In Depth: MSNBC’s “We’re Insiders” Problem…

The dust has hardly begun to settle in the wake of Cenk Uygur’s departure from MSNBC but already we can see the two distinct storylines being pushed by the respective parties involved. Uygur says MSNBC wanted him to tone it down and MSNBC says it wanted Uygur to tone it down but where they differ is what exactly needed to be toned down and who was concerned about the tone in the first place. However, ultimately none of that is relevant because it doesn’t matter what the truth is…what matters is what does the audience that Uygur catered to think is the truth. And to begin to answer that question we need to first look at how MSNBC went left in primetime.

MSNBC’s leftward turn may have started out organically thanks to Keith Olbermann but it was a business decision to expand upon that and build out early prime and primetime based on what Olbermann had done. MSNBC didn’t start out at launch looking to address a perceived need as FNC did. No, it spent years fumbling about trying various identities and looking for a winning formula. Consequently, while FNC viewers have never to any great extent seriously doubted that network’s commitment to its mission, MSNBC viewers in general and progressives in particular tend to look at what the network has done going left as a business decision.

Why does this matter? Because by being viewed as a business decision what the network does is viewed more skeptically by the true believer crowd it’s trying to cater to. The thinking would be something along the lines of “Yes, MSNBC is now trying to talk to us but it didn’t used to and it may not do so in the future”. MSNBC isn’t viewed as “one of us” by progressives the way FNC is viewed as “one of us” by conservatives. It’s viewed as “someone who is trying to cater to us”. That’s not an insignificant distinction and it goes a long way to underscore the reaction taking place on the internet to Uygur’s departure. While a few souls have characterized the fall of Uygur as something of his own creation, others have taken a different tack…

Democratic Underground’s message board is very unhappy…

The Huffington Post’s Chez Pazienza

Since making a conscious decision to lean to the left, MSNBC has been precariously walking a fine line between giving its progressive voices the freedom they need to be effective as hosts and understanding that that freedom will often have them saying and doing things that will make the network’s corporate overlords want to drop a hundred-thousand-pound anvil on the whole place. Again, MS is the establishment — which means that while guys like Phil Griffin want their anchors, reporters and contributors to work outside the box, they need to make sure they work inside a slightly larger box.

Firedoglake’s Jane Hamisher

My experiences on MSNBC have always been positive, even when I have disagreed with the host. But there will be an enormous amount of money coming down the political pipeline in the next year and a half, controlled by the DNC. Moreover, they control access to the guests and the scoops that the cable network needs to do business. That puts a lot of pressure on management to cater to their messaging interests, whether they respond to them or not.

Crooks and Liars’ Heather

Personally, I’m sad to see Cenk leave MSNBC because I like him and have actually talked to him a few times when Video Cafe was first being added to the site here at C&L about featuring some of his Young Turks segments. He’s a friend of John’s and a very nice person and I’m sorry he’s going to be losing that spotlight on MSNBC just as I would be about any liberal or progressive voice we’ve got out there in the corporate media whether I agree with everything that they say or not. We don’t have nearly enough of them to counter all of the wingnut b.s. that makes up the majority of our “news” coverage.

Note Heather’s “corporate media” pigeonholing of MSNBC. As I noted earlier, MSNBC isn’t viewed as “one of us” by progressives the way FNC is viewed as “one of us” by conservatives.

And this encapsulates the problem MSNBC has faced this year and will continue to face going forward. Whether Phil Griffin really told Cenk Uygur “We’re insiders” or not is irrelevant. What matters is how the network is viewed by a majority of the audience it’s trying to reach. And as “insiders” the rules are different. You can name only one talent in the near 15 history of FNC that pushed the boundaries of what it was willing to tolerate to the breaking point; Glenn Beck. And even then Beck’s departure from that network never caused conservatives to pause and think, “Is this network no longer my network?”. MSNBC has had two in the past eight months; Keith Olbermann and Cenk Uygur…three in a year if you charitably want to include David Shuster who was dropped for entirely different reasons but was someone who was something of a progressive darling. Certainly in Olbermann’s case there was far more to his departure and MSNBC’s willingness to let him go than just “Keith couldn’t be Keith” as was the case with Cenk…or to be more accurate as Cenk felt was the case. But for progressives, Olbermann’s sharp elbows and penchant for self-destruction came in a very distant second compared to their belief that “he was one of us” which is also how Uygur is viewed. That in turn feeds back into MSNBC’s perception problem by progressives that the network is still trying to straddle the line between being a “progressive voice” and being “a corporate entity”.

You can question Olbermann’s spinning of his story – though most progressives won’t because they consider him “one of us” – but his departure does mirror Uygur’s in some ways and I wondered Wednesday night who would be the first person to write about that. Business Insider’s Glynnis MacNicol appears to be the winner

Here is Uygur on last night’s Young Turks show explaining that even though his ratings were reasonably good MSNBC had asked him to “tone it down” saying “people in Washington were concerned about his tone” and then offered him another role for more money. Uygur turned it down saying he didn’t want to work for a network that didn’t “challenge power.”

