MSNBC’s Election Night Lineup…
The Upshot’s Michael Calderone writes about criticism being aimed at MSNBC’s Election Night lineup…
The question of having MSNBC’s partisan hosts anchor news coverage became an issue during the 2008 political conventions after some of its top on-air personalities clashed with one another. A couple weeks later, NBC’s David Gregory was tapped to anchor MSNBC’s coverage of major political news events. But as the 2008 election rolled around, the network came up with a new solution: Gregory would “anchor” while Matthews and Olbermann would “host” the coverage.
Two years later, there wasn’t any outcry when MSNBC chose to go with Olbermann, Matthews and the rest. Although MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, on air for three hours each morning, the network has solidified its reputation as the cable network for liberal commentary since the 2008 election. Rachel Maddow, who was then a new host, has become more established, and MSNBC gave shows to Schultz and O’Donnell.
Now the network doesn’t see a need to sideline its biggest stars for the year’s most-watched political event.
“We made the decision to give the viewers what they come to MSNBC night in and night out for — Keith, Chris, Rachel, Ed, Lawrence and Gene, who’s joined us for election nights for the past several years,” an MSNBC spokesman told The Upshot.
Fox News, rather than having top-rated hosts like Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck anchor election coverage, went instead with Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly. But the network still gave ample airtime to its stable of conservative commentators, including Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.
November 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“MSNBC spokesman” highlights the problem. They don’t have star anchors like Kelly, Baier or Shep to hold the center while their commentators bloviate. All the “names” at MSNBC are opinion spinners. Part of the problem is, every time they get a star journalist (Holt, Robach) NBC News poaches them.
November 4, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Interesting they can’t get Phil Griffin or David Gregory or Chuck Todd to defend their Tuesday night performance. I think shame has finally set in over there (although not among the 5 culprits, of course).
November 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I take a bit of a different slant. I still love MSNBC, regardless of a rather poor showing of discipline on one evening. Chris Mathews brought me to MSNBC in the first place and I’ll stay loyal to him. Ed (Mr Energy) at least gives his all in support of his viewpoit and there are a lot of Americans who agree (where else would they go). Keith is in the more intellectual version of Ed and, as long as he is not rude, worth watching. Rachel is VERY smart and held discipline much better than her male opposites (this excludes Chuck and Norah who outclassed everyone). The order of holding my attention would be 1. Mathews, 2. Rachel, 3. Keith and 4. Ed.
Still think that they would have been more controlled and done MUCH better if they had used Chris Jansing, Chuck, Norah and Savannah.
November 4, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The difference, maybe, is that MSNBC is owned by an entertainment company that also dallies in some news here and there, while the parent of Fox – NewsCorp- is primarily a news company that dallies in some entertainment holdings here and there.
November 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Fox – NewsCorp- is primarily a news company…</I.
Now you're just messing with me..
November 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm
^ Laura’s kingdom for an “edit HTML” function..
November 4, 2010 at 3:27 pm
It’s good to see that the childishness of MSNBC’s election night programming is getting a teeny bit of attention. I think we all know how big the story would be if FNC pulled the same sort of stunt. Even when writing the stories about MSNBC’s embarrassing display on Tues. night, the authors are still unable to refrain from taking pot shots at FNC.
November 4, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I’m sick and tired of stressing this point to people like you, and others, who don’t understand the difference between FNC and MSNBC.
The latter doesn’t claim to be “fair and balanced”, while the other network does in almost every promo it airs, and advertises it right before every unbalanced debate segment.
Stop playing dumb and making the networks comparable when they aren’t the same thing. Zurawik, the guy from the Philly newspaper, and other critics keep making that same mistake and choose not to look at the big picture. All they do is look at the guests who are on, the ideology of the hosts, compare them to Fox and the rest of the non-existent “liberal media”, and go on their merry way.
Just a bunch of naive people who DON’T GET IT.
November 4, 2010 at 5:22 pm
^Well, MSNBC pretends to be a “news” outfit while claiming that Fox isn’t. I’ve never hear them say they are a one-sided news network promoting only left-wing causes.
November 4, 2010 at 5:27 pm
OK, I’ll go back to the subject. I recognize that Andrea was utilized – Excellent choice, but, where in the world were Alex, Tamron or Contessa? Alex is very disciplined and fantastic at utilizing her vocal pitch to express interest, approval, disapproval, or matter of fact. She is also excellent at rhythm, both in voice and in responding to the expressions of others viewpoints. Contessa, as has been mentioned elsewhere seems dramatically underused. I felt that she was always an excellent tandum talker who kept the flow of conversation sharp. Tamron seems to be the best listener. She is excellent at addressing guests on exactly what they stated rather than trying to infer from the words spoken.
