“Signs of life” at MSNBC?
In a must read, Variety’s John Dempsey writes about MSNBC and interviews Phil Griffin.
“Are any of CNN’s on-air personalities ever having any fun?”
In barking out that question, Phil Griffin, the NBC News executive in charge of MSNBC, practically leaps out of his chair, intent on making the point that his network may be gaining on CNN for an oddball reason: Griffin provokes his star personalities — led by Keith Olbermann — to at least look as if they’re having a good time, even when they’re voicing strong opinions and tangling with their guests.
Griffin is not confusing MSNBC with the Ringling Bros. Circus, but, looking for a leg up on his all-news rivals, he says, “I want our hosts to be witty and clever, colorful and exciting.”
MSNBC needs to keep tinkering with the on-air formula, because the network is still an also-ran, lodged in third place behind the dominant Fox News Channel and steady No. 2 CNN.
But glomming onto the hottest race for U.S. president in decades, MSNBC is pulling in more viewers than at any other time since the few months after 9/11. (CNN has also made significant gains due to the election, while Fox News has benefited the least of the three.)
Ok, primetime is doing well and has been a sign of good things for the network. But daytime news is in trouble in the ratings and Variety doesn’t go anywhere near that subject. That, in my opinion, makes the article look like it comes from “The Glass Half Full” file rather than an even handed examination of MSNBC.
Update: I should also note that while Dempsey may be correct that FNC had the smallest percentage gain, it did rank as the 4th highest cable channel in January while CNN and MSNBC were 20th and 28th respectively. And that’s nothing to sneeze at…
This is why MSNBC sucks. This guy’s priorities are all wrong. Tucker Carlson and Dan Abrams may have energy but they come off as phony. Chris Matthew’s show is a poorly produced show and let’s not even discuss Morning Joe, this guy can’t even beat American Morning in the ratings! Keith
Olbermann is the only thing worth watching on that network b/c he does take his job SERIOUSLY and still has a good time with his show. Unlike Carlson and Abrams he is authentic and respectful to his audience…. too much of a good old boy club if you ask me. I think these guys only have their jobs b/c of who they know.
Comment by Jerri — February 1, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Keith looks like he’s having more fun, probably because he has to work so much less than the other guys.
When you only interview people who agree with you, it doesn’t take very much prep time or research… just grab a few softballs and go. The other guys have to remain knowledgeable about the world events, can’t rely on their scripts, and (most importantly) can’t simply “copy-paste” from other “internet sources.”
So he’s the most relaxed out of all of them… now if they could all find a way to avoid actual work and journalism, and still have a show… they could all look relaxed too.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 1, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Watch FOX News Watch this weekend.
Comment by Nobody — February 1, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
Tucker Carlson and Dan Abrams may have energy but they come off as phony.
How are they phony?
Comment by Aaron — February 1, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
More importantly for me, how is Tucker phony?
Comment by Aaron — February 1, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Olbermann “tangles” with his guests? haha
Comment by Great Thanks — February 2, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I really don’t get the whole KO should have people on that disagree with him argument. If you base it on the factor, what’s the point of having people with differing opinions on when you are going to scream at them, not let them answer, cut off their mic, use false logic, edit, etc. to prove that the host is right. There is no true ideological debate going on on either of the shows. Countdown just does it in a more straightfoward way.
Comment by chase — February 2, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
chase, when was the last time you watched “The Factor”… not recently, I assume. You just let loose with a mouthful of old-school “FOX does this” propaganda… that, of course, isn’t actually true.
There is so little screaming, mic cutting off, not letting people answer, etc… to make that argument absolutely ridiculous.
There are a few reasons why people (like myself) think KO needs to have someone on who disagrees with him:
- It challenges KO’s “facts,” and allows someone to correct his distortions
- It prevents KO from simply belittling the opinions of people who disagree with him
- It forces KO to talk about stories and events that he might otherwise ignore, because they don’t fit his particular political bend
- It allows someone to debate and question KO theories, instead of simply presenting them as flawless “facts”
- It makes the show somewhat more educational, and less propagandist
Those are only a few reasons. And you agree with those reasons… otherwise you probably wouldn’t post on a blog like this. You’d post on a blog where your views were immediately accepted, instead of debated. But you (we) don’t… we recognize that through debate, and an exchange of opinions and ideas, we can make a more well informed decision.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 2, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
There is so little screaming, mic cutting off, not letting people answer, etc… to make that argument absolutely ridiculous.
Blue: Agree. Of the 6 segments on The Factor, it is basically guests/reporters/analysts offering opinions and/or findings. On most nights, there is maybe one confrontational segment.
Comment by ira — February 3, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
we recognize that through debate, and an exchange of opinions and ideas, we can make a more well informed decision.
I think that’s mostly hogwash. Most of you spend the majority of your time on this blog talking past one another. Very rarely are people’s views/opinions turned 180 degrees. ICN commentors may learn a thing or two but not to the point that you change your mind or, worse, admit you’re wrong. At least that’s how things look to me.
Comment by Spud — February 4, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Very true, Spud. But debate does not always lead one to change their opinions, rather it enforces and builds upon the ones they already poses. It’s like the old expression, you don’t really know something, until you can teach others about it.
Debating forces someone to really approach and research the topic, forming a more complex opinion… instead of just a cursory idea.
The sniping is just for fun. ;)
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 4, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
“There is so little screaming, mic cutting off, not letting people answer, etc… to make that argument absolutely ridiculous.”
I would disagree, only because I have seen it happen on his show (on tv, not the internet). But my main point was that the debates that happen on that show are disingenuous. They aren’t truly there to change the viewer’s opinion, but to back up whatever the host is saying. And I just don’t believe countdown needs that. Like I said in my previous post, there are no true ideological debates going on on either program.
I enjoy Countdown because, like it or not, it does highlight some stories that are (to some people, including me) under covered on the other channels and even msnbc.
I personally don’t think that guests on the factor have a chance of changing how Bill operates or “winning a debate”, and I don’t think Countdown needs similar theater. The personalities of the hosts may similar, but the formats of the shows are very different. And I think it works for them.
And for what its worth, if anyone cares, I typed a comment yesterday that was a little more detailed, but for some reason would not post. So this is my second attempt. I probably wouldn’t even have been in the mood, except for St. Eli and his Giant Defense.
Comment by chase — February 4, 2008 @ 2:55 pm