Phil Griffin Interview…

The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove interviews Phil Griffin…

In his office Griffin insists: “I think we’ve never had an ideology. An ideology is a single thought across all programs. We’ve never had that.” As evidence, he mentions the spirited on-air debates in 2010, pro and con, concerning whether the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. “Obviously I hire people who fit the sensibility,” Griffin says. “We do stay true to facts. You have to build your argument. That’s why I call it a sensibility.”
He continues: “If you’re a Democrat in trouble, we’re not a place where we’re going to rehabilitate you. You’re not going to get a free ride if you did wrong.” As evidence that the cable outlet is by no means a White House shill, Griffin mentions Ed Schultz’s impassioned criticisms of the Obama administration’s trade policies, and various MSNBC hosts’ more general condemnation of Obama’s use of deadly drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, he stoutly defends All In host Chris Hayes, a former writer for the paleo-liberal Nation magazine and protégé of MSNBC’s prime-time star Rachel Maddow; he initially hosted Up, MSNBC’s early morning weekend program, until Griffin elevated him to 8 p.m. early last year. Hayes’s ratings, opposite Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, had been anemic until recently. Hayes himself called them “bad.”

“I’m committed to Chris Hayes at 8 o’clock,” Griffin says, noting that a recent tweak of the schedule, positioning Schultz at 5 p.m., where Matthews had been, and airing Matthews live at 7 p.m. instead of a repeat of his earlier show, has resulted in a stronger lead-in and marked improvement in Hayes’s numbers. “The line is straight up, and I couldn’t be happier with where we are,” Griffin insists. “I’m glad, because I put him there.”

35 Responses to “Phil Griffin Interview…”

  1. nope

    No ideology there.

    Wanna buy a bridge? I got one to sell… cheap.

  2. Griffin has said this, or something like it, numerous times before. He seems to be confusing or mixing partisanship with ideology, which are two different ideas. Partisans defend their party regardless of policy; ideologues defend ideology or policy regardless of party.

    Limbaugh and Hannity certainly criticized Bush; but it was from an ideological point of view. To them he wasn’t conservative enough on issues like spending or immigration. Neither man is a partisan but both are ideologues.

    It’s the same with Schultz or Hayes and the others. They’ll criticize Obama but from a liberal/left ideological view. They won’t defend Obama as a Democrat but they will when he’s a liberal.

    MSNBC isn’t a partisan network; it’s an ideological network. Just like Fox.

  3. if they felt Obama was threatened, MSNBC would circle the wagons around him, ideology be damned. They are partisan where the rubber meets the road.

  4. “MSNBC isn’t a partisan network; it’s an ideological network. Just like Fox.”

    ^^That’s a good point Erich.

  5. if they felt Obama was threatened, MSNBC would circle the wagons around him, ideology be damned. They are partisan where the rubber meets the road.

    Bull.

  6. No, FOX is a news network.

  7. savefarris Says:

    if they felt Obama was threatened, MSNBC would circle the wagons around him, ideology be damned.

    Andy forgot about this Pew research: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/196025/in-final-week-of-election-msnbc-aired-no-positive-romney-stories/

  8. I’ve seen MSNBC criticize Obama pretty harshly over. …. DRONES, NSA… things that matter to Liberals.

    Nice try though.

  9. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    “I think we’ve never had an ideology. An ideology is a single thought across all programs. We’ve never had that.”

    The ideology there is to be vulgar and offensive. And, it’s across all programs.

  10. “I’ve seen MSNBC criticize Obama pretty harshly over. …. DRONES, NSA… things that matter to Liberals.”

    Not much to anybody else and not remotely harmful to Obama,

    I won’t even give you a “nice try”, Just fluff.

  11. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    The only things that matter to “Liberals” are fomenting class envy and racial divisiveness.

  12. The ideology there is to be vulgar and offensive. And, it’s across all programs.

    Irony alert!

    Not much to anybody else and not remotely harmful to Obama,

    Alienated a lot of liberals.

  13. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    The ideology there is to be vulgar and offensive. And, it’s across all programs.

    Irony alert!

    Name anyplace else that is this consistent. That has advocated crapping in the mouth of political opponents. That has trafficked in racial animus. That has edited 911 tapes for political advantage.

  14. “Alienated a lot of liberals.”

    Big friging deal. Not enough for them do doing thing about it. Any threat from conservatives and these same libs were right back propping him up.

  15. There are, oh wait, there were three liberals on ICN who didn’t vote for Obama because of that stuff but two of those three have been run off by the constant vitriol.

  16. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    There are, oh wait, there were three liberals on ICN who didn’t vote for Obama because of that stuff but two of those three have been run off by the constant vitriol.

    The “constant vitriol” here seems to come from the Left..

  17. The constant vitriol comes from the successful takeover of ICN, rendering it a pointless rightwing blog. This is not a healthy place to comment, and I’m quickly realizing that even reading it is bad for me. You boys enjoy your run. It will end eventually.

  18. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    The constant vitriol comes from the successful takeover of ICN, rendering it a pointless rightwing blog. This is not a healthy place to comment, and I’m quickly realizing that even reading it is bad for me. You boys enjoy your run. It will end eventually.

    And you have added absolutely nothing to the problem? C’mon, Joe. You know better than that. We would all benefit from it being toned down a bit. But don’t insult our intelligence by playing innocent, just go back and look at your old posts.

  19. Here’s the last comments on Free For All:

    With that kind of logic, they might want to start drowning puppies on air to getting even worse press.

    Ed could shoot them. He’s done it before.

    Nobody needs this. You’re Spud’s problem now. Goodnight, and good luck.

  20. savefarris Says:

    Next time someone at 30 Rock goes on a diatribe about Congress’s low approval ratings … they might want to look in the mirror.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/nbc-msnbc-sink-to-bottom-of-who-the-public-trusts/article/2543186

    Congratulations, Mr. Griffin! You’ve successfully poisoned the NBC brand!

  21. Good God. Why does everybody have to be a whiny little baby. I have kids. I hear crybaby stuff enough. Lighten up.

  22. I don’t know whether they are “ideological” or “partisan” or both. I do know that they are character assassins. That’s what they traffic in most. They don’t just argue in favor of progressive ideas. They actively engage in hate speech. Nobody simply disagrees. If you’re not with them, you’re a “racist” or “woman hater” or whatever else. It’s disgusting.

  23. “The constant vitriol comes from the successful takeover of ICN, rendering it a pointless rightwing blog. This is not a healthy place to comment, and I’m quickly realizing that even reading it is bad for me. You boys enjoy your run. It will end eventually.”

    “two of those three have been run off by the constant vitriol.”

    ^^I have to agree with Joe and Andy. Its getting harder and harder to work around the two FNC trolls that have more or less taken over the comments section of Spud’s blog. I hope eventually they’ll be banned but until that happens it’s still a drag trying to discuss a topic when they make every thread is a mass of mindless drivel. I’ll continue to comment here with most posters and just hope the situation improves eventually.

  24. imnotblue Says:

    Maybe one of the left-wing regulars here should threaten to sue the people he disagrees with. That would show the right-wingers who can be really nasty.

    Oh wait… that happened… years ago, before either Larry or Nixon were so prevalent.

    So spare me the false outrage. You’re just upset you’re not getting the echo chamber you were hoping for. Perhaps this is the legacy of MSNBC, people on the left require only their ideas and have lost the ability to cope with people who don’t always agree (or go further left). That can’t be a good thing.

  25. “You’re just upset you’re not getting the echo chamber you were hoping for.”

    Come on blue for the many years I’ve posted here, with only a few exceptions, this blog has been dominated by conservative posters, of various conviction; usually three or four to one.

    If I was looking for a echo chamber this is sure not the place I would be commenting.🙂

  26. It’s funny how little you guys like being out numbered.

    But when someone on the right (or center) brings up the fact that most of the media industry is positioned at varying degrees on the left… well, the sympathy or understanding isn’t quite there. I’d think you’d be able to relate.

  27. “It’s funny how little you guys like being out numbered.”

    ^^I don’t mind being ideologically outnumbered here Blue. If I did I wouldn’t be here.

    “But when someone on the right (or center) brings up the fact that most of the media industry is positioned at varying degrees on the left…”

    ^^You seem to be the one concerned about being “outnumbered”.😉

  28. “Come on blue for the many years I’ve posted here, with only a few exceptions, this blog has been dominated by conservative posters”

    Call your friends. Invite them in. Lets get this party started! I, for one, wish there were a few more liberals around here. Sane ones, anyway. It’s prolly why I watch so much CNN; and, MSNBC during the day – before the crazy trains drops off Matthews, Maddow, Schultz and LOD.

  29. “I, for one, wish there were a few more liberals around here. Sane ones, anyway.”

    ^^I like most of the conservative commenters here LS. As you say the ones. We don’t need more liberals conservatives here just posters that respect and have the best interest of the blog at heart.

    The thing that separates ICN 2.0 from other media sites is that it moderated but still open to political discussion. Most sites comment sections don’t get past the ‘I love or hate this person or that show’ and you’re an idiot because you don’t feel the same way as me dialogue. That doesn’t happen here all that often.

  30. ^^As you say the ones. should read As you say the sane ones. Sorry.

  31. Maybe one of the left-wing regulars here should threaten to sue the people he disagrees with. That would show the right-wingers who can be really nasty.

    Oh wait… that happened… years ago, before either Larry or Nixon were so prevalent.

    Do you ever have anything positive to say, or do you only show up to dig things out of your Internet Wayback Machine? Maybe you should go back again to find the “the left-wing regular” stipulating how silly that comment was, instead of presenting it as an unresolved statement.

    In the last two days I’ve seen “drowned puppies”, “shoot a dog”, “infidels” and “death to America”. This place has devolved into a cesspool of hate and grotesque images. If I were Spud I would ban everyone and start over.

  32. savefarris Says:

    It is a bit odd that the party that couldn’t stop talking about Mitt Romney’s dog’s travel arrangements now claims to cringe at puppy metaphors.

  33. Well, Mitt Romney is evil. Based on all the evidence, of course.

  34. It’s funny how little you guys like being out numbered.

    It’s not the number of conservatives or their ideology any of us have a problem with, it’s the constant stream of snark and downright offensive commentary posted here. Some of the things two people post on here, I wouldn’t say in my own home, in the shower, with the door locked.

  35. It is a bit odd that the party that couldn’t stop talking about Mitt Romney’s dog’s travel arrangements now claims to cringe at puppy metaphors.

    Um, you’re comparing outrage over a dog being abused on a family trip, to images of puppies being drowned and a man shooting a dog. Maybe you should stop talking now.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: