MSNBC Falling Further Down The Partisan Slope
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Media
I think it’s been well established by now that Fox News is unabashedly right wing, and now it’s obvious that MSNBC is more than willing to become a purely left wing answer to them.
Case in point…popular partisan talker Ed Schultz is being considered for a talk show on the net.
The Observer has learned that MSNBC president Phil Griffin is in discussions with syndicated talk radio host Ed Schultz about possibly joining the network on a full-time basis. It is unclear what exactly the job would entail should Mr. Schultz and MSNBC come to an agreement.On March 10, Mr. Schultz, who bills himself as the “most listened-to progressive radio talk show host in America,” guest-hosted on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As The Observer reported at the time, the appearance touched off a wave of rumors among MSNBC staffers that Mr. Schultz was being groomed to join the network as an anchor.
Eight days later, on Wednesday, March 18, Mr. Schultz was back in the anchor chair, again, filling in for David Shuster on the 6 p.m. show.
One network source told The Observer that an offer has already been extended to Mr. Schultz. A network spokesperson denied that any offer has been made.
As far as liberal talkers go, Schultz is a pretty reasonable guy and it’s not a surprising move given the trend away from hard reporting and towards political punditry on the cable nets. After all, filling up 24 hours worth of news is impossible to do these days, so might as well have somebody talking about their opinions, right? At least that’s the argument. I don’t buy it, but that’s the logic.
However, does MSNBC really want to be the analog to Fox News? I mean, Olbermann is RIDICULOUS and Maddow isn’t much better, but they have popular shows and they’re not going anywhere. So why load up the net with strictly liberal talkers? Why not start hiring guys like conservative talker Michael Smerconish? Why become almost fully left wing (with the notable exception being Joe Scarborough)?
All I have to say is CNN must be smiling about all this right now. Because they’re clearly now well positioned in the middle and if I were them I just let Fox and MSNBC fight it out and stay above the fray.
This entry was posted on Friday, March 20th, 2009 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I watch Olberman every night. Now before you label me as a far left communist, I’m fairly moderate/conservative on several issues. I supported the surge in Iraq, oppose gay marriage, and believe that abortion should be restricted to at least the first trimester. I’ve also taken the time out to actually read O’Reilly’s book “Who’s Looking Out for you” and Michael Savage’s Book “Liberalism, Mental Disorder.” I’ve also taken enough courses in classical neoliberal economics for a major. So I’ve got plenty of knowledge and open mindedness to both sides of the fence.
That being said, I defy anyone to show that Keith Olbermann is as much of a liar as Bill O’Reilly.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
On a separate note, I wanted to add something else. I personally would not mind having some kind of moderate or center-left or conservative show in the 10PM slot. I don’t know if they can have such a show without putting a liar on. I honestly don’t. I used to watch Joe Scarborough, but he’s just too dishonest and too much an ass, so I stopped watching him.
As for Michale Smerkonish, the man has no charisma at all. He’s of no use as a TV host.
As for Racheal Maddow, I’d say that her show generally sucks. The main problem is that the show has very little content. It’s just spin, fluff and sarcasm. Maddow has only really had like one good show: that interview she landed with Meghan McCain. Even on that interview, I’d say she screwed it up by not asking Ms. McCain any questions that might have pitted her against the GOP.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I think you’re exaggerating quite a bit on just how liberal Ed Schultz is. And he is not even close to being anywhere near a complementary pundit to O’Reilly, Hannity, or Beck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From his Wikipedia page:
“Schultz’s News and Views radio show was very similar to his WDAY Viewpoint program and quickly grew into a regional broadcast dominating the North Dakota airwaves, with additional listeners in South Dakota, western Minnesota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Schultz’s political views leaned towards the right during the early years, and Schultz told the Los Angeles Times that he “lined up with the Republicans because they were anti-tax, and I wanted to make a lot of money….” Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders.
Evolution of political views
In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his attitude. One was his mother’s illness. A former educator, she got Alzheimer’s Disease and began a long, slow decline. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them; to his surprise, he found some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that began to look at poverty differently. (Schultz 9-10) In June 1998, they were married, the second marriage for each.
While he claims to have become a Democrat in 2000, the political evolution seems to have been gradual. He went out to do radio promotions in rural parts of North Dakota, and told reporters about how he met farmers who were suffering and hard-working people who were going hungry, even though Republicans said the economy was doing fine. (Vowell 2004) He began to hold benefits to raise money for people in the heartland who were going through tough times. (Winter 2002) And he began questioning some of the assertions of George W. Bush; although he supported several Republican candidates in the 2000 election, he was becoming critical of other Republicans. For example, Schultz considered running for the Democratic-NPL party nomination for governor against incumbent Republican John Hoeven in 2004, but decided to continue his career in radio.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And from the discussion page:
“This article requires better structure and expression. The “Political Views” section needs to be expanded, with verifiable evidence to support the assertions made. I’ll try and find some time to do it myself, but I’ve tagged it anyways. Any assistance with this would be most appreciated. Jackk 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the political views section is a little misleading. Ed is a little more conservative and that is why I like him but “against abortion” makes it sound like Ed is not Pro-Choice, which he is according to his producer. And Ed is for gay rights, although I’m not sure of his position specifically on gay marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.39.166 (talk • contribs) .
Under political views, “against guest worker programs” is cited as a departure from progressive politics . . . a large proportion of liberals are opposed to guest worker programs, as they are harmful to unions and lower-class citizens; guest worker programs have typically been a conservative movement in the recent past, spearheaded by the president himself . . . again, this whole section needs cleaned up.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And If I’m looking for honest, moral commentators, liberal or otherwise, I’d pick Olbermann and Maddow over everyone at Fox News any day.
Olbermann may definitely be liberal, but at least he doesn’t repeatedly lie, doesn’t yell at and insult his guests (looking at you Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly), and isn’t at all a fear-mongering, racist, homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, or all around stupid hack like most Fox anchors. Dear god, have you ever seen “Fox and Friends”? Its embarrassing to know that so many of my fellow humans watch that drivel.
MSNBC = (left-leaning, professional, mature)
Fox News = (a whole leap to the right, frothing at the mouth, xenophobic, attack-dog garbage)
March 20th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Dude, Michelle Obama = “Obama’s baby momma” floating in the Fox News information bar. Another Fox News commentator said that she wished someone would kill Obama.
Where is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox’s racism and advocacy of assasination?
March 20th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I like Ed. He’s smart and he can hold his own but, is not some loudmouth, arrogant ass who shouts in people’s faces.
I also feel that Fox has been promoting extreme rightwing view and is totally dishonest.
MSNBC does more airing of the republican side of things then the democratic and has twice as many on the right over the left.
3 hours a day you have Scarborough from the farther right and much of it until KO is on, is a right center view and usually going with Scarborough’s thinking.
MSNBC has 2 hours of left thinking. That doesn’t make it a left station in my view.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
I will be happily sticking to CNN. It’s not the most interesting, but it’s the most balanced. Their morning show is decent. Dobbs is certifiable though.
I’ll still watch MSNBC when I’m looking for a little infotainment. I can at least stand listening to them even when I disagree with what’s being said. Fake News just gets me fuming.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
Why would you think that Olbermann is ridiculous? He can certainly be over the top at times, but please point out any outright lies and/or misinformation he’s given out.
As for Rachel Maddow, I like her. She approaches issues on a somewhat more intellectual level that Olbermann. She is both informed and articulate which is a hell of a lot more than anyone can say about ANYONE at Fox.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Olberman is great so is Maddow – Joe Scarbough thinks he knows more that he does, not truthful as Fox new is. Ed Schultz Progressives need him and more of his type. We need people who see things as they are not as they are told to be—
March 26th, 2009 at 9:20 am
already said it — Go Democrats