Sound familiar? Uygur’s complaints skew nicely with Olbermann’s complaints about MSNBC.

What MSNBC has to worry about is progressives drawing the same conclusion. All true believers want “the real deal”. They don’t want to feel played or manipulated. They don’t want to have to think about the motivation behind what they’re getting from their news network. With FNC conservatives don’t worry about whether they get that. With MSNBC progressives may now worry that they don’t.

The point of this entry is not to argue about whether MSNBC is really delivering the goods for progressives or not. I already feel that cable news primetime is too much a partisan wasteland and would prefer to see less ideology, not more. No, the point of this entry is to explain the extremely delicate high wire act MSNBC is undertaking by trying to cater to an audience that wants more than the network, with its various interests, is apparently willing to give and how that could ultimately alienate the very people they are trying to reach.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “In Depth: MSNBC’s “We’re Insiders” Problem…”

  1. joeremi Says:

    FNC does a good job of keeping the traditional Republican Party, and the Tea Party movement, in the same boat. MSNBC is not “progressive”, it’s Democratic Party Liberal. Period. Progressives have HUGE problems with traditional Dems, and will gladly rail at both parties every night. I don’t think Phil Griffin understands the distinction.

  2. I guess this means the “Lean Forward” campaign has been a failure.

  3. jackyboy Says:

    ^You’re saying it didn’t work?! NOOOO!

  4. Air America 2.0 bit the small one? I’m verklempt.

  5. thelowedown Says:

    MSNBC does have greater interests at stake than how far it wants to be progressive or liberal in primetime. No matter what anyone thinks of the “mainstream media,” I’m sure that NBC correspondents who do hits on MSNBC don’t want to face constant questioning from pure partisans who will try to pigeonhole them and possibly hinder their ability to report and cull sources. They may want to discuss different aspects of a story on air and do a little news analysis, but that’s completely different from an opinion journalism and commentary standpoint.

    Jane Hamsher from FDL probably said it best when she mentioned that networks will cater to certain groups whether those groups actually respond (with anything besides viewing) to the network.

    From my understanding of this whole Cenk situation, the producers in DC were the first to complain, or at least their complaints registered loudest. If the network insiders have real complaints about being able to book for a host, I think it is a problem for a network. While aggressive questioning should not be problem (I think back to the times Lanny Davis was on Tucker on MSNBC), it can still be cordial and respectful. It is quite possible that folks thought Cenk crossed the line into just being belligerent.

  6. joeremi Says:

    While aggressive questioning should not be problem (I think back to the times Lanny Davis was on Tucker on MSNBC), it can still be cordial and respectful. It is quite possible that folks thought Cenk crossed the line into just being belligerent.

    I do believe it was a real problem. Tucker can wail on anybody he wants; he’ll still be Tucker Carlson: veteran of CNN, MSNBC, now Fox News and The Daily Caller. Cenk is some kid from the internet, waving his arms and laughing at veteran pundits and pols. You’ve gotta earn that shyte. He clearly felt he was “the outsider, sticking it to the man”, and had not an ounce of respect for the people he was speaking to.

    Personally, I grew to like his style – largely because I agreed with him, but also because I gave him an “he’s just a kid” pass – but I can see where his schtick was a problem for bookers.

  7. lonestar77 Says:

    I disagree that “FNC is viewed as “one of us” by conservatives”. FNC is viewed as the only network that has “any of us” by me & most conservatives that I know. It could hire more liberals and give liberals more of a voice at the network than they have now and FNC would still be popular among conservatives because it’s the only network, cable or otherwise, that doesn’t have all left-wing hosts and that doesn’t treat conservatives like 2nd class citizens.

  8. You say Potayto, I say Potahto….the gist of my article is that FNC’s conservative viewers feel like they have a “home”. MSNBC’s progressive viewers feel more like they’re invited guests.

  9. lonestar77 Says:

    I get the article and it was a good read. I just think there’s a misconception out there that the reason FNC is popular is because conservatives feel like it’s “one of us”. I’ve heard it before. It may be true for some but I don’t think for most. Otherwise, Hannity would outdraw O’Reilly just like he did on the radio.

  10. …because it’s the only network, cable or otherwise, that doesn’t have all left-wing hosts…

    Or, so you say.

    Last time I checked, Joe Scarborough isn’t anywhere remotely left-wing, and calls himself the most conservative host in America (literally), especially when he was a Congressman with an (R) next to his name. He also brings on guests like Pat Buchanan and Michael Steele who will more than agree with him on any pro-conservative political argument.

  11. lonestar77 Says:

    ^ Fair point. I forgot about Scarborough who does indeed call himself a conservative although I think most would argue that he’s the typical Republican that the MSM likes and not a true conservative. Besides, I don’t watch TV at 5:00 in the morning so he really didn’t occur to me.

  12. mike08exdem Says:

    ^What is a “true conservative”? What does it mean to be a “true conservative”? Are Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum or even Joe Barton of Texas (Mr. Let’s apologize to the oil companies) “true conservatives”? Once again, what does it mean to be a “true conservative”? Just wondering.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: