Blogging resumes Monday morning…
Like this:
Like Loading...
This entry was posted on February 12, 2011 at 9:45 am and is filed under Blog Announcements . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm
My kid put it together, and I like it. Be nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1h251aaXVY
February 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm
That’s a really nice sideshow.
February 12, 2011 at 5:43 pm
That was the proper response.
February 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Isn’t it nice to see how business is run with sensitive liberals in charge? Gee, maybe they should unionize.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/09/aol-huffington-post-merger-an-echo-of-robber-baron-economics/
February 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Newsbusters has a post up about MSNBC’s ratings falling with the lose of Keith Olbermann and with the big news in Egypt. Please forgive me for using a partisan site as an example, but there is a lot of talk that MSNBC’s current line-up is insufficient. Here’s my suggestions for changes.
Mornings, all the way through Jansing and Co. are fine for now. But Chris Jansing needs to be featured on the msnbc.com msnbc tv page like Tamron Hall is. So should Contessa Brewer, who needs a brand for her show.
If you’re going to brand Dayside programming, you should do it completely. It was weird when FNC has “Fox News Live” at 2 PM with Jane Skinner, and it’s weird to not give Contessa a better name for her show.
Tamron Hall’s show should be extended to two hours, from 2 PM to 4 PM (all times eastern). Thomas Roberts should fill the role that Richard Lui does to Jansing and Co.
4 PM goes to Martin Bashir, who has proven himself as anchor of Nightline.
5 PM goes to Dylan Ratigan (pushed back one hour)
6 PM goes to Harball (so it straddles its two former slots)
7 PM goes to Ed Schultz, who was beating CNN at 6 and can beat it at 7.
8 PM to LOD (same as now)
9 PM to RM (same as now)
10 PM for Ed repeat. I don’t think ratings will fall when the show airs at 7 and 10.
This solves the problem that MSNBC has with Cenk Uyger. He’s fine as a fill in but not quite ready to go head to head with Bret Baier and Wolf Blitzer. Let him fill in a while and earn a slot the way Lawrence O’Donnell did. Maybe even create weekend shows like FNC has.
Although, for weekends, I think MSNBC should do what HLN does a re-air weekday programming on the weekend (maybe just on Saturday). This strengthens the MSNBC brand by getting rid of that Doc Block crap that MSNBC’s core audience hates.
Add some news on the weekends. Hire Paige Hopkins. Hire Veronica de la Cruz. Even hire Rick Sanchez and put him on in his old weekend slot at 10 PM. Just doe something to get rid of the horrible prison shows. “Lean Forward” means something totally different in prison.
I have no reason to help MSNBC, but I want “left-wing” networks to do as well as “right-wing” networks, because it makes for a more interesting discussion. I am tired of mocking MSNBC for its ratings. I want it to be all that it can be. Life is more fun when your adversaries keep you on your toes.
Move the doc-block over to CNBC, which does nothing but air paid programming on the weekend (for the most part).
February 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Loved the kid’s video. Most people – if they were gonna think of something like that – would pick The Beatles’ Revolution. Street Fighting Man? Very cool.
Josh, I’ll go with your MSNBC schedule except for the Ed rerun. That show’s bad enough the first time..
February 12, 2011 at 8:16 pm
The problem with the newsbuster analysis of MSNBC’s ratings is that they’re using a skewed time period. The big Egypt news is the sort of breaking story that always gives CNN a bump. But NB acts like it’s just the schedule shuffle that’s the main cause for the recent ratings. I don’t think they can make that assessment until the Egypt business dies down. When that happens CNN could very possibly just sink back into third place, and all of a sudden MSNBC’s sked doesn’t look so bad.
February 12, 2011 at 8:36 pm
It might be a skewed period, but Cenk has not held Ed’s ratings very well, and it’s stupid for MSNBC to play a show twice in three hours.
And Ed might be bad enough the first time to some people, but he was beating CNN at 6 and I don’t expect Cenk too.
February 12, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Well with Cenk you have a point. Not ready for prime time.
February 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm
The AOL/HuffPo merger is infuriating. I’m sure it’s a win-win with impactful synergies..
February 12, 2011 at 9:00 pm
My synergies are impacted just thinking about it.
February 13, 2011 at 4:38 am
“Lean Forward” means something totally different in prison.
haha
February 13, 2011 at 6:40 am
Josh: Johnny’s right about the ratings. You can’t read any accurate trends from the ratings for the last few weeks. Egypt, Piers Morgan’s launch and Parker away from P/S for a week caused CNN to get better ratings. MSNBC & FNC ratings stayed about the same so I think these were, for the most part, new CNN viewers because of the things I mentioned above. Lets see where we are in a couple of weeks.
I wouldn’t change much in Prime time at MSNBC. Lets see how things shake out a couple of months. I can’t watch Ed or Ratigan much and I’m starting to feel the same way about Cenk Uygur. Screaming blowhards, no matter what political persuasion just don’t appeal to me.
I agree about Brewer. I like her, would give her Mitchell’s hour and and brand it as hers. Move Mitchell to Sunday where her show would be a better fit.
I wonder if MSNBC & Brewer are not in contract negotiations and this is all part of contract wheeling and dealing. Just a thought.
We did the ‘lean forward’ jokes months ago and I’ve grown to kinda like the slogan and the ads. It works for me.
February 13, 2011 at 6:48 am
MSNBC needs to understand many people can’t stand the sound of Andrea Mitchell’s voice. For instance, say I was watching from 12-1 and then switch off. Do you think I’m actually gonna remember to tune back in at 2pm? You want anchors that are easy on the ears so people will stick around, no?
February 13, 2011 at 7:19 am
terance: I agree Mitchell is not the smoothest of performer but her show has substance and is informative.
From your past comments here I think your problem with her may have more to do with her age appearance. You seem to like your female hosts young and nubile; not that there’s anything wrong with that.
February 13, 2011 at 8:15 am
This may have happened weeks ago and I just didn’t realize it but when Candy Crowley signed off this AM she tossed to FZ-GPS as it’s own show and not part of a three hour State of the Union. Has that been happening for some time or is it a new change?
It makes a lot of sense but it seems to be a demotion for Crowley and the highly promoted SOTU show.
February 13, 2011 at 8:49 am
From your past comments here I think your problem with her may have more to do with her age appearance. You seem to like your female hosts young and nubile; not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Nah, its all about her voice.
February 13, 2011 at 8:49 am
When Candy Crowley took over, they no longer branded the entire block SOTU. Candy is on at 9 and noon, Fareed Zakaria at 10, and Howard Kurtz at 11. I think it is better that way because it gives the shows their own itentity. FZ’s show has always been seperate from SOTU but used to first air later in the day. Reliable Sources was part of the SOTU block once Wolf Blitzer left Sunday morning and JK took over.
February 13, 2011 at 9:33 am
Josh: When SOTU started it was a three hour show including RS but not FZ-GPS. When FZ-GPS took over the second hour it was also part of the SOTU show. Now SOTU one hour show. I wonder if including RS and then FZ-GPS in the show wasn’t just a face saving for the new hosts?
February 13, 2011 at 9:37 am
“new hosts?”
^meaning JK & CC and not FZ & HK
February 13, 2011 at 9:45 am
I don’t remember FZGPS ever being part of SOTU, but I could be wrong. When CC took over for JK I’m pretty sure they limited the SOTU name to Candy Crowley’s hours at 9AM and noon.
February 13, 2011 at 10:03 am
I checked with Wikipedia and we’re both somewhat correct. The original show; under John King was 4 hours (9 AM-1 PM) with RS as a named ‘segment’ of the show.
They say when CC took over it was cut down to one hour at 9AM repeated at 12 PM. I don’t remember that happing at that time but I don’t often watch her show; too many politicians spouting self serving talking points for my taste.
February 14, 2011 at 12:51 am
Grammy verdict: Excellent performances; Miranda Lambert, Muse, , Lady Gaga, Lady Antebellum, Eminem & Rhianna, Barbra Streisand and Arcade Fire killed, then Arcade Fire upset Eminem for Best Album and closed the show with a scorching song. Best Grammys in a very long time, but is it over yet? Sheesh.
February 14, 2011 at 7:17 am
MJ this morning: best quote to start my day! Reporter (Ferguson)who wrote the Newsweek cover story on Obama and Egypt and his overall foreign policy strategy: “I’m not GWB – love me!”
The MJ cast of characters just didn’t know what to say!
Since the Comcast takeover I think there has been a wider variety of guests on MJ with a wider variety of viewpoints. Don’t know if this is a command from above or not.
February 14, 2011 at 8:51 am
Niall Ferguson is a very conservitive financial historian who is best know for his very well done series ‘The Ascent of Money’.
His opinions on politics are to say the least controversial and not widely held outside of the far right fringe. Kind of Frank Gaffney with a brain. Because he is very articulate and states his opinions as facts he makes a very entertaining guest.
The reason Joe and the others on MJ looked a bit shocked is that his opinions of Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis are just not widely held by the vast majority of middle east foreign policy experts. It was an entertaining performance but he ducked the only relevant question; ‘What should Obama have done differently?’
I expect he will be appearing all over FNC in the very near future; ‘the full Monty’ so to speak. His views give them a storyline and credible spokesperson to attack Obama’s performance. This has been sorely missing from their current list of “experts’, like John Bolton, who can only be called far right fringers.
February 14, 2011 at 9:42 am
Fritz, since you’re the expert on the man, enlighten us all and give us three “far right” views that you know are held by Ferguson.
February 14, 2011 at 10:36 am
Frist let me say I like Ferguson. He’s a very smart person, a very good writer and and an excellent, if sometimes controversial, financial historian. He could be considered the anti-Krugman as his views are almost the reverse of Paul Krugman’s.
I hope he goes on Rachael Maddow’s show as that would be far more entertaining and informative than being interviewed by Steve Doocy & all at FNC.
Aside from the views he expressed this morning on MJ most of his more conservative views are based on libertarian issues. Some are:
Replace payroll income, estate, corporate and all other taxes with a VAT (value added tax).
Replace Medicare and Medicaid with a voucher system.
Cutting all discretionary spending by 20%.
Replacing Social Security with a private savings plan.
On the social issues he is more moderate. He would be very happy with Ron Paul as POTUS.
I got these positions from Wikipedia and if you have any interest I suggest you check out that site or his webpage.
February 14, 2011 at 11:09 am
No Fritz, I was interested in what you knew about the man in order to call him a “far right” individual.
The world isn’t simply divided between liberals or progressives on one side and “far right” people on the other.
Although you often sound like you think it is.
February 14, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“I was interested in what you knew about the man in order to call him a “far right” individual.”
Steve: I don’t know what you want me to add. If you don’t consider eliminating social security, medicare & medicaid and installing a 33% VAT as far right positions I can’t be of much help to you.
By any reasonable measure, Ferguson is on the far right of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party; in fact I don’t think his economic views would even fit in the Republican Party as it now stands today.
As I said his social views, as far as I understand them, (his current partner is black) are probably moderate to progressive but I haven’t seen those views expressed publicly that I can find online and therefore can’t be sure. My calling him ‘far right’ is based on his economic & foreign affairs positions.
February 14, 2011 at 12:18 pm
^ BTW all you asked for was three ‘far right’ views held by Ferguson. I gave you five.
February 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Fritz:
Niall Ferguson is neither an American citizen nor a member of the Republican party. He’s a noted British historian now teaching at Harvard.
The piece you cited was in that notorious “right wing” magazine, The New Republic. Think about it: the New Republic running a “far right wing” piece?
It’s clearly an article about the coming bankruptcy of the entitlement programs and the need to find alternative funding to keep them alive.
How is allowing private retirement accounts augmented with government guarantees for those who don’t have funds “far right wing”? What makes them “far right.” Why even characterize them on the left/right spectrum?
And how is switching from a income tax to a VAT – which is used throughout Europe – “far right wing”?
These are different ideas – a mixture or public and private funding, a new tax system – that come in response to the crises that we face with these entitlement programs. Again, what makes them far right?
Again, all you see is liberal and far right. If it’s not an idea you like, it’s “far right.” Feel free to think that way of course but it’s kinda simplistic, no?
February 14, 2011 at 1:16 pm
^ It’s about as simplistic as all forms of “liberal” being deemed “socialist”. In Righty World, Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich are the same, which is ludicrous.
February 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm
“Niall Ferguson is neither an American citizen nor a member of the Republican party. He’s a noted British historian now teaching at Harvard.”
^I know who Ferguson is and where he’s from. It has nothing to do with his political positions. I never said he was a Republican and it doesn’t matter. I assume your attempting snark.
“The piece you cited was in that notorious “right wing” magazine, The New Republic. Think about it: the New Republic running a “far right wing” piece?”
^He still co-wrote the article and authored the propositions stated there. If he had written them in the National Review it wouldn’t change them one iota.
“It’s clearly an article about the coming bankruptcy of the entitlement programs and the need to find alternative funding to keep them alive.”
^So what.
“How is allowing private retirement accounts augmented with government guarantees for those who don’t have funds “far right wing”? What makes them “far right.” Why even characterize them on the left/right spectrum?”
^When anyone in the leadership of the Republican Party advocates replacing all of Social Security with retirement accounts (even with government guarantees) let me know. It’s Ron Paul/Sherri Angle country.
“And how is switching from a income tax to a VAT – which is used throughout Europe – “far right wing”?”
Again, name me anyone, not on the fringe of the Republican Party, who advocates replace income, corporate, estate & gift taxes with a 33% VAT. I don’t think they even have a 33% VAT anywhere in Europe replacing all those other taxes. Could be wrong though; I’m sure you’ll let me know if I am.
“These are different ideas – a mixture or public and private funding, a new tax system – that come in response to the crises that we face with these entitlement programs. Again, what makes them far right?”
If you think they anything but far right/pure libertarian then there’s nothing that I can say that will convince you and we will just have to leave it at that.
“Again, all you see is liberal and far right. If it’s not an idea you like, it’s “far right.” Feel free to think that way of course but it’s kinda simplistic, no?”
These ideas that Ferguson has are the simplistic ones. Unlike you, I don’t know the answers, but I know simplistic ‘far right’ solutions when I see them.
February 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Fritz:
Niall Ferguson has no influence in the Republican Party. He’s a British historian who is here teaching at Harvard. He’s written for the New Republic, New York Times and other mainstream publications. These periodical are simply not in the business of publishing “far right” individuals.
He’s a public intellectual writing on economics and other matters. You’re trying to squeeze this guy in a left/right spectrum because, frankly, that’s the only way you can see things.
You said: :”I never said he was a Republican and it doesn’t matter. I assume your attempting snark. ”
You also said: “Ferguson is on the far right of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.”
I don’t know any “far right libertarians”, including Paul, who favors a VAT tax. Paul supports a flat tax. Robert Reich favors a VAT tax and he’s hardly a “far right winger”.
And nowhere did Ferguson support a complete privitization of SS. As the Wikipedia piece points out, he favors government guarantees for those who don’t have enough retirement. How is that “complete privitization”?
It seems to me that Ferguson’s suggestion are far more complex than the answers of just raising taxes to fund these programs. We don’t have the money to cover the obligations.