Kaplan: Winners and Losers
An emailer wrote in asking me what I thought the winners and losers would be from Kaplan’s departure. I don’t think it’s possible to ascertain that at this point. There are rumors that Tammy Haddad is angling for the Good Morning America EP position. If that happens it opens up a hole in MSNBC’s political coverage and puts into question what happens with the 2006 mid term election coverage including the rumored return of Battleground America. But aside from that it’s too difficult to figure out who and what the winners and losers are, if any.
The winners and losers, if there are any, won’t be known until we know who is running MSNBC and what changes in course, if any, are being planned by 30 Rock.
I’m still vexxed by the announcement and what it really means. There are two schools of thought about this story.
The first school of thought is that Kaplan was fired but allowed to play this out in a more face saving manner which benefits both sides. The evidence for a firing would be that it was abrupt with no time built in for a transition. Even Erik Sorenson got kicked upstairs when he was removed as President of MSNBC. But if it was a firing, it would put NBC Corporate in a bad position since execs have publicly backed MSNBC with no less that Bob Wright giving the equivelent of a thumbs up on Your World last week. To fire Kaplan under this public backing of MSNBC would bring out charges that NBC was saying one thing but doing another. The graceful exit we witnessed today would therefore be a means of removing Kaplan without disrupting MSNBC’s perceived momentum.
The second school of thought, which is more disturbing to me, is that Kaplan saw where MSNBC was going to go under this rumored “new direction” NBC News is planning and wanted no part of it. Say what you will about Kaplan and his tenure at MSNBC but in the end he was a newsman with a long tenure in hard news going back to his days with ABC. Say, for example, that NBC News wants to gut daytime news with canned programming, as has been rumored on TMZ.com (I’m not saying that’s the direction they’re going to go…I’m just tossing out one scenario). Would a newsman like Kaplan want to be in charge of that? See what I’m getting at? Perhaps Kaplan’s departure is a sign of ominous things to come for people who watch MSNBC for news?
We won’t know really what instigated today’s events until we see what happens in the future; when we can look back and compare the Kaplan period with the post Kaplan period.
MSNBC programming is actually fine, IMO. It’s just that it’s the least watched network in a field (cable news) that doesn’t have a huge audience to begin with.
But I hate the fact that they’ve messed with their schedules constantly over the years. Dan Abrams seems incredibly underutilized; he should be back in prime time, not shoved into drive time/dinner hour slots. He covers the same stories that we see on Greta, Rita and Nancy Grace, but he’s much more knowledgeable and passionate in his presentation. Tucker Carlson, while a niche talent (conservative and/or libertarian), should also be back somewhere during primetime. I think people just don’t watch him because they associate him with “Crossfire” (an unwatchable show, IMO). But if he was given back a prime time slot and given MORE TIME in which to acquire an audience, he may actually help bring in conservatives to the network’s audience. I actually like him MUCH MORE than anyone on Fox.
Further, it’s ridiculous that only the conservatives (Carlson and Scarborough) and tabloid-oriented Rita have been zapped from Friday nights, especially during an election year, when political news often breaks late on Fridays. The fact that MSNBC may seem to favor their liberal talent (Matthews and Olbermann) may be just one more reason why conservatives seem to stay away from MSNBC.
As for daytime, Spud mentioned “The Most”. It seems like a great program; Allison Stewart brings a lot of personality to the show. And MSNBC’s other daytime programming is equally informative, and its hosts are usually personable as well. I have no clue as to why the daytime programming doesn’t do better in the ratings.
Comment by Missy — June 7, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
If MSNBC fires Keith Olbermann now, it may have a chance to gain back some of the respectability MSNBC has lost journalistically. Otherwise, it will just continue on a downward spiral, with three years left (tops) before the network as a whole folds.
Comment by benllv — June 7, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
MSNBC fire the highest rated primetime program on its roster? That makes a lot of sense…
Comment by Spud — June 7, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
MSNBC fires the most irresponsible ‘journalist’ on its roster? That does make a lot of sense. Oh, but he gets a couple thousand more viewers than his last-place MSNBC colleagues, so I can see why you think so highly of him.
Here’s an idea: follow Microsoft’s lead and PULL THE PLUG on this failing network!
Comment by benllv — June 7, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
Ok, Ben…that’s enough. You’ve done nothing but post anti-MSNBC anti-TVNewser commentary since the day you first posted. You never talk about anything else. Even FNC partisans like Johnny Dollar are more fair and balanced in their cable news commentary than you.
I’m starting to think you are a mole…whose sole purpose is disruption. Keep going along this route and I’ll be forced to take action.
Oh…and this goes for the other moles as well (you know who you are…and so do I). I’m watching and taking notes.
Comment by Spud — June 8, 2006 @ 12:58 am
The Mole? Wasn’t that Anderson Cooper? (I always liked that show!)
Comment by johnny dollar — June 8, 2006 @ 1:15 am
Who is The Mole?
Comment by WestCoastBlogger — June 8, 2006 @ 1:56 am
First of all, Missy, conservatives don’t need ANOTHER channel. Why should they get their choice between “Fox Blue Network” (Fox News) and “Fox Red Network” (MSNBC), while liberals, moderates and so on have no place to go?
Second, benllv, I know you’re extremely eager, but I wouldn’t buy the cake for that “Keith Olbermann Got Fired” party just yet. It might grow moldy while you’re waiting…especially if, say, Phil Griffin comes back.
Third, Spud…you’ve FINALLY concluded that benllv might just be a MOLE and a DISRUPTER???? All I can say is: Buddy, WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG???? I disagree that Johnny Dollar is more “fair and balanced” (unless working for the “fair and balanced, LOL” network counts). But man, benllv’s venom against MSNBC, and especially Keith Olbermann…and the person he sees as being most guilty of actually failing to wish enough hatred upon them, Brian Stelter and TV Newser…is getting to be a real old shtick. He’s like the proverbial broken record. “Waah waah, I hate that MSNBC, I hate that nasty old Keith Olbermann, nobody watches him anyway, but that nasty Brian over at TVNewser is always saying things about him without hating on him like I do, Olbermann must be paying him to do that, waah waah.” Man, enough already!
Comment by tanne — June 8, 2006 @ 6:56 am
Spud and tanne, don’t be so hard on benliv. I don’t mean to turn this into another “Keith” thread; there’s more to MSNBC than just him. But the constantly discussed fact that Keith allows no dissension on his program certainly has an impact on the network’s potential audience.
MSNBC’s other personalities, Matthews, Scarborough and Carlson, all have opposing views presented each night for virtually every topic, as does Fox and even CNN. So the fact that Keith, who “kicks off” prime time at 8 p.m. ET, exempts himself from such discourse is remarkable. Many people have probably tuned in to his program, and upon seeing that all sides to a story are not represented, tune right out, and away from MSNBC entirely. I know you both think this is fair because conservative or opposing views are adequately represented elsewhere on cable, but many viewers still resent this lack of discourse.
MSNBC and Keith can certainly do whatever they want. But if they want to attract a larger potential audience, they’d do well to at least give the illusion of fairness and allow opposing views to be presented once in a while.
Comment by Missy — June 8, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Missy, it’s nice to see that you don’t mean to turn this into another “Keith” thread and that there’s more to MSNBC than just him. From the way some people equate him with MSNBC and blanketly condemn both, it’d be hard to tell.
As for this business about Keith allowing no dissension on his program? It’s not so. I just heard a guest disagree with him last week. Your problem is that you mistake having two talking heads on opposite ends of a political spectrum trying to out-scream each other while a host either tries desperately to play ringmaster or drown them both out with “welcoming opposing views.”
It is perfectly possible–and it has happened many times–that Keith has one guest on a topic and asks that guest “Is it true that…” and the guest replies “Well, not actually, Keith, see…” and explains why not, and Keith lets him or her be heard and does not try to shout over him or her, counteract the argument or tell the person to “shut up.”
On the contrary, on other MSNBC shows, as well as on Fox and CNN, and network Sunday-morning programs, morning shows and so on, the “two talking heads representing opposing views trying to shout each other down” formula is frequent. The format quickly becomes tiresome and repetitive as each party tries to squeeze in his or her “talking points,” interrupts and shouts over the other. If the host is civilized, he or she will try to rein it in before it’s time for a commercial or the show’s end; if not so civilized, he or she will take the side of one of them and tell the other to “shut up.” This is not “discourse” in my book.
For every supposed person whom you believe have turned off Keith’s program because he or she mistook shouting, arguing people for “discourse” and “fair and balanced coverage” and concluded Keith didn’t have any, there must be some who, like me, turned off the “shouting heads” and turned to Keith because he has the wisdom and respect to let his one-guest-at-a-time be heard…even if that guest is conservative and even if that guest disagrees with the bent of his question.
To me, what Keith does is fair and he presents views that don’t jibe with his plenty of the time. Unfortunately, people who watch his show with their “conservative goggles” on never seem to notice or remember his conservative or disagreeing guests, only the liberal/agreeing ones. I think if you watched Countdown for a month or two, as an impartial monitor of the media would do, simply marking with a tick each time a “conservative” guest was featured and each time a “liberal” guest was featured, and each time Keith was “agreed with” and each time his point was not agreed with, you might be quite surprised. I am sure you would expect that the “conservative” and “not agreed with” columns would be utterly blank. I assure you, they would not be.
Is Countdown straight down the middle politically? No. But I don’t believe that it is a place in which conservative viewpoints are never expressed, or never welcome–or where no one dares contradict the host. It is that respect for the guests, the ability to ask intelligent questions and then listen to the answers, rather than just putting two bulldogs in front of a camera and letting them rip, is what I appreciate most about Olbermann and Countdown.
Comment by tanne — June 8, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Great thanks tanne…
Comment by erljr — June 8, 2006 @ 11:59 pm