

Good luck, Cenk ... you did good.

Has quite a following, including many people here.

non-corporate format where he can be free of corporate censorship.

Cenk certainly knows his audience. :rofl:

Is "the man" keeping poor Cenk down? :spray:

As for Cenk, interesting attitude towards someone who is known for his honesty and genuine progressive views. He just turned down a lot of money rather than give up his principles. You find that funny? I find it highly principled, rare and exactly the kind of person we need in the media.

As for Griffin, he's doing exactly what he did when he suspended Keith Olbermann. Some things never change.

I guess we can add Cenk to that list of progressive democrats now UTB. :eyes:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

those are definately fightin' woids... PUT EM UP!!1!



:hi:

:scared:



:rofl:

Like everything else in the whole entire universe!

:hi:

how the power brokers works, then I guess they can just pull the covers back over their heads!

REALITY to some just NEVER works! What a shame, and probably one of the reasons we find this country in the mess it's in today.

Sorry... D.C. does run MSM when they want to, OR when they can actually MAKE the talking heads THE PROBLEM!

WAKE UP, or don't!

Wake up, or don't! :rofl:

VIDEO: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x601778

...considered his approach a bit childish. He tends to use the language and imagry of a fifth grader, and I don't like being talked down to.

I have no real opinion on Sharpton, but I have a bit of a problem with Reverend Al Sharpton doing a political opinion show. I prefer ministers to stick to spiritual matters, or to not use the title of "Reverend" when they are acting in the political arena.

Reverand Martin Luther King or even Deacon Tom Coburn?

Not his content but his inflection and his emphasis on certain parts of speech like he was trying to underline stuff....

He didn't add anything new to the mix so I never really watched him that much unless there was nothing else on.

I basically watch Ms. Maddow and hardly anything else on MSNBC.

sound like kids, I recommend that you give Lawrence O'Donnell a 2nd look. Stay with him for a few days, he grows on you. Uneven, but some parts are really good and smart.

Whatever one thinks about Mr Olbermann, he is a broadcast professional. And whatever one thinks about Mr Ungyr, he's not much of a broadcast professional.

MSNBC, CNN and Fox are not disputing them. It is for a specific demo for a quarter like Cenk explains:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x601778

... we alienate and dismiss our progressives at every turn.
For a 'Big Tent' there's very little space for dissent.

Lockstep just ain't our thing.
Some like this and some like that
and some like it all, and some none at all.
It will continue as such.....which is why,
it is indeed a big tent.

If you're talking MSNBC, they aren't Grassroots, nor are they there
to energize shit beyond their sponsors. If we want to be energized,
it is up to us, not someone else. Either one cares
about the future, or one cares more about one's point.
It's our choice....as is living with the choices we make
without blaming others for our fate.

I'm talking about the politicians taking orders FROM the grassroots...not treating them as spoiled children.
Taking the direction from the 'angry' people who elected them. Using that fire. Not dismissing them because, "you just wouldn't understand how politics works and you're too angry."




By the way, I just read this interesting wikipedia article:
"
The effects of a move towards 'big tent' politics


When a party that is motivated by ideology begins a shift to a "catch-all" or "big tent" party, it's usually marked by a move to the center of the political spectrum and a very flexible and pragmatic platform. Many believe this is a powerful way to make a party more popular, as it no longer limits itself to a specific ideological sector of the population. Opponents of this tactic argue that this alienates the ideological bases of a party. In the United States, for example, during the late 1980s, the DLC argued that the Democratic Party should become a more centrist party, which it did during the 1990s. In the mid- to late 2000s, more modern liberal Democrats moved the party leftward as the country grew weary of Republican policies under the George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, when a country's major parties become catch-all parties, this usually leads to the rise in popularity and support for more ideologically extreme parties. For example, in the UK, as the Labour party has moved to the center and turned less ideologically pure, the Liberal Democrat Party has risen in popularity, often being to the left of Labour on social issues. In the United States, many Democrats fear that moving to the center could cause a rise in popularity for far-left leaders from other parties, such as Ralph Nader. So in a two party system, a party must be careful when selecting how ideologically driven to be. Too ideological could mean that the party appeals to only a small portion of the population. Too pragmatic (or big-tent style) can cause a major faction to split off from the main party.

"


Interesting, no?

The hour was never his to begin with. He was quickly moved in after Olbermann quit and they needed someone in that time slot so they could move Ed Schultz to the evenings. There was never any announcement that I ever saw that said the hour was his. Ratings were not that good compared to both Ed and the competition and thus, as is usually the case in this biz, someone else is being given the shot. That's the "breaks of the biz"...hopefully he'll hook on somewhere else or just keep going with his podcast.

Cenk did a great job for MSNBC, but I think he's a better fit for Current. HEY KEITH, HIRE CENK!

Sell outs suck. Integrity in my book.

like Keith O or Michael Moore, who were applauded to no end when they went after Bush. Oooh, he was so smart and insightful. But if he dares to say anything bad against a democrat, then under the bus he goes. Remember the term "echo chamber"? I guess it is not just for the FR anymore.

The fact is he was kind of boring. Al Sharpton is more fun to watch.

...because people will likely be living longer by then anyways. FFS.
Really, this is the leader of the progressives???


I was speechless. And watching Cenk shake his head vigourously and call BS on him gave me hope in US politics.

edit:
here it is

TYT: Progressive Caucus Leader Says Raise Retirement Age
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x593823

now if i got more money in my life, so would my $$ too.

"I have to be myself, to get the TRUTH out to you! But there are shadowy government forces conspiring to silence me! They are terrified of the impact I am having on 0.1% of the population! The managment, the politicians, the janitors...they're all part of it! But have no fear, for your humble truth-teller will not submit to the fascist machinations of the ESTABLISHMENT! I shall free myself from this cage of big brother censorship -- the tiger will roam free once again! -- and I shall move to the internet, where I will again become a refulgent beacon of TRUTH and FREEDOM for all of you! Please visit my sponsors at www.goldline.com and ...."

I guess these guys figure it sounds much better than "Because of my unremarkable ratings and inability to read a teleprompter, management decided to cut my pay and move me to a weekend/contributor role, which pissed me off, so I decided to take my toys and leave."

I really like Cenk but, to be honest, I didn't think he was a very good TV interviewer; he felt very awkward many times to me. I do believe he is very honest and admire his passion; love him at Young Turks.

I haven't watched TV much lately, but I have seen Al Sharpton a few times and am really impressed with him as an interviewer. He's like a respectful bulldog and won't let these people get away with a non-answer and calls BS when they lie and obfuscate.

I'd hate to think MSNBC is so obviously controlled by the White House or any branch of government (it's bad enough they're owned by GE), but I wouldn't be shocked.

That said, given the allegations made in the article, I wonder about the truth of it given how Big Ed has been really critical of Obama. And Rachel...I'd really hate to think she is compromising herself to adhere to any "establishment" agenda.

He just had an ongoing thing with "the Manatee" Limpbaugh.

I missed his feud with Limbaugh. Good on Cenk.

:)

Sucks, it does.

He was feuding with Limpbaugh.

WOW, false equivalency much?

are the people who don't criticize Obama.

situation and he never blamed the WH.

What's the point of that shit anyway? We repugs have unopposed air time, yet you must share your time with us so we can shout down any idead you have.

OF COURSE!

fought the good fight. I myself wasn't that much of a fan of his hosting style but I was glad he had a voice on main stream media.

We need to stop eating our own.

FUCK THAT!

not been watching the show lately. I've tried to get through it quite a few times and it's not actually the content. First it was how his voice grated on my nerves, then it was the constant OVER-TALKING that sent me up the wall. So now, at 6:00 I no longer watch MSNBC at all. Just turn the TV off. I do try to watch some of Tweety most of the time, but his 2nd show I switch the channel.

Of those who are left who have their own shows, O'Donnell and Tweety are my least favorite. But I also must confess I've been trying NOT to listen to ANY of it lately! Just too depressing and I can't take the daily betrayal I feel by Obama and our Congress critters.

Ratigan OTH, I DO try to watch as much as possible. While I know he isn't a Democrat and I feel he's a bit more libertarian, I do feel that he's VERY informative and I honestly think he takes on Big Corp, Pharma, Insurance and the other big HOGS aggressively. If that includes Obama and the administration then so be it, because IMO they should be taken on. Obama has many, many people in his administration that I feel are REALLY part of the problem. Geithner is probably one of the very worst, and his ties to Goldman Sachs is really reprehensible to me. But there are others too, and Obama has done very, very little to rid himself or even tamp down on them at all.

While I sit out here worrying every day about what crap gets thrown at us, I only get more upset that so little job creation is being done. And NOW, the Big 3 are being thrown around like they are nothing but another slice of the pie!! And to that, Dylan Ratigan has constantly berated all in D.C. about and I thank him for it.

Anyway, 6:00 PM will not be off permanently even though I think Sharpton's heart is in the right place, he's just not my cup of tea. Believe me I've tried quite a few times to go back and give him another chance, but finally I've had to give it up. Communication just doesn't seem to be his best asset. It's too bad, wish they would get David Shuster or someone like that back if they don't want Uyger.

BTW, Uyger used to be a Republican... I checked his bio out the other day. Google him on Wikipedia, who knew?

no one is listening, or no one takes you seriously.

Ask Dan Rather or Gary Webb what happens people do listen and take you seriously.

Cenk was excellent, my favorite show on the tube.

:yourock:

:patriot:

:kick: