Why MSNBC failed?

[kentuck]

If their intent was to offer an opposing viewpoint to FOX, they failed primarily because of one person: Joe Scarborough

They set him up for 3 hours in the early morning slot and he managed to out-shout any liberal that might be permitted on his show. His narrative was not challenged by any day time hosts and his views became the primary views of MSNBC, regardless of what Chris Mathews or Rachel Maddow might say during the popular FOX prime viewing time slots.

If they wonder why they had no impact in the last election, they need look no further than their own scheduling.

[NM_Birder]

1. For me, the constant Starbucks sponsorship bullshit

kept me from watching Morning Joe.

I can't remember her name, but his co-host always seemed out of sync with every topic, and every guest. Morning Joe just never clicked with me.

When I watch the news, Chris Hayes in the afternoon seems to be maybe a little dramatic, but I do like his show.

[Atman]

46. Didn't they end the Starbuck's thing?

I disconnected the cable several months ago, so I haven't seen Intern Killer in quite a while. But even in the waning months of cable, I thought they had dropped the Starbucks sponsorship. Of course, I could be wrong.

[underpants]

2. None of the MSM wants an alternative offered as you leave in the morning

Joe's role is just like all the rest. If you had any real alternative info as you left for Roark you might *GASP* say it out loud at "the water cooler". Can't have that happening.

When Imus finally got canned MSNBC had open try outs basically. Stephanie Miller was clearly the best choice. Not that she is all that alternative but she clearly isn't just another talking points reader. Nope they went with their 3pm dead time host and a nice corporate sponsorship (which they could have gotten with any host).

[dawg]

3. But what about ...

Afternoon MoJoe?

MSNBC. Lean Forward! (As much as parent company Comcast will allow)

[brooklynite]

4. Plenty of Democrats show up on MJ, and the discussion is fairly wide-ranging

Or do you only like to have opinions you believe in reinforced?

[kentuck]

6. who was the last Democrat to challenge Joe ??

and was he out-shouted or never invited back?

[wyldwolf]

25. Howard Dean, just about every morning lately

[TampaAnimusVortex]

5. No alternative views in primetime...

While O'Reily and Hannity will shout down their opponents, but they actually do bring on different views. You rarely see this on MSNBC. It's an echo chamber with everyone running around "me too"ing.

I don't watch any mainstream media honestly, so I could care less. All the main news shows can go the way of the dodo for all I care.

[Johonny]

10. Perhaps because reality only has one view point

Occasionally reality pays a visit on FOX news