Phil Griffin's moves at MSNBC make more sense now?

[Shankapotomus]

With the recent controversy swirling around Rush Bimbaugh I was wondering if the choices of Phil Griffin, president at MSNBC, make more sense to people now.

I can understand Keith Olberman's point about being able to say and do what he wants but I also understand Phil Griffin's choice to minimize the slime throwing at his news organization and just promote less bombastic, insulting political discussion. I mean look at all the advertisers Rush has lost because of the kind of talk he engages in. If you're a president of a news/political talk organization, why alienate advertisers? It doesn't mean Keith can't do his own thing or that it's bad. It's just that MSNBC wasn't the format for it. Anyone else think that both formats need not be mutually exclusive and we don't have to hate Phil Griffin or MSNBC over this?

Also, I'm not saying KO was way over the top at all. Much of his ire was about the level of discussion the Right had brought to the nation.

[90-percent]

1. MSNBC as of immediately

They are pumping out an overwhelming amount of liberal content.

Ed, Rachel, Lawrence, are all EXCELLENT in their own way and they all compliment each other. Lawrence's eulogy to Breitbart was something that made me proud to be a progressive. Eloquent, generous, compassionate and loving. Try finding content like that on Fox!

then, the new Alex shows and the new Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry between the two have EIGHT HOURS of programming on Sat and Sunday alone.

I can't keep up with it all!

Martin Bashir and Dylan Ratigan are also good. I don't have any time left for DU.

But, I posted just now about a suggest to lobby charter Cable to offer Current TV. I really need Keith and so does the rest of the world. The partial slices I can hunt down erratically on youtube are better than nothing. I want the DVR-able real thing on my cable, though.

-90% Jimmy

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. much improved. now, get rid of the prison shit, and I would be

even more satisfied

[Old Codger]

4. Amen to that N/T

[Shankapotomus]

5. I agree

Any of us here could record a political talk show for MSNBC on an iPhone and do better than Lockup. I mean, ANYTHING would be an improvement. Jheez.

[SoCalDem]

17. Unfortunately, they do make money from the prison shit

I'm sure those prisoners are not paid for their "content", and the production value is minimal.

Lots of the footage is probably re-used/re-aired over & over for pretty much no cost.

It fills the airtime during times when their regular people have their downtime.

I would LOVE to have more liberal voices filling that time, but it costs money.

They do have a brilliant "bench" of contributors who should have their own shows, and maybe someday, will.

Some of the ones who deserve a "show":

Howard Fineman
Jonathon Capehart
Eugene Robinson
Chrystia Freeland
John Heilman
Jeffrey Sachs
& the guy with the charts (name escapes me now)

[csziggy]

6. MSNBC should re-run Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris Perry, and even Alex Witt

That would give them intelligent content all day on weekends. West Coast viewers could see those excellent shows at reasonable times.

And it would let us re-watch the best segments without having to record every show every weekend.

[Shankapotomus]

3. I hope you are successful

I can only watch Countdown at my sister's now.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. one disagreement. I don't think it is liberal content per se, but, rather

FACTUAL content. Both the choice of what to report and and whether to report it accurately are such a new concept in the daze of Ole Rupert, Faux Gnus, Washington Times, and talk radio, that it merely SEEMS to be liberal content. It is not.

Even Al Sharpton is bringing on heavy duty guests and dealing with facts (obviously with a sharp eye on racism and sexism (for which I strongly credit MSNBC) but his topics are more reporter based, rather than pushing an agenda.

If it truly had a liberal content, we'd see a push for many different and expanded programs. That is absent from the air at this time. Instead, Grover Nordquist appears (frequently) defending his kill the government song and dance. Has MSNBC EVER had someone claim that the opposite would be good, Increasing spending on the poor, for construction of infrastructure, for space exploration and exploitation? I haven't.

[Shankapotomus]

8. I very much agree

I don't watch Fox not because it's Right wing (which it is) but because I find the political discussion weak, lacking of information and, as a result, not intellectually stimulating.

[90-percent]

16. I also agree

It's easy to conflate fair and honest reporting with "liberal content" in my mind.

That Florida Court Ruling from the dark ages of the GWB era that set precedent THAT ITS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO KNOWINGLY LIE ON A NEWS BROADCAST really mucks up what's "truth" out there.

There is no means to separate good facts from bullshit on anything out there!

Just another brick in the wall of the thirty years of Conservative gaming of all our institutions.

-90% Jimmy

[joeybee12]

9. Nope...

Not at all.

[stopbush]

10. The MSNBC line-up is much stronger than it was two years ago.

The simple fact that all of these shows aren't afraid to bring on RW spokes clowns every once in a while is an improvement over the KO echo chamber.

I do wish they'd come up with a new show to replace the second airing of Tweety. It seems like a waste to have him on twice within three hours, with Rev Al sitting between the showings. There must be something in Tweety's contract that requires the reshowing in prime time. It would be great if Chris Hayes was moved to that slot. I get that MSNBC is providing on-air try outs for hosts they are grooming for the future.

Ratigen's show is the weak link, simply because he just can't shut up. He's the king of the 60-second question and the 10-second answer. He really needs to learn how to ask a direct question and to let his invited guests talk. I try to watch his show, but he just annoys the hell out of me.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. the perfect Ratigan assessment.

if he reversed it, it would be far better
10 second questions, 60 second answers.

[pennylane100]

12. Who exactly was doing the slime throwing.

It certainly was not Keith. He attacked people's policies, not them personally. I remember when a woman who was substituting for him made some disparaging remarks about Dave Vitter's wife. She remarked to the woman's dress was so inappropriate when she stood beside him at his big public apology for using prostitutes. The next day Keith personally apologized to her on the air, He made it clear that such personal attacks had no place on his show and would not occur again. It may have upset Mr. Griffin that Keith chose the high road.

As for alienating the advertisers, Keith was the biggest money makers for MSNBC and had the largest audience. Only Rachael has matched his ratings since he left. Rush is a disgusting blowhard who directly appeals to all the haters and bigots in this country It is ridiculous to put him in the same category as Keith, an intelligent articulate professional.

[Shankapotomus]

15. I'm saying maybe Griffin saw the writing

on the wall. The thing is KO would get into these personal bouts with O'Reilly. It may have not been slime but the lines between news reporting and personal grudges were more pronounced with Keith than any other show at MSNBC. Example: O'Reilly was referred to as "Bill O the Clown".

So I'm suggesting maybe Griffin anticipated the advertiser exodus we see with Limbaugh from anything too angry and upped MSNBC's content standards to avoid it. Plus MSNBC is supposed to be a big name, professional news organization. Why would they want to trade on the market of dumb downed insults?

I think Griffin was playing it smart. He does push liberal content but it's, for the most part done with a smile and well meaning now and I think it makes sense for Griffin that someone like O'Donell who is more serious is on later.

I think the policy is that there is a shorter lease on hosts now that Olberman is gone and I think it helps liberals because it keeps them from getting in trouble to the extent Rush Limbaugh is. Ed Shultz's slut comment not withstanding.

[pennylane100]

18. I do not understand your need to frame Keith's way of dealing with O'Reilly in such a negative manne

Your description of Keith getting into personal bouts with O'Reilly is a little puzzling His show is based on reporting and discussing the facts as he sees them, as do most of his audience. Of course he is going to rebut the bullshit that comes from one of the right's most popular voices. That is what his show does. That is why we like and respect him. If you could begin to understand that, you will know why his departure was such a big loss for MSNBC.

[Honeycombe8]

13. KO's main problem was that he didn't get along with the top brass.

We all know that the surest way to get fired is to tick off the boss, right? Well, that's KO. He was that way in his prior job, was my understanding.

He also violated that donation to politicians rule, which he of course knew he was violating at the time. KO thought he should have his own rules.

It's the same for all of us. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you can't get along with others you work with and for. Ask Charlie Sheen.

[musiclawyer]

14. Keith and rush are not the same thing

Not even close That it what this thread intimates. That they are both too controversial. That's ridiculous. Keith is eloquent and bombastic at times. Factual too. Rush is just bombastic and incendiary Thè only thing wrong with Keith is not being able to get along with management. Msnbc would be stronger if Keith was still there He is the reason msnbc " leans forward" If all the Current people were at msnbc, would be a behemoth