Maddow Extends MSNBC Contract Long Term…

The Hollywood Reporter’s Marisa Guthrie reports that Rachel Maddow has extended her deal with MSNBC…

MSNBC has extended Rachel Maddow’s contract in a new multi-year deal that will keep the primetime host at the cable news network well beyond the 2012 presidential election.

The announcement is expected to come Tuesday at the network’s portion of the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles.

The news comes as MSNBC has already locked in many staffers and longtime contributors with contract extensions, a response to overtures from erstwhile MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who abruptly left MSNBC last January. Maddow’s previous contract was not set to expire until next year.


19 Responses to “Maddow Extends MSNBC Contract Long Term…”

  1. savefarris Says:

    So I guess Kos’s prediction that she’d follow Olbermann to nowheresville was full of cr#p, eh?

  2. The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik on the “inescapable box” that MSNBC is in:

    “One of the core narratives of the system of beliefs to which the MSNBC hosts ascribe is that corporations are bad and most of trouble American now finds itself in is the result of evil corporations and the politicians who bow before Wall Street and the corporations — politicians like George W. Bush. Even Barack Obama does way too much bowing to corporate America for this crew.”

    But, he points out: “Why [as a viewer] should I trust Ed Schultz or Lawrence O’Donnell or Rachel Maddow when they say the unions are good and the corporations are bad if they are taking million dollar paychecks from a corporation for saying it?”

    Be nice if Ms. Maddow et al. answered that one.

  3. That ‘inescapable box’ sounds a bit circular to me.

  4. ^Maddow et al. can respond that they very fact they criticize corporations is itself evidence that they’re not corporate hacks.

    Zurawik would counter with, “Yes, but you don’t criticize the corporation you work for, just others. Why is your corporation not like those other evil ones?”

    Maddow et al.: “Because they hire people like us.”

  5. Circular, inescapable, and padded sounds about right.

  6. My ‘circular’ had swirling water, but that works, too.

  7. It’s about as silly as asking why “small government” politicians work for the government. If you want to change government, you have to run for office. If you want to change things by being on TV, you have to work for a corporation. It’s a dumb question.

  8. Politicians holding elective office are hired by and work for their constituents, not the government.

  9. They work in a government they claim is “the problem”, just as some TV people work in a corporate system they object to. Same same.

  10. Elected office holders do not work in government. They are the government.

  11. You’re being a semantical PITA. They are something they claim is “the problem”.

  12. lonestar77 Says:

    Small government politicians have no problem bashing the very government they are working to change. That’s the difference.

  13. Ah. So people who oppose government control over their lives shouldn’t try to be part of it. How convenient.

  14. How the hell did you come up with that? I’m dismissing the idea that you can’t have issues with an environment you work in. The question was “why should I listen to anti-corporatists like Schultz, O’Donnel and Maddow when they work for a corporation”.

  15. lonestar77 Says:

    They’re not trying to change the way their corporation is run, unlike small government politicians. Your trying to equate the two is ridiculous.

  16. Being involved and actively serving to make positive change, they are not something they claim is “the problem”, thus their example is not analogous to someone who rails against “corporate America” while actively taking the benefits of being employed by corporate America.

    Dumb argument anyway. Congressional staffers could be a sound analogy for your point.

  17. Zurawik’s question is dumb. For one thing, the names mentioned are not “against corporations”. They object to the practices of SOME them. That doesn’t disqualify them to work for one.

  18. His point, really, is that if those names mentioned actually thought that they’d be required to live within the constraints that such a society which they advocate for would impose upon them, they probably wouldn’t be for it.

  19. If that’s his point, it’s pointless..useless conjecture about an unlikely future. “If Joe got a Ferrari, it wouldn’t be as great as he expected.” There’s no way to know that, and it’s not gonna happen. Dumb.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: