Are we wrong to vilify MSNBC?

I mean, they did let go of Michael Savage, as well. Keith is no Michael Savage but, he is admittedly a little bombastic and maybe NBC doesn't want to present that to their viewership whether it's from the right or left?
I think The execs have legitimate concerns about not wanting to turn into Fox News left. Not that Keith was as bad as the commentators at Fox but I think there was perhaps legitimate confusion over what Keith actually had become at MSNBC. I think When Fox news started attacking the media Keith's role changed to heroic defender which was good but it didn't really fit what MSNBC was going for. And I think that's ok. I think Keith will still have a voice elsewhere and hopefully at his own media company. And I think it's also good that MSNBC like CNN can stay above the attacks Fox levels at them and not respond. I think in a way it's important for a news organization to remain above fighting with another news organization. Otherwise, it's just a propaganda resource like Fox news

KO isn't a left wing equivalent.

he said KO was 'bombastic,' implying some parallels with Savage Weiner. A cursory glance at the entire OP shows it to be riddled with contradictions - a wishy-washy mishmosh. If the OP didn't have it in mind to draw parallels, then why bring up that RW a-hole in the first place?

But I think after the rally to restore sanity and Jon stewart's equivalency of Olbermann with Beck and Hannity there was some confusion over what Keith actually was. and so I think MSNBC wanted to avoid the controversy which you can't blame them because creating controversy is not the role of a news organization. Admittedly, Keith was a commentator but I think they didn't want that full force commentary in the 8pm time slot. Hence you see Ed Shultz not moved to 8pm but yo 10.

And especially one which runs his dumbass show twice a day.

nt

Makes defending MSNBC a little complicated wouldn't you say?

They are a business and they have had a string of idiot suits making decisions with very big egos. Clashing egos (and obviously KO had his own rather large one) often results in bad decisions. But, whether Comcast pulled the direct strings or not, MSNBC was clear how its new masters felt towards KO. Two birds, one stone.

I will listen to RM and others on XM radio. Comcast gets nothing from me.

Utter fail! As to the rest of the OP, a pox on ALL their corporate media houses! I hope KO's dismissal serves to educate those who stubbornly defend MSNBC as an 'anomaly' among corporate media outlets to the fact that it's far from 'liberal' in its stance; they employ KO, Maddow & O'Donnell strictly for ratings - NOT for ideological reasons on the part of any of the suits in the organization.

My wild-ass guess is that he was stepping on the right (or wrong, depending on which side of the corporate suite you occupy) toes, and that he was kicked off MSNBC for reasons reasons other than ratings. Your question proves my point: why, indeed would the suits kill their 'golden goose,' unless he was deemed too troublesome or too close to exposing some fundamental truth about how the system is geared to fuck over the hoi polloi?

especially when we don't have all the facts.

Of course, Joe tends to emotionally defend powerful interests so I guess that's okay with MSNBC.

It was a big decision not to renew KO. They didn't want him for the 2012 election?

Stewart more or less tried to equate Faux to MSNBC. Then, feeling guilty, he went on Maddow for an entire hour to deny this. There's no comparison. It's a false equivalance. Faux makes things up and repeats and repeats it ad nauseum. MSNBC is enormously more factual. KO's special comments were unmatched anywhere and he'll be missed.

nuff said

Protecting and furthering the interests of its owners.

If "left" sells, MSNBC will sell it.

If far right, "Savage" sells, they'll sell that. But only if they think they can outsell Fox. Since Fox owns the right, and since Fox Light is a non-starter (see: CNN), then all that's left is "left."

So they'll sell "left" to the extent that such selling doesn't interfere with their owners' self interests.

Let's not fool ourselves with talk of higher motives.