Opinion: MSNBC’s daytime election coverage slips…
I’ve been on the fence about writing this entry but like a thorn in my side, it’s not going to leave me alone until I deal with it. Watching the Iowa Caucuses and the run-up to the New Hampshire primary and all the Super Week coverage MSNBC has been doing this past week, I’ve come to the conclusion that, at least in daytime, MSNBC’s coverage, so far, has slipped a bit since 2004.
I can’t really pin it down to any one thing but a lot of little things. Taken seperately they don’t mean much but their sum total gives me reason for concern. Where to start? Well how about the wall to wall Joe and Mika tag team? Excepting today, they’ve been on the air for six hours at a time every day since Iowa. It’s too much. In the past, I’ve seen MSNBC pair the two after Morning Joe has been finished and it just doesn’t click for me. What works for them on Morning Joe, the wittisisms, sarcasm, eye rolls, and smirking, works against the duo when doing it in a hard news environment. Maybe if they had Willie Geist there to take the focus off it would make things easier to digest. But as it is, it’s overkill. How many times did they replay the Clinton interview today? Three times? Four? More? I lost count. That kind of blatant repitition suggests to me that either they’re a) milking it, or b) short of ideas on what else to fill the airtime.
After Joe and Mika are done, there’s not been a lot of consistency in the rest of the dayside programming, excluding Norah O’Donnel’s 3pm shift. It’s been up and down, depending on who is on the air. Today featured Dan Abrams for an hour for the first time. Nothing against Abrams, but why was he on anchoring political coverage? Why wasn’t there an experienced hand with a background in politics on? Today also had Lester Holt on for the first time since this campaign season really got underway (Holt has anchored Super Tuesday before). Holt’s a first rate journalist and anchor but why just today? Why not every day? They had Peter Alexander on yesterday. From LA. LA is about as removed as you can get from Iowa and New Hampshire. Other times the coverage has been solid, particularly with Andrea Mitchell. But there’s definitely a consistency issue at work here.
The glaring omission in MSNBC’s daytime coverage has been Chris Jansing. She pounded the beat for nine months in 2004. She was all over Iowa and New Hampshire. A lot of the things you’ve seen on Morning Joe this week and the following three hours were things she did four years ago (and did better I would add). It leaves me scratching my head why MSNBC has not put her to better use given her past experiences on the road covering primaries. Sitting in a studio at 30 Rock, when she gets to anchor at 30 Rock that is (which she didn’t today), is a waste of her abilities. She had been on the road many times for Super Tuesday but that stopped happening for the past several Super Tuesdays and now Super Week, and at the worst possible time when the action is at its highest.
I just sense a general lack of cohesion and focus in daytime. MSNBC’s Super Tuesdays had been really sharp since they first started doing them. Until recently. But the quality and focus has dropped in recent weeks and Super Week.
In 2004’s daytime coverage there were more road reports during the primaries throughout the day. In 2004, we saw the candidates interviewed live on location at campaign rallies and campaign headquarters (as opposed to the sit down Hotel interviews we’ve been seeing) a lot more often and hardly any taped interviews from the night before being aired the next day. One incident which is burned forever in my head was of Chris Jansing meeting John Kerry live coming off a bus in Iowa (could have been New Hampshire) and how after the interview was over she reached out to shake his hand and he blew right by her and I blurted out, “Oh my God, if this guy gets the nomination he’s going to lose!”. There was a lot more interaction with the political embeds, so much so that I started learning their names. I can’t name a single embed this time. As a viewer, I got a better flavor of life in Iowa and New Hampshire and what issues mattered to the people. And I definitely got the sense that MSNBC and NBC were putting their A game on the air in daytime in 2004. In 2008 it feels more jumbled.
None of these issues are not fixeable of course. And, honestly, to the average viewer tuning in to MSNBC, they may not have noticed a difference. But to a seasoned TV watcher and political junkie such as myself, I noticed a difference.
My thought is a. Budget cuts for staffing, B. Tammy Hadd leaving C. New 30 Rock merger still not settled.
There seemed to be excess, for example, why have Novotny, jansing and hall/brewer all provide daytime updates?! I mean two, if not one could’ve done it the whole day, like Alison stewart did in 04. I agree with you on Jansing not being involved, she was a big part of their successful coverage in 04 and should’ve been used. I also agree with you, about overkilling mika and joe. THis past 4 mornings morning joe livei n NH has actually made me a fan now of the show, but 6 hours is overkill! Don’t get me wrong they’re a decent team, but the suits over-exposeing them for 6 hours is like klein’s dumb idea to make american morning (along with the today show) to four hours. I understand they think they’re gunna get more people to sample “joe” -but at what cost?
The peter alexander in la, for an hour also got me? Couldn’t they use jansing or anyone at 30 Rock? It just seems like this year’s coverage was setup to basically be a sampler for ms’s morning and prime shows. Another thing too, I don’t understand why for the primetime coverage they couldn’t use the morning joe desk and face mathews/ Ob. and even include brokaw with them at the news desk, instead of stationed at the nightly news desk. I think that, yes while Msnbc has benefited from merging w/the mother ship, it still seems like they need to iron things out in daytime. I mean now with an excess of “second string” daytime anchors, you would think that they would have finally decided on a daly anchor line up.
Comment by scott — January 9, 2008 @ 2:18 am
From 9/11/01 to Summer ‘06, I watched MSNBC all day long. I kept it on in the background while I worked at home. Back in 2004, they were a good news organization. They seemed to have a strong sense of journalistic integrity, like a 24-hour extension of the excellent NBC Nightly News.
But in the past 18 months, MSNBC has thrown away their integrity and embraced the Olbermann approach to covering news. They no longer just present the news. Everything is spun and twisted by opinion. Low on substance. Heavy on attacks.
With the Olbermannification of MSNBC, they’ve tried to copy Fox News. But they didn’t do a good job. They looked at FNC from the Media Matters perspective, where it’s all Republican propaganda and screaming lunatics attacking their enemies.
While FNC leans to the right, and has their share of blowhard opinion shows, they also have a solid well-respected team for serious news coverage. MSNBC has left that part out.
In 2004, MSNBC was a much better news channel that Fox News. Today, they’re much worse.
Comment by TBDave — January 9, 2008 @ 2:29 am
Sorry. I don’t buy the argument that you can pin this all on Olbermann or as some sort of Olbermann-based side effect. The news division isn’t structured that way so that such a thing is even possible.
Comment by Spud — January 9, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Spud,
One of the best and brightest political observers MSNBC has is Tucker Carlson. Their omission of him in major coverage is baffling. He is quick, smooth and an altogether appealing young political maverick.
Instead they put in Keith Olbermann, sports guy. MSNBC has tried to pass him off as a political pundit, but all he is is a constant annoyance. I tried to watch MSNBC last night, but quickly left as they continued to lie down on the train tracks for Keith.
Tucker has been observing and living politics for years.
He is the missing ingredient.
I have said all I can say about Mika. But she was at it again today. While others were trying to have a conversation, she was oohing and aahing, and squirming in her chair. I can’t take it!!
Comment by Cella — January 9, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Well it’s clear that they have gone farther to the left, and Rachel Maddow and the editor of the Nation as commentators is evidence of that. And Olbermann’s clear embrace of the left makes it difficult for him to interview anyone from the GOP in any kind of fair manner. He also asks some of the strangest left-field questions. Also, he and Matthews are like oil and water, it’s just a bad mix with the two of them co-hosting. Egos battling it out isn’t pretty. CNN’s coverage was boring, my God is there anyone more sleep-inducing than Wolf Blitzer? More AC & Lou, Less Blitzer please. Fox was a bit more exciting and I enjoyed watching them more than anyone else suprisingly–but it was very obvious that those two networks seem to jell together in a much more coherent fashion that the MSNBC primetime coverage did.The panels led by Scarborough were good but Chris and Keith? Not so much.
Now Back to daytime: I thought the 6-hour Mika/Joe show was a bit much. Maybe on Super Tuesday but for just one primary in a tiny state??? And Chris Jansing, a great anchor who asks smart questions seemed to be shoved aside which was unfortunate and again, mystifying. Sure she got some airtime, but not very much. Why? She’s a great asset if they’d just use her. Instead I saw Lester Holt anchoring a daypart that Chris should have been anchoring. I love Lester and he’s great but why was he there? Why not Chris?
I did enjoy seeing Russert anchor yesterday morning. I always enjoy Russert. But he was dead wrong and so was everyone else on all the cable channels yesterday who were all implying that Obama was going to win in a cake walk. But how could they all have been so wrong? I heard Chris Matthews saw in either the 5 or 6 pm hour that it was going to be a long night for the REPUBLICANS. It wasn’t. And then he implied the Dems were going to have a quick conclusion. Didn’t NBC/MSNBC have the exit poll results in their hands at that point? and if they didn’t–why not? Fox seemed to hae a notion of what was going to happen at the same time. CNN was trying to play it in the middle but their stubborn refusal to declare HRC the winner after everyone else had was a bit mystifying to me. But I don’t think we can blame the pre-election who is going to win hysteria solely on MSNBC. Fox and CNN were on the bandwagon too. I think Tom Brokaw summed it up best when he suggested that maybe the networks needed to wait until the voters actually voted to call a race. That’s a neat idea. Maybe they all ought to try that next time around.
Oh and re Abrams anchoring election coverage-I’m still trying to figure out what Jeffrey Toobin-who I like a great deal-is doing as a political analyst over at CNN! I know he’s written on the Supreme Court and is familiar with the power structure in DC but what are his qualifications to provide color analysis for the network?
Comment by Alison — January 9, 2008 @ 9:36 am
TBDave, you got it right on the nose! Yes, it is a result of the Olbermannification of the news. I, too, used to have MSNBC on a lot more than Fox because they used people like Chris Jansing, and actually had news stories without a lot of spin, twisting, and opinions of the anchors, etc. Now, it’s the Brewer, Mika B, and others I can’t think of their names, but there are too many of them. My gosh, can’t anyone work an 8 hour day and cut out some of those gals? Not using Chris Jansing is a big mistake. She is one of the best and trying to make a star out of Mika is a big mistake because she turns too many people off. Joe Scarborough is tedious and having those two together for 6 hours is more than one can take. As far as Olbermann is concerned, are they not listening? KO never never has anyone on his show that doesn’t agree with his crazy opinions and you cannot say that about Fox. It is just so obvious how bias he, and therefore, MSNBC is. Now, Dan Abrams is trying to cash in by using KO’s forte and bashing Fox and Fox people every evening. It just doesn’t work, folks!
I loved Fox News when I quit watching MSNBC and now I cannot stand to watch but a few shows like Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, Jane Skinner, Neil Cavuto, and sometimes Greta. That bunch in the morning are so silly it is ridiculous. Steve Doocy does standup comedy no matter how serious the story and the three of them, Camerota, Doocy, and Kilmead are just too hard to take for 3 hours. Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer make me crazy because they act like they are in high school and Shepard Smith (I know I am in the minority) just seems phony to me. I am now enjoying more of CNN, especially Headline News where you don’t have to listen to all that fluff. Gosh, I sound cranky today but taking a fulltime break from MSNBC and a partial break from Fox does wonders for you.
Comment by sophia — January 9, 2008 @ 9:50 am
MSNBC’s 6 hour mornings with Joe and Mika aren’t doing it for me. I’ve been watching a lot more of Headline News, CNN and Fox.
Headline News has especially been one of my favorites since they don’t overkill you with the same anchors for 6 hours straight and provide just rolling news coverage throughout the day.
I won’t watch much of MSNBC mornings until they end the Joe and Mika experiment.
Comment by Christopher — January 9, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I agree with Cella in regards to Tucker Carlson. Yes, he is gets very opinionated on his show, but he has a sharp political mind. Why they would go with a Dan Abrams before Carlson is beyond me.
My thinking was that the synergy with NBC (having Brian Williams, Tim Russert, etc. on MSNBC shows) would boost the ratings, but there is something to the way MSNBC is handling it, as Spud said, that isn’t working.
Comment by FishOil — January 9, 2008 @ 10:46 am
I discovered MSNBC and Fox News during the 2000 election. I was watching Don Imus on Sept. 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center was hit. Watching Ashley Banfield struggle throught the dust and horror after the towers collapsed was more terrifying than any movie. I like Chris Matthews because he is equally tenacious with Democrats and Republicans. However, Spud, you are correct that something has changed. Keith Olberman is as annoying as Michael Savage. Last night, Rachel Maddow, Katrina Vanden Hoevel and Olberman was too much. Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis and Donna Brazile are aggressive but not obnoxious. A verbal tussle is better than an ideological lovefest. Bring back diversity. I am on the West Coast, so I am a little behind in responding to you.
Comment by Potpourri — January 9, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I agree about Tucker. If MSNBC insists on using far left Olbermann, leftist Matthews and RINO Scarborough, they need Carlson to attain a semblance of balance! As things stand now, most conservatives are afraid to turn to them out of fear of blatant bias against the right.
And I believe what Dave was saying is that having “neutral” people such as Shep and Greta lends credibility to Fox, so that more people will turn to them to get a fairly balanced view of certain stories. MSNBC has no such neutrality among their ranks.
Comment by Missy — January 9, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Spud,
I don’t blame Olbermann. But I do believe it’s an Olbermann side-effect. MSNBC loves his ratings bump and has altered their programming to attract those viewers.
In 2004 they were a good straight-shooting news channel. Today, they’re pandering to the Daily Kos & Media Matters crowd.
MSNBC has pushed Olbermann into the role of “top newsman”. The problem is, Olbermann isn’t a newsman. He’s the lovechild of Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly. A comedian, opinion, and entertainment guy. But he’s not a real journalist and very few people take him seriously.
Their #2 guy is Chris Matthews. I like the guy and he has a good show. But he’s not a real reporter either. He’s really more of an analyst and debate moderator.
So when the serious news stories happen, MSNBC turns to an opinionated comedian and an analyst/moderator. They don’t have a real journalist to handle the coverage.
Fox News has the goofy morning crew and the obnoxious prime-time opinion shows. But the backbone of their network is filled with real journalists like Brit Hume, Shep Smith, Neil Cavuto and Chris Wallace. MSNBC has no one that can compare to these people.
And I think the ratings reflect that. When real news breaks, people tune in to CNN and FNC.
Comment by TBDave — January 9, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
I never miss Keith Olbermann, I like the way he does in-depth stories. I used to like Chris Matthews because I thought he was fair, or not, to everyone. But he can waste more time going over some tiny story again and again, or go into a spiel about a movie analogy, I flip over to CNN. I think they’re losing viewers, especially on weekends, because of the DOC block stuff. How can they claim a political brand when anyone looking for news after 10 pm through the week and afternoons and evenings weekends find prison or sex predator shows ad nauseum. When I tell folks to find Olbermann on MSNBC, they don’t know where it is on their cable lineup, but they know CNN and Fox. They can run up the lineup looking for it after the 11 o’clock nightly news, but they sure won’t recognize it as a political news network! Morning Joe has been appealing when they are following the primaries, but when they’re in the studio, they do too much fluff and not enough substance for my taste.
Comment by Jeri — February 1, 2008 @ 12:22 am