01
Jun
Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz — How MSNBC Became a Liberal Mecca
“I’m a liberal — and I’m not running from that word!” exclaims Ed Schultz, the latest lefty star in the cable television news-and-opinion firmament. Schultz, America’s top-rated progressive radio talk show host, has just finished his first month as host of the eponymous “Ed Show” on MSNBC, which is attempting to duplicate its earlier success in crossing over progressive radio talk show host Rachel Maddow.
Despite the startling success of Maddow and the recent addition of Schultz to an increasingly liberal lineup that also includes MSNBC’s first breakout star Keith Olbermann, getting anyone other than on-air talent like Schultz and Maddow to admit the obvious — that the rising cable net is in the process of re-branding itself as the left-winged equivalent of right-leaning industry leader Fox News – can be difficult. For example, when asked if the decision to hire Schultz was part of a conscious strategy to “move left, MSNBC President Phil Griffin chooses his words carefully.
“The answer is complicated…but simple at same time,” Griffin responds. “The network has evolved a lot in the past few years. We went from doing a little bit of everything to doing lots of politics under Keith from 2003-05. We first began to get traction after the Iraq war started, after ‘Mission Accomplished.’ Then, more and more, politics led the way. When we did well with it in the 2006 elections, we made a decision to become ‘the place for politics,’ as the late Tim Russert dubbed us – and all of a sudden began to take off a little.”
Griffin says that both Olbermann and fellow MSNBC stalwart Chris Mathews “both had a strong point of view about the war — but our strategy then was simply to hire smart people, allow them to have a point of view, and to be authentic. At the same time, we moved even further toward politics and away from trying to be ‘all things to all people.’”
Yes but … Fox News covers politics as well, albeit with a clearly conservative slant. Doesn’t the hiring of Schultz – and Maddow before him — signal that MSNBC is positioning itself as the progressive alternative?
“Well, Rachel did so well as a guest analyst — and was so smart, like Keith – that we asked her to fill in when he went on vacation,” Griffin recalls. “And she held his numbers, which is something that other talent we had on-air at the time, like Dan Abrams, didn’t do. So that made the decision to give Rachel her own show after the conventions really easy … September 8, 2008, was her first day, and almost immediately it was obvious to us that Keith’s audience loved Rachel … so we had flow. But it was more organic than a conscious strategy to go left,” Griffin concludes. “A vision of smart progressives just began to emerge … “
Whether it’s the result of an organic vision or a conscious strategy, however, adding a proudly progressive “populist figure” like Schultz to its lineup means that MSNBC is now providing the largest toehold progressives have ever had on television. Even Griffin admits the cable net now has a “progressive flow,” although he quickly adds, “That’s a little different than saying we consciously chose such a strategy.”
Taking a swipe at Fox, he points out, “We have no daily talking points; we also have [the more conservative-oriented] ‘Morning Joe’ program — so it’s clear we have no political ‘line,’ if you will — but sure, we now have a progressive flow.”
“Hey, I’m encouraged to have and state my opinions,” says Ed Schultz. “I think what we’re doing here is best described as ‘independent/progressive.’ I’m very proud to state that I‘m a liberal – but the independent part means we don’t run from the facts, either.”
Schultz also believes that his sizeable radio audience will, over time, follow him to television. “The cross-promotion is terrific, we’re expanding the brand, my website traffic has already doubled,” he notes. “But let’s face it — not everyone in the country knows Ed Schultz, so it will take some time to develop this. We look at this as a marathon, not a sprint.”
Still, both Schultz and Maddow have already driven MSNBC’s all-important ratings numbers up in the highly competitive cable news environment. In its first full month “The Ed Show” — although trailing both Fox and CNN in the time period — increased MSNBC’s rating by 9% in total viewers from the prior month and a full 15% from a year ago. And although much was made of the fact that Maddow’s show recently drew its smallest audience since she joined MSNBC – some 763,000 total viewers — she still regularly beats longtime CNN star Larry King. True, Maddow’s ratings have cooled since her meteoric rise during last fall’s political frenzy, but her overall ratings last month were still doubling those MSNBC saw a year earlier, when Dan Abrams averaged just 527,000 total viewers in the same time slot.
Does that mean the network’s strategy… er, “vision” to move left is succeeding?
“How do you measure if we’re succeeding?” Griffin asks rhetorically. “Well, ratings are a good start! We’re beating CNN; and we’re also doing great with the high end demographic groups, such as young people aged 18-34.”
Griffin perceives a “media revolution that’s now happening, and we fit right into it. Our audience is web-centric, involved, highly informed, and looking for opinion and analysis.” As a result of serving this new audience, he says, “our ratings are up from a year ago – as well as from 3 months ago — and we did well quite recently with the dueling Obama and Cheney speeches … Meanwhile, CNN has no vision or strategy to speak of. It’s a new world media order here — and we embrace it, we fit right into it.”
Still, the Fox News Channel recently ranked fourth overall in primetime cable ratings, averaging 1.89 million total viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. Fox News, which had regularly been placing second behind USA, has now ranked in the top five cable networks for 20 straight weeks, and its cable news competitors still trail by a wide margin — MSNBC placed 24th in primetime with an average of 747,000 total viewers, while CNN placed 28th with an average of 651,000 total viewers Facing such figures, even Griffin acknowledges that FNC still looms as the 800 pound gorilla in the cable news and opinion space.
“Look, Fox created something unique,” he allows. “It’s an Outsider’s Club for people who felt voiceless. And I tip my hat to Glenn Beck for coming in and just killing right away, as did Rachel. But Ed will need more time and more traditional development than Rachel. It will be a slower build, and we’re still trying to figure it out.
“What happened with Rachel was very unusual,” recalls Griffin. “She was golden, an unbelievable success, in part because there clearly was another audience that felt underserved — left, webcentric, young — and instantly committed to her. They were voiceless, and now there is a voice. She really embodies our strategy of ‘personality, smarts, and politics,’ and that’s a combination will win for us.”
Schultz agrees. “I’m proud to be on this network,” he says. “And sure, there has to be a synergy in your programming, whether you’re on television or radio. If you’re a rock station, don’t play country! If you do talk, don’t play music… That’s just common sense. So we’ll be progressive by remaining true to the issues, and independent by not running from the facts. That means we won’t be in lockstep with liberals, and we’ll certainly criticize Obama where it’s warranted. Viewers don’t want you to walk the fence — they do want a point of view — and that’s what we bring. So be true to the facts — but take a stand!”
Despite the gains going left has won for MSNBC, however, Schultz’ boss maintains he still won’t rush into anything wont rush the transition. “The biggest mistake this network made in past was rushing in, and thinking any good idea would work,” says Griffin. ” We had lots of good talent in the past — but what we needed was a sensibility.”
Now that Schultz has been added to the lineup at 6 pm, Griffin’s most immediate concern is what else to do in primetime, where the valuable ten o’clock slot following Maddow’s program is now devoted to re-runs of Olbermann’s earlier 8 pm cablecast. Can the MSNBC honcho offer any “vision” of what will “flow” out of Maddow?
“Is it necessary that the flow out of Rachel be progressive?” Griffin ponders. “I have a little different perspective. Honestly, don’t know if it will be a progressive — Rachel really came out of nowhere, and I don’t necessarily think her follow-up host has to be limited to that pure sensibility. Clearly it should be someone who is both smart and funny like she is… But I will make one promise: we’re not done yet! This is such a vibrant time in media, and I want to say to Rachel’s audience – and everywhere I go I get stopped, there’s such a connection between her and her audience, she’s helped open a new world of approaches for us — that people who like Rachel will like our new 10 o’clock show host and what we are going to do there. No, I take that back,” he concludes. “Rachel’s audience will LOVE IT! I promise.”
I’m a Rachel fan and if you want me to love the newbie in the 10 o’clock spot it had better not be another white man. Surely there is another woman out there comparable to Rachel. Try it. It isn’t herey and none of the networks ever have any trouble giving the audience serial programs with white male commentators.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:48 amAs a southern white man, I suggest a black, latino/a, Mideast or Asian person. I am not sure why, but I would prefer an Asian.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:50 amwow, now i understand their ratings. pretty soon they can just broadcast to each other. or maybe the onair ‘talent’ can actually come to each viewers house and do it live. too funny.
but of course always remember: dissent is the american way!! unless the prez and congress are dems!!!!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pmim ready for randi rhodes and mike malloy!!
i think tv media is very afraid to let the 2 of them have their own show..
i say,let them co-host one together!!
lets call it,”left is right”..
