Pilot season?
TVNewser reports that MSNBC shot a pilot with Rachel Maddow and Bill Wolff. While shooting a pilot is not necessarily indicative of anything imminent - I got tipped 4-5 months before The Most debuted that they were shooting pilots for Alison Stewart but I sat on that news waiting to see if something would really come of it - it does raise a big question. Is it pilot season at MSNBC because they’re looking to replace Tucker Carlson’s show? Remember, this is cable news and not broadcast entertainment TV. On broadcast, they can pull a show after one airing and replace it with something new the next week because they have stockpiles ready to go for such an eventuality. In cable news, unless you plan on putting on live news, you need a replacement show before you can take something off the air.
Rachel Maddow is great. I watched her when Tucker was doing “The Situation.” Lately, it seems she has been doing guest appearances on MSNBC more than Pat Buchanan! I was wondering if something was up.
Comment by PoliticalJunkie — December 10, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Well Pat was finishing up his book and now he’s on tour. Then again maybe he is being scaled back.
Comment by Spud — December 10, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I think Rachel is brilliant. She would be a great improvement compared to Tucker Carlson if that is the intention at MSNBC. She has always impressed me with her directness and quick mind as well as her sense of humor and honesty.
Comment by Jim D — December 10, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Rachel Maddow is just what MSNBC needs. Helps diversify their line-up. Her addition would help MSNBC broaden their fuller spectrum of viewpoints–everything from A to B.
Comment by johnny dollar — December 10, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Love Rachel Maddow. She is probably my favorite person to appear on MSNBC airwaves.
Comment by randy — December 10, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
But MSNBC is not a “news” channel. Olbermann constantly claims that a “news” channel has an obligation to tell the “truth” when whining about FNC. He never holds MSNBC to the same standard, so it must be an entertainment channel.
Comment by Jim — December 10, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Well, this could be an interesting show. Honestly, I like her since she isn’t a “cut your head off” personality like Olbermann is somewhat of the time, though still gives a liberal position strongly. Either way, FNC’s Republican lean evens out MSNBCs Liberal lean.
Comment by Chris (clind) — December 10, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
She will probably be able to use your experience from Air America to really improve MSNBC. I mean, that was a gigantic success on radio, so why wouldn’t it work even better on television?
Comment by ImNotBlue — December 10, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Jim…so because one primtime host who runs a program that does not suit your views or likes, this makes it a non news stastion.
why not do me a favoer and you and the rest of those fox news nutjobs (viewers) and go have a séance of bill o reily
and stay in your “No Spin, I Will Cut Your Mic Off Zone”
Comment by chris — December 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Hahaha… hilarious, chris. I mean, who has ever referenced O’Reilly as being someone who’ll cut off his guests mics? What an original dig at O’Reilly!
Sheesh… it’s consistently amazing to me the powers those blogs have to put out lies like “O’Reilly cut’s the mic off of his guests all the time” and toadies just slurp it up. Sure it’s not the truth… but it’s fun to pretend.
I also like it how all of MSNBC’s fans get all hot and bothered when their favorite network is criticized. They start hurling around insults… telling people if they don’t like it, to just change the channel… and of the completely-missing-the-point statement “Just because you don’t agree with it…”
My question… where are they when FOX gets slammed? Where are they on the anti-FOX websites? How come they don’t tell those people to, “Change the channel!” You people sure can give it out… but man, you can’t take it back… not even a little bit. So fragile, it’s wonder you don’t have to wear bright orange stickers.
Comment by ImNotBlue — December 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
INB, why so aggressive whenever someone criticises Fox? Using your own logic - where are you when MSNBC/Olbermann gets slammed (i.e every blog post)?
Comment by Mr A — December 10, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Nothing will deter me from watching Tucker.
But I admit that his past show was lively.
With permanent contributors, Max Kellerman and Rachel Maddow, it was hard to top.
Tucker and Rachel are so bright that no guests could keep up with them. They seemed to move on mentally, while guests continued to talk of cabbages and kings.
Comment by Cella — December 10, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Well, here’s the thing Mr. A… I am aggressive, when someone slanders, lies, or otherwise tells a falsehood about FNC. FNC is the perennial whipping boy of those on the left who would like to limit differing points of view… and is thusly frequently lied about in an effort to discredit their success and/or impact. It’s the blatantly false tales, unsubstantiated rumors, and overt hypocrisy of the haters, which I feel the need to aggressively combat.
The difference between much of the criticism directed at FNC versus directed at MSNBC/Olbermann is the content of the argument. FNC arguments frequently go: “They’re a tool of the right…” or “They cut off the mic of people who disagree…” all of which are provably false. MSNBC/Olbermann criticism, however, frequently goes along the lines of: “They do not offer equal (or in some cases any) time to differing viewpoints…” or “They don’t qualify their programming as ‘opinion’ rather they still call it ‘news’…” all of which are legitimate criticism.
IMO, there is no need to attack someone out for voicing their point-of-view provided their claim is legitimate, only debate as needed. However, someone who resorts to using make-believe information and/or dishonest sources, deserves to be called out at every opportunity.
As for what I posted in response to “chris,” I stand by it. I am amazed that the same people who for years have been nitpicking every little thing FNC does, are now angry that they’re receiving some of the spotlight. They were much happier calling out FNC, while claiming the ‘journalistic ethics’ high-ground… then they are now that some people have started calling them out. They can give the criticism, but they can’t take it.
The argument “chris” made… the “Change the channel” argument, to me, is the epitome of hypocrisy when debating the two news channels. If “Change the channel if you don’t like it…” is good enough for MSNBC now… why wasn’t it good enough for “FNC” then?
Comment by ImNotBlue — December 10, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Why cancel Tucker? He is great. The Situation was great before they screwed it up.
Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Well, I’m a fan of Alison Stewart and I guess her husband too? Basically he must have something going for him to be married to such a saucy little number! So, I’ll watch the show if it appears and follow up with an opinion.
Comment by Terance — December 10, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
At least once on the Today Show, they had Rachel Maddow and Michael Smerconish debating. They’re both smart advocates for their point of view who have sufficient senses of humor to entertain both sides.
There hasn’t been much talk about Hannity and Colmes’ softening ratings, particularly in the demo. If MSNBC went straight at them with a smarter, better balanced debate show, I think in time they could gain a “Countdown”-sized foothold.
However, I think they’d have to come up with a generic name for the show a la “Crossfire” because “Smerconish and Maddow” or vice versa resembles a sound that someone suffering from the flu makes.
Comment by chalmers — December 10, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
good points chalmers i think smerconish and maddow could really hurt H&C in the demo if they were on at the same time and that would definitely do better than Live w/ Crap,err I mean Dan Abrams.
Comment by Aaron — December 10, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
Good idea re: replacing Abrams’ show with a “Crossfire” hybrid or something else to go against H&C. Abrams’ show is almost as big a disaster as Morning Joe.
Why they would can Tucker Carlson first and not address Morning Joe’s pathetic ratings or Live with Dan Abrams’ lack of building an audience after “Scarborough Country” ceased is beyond me. I enjoy Carlson’s show so I guess I’m biased, but still MSNBC has bigger ratings problems on its hands.
Also, they could cut out one of the Hardballs - I’ve always thought Tucker would do better at 7 (albeit modestly) and move Matthews to 6.
I think Rachel Maddow would make for a good show host…very smart and has a sense of humor. She is light years more qualified and would do a better job than Rosie O’Donnell would have.
Comment by FishOil — December 11, 2007 @ 2:32 am
I wish they would do:
5: Hardball
6: Tucker
7: Abrams
8: Countdown
9: New Maddow show
10: docbloc
Would work a little better than repeats of HB…
Comment by Mike Beckham — December 11, 2007 @ 4:17 am