Anyway, I will take my MSNBC ladies (Chris, Contessa, Savannah, Mika, Tamron, Andrea, Alex, Norah and Rachel) over any group on any news network.
November 4, 2010 at 5:36 pm
-Now you’re just messing with me -
Nope, I was serious. NewsCorp’s core is news-related businesses around the world. And I’m betting that, once the Comcast takeover is complete, there will be big changes coming to MSNBC. Comcast’s core business is content delivery and they won’t be… content catering to such a small fraction of the population.
November 4, 2010 at 5:41 pm
NewsCorp is technically a news-related business. In reality, it’s a tabloid version of news that Murdoch built his sleazy empire on.
November 4, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“there will be big changes coming to MSNBC. Comcast’s core business is content delivery and they won’t be… content catering to such a small fraction of the population.”
So your saying Comcast will turn MSNBC into a copy of FNC or CNN so it can make more money?
November 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm
-turn MSNBC into a copy of -
I think they’ll do something to make the franchise a better fit with the rest of their holdings – and to make more money – but I doubt they’ll be copying either of those cable networks. C’mon, why would they want to copy CNN as it is now?
I do think they may try to copy the Fox model, though, meaning the broadcast network loses it’s news division and its cable network takes that over. As a combined news holding, NBC/MSNBC News (or whatever they’ll call it) will be worth more than the two parts separate. From there either the revenues grow or they sell it off. Win-win.
November 4, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“Win-win.”
Maybe on Fox News or the right-wing blogosphere but in the real world it ain’t goin’ happen.
Imagine your dream scenario takes place and NBC loses its news division and Brian Williams moves over to MSNBC as a host of a show opposite Billo. The primetime MSNBC hosts all get fired (but continued to get paid there full salaries) and get hired by CNN who suddenly find the opinion news works for them.
MSNBC hires some fair & balanced pundits from FNC (eg. Tucker Carlson) and become a FNC lite news net. Of course FNC loses in ratings to the more moderate/conservative MSNBC and CNN ratings pick up by becoming the new liberal news-net.
There are of course protests in front of Comcast’s head office led by ex MSNBC hosts and the whole thing is covered wall to wall by CNN.
There is also a boycott of there various services by NBC/MSNBC supporters. There executives are hauled before a Senate committee to explain their actions and the POTUS and administration wonder out loud about the convergence of media.
This all tongue in cheek of course but I don’t think Comcast is stupid enough to do anything as crazy as what you are suggesting.
November 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm
I have no idea what the right-wing blogosphere thinks about anything. It makes sense that new owners will want to change things around. Because broadcast network news is continuing its decline, and because most everyone nowadays gets that through a cable or satellite connection, having both network and cable news organisations seems a bit redundant.
They aren’t going to beat O”Reilly at his game.. or the rest of FNC’s line-up, either. So the answer for them would be to change the equation.
November 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm
ProgLib Says:
November 4, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I’m sick and tired of stressing this point to people like you, and others, who don’t understand the difference between FNC and MSNBC.
“Because I’m fine with my hypocrisy… why aren’t you?”
The latter doesn’t claim to be “fair and balanced”, while the other network does in almost every promo it airs, and advertises it right before every unbalanced debate segment.
“It’s their slogan that’s the problem! You can’t criticize leaning! I also don’t like the Gatorade slogan. It’s not ‘in me,’ so stop asking!”
Stop playing dumb and making the networks comparable when they aren’t the same thing.
“MSNBC is liberal! And there are two sets of rules! Why don’t you get it?!”
Zurawik, the guy from the Philly newspaper, and other critics keep making that same mistake and choose not to look at the big picture.
“Ideas I agree with can be presented with a low level of maturity, honesty, or journalistic ethics. MSNBC doesn’t need to present more than one side of the story, and can advocate one view over another the majority of the day… but only because I agree with it!”
All they do is look at the guests who are on, the ideology of the hosts, compare them to Fox and the rest of the non-existent “liberal media”, and go on their merry way.
”Stop looking at MSNBC and saying bad stuff! It’s not fair!”
Just a bunch of naive people who DON’T GET IT.
“I don’t like people who disagree with me… they’re all mean poopy pants jerk heads. I’m going home.”
*Translation provided by INB
Al Says:
November 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm
You make an interesting argument about the future of MSNBC. I think the only way they can change MSNBC to make it more profitable would be to do more of the FNC model, but in reverse. In other words, keep their left-wing hosts, but force them to engage Republicans and Conservatives in debate. If they were able to become a channel of Democrats and Liberals, instead of far-left Liberals… who were able to show even the slightest bit of respect for people they didn’t agree with… they could get a broader, more adult appeal. Until that happens, they’ll be the network of MoveOn.org, and the far-left… destined to clamor for relevance, but living in a fantasy.
November 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Blue: I wouldn’t say MSNBC isn’t profitable now. It isn’t a powerhouse like FNC but it doesn’t need to be.
All organisations inevitably take on parts of their owners’ personalities. So when a company changes ownership it goes through a transformation as well. That MSNBC will change is a given. The question is, in what way?
I think a logical move would be for them to bet that the broadcast network news decline will accelerate and for them get ahead of the curve. This could put the NBS entertainment and news divisions solidly ahead of ABC & CBS (Fox is already well-positioned for this and is poised to shoot way ahead). It would also better position them in the cable market if they can attract a wider audience. As FNC has proven, having biased opinion shows separate from the straight news doesn’t hurt the overall.
November 5, 2010 at 6:19 am
This won’t help:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election — a potential violation of NBC’s ethics policies.
Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 – the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show. Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was only declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on Countdown – one of several appearances he made on the show.
NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions – considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.
November 5, 2010 at 6:34 am
He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 – the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.
Oy. That is – or should be – unacceptable. Olbermann should have disclosed it to his audience. I would think even the most ferocious MSNBC defender and Fox hater would acknowledge that? No? Yes?
If Phil Griffin knew about these contributions and still allowed Olbermann to anchor the election coverage, he needs to have some pretty good answers as to why he made that decision and why MSNBC didn’t inform the audience beforehand.
And if Griffin didn’t know about it, Olbermann needs to have some pretty good answers as to why he failed to inform the network.
Unless they really have decided that nothing matters except ratings. It seems to me the “What about Fox!!” response simply won’t work here. Sure, some will try it but it won’t work.
Incidents like this really crystallizes why there’s a need to keep the commentators and reporters separate. Eventually, it’ll blow up in your face.
Like this.
November 5, 2010 at 6:43 am
Olbermann should have disclosed it to his audience.
Okay, the timeline is that Olbermann donated the money after Grijalva appeared on the show. So he obviously couldn’t have disclosed it before.
Still, I would think at some point he should have disclosed the contributions.
That is, if MSNBC allowed the donations.
But I would guess that their failure to respond to news queries about the matter means they’ve been caught flat-footed. I.e., this is the first they’ve heard about it.
At the very least, he’ll be suspended.
November 5, 2010 at 6:45 am
’m sick and tired of stressing this point to people like you, and others, who don’t understand the difference between FNC and MSNBC.
The latter doesn’t claim to be “fair and balanced”, while the other network does in almost every promo it airs, and advertises it right before every unbalanced debate segment.
Stop playing dumb and making the networks comparable when they aren’t the same thing. Zurawik, the guy from the Philly newspaper, and other critics keep making that same mistake and choose not to look at the big picture. All they do is look at the guests who are on, the ideology of the hosts, compare them to Fox and the rest of the non-existent “liberal media”, and go on their merry way.
Just a bunch of naive people who DON’T GET IT.
November 5, 2010 at 6:49 am
:’m sick and tired of stressing this point to people like you, and others, who don’t understand the difference between FNC and MSNBC.
The latter doesn’t claim to be “fair and balanced”, while the other network does in almost every promo it airs, and advertises it right before every unbalanced debate segment.”
Now it’s clear to me. MSNBC we’re the “unfair and unbalanced” network. That definitely explains the Tuesday night trian wreek.
November 5, 2010 at 7:05 am
If this story pans out as true, and Olbermann broke MSNBC rules, then KO should be in for a long suspension. Hello Cenk Uygur.
I don’t have a real problem with talent either KO or Hannity contributing to politicians as long as it’s legal & disclosed if the talent is dealing with a candidate but flagrantly breaking network rules is a no no that deserves serious punishment.
I expect this sort of thing at Fox but I hold MSNBC to a higher standard so I hope they throw the book at him if it occurred as the story indicates. Because neither Olbermann or MSNBC have spoken; except for the statement quoted in the story by KO; I await further news.
November 5, 2010 at 7:21 am
Whilst co-interviewing Rand Paul on Election Night, he most definitely DID NOT disclose that he had donated to his opponent, Jack Conway.
November 5, 2010 at 9:18 am
I’m amazed at people who ‘expect better’ from MSNBC, but at least it indicates some standards. We all have some, now and then. And it’s absolutely admirable compared to this adoption of ”Fair and Balanced” as an excuse for hating Fox. Ooh, a slogan. How subversive. With few exceptions, hating Fox is left-wing doctrine. Make up the reasons as you go along.
November 5, 2010 at 9:31 am
^ For the record – because I know I’m not the only one complaining about the slogan – I don’t hate Fox. I think the slogan is not representative of the network, that’s all. I often disagree with opinions expressed there – and have a particular problem with Megyn Kelly’s fluid definition of what an anchor is – but I watch Fox a lot. I disagree with a lot here, too, but I don’t hate ICN, either.