Phil Griffin, MSNBC, are you nuts?

    Chuck Todd will take over at 5:00 p.m. in a "news hour" show at MSNBC. Alex Wagner, the host with, imo, the most personal appeal on the network is losing her show "NOW". The "Cycle" is canceled---really?--valley girl Krystal Ball? OMG!

    And I'm not really sad to see Ed go. In fact, I haven't watched the network for the last five years, so why am I even interested. One reason is that one could hope that Chuck Todd's assignment might be prelude to his leaving "Meet the Press", a show he has steered into oblivion. What?---he's now going to read the news every day at five? Comment? Guests? He will have the entire day to memorize new conflations---

    "Viewers are asking why all the commotion about Cecil the Lion when fetuses are being bought and sold by Democrats? Here is Krystal Ball on point. Krystal, by now everyone has seen the videos of Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissue---then, why is Cecil so important?"

    Ah, Meet the Press. This slot can't go to Maddow, too liberal. Actually I would love Rachel if she didn't paraphrase her leads three times over like she was talking to a class of sixth graders. 

    For pure intelligence and the kind of extemporaneous counter point which Chuck Todd couldn't summon if his very life depended on it, the show should go to Lawrence. Or, second choice, Luke---I mean of all the dimwits---sorry, the other choices, why not give the guy a chance. I would take raw potential any day over proven dead wood.

    Oh, and the Rev. I don't watch him much but how can you not like him. It's fun to watch white dudes squirm as they try to fathom how a black preacher can stay one step ahead of them on the issues.

    And Ari. o.k., we always need a well balanced and meaningless legal argument.

    Chris Hayes should be chief editor and administer I.Q. tests to all applicants. A great hierarchical mind for the missing overview of the network.

    As for Mr. Countdown to Iraq, who believes anything about the evening news after MSNBC's complicity in Iraq and the reporting of Brian Williams?

    Of course the entire news industry is in essence trying to cope with Fox. Ailes sets the agenda for everyone. But if Chuck Todd can punch it up a little, give more insight into Republicans' election strategy, discuss Hillary's un-favorables every living moment of every day, he can perhaps hang onto a few hundred thousand viewers.

    I almost forgot, this is a blog about that news brain trust, Phil Griffin.

    These announced changes are somehow going to save MSNBC? Why don't we ask Chuck Todd?

    "Chuck, how will the changes at MSNBC revitalize the network?"

    One can only imagine the range of conflated issues which are racing through Chuck's brain.

    "Actually", said Chuck, "I would do a Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives, and have a lot of staff input."

    Damn! Way to go, Chuck.

    Edit to Add:

    Based upon the comments here, if MSNBC is ever to win back older progressives---or more importantly, younger ones--- something no less than a revolution in cable is required. "Lean Forward"--an obviously pulled punch got what it deserved.  "Another take on Breaking News" won't cut it. Chuck Todd has his moments but he's too buttoned up to be the face of a revitalized network. Williams, why?   

    The wealth of comments here led me to imagine what might work for MSNBC. That is, to imagine the future---10-15 years form now---and break the news as if that time were now. Instead of trying to thread between Fox and CNN on OMG, what just happened, look for the harbingers and go there. This means understanding where the society and economy will be when the new generation takes over. Invent the media mix and new organizational structures (starting with yourselves) which will fit a future society.

    My tagline suggestion:

    Consume the News & Share the Future.

    Comments

    MSNBC has been circling the drain for years...this should finish it off. Then it can be all Lock-up, all the time. And what an uplifting show that is.


    Thanks, Stilli. Unfortunately we are in the age of the loudmouth---perfect for Fox News but difficult to compete with.  Of course they could focus on brain power---Maddow, Lawrence.

    But I think it's the predictable "re-hash" which is so tiresome.


    I still watch MSNBC in the evening even though I've already gotten most of my news online during the day. My iPhone gives me periodic new flashes. I read more details at home. I view Chris, Rachel, and Lawrence. I used to tape Sharpton but found that I never had time to really watch the show. I like Harris-Perry on the weekend. If they make big changes to the evening or weekend lineup, then MSNBC will lose me as a viewer for whatever that's worth.


    Thanks. Lawrence is the only one I have listened to recently.


    I can only do these items in stages.

    anyway, to begin with:

     

    Ed was boring me to tears.

    I cannot watch Al anymore.

    I loved those kids in the afternoon.

    Andrea just gets to me, in a bad way like bad Tex-Mex food.

    Mika or whatever the hell she calls herself pisses me off more than Joe, and Joe is really a lying hypocritical bastard.

    I like Chris Hayes and the Old bastard Chris and Rachel is a dear.

    So is Lawrence who always looks like he has some inside joke.

    Look, where are the numbers?

    So MSNBC has to change.

    the end for now


    Thanks, Mr. Day. I will always listen to you.


    Rupert Murdoch has retired and turned over the running of News Corp to his 2 sons. Neither of them like Ailes, who is 75 years old, and have had arguments with him.  His contract come up for renewal at the end of this year or sometime next year. Rumers have it that he is on his way out. Look to see him lose his power but keep his title until the end of his contract.  

    Reports vary on the exact expiration date of Ailes' contract. Some say it's as soon as early 2016; others say as late as summer 2016. The most specific report came in a Hollywood Reporter profile of Ailes that was based on an interview with him: it was published in April and said the contract comes due in 15 months, which would be July 2016, just a few months before the presidential election.

    James' views, pointedly more liberal than his father's conservative positions, are anathema to Ailes, who's usually described as more conservative than Rupert Murdoch. 

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/media/roger-ailes-murdoch-intrigue/ 

    Could the changes at MSNBC be an effort to get ahead of the changes that could happen at Fox?  The medium viewer age is 67 years old and get older every year. 


    Thanks. Changes at Fox?. Good question and my wild guess is that they need to differentiate themselves from both Fox and CNN.

    Ailes' legacy will be continued, I think. 


    The younger generations are more liberal and they don't buy into all that magical thinking that goes on Fox. Fox will have to evolve in order to stay relevant or attracted new eye balls. 


    Fox has the same problem the republican party has. If they attempt to broaden beyond their base to include younger people or minorities the base that feeds on the racism, misogyny, homophobia and anger will possibly leave.


    Great comment, Kat. And together with trking's I've stumbled onto a concept.

    Perhaps MSNBC should be a more "bottoms up" culture, akin to what I think companies are doing to "accommodate" mores and preferences of younger people. Fox is top down, CNN is corporate, so perhaps MSNBC could establish a new culture and their product become different as a result.  


    I would also like to bring up Al Jazeera America.  They have straight up news all afternoon and doing well with it.  They don't get into the news opinion magazine format until evening.  This could also be another reason for the change for more news coverage in the afternoon. 


    Thanks. Watched it briefly during the Grexit days.


    The thing I like about MSNBC is that I felt that a few years ago they had made an investment in the future.  They hired the next generation of news people.  Some of them weren't entirely ready, but most brought intelligence and a more youthful point of view to the airwaves.  I think if they held on to the new crop, they would find in 10 years, they had all grown into seasoned broadcast veterans and MSNBC would have locked up the viewing habits of the majority of the millennial generation.  That was, I think, their long-term plan.  And to some extent, it worked. They found some good new people, like Melissa Harris-Perry, who did more interesting interviews with a more varied and unusual group of talking heads (although, as much as I like her, I find MH-P's pronounced lisp a bit distracting.)  Ari Melber, Steve Kornacki, all smart and savvy and ready for primetime.  Anyway, I think Comcast, their new over-lords, decided they couldn't wait for the current crop to mature and wanted to see results now rather than later.  Chuck Todd is weak with only slightly more intellectual curiosity than David Gregory, but he fits Comcast's corporate conservative image.  Chris Hayes is intelligent, progressive and a good interviewer, but lacks that spark of charisma that would make him a star.  Rumors have begun that they are courting Keith O to make a return to the 8PM time slot.  If he brings the ratings of old, he'll be their guy.   Rachel is still doing the same concept that grew out of her time at Air America; news with a comedic edge.  But she's got the legit political science background to do a more serious take, and I wish she would.  She doesn't have to be a female Al Franken or Jon Stewart.  Al Sharpton I find a bit difficult to watch because he's not good at reading the teleprompter and tends to shout a bit too much.  What makes him interesting. however.  is his political insights and analysis. He's actually pretty good at it.  Ed, I liked, but then his show became a one-note samba.  Replacing him with Chuck Todd is just adding insult to injury.


    I'm sorry Mr.Smith

    But damn, this is how I think. hahahahahah

    I hereby render unto Mr. Smith the Dayly Comment of the Day Award, for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me.

    hahahahah

    Yeah dear Al cannot read a teleprompter. hahahaha

    And, yes, Ed became a one-note prompter. hahahahah

    Todd wishes to be Brokow of course, whom I dispise.

    hhahahaha

    That is enough.

    Thank you.


    Great take, Mr. Smith.


    The new head of NBC wants to pull MSNBC to news-based programming through the day with opinion shows in the evening. All the juicy details are here.

    Of the three afternoon shows being axed (last day tomorrow), the only hosts staying with the network in any capacity are Ari Melber and Alex Wagner. Rumors are flying that Sharpton and Hayes may be next - though "All In" just got two Emmy nods, so ...


    Thanks, barefooted.

    "Chuck Todd's unmatched brand of insight and analysis" ugh. But it gives me hope on Meet the Press. When they lather it on like that, it means the other shoe is about to drop.

    But breaking news all day long? Like Hillary's not likable in the morning, in the afternoon, and evening time. Then Chuck Todd: "In case you hadn't noticed, Hillary is not likable".

    So depersonalize? 

    To what overall purpose and to what audience?


    So far, they seem to like the idea of Todd doing a daily news(ish) show on MSNBC alongside the Sunday network show. Part of the crossover between the two networks they're hoping for.

    It's been well known for awhile that left leaning personality driven shows don't hold an audience, so they're extending what they started when they dropped Joy Reid and Ronan Farrow. The "all news" format that begins at 1 PM with Thomas Roberts for two hours will now go through 5 PM with Todd.

    And, of course, Brian Williams will be their "breaking news" guy ... will he end up with an hour show?


    So punt and cut costs during the day.

     

    An hour of Democrats-are-just-as-bad political cliche with Chuck Todd.

    Maybe Oberman.

    Lawrence, who is even interesting on Sirius. Preparation, hard work and intelligence is so old school. When art is good, it looks easy but isn't.

    I don't know about left-leaning---is that the same as Progressive? In any case you hold an audience with brilliance ( sorry, Chuck) or startling candor (some may call it outrage) coupled with an intriguing personality (sorry, Chuck).

     


    I've been with MSNBC since they first started.  The changes, they've been many, not all for the good, but this new purge signals the end for them.  They clearly are flailing around in the dark. They won't be Fox Left, they won't be CNN Heavy, they won't be The Station To Watch.

    Who is their audience if the progs/libs leave?  Moderates?  There aren't enough of them and they don't care that much about politics.  Conservatives?  They've got Fox.  No, I think they're done.

    I liked The Cycle's young voices.  I like what Ed had to say even when I cringe at the way he says it.  His was the strongest voice for labor and that voice is sorely needed.  I loved Chris Hayes on his Saturday show but he's failing in prime time.  It's a place he never should have entered.

      I can't watch Rev Al.  I can't get beyond his shouting, his struggles with the teleprompter, his inevitable mispronunciation of names with more than two syllables.  He is a terrible interviewer.  He is our Wolf Blitzer, sorry to say.  He does much better in panel discussions than he does as host and moderator. 

    Morning Joe is idiotic but is there to stay.  I doubt they'll really bring Olbermann back.  They know he would come back with a vengeance, ready to kick ass--mainly theirs for firing him oh so long ago.

    But it doesn't matter now.  Pretty sure I'm done with them.  I'll watch for sound bites but what they're planning for their glorious future sounds boring as all get out.  No thanks.

    (Edited to add:  Rachel and Lawrence are okay but not as good as they once were.  Or maybe I've just heard them say the same things in the same way too often.  Come to think of it, maybe being an MSNBC junkie was not such a good thing.  It's probably good I'm being forced to break the habit.)


    Ramona, I think you nailed it, they'll never be the station to watch. And I don't envy Griffin at all.

    For a while it was refreshing for Progressives but is old hat  and even counter-productive---"progressive" meaning being ahead of the curve.

    MSNBC preceded the revolution in social media which may have filled whatever need might have existed.  


    The other half of the problem is the service providers.  They just plain suck.  If something goes wrong it takes a while to get them to do something that will fix it. You end up paying for service calls on their bad equipment or driving 20 miles away to trade the box in for a new one that only works for 6 weeks.  Also the 47% can only afford the wifi internet connection after the initial service contract expires.  Some of us would even drop that but the kids need it for school. 

    The viewers that would watch progressive news is really locked out because of cost.  We spend our viewing time with streaming services. and watching over the air. I have decided to get a Roku box for Christmas and go with what is available on the internet streaming.  We will try a few out for free and then pick a streaming service to pay a small monthly fee that we like. The Roku box is cheaper then a service call or hook up fee and there are a growing number of free shows now on the internet.  When it drops dead I will get another box shipped to my door.  Once you get unhooked from cable and find other alternatives you really don't want to go back to expensive poor service head aches. 


    Right, streaming is in. For the better part of the week I don't have cable and don't miss it. But I have internet and Ipad, plus blue ray.

    For laptop I like the Bloomberg format---which would seem to be the best model here.

    I've a new tag line for MSNBC

    CONSUME THE NEWS AND SHARE THE ECONOMY.


    Interesting conversation. I've watched plenty of MSNBC over the years. I've enjoyed a spike in viewing as I've been lucky to stay home and hang out with my youngest who just turned two on Tuesday. I have my favorites and not so favorites, as we all do. The point I want to make is that when I tune in to watch Al, for example, it's 3:00 in the afternoon out here on the left coast. Rachel comes on at 6. I don't watch that broadcast. There are more important things to do. I do, however, often catch it at either 9 or at 1 am. Chris Hayes is also on three times starting at 5:00. (Chris Mathews is only broadcast twice.) I catch some of that, depending. If I feel I missed something interesting I'll try to watch a later broadcast. Anyway, This discrepancy among time zones has always been a point of curiosity for me. Do they aggregate the ratings for instance?


    And I doubt I'd watch Morning Joe much, even if it came on at a reasonable hour. It's broadcast once on the West Coast starting at 3:00 am. To hell with that.


    That's an interesting question - I'd love to know the answer!


    It's been 30 years since I was in broadcasting, but I imagine they sell spots based on a promised rating which would be the aggregate from all the showings.   As I recall, early on in his run, NBC used to have to show Leno's Tonight Show a second time after Conan because it wasn't meeting the rating number at which all the advertising was sold and they needed the second showing of it to get them up to the promised number otherwise they would have had to do one of the most dreaded things in all broadcasting... give the advertiser a "make-good"...which is a comparable spot in another show.  Broadcasters will do almost anything to avoid having to give a make-good.  hahahaha
     


    Then all the "great ratings" Morning Joe supposedly gets must be from Eastern and Central time zones. Like Kyle suggests, viewership can't be too high at 3AM! Even watching O'Donnell at 7:00 would seem odd to me, but I'm an east coast gal.


     

    I don't think Morning Joe gets that great a rating.  They also do a little trick, which is that they repeat the first hour of Morning Joe during the third hour of the show and just add fresh news updates at the top and bottom of the hour.

     

     


    Certainly, based on the comments here, MSNBC has in large part lost this slice of its audience. And I have a certain disappointment that the network is "circling the drain".

    I added to my original post (above). summarizing some ideas which came to mind as you all so generously contributed.


    I feel sad that for whatever reason, they now seem willing to become blander and less interesting, thinking that will revive their ratings.  It won't.  

     My suggestion for a new motto for MSNBC:
      "Don't Just Lean Forward, Jump In!"


    Good one.

    "Jump into the news"

    Would it be projection to say that it's a blue network?


    I just caught this line.

    JUMP IN

    I just played this recently. But damn, the emotional reaction I feel.

    We need emotional reactions sometimes that have little to do with hate and anger....

     


    It wouldn't hurt if MSNBC stopped bombarding viewers with "Caught on Camera" and "Lock Up". If people are looking for news on the weekends after early afternoon they've learned to forget that network. Honestly, when your most popular anchor makes a joke about the audience going to prison every Friday night you should get a clue.


    Unfortunately, the Lockup series and Caught on Camera are two of the highest rated shows, if not the highest, on MSNBC.  It's those ratings that have kept them above CNN for all these years.  Maddow's joke at the end of her show every week always makes me laugh, as it is an acknowledgement that the News division is signing off and the reality/docu-drama division is taking over.


    Sounds like an identity crisis to me, and the evil twin is winning.


    Thanks, Moat. Great summary comment I wish I had thought of at the time.


    Latest Comments