america is just waiting on those 2..i know i am!!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pmI like Keith reruns at 10 in case I’m running late and don’t get home in time for the 8:00, but if they’re going to put someone in with a live show at 10 hows about trying to get either Jesse Ventura or (I know this will sound a bit out-there, but really, think about it) the Round Mound of Rebound himself, Charles Barkley?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:55 pmI love these three characters! I stay up till the wee-hours of the morning watching them and I love every word they have to say. It’s about time we get some smart people on TV to balance out all the right-wing wackos that do nothing more than repeat the right-wing’s talking points.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pmI like Keith but I think the use of WFT Moment is a little over the top and I wish he would stop that as it alienates potential converts.
Other than that I think he and the entire crew are great!! About time!!
June 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pmI absolutely love all our progressive commentators..it’s about time.I love how Ed is so very open & fairminded..& allowes everyone to voice their opinions without interruption…how refreshing this is! He doesn’t tell you what to think,he makes you want to think. Fox News has nothing compared to MSNBC! MSNBC is the BEST for the truth!
June 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pmtwo responses:
We are definitely not talking about morning news here — Joe Scarborough still acts as a huge counterweight for progressives on MSNBC. The schizophrenia between a.m. and p.m. coverage is amazing.
West Coast coverage of Ed, Keith, and Rachel is not in primetime until the repeats, please keep the repeats!
June 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pmI love MSNBC and watch all three shows and know many friends and family members that enjoy these shows. It’s hard to catch Schultz at 3pm on the West Coast, and that is why his audience is not as strong as his potential. Who is home watching TV at 3pm? They also are neutering Schultz by having him put right wing commentators on the show. Idiots such as Lars larson.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:50 pmThis is not progressive TV but factual
TV. Unlike Faux News and it’s GOP 24/7 talking points and attacks on Democrats not even disguised any more, Schultz and Olberman, and Maddow, are the only push back to the right wing and Republican control of the debate and the broadcast media in this post “fairness doctrine” environment of out right lies and mis-representations by Faux News, Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh and his clones on the radio.
MSNBC, needs to promote these shows and let people know they exist and that there are alternatives to right wing lies and talking points explaining the issues of the day. And the cowardly Democratic political brand names need to support these shows and promote them and go on them consistently. The Clintons, especially Bill should be on all three shows. And Al Gore, and Kerry should be pushing back at the Gingrichs etc.
The big difference between FOX (faux) is that there is zero integrity on the part of FOX. Hannity was and still is a cheer-leader for GW Bush, in spite of the fact that he screwed the country over for eight years. And O’Reilly lies through his teeth, tells people to shut up and cuts off their mike if he doesn’t like what they say. He is a bore and a bully, and his catholic upbringing makes him behave like a fool. Rachel can interview people with whom she disagrees, and treat them like fellow humans. Not so with O’Reilly. Fox news should lose their license because they do not serve the public. They cheat the public.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:31 pmI’d love to see a comical, yet feisty liberal continue the flow after Rachel. Someone like Bill Maher would be just the ticket.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 amI an not sure whether Mr. Griffin will be reading my comment, but I hope he does. First of all, to be able to build an effective liberal counter to the right wing Fox News, will require, lots of dedication, commitment and patience. These things do not happen overnight, especially in a country which has tended to be right of center. Changing people’s perceptions in order to build a stronger and ever expanding liberal base will take lots of patience and commitment. If that is the station’s objective,it can never be purely a matter of beating the ratings on Fox News which has had a head start of many years of their rightwing views in the market. I remember when Rush Limbaugh started off his program in the late 80’s; it could easily be viewed as a joke; yet lots of patience over the years has brought his program to what it is today. There is no reason why MSNBC cannot replicate that same strategy on the liberal side. Finally, and very important, I have to inform you that I just recieved an insert in my last cable bill from Dish Network, that Fox News will now be included in my basic package. I immediately called up Dish Network to ask them why was MSNBC not included, and they claimed it had to do with a signed agreement with Fox News. Due to my family’s desire to reduce expenses, we decided to downgrade our Cable subscription to Basic Cable esrlier this year. With our decision to downgrade, we lost the ability to watch the programs which had been included in our prior packege. Those programs had included MSNBC and Fox News. Now that Fox News have been able to get themselves included in a basic package, it seem to me that Mr. Griffin would be well advised to make a similar arrangement with the cable companies. That action would increase the listeners to his station tenfold, and in the process has to increase the station’s ratings.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 amThe smarts and the honesty with these three, Ed, Keith and Rachel are the key. I see NOBODY, repeat NOBODY, countering these three, especially Keith and Rachel on the facts that they present. All the opposition can do is slander. “They’re liberals.” I too, as a previous comment, do not think that the WTF segment of Keith’s show is ‘cool’. Keep the rhetoric tough and smart. You don’t have to play with slime words, like the “F” word. “Drop it, Keith!”
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 amMSNBC President ‘Explains’ Why His Network Went Hard Left
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 amhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/02/msnbc-president-explains-why-his-network-went-hard-left
As an avid follower of Keith and Rachel, may I suggest that Lawrence O’Donnell, be given the 10 PM slot.
He is eloquent, smart, quick witted, tough, and to the point! He is not timid when facing an opponent-and his experience and research are spot on!
Should MSNBC, want a tag team I would add Anna Marie Cox.
Unfortunatly, adding another superb show to the nightly lineup would truly make me a couch potato- a negligent star of the “honey do list”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 amI agree with Michael F. — I never used to watch TV at all, and now my evenings are full, and my chores get crammed into the commercials (sorry sponsors!) — if MSNBC adds another heavyweight, when will I sleep? I also agree with those other West-Coasters — many times I rely on catching the later viewings of Keith & Rachel, and would definitely miss that chance! That said, I love Keith entirely, but, yes, the WTF episodes, while wry & bitingly funny, are a little jarring — can he call the segment something else? It’s just a little coy, since he can’t actually USE the language he’s implying. Something a little more straightforward?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 amas soon as possible get lawrence o’donnell and anna marie cox under contract for the 10 pm slot. your ratings will soar.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pmi would love to agree with david,no.4,but,randi and malloy are hot heads,and randi can’t hold down a job,lol.
she got on with nova and they went belly up,and she pissed air america off and they released her.
i love randi,but,i think msnbc would also be afraid of she and malloy on.
she alone would trump any right wing guest in a debate!
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pmHey, don’t forget MSNBC had its highest rated show with Phil Donahue hosting some years back — and they caved in to the jingoism of the time and cancelled the show when Donahue made it clear he was against the invasion in Iraq. So, I’d say the move to somewhat more progressive on-air personas is way overdue, and scant consolation to Donahue.
I am an inveterate Malloy supporter and doubt that MSNBC would ever have the courage to profile his energy, passion & freely shared disgust for the likes of Fox’s bully boys.
For those who criticize him for being a hot head, how the hell do you reconcile that stupid notion with the existence of craven, loud mouth cowards like O’Reilly & Hannity? At least Malloy makes the courage of his convictions clear without spouting the corporate line according to Ailes & other lard-assed doughboys. (Cheney, Limbaugh & Gingrich come to mind.)
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 pmI too am a MSNBC junkie. It is on all day and most of the night. I’m so glad most of the comments tell Keith to stop the WTF bomb. He is too intelligent and sophisticated to wallow in the ditch with the other potty mouths. His commentaries are prose. I also am enjoying Rachel and Ed. Rachel’s intellect is obvious and she really seems to do her homework. I enjoy the fact that her show is not always a repeat of the others. She always seems to have information that is completely new or has more details about a pre-covered topic. I am developing a warm respect for Ed and enjoying him more each day. I did not know who he was before his show. He gets responses from his guests without screaming at them or over them–even though he is a little to loud. I’m sorry that Chris Matthews is suffering. Unfortunately, he hasn’t learned to ask a question, then wait for and listen to the answer. He is too busy wanting to talk over them. The show is misnamed Hardball–it should be Blowhard. I would also love to rave about Morning Joe. It is tremendously informative; allows sufficient time to discuss the targeted topics with their guests; and respects everyone who appears on their show equally; Mica and Joe are hilarious. Love their banter. They both are equals. I also love Barnicle and Guists(sp? sorry). They both are adorable. Don’t lose them, they are the right balance for the show. I’m looking forward to MSNBC doing away with the prison, etc. shows on the weekend and replacing the best show of the previous week for each commentator/journalist.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pmDr. Phil’s MSNBC “New World Media Order” Snake Oil: “We’re not done yet!”
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 pmhttp://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/06/dr-phils-msnbc-new-world-media-order.html
I watch Ed, Keith, and Rachel (and parts of Hardball) every weekday night. I like the repeat of Countdown and Rachel because I can’t always see the early shows. However, adding one more progressive to the lineup could be very appealing.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pmI’d love to see Thom Hartmann in the lineup. I know, another white man! But one with a broad range of experience, and incredibly intelligent. He is the #1 progressive radio personality, and I’m sure he would be a hit on television.
Another thought, why not broadcast the President’s weekly message as a spot on one of your shows. It doesn’t get enough exposure on the Web alone; and it is usually enlightening, educational, and entertaining.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pmI, too, think Thom Hartman is the best of the best. And Lawrence O’Donnell is also. My TV time (way too much) is almost all MSNBC, Science and similar channels, and Jon Stewart and Cobert.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:04 pm*How about Anna Marie Cox with co-pilot Lawrence O’Donnell with commentaries by *Randi Rhodes* for the 10 pm slot. Anna & Lawrence are bright and good on TV… Anna would be a great anchor for the show and Lawrence could be a super balance (he can be a little hotheaded - which I like).
Now, I am a huge supporter of Randi… she is bright informed and she is basically an Investigative Reporter… she comes up with stories that are not covered ANYWHERE ELSE… and she backs everything up with sources … and she says don’t just believe me or anyone else on radio/TV … look it up - research it yourself. She is a shining light in progressive radio and although maybe a bit volatile… she’s brilliant (with an interesting background… Army, truck-driver, etc.)! Anyway, I would love it if you gave her a chance to prove she can handle the TV medium. She is worth the gamble!
Of course we know that Anna & Lawrence are both great on TV and add to MSNBC’s new stature as the real resource for quality, factual political analysis.
I also think that Thom Hartman would be a great addition to your line-up… he is brilliant as well and would be terrific as a host or commentator… he has an extensive knowledge of history that informs all his political/policy analysis… he is always interesting and can talk with authority on just about any topic… always based on facts (that can be looked up).
Also… would like to hear more from Ron Reagan & Phil Donahue and the great Seymour Hersh!
Thank you for the high quality of talent you have collected… I can’t wait to see what your next move will be! ~ Oh, and I also quite agree… please KEEP THE RERUNS for us on the west coast.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pmI’ve also become an MSNBC junkie. It’s wonderful to watch smart, analytical shows like Keith’s and Rachael’s. I even admit to rediscovering Chris Matthews since he’s grown a spine. I know he can pontificate but he’s held feet to the fire. He took on Joe Scarborough today and made him look like a pompous fool. Speaking of Joe Scarborough, if MSNBC wants to greatly improve that show, find someone with half a brain to counter Joe instead of Mika. It’s a wonder her father acknowledges paternity.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:05 amMSNBC needs to shed Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough. Uncle Pat is the crazy uncle you want to hide from.His racism is beyond belief.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:06 amLawrence O’Donnell needs to be a daily contributor. Only guy willing to call a congressman a liar.
Love it !
Hey…..nice post!!
Awesome, No more words to explain :) :) :D just….cool blog.
May 24th, 2010 at 1:29 pmPLEASE bring Randi Rhodes on board and give let her have free reign! She is fantastic. I will just go sit in my car for 3 hours to hear her on xm radio. Don’t be scared. Just Do it!
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 am8/24/’10 - I’m 80, an MSNBC junkie since the triumverate took hold…Finally. At last. Do add Randy. However, I am frustrated that I cannot input significant questions that might round out prevailing thought. My deep agonizing questions began the day JFK was slain and Vietnam was swallowing our youth so have gathered much stuff - especially State/foreign related. Too many are uninformed…Halliburton, since 1918, manufactures all oil related equipment…Cheney was president and my research reveals that H has been planted all over the globe; in
August 24th, 2010 at 3:24 pmmideast countries surrounding Iraq. Read Stephen Kinzer’s
“All The Shah’s Men” the detailed expose re our 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh…to see why they hate us. Also, pick up Tom Coffman’s “Nation Within - the U.S. Occupation of Hawaii” still in force…There has been a blackout of media since the 1893 invasion, overthrow and theft of Hawaii and for the past forty years a renaissance has been growing and gathering momentum. Are American’s interested do you think? Again. Is it possible to contact our stars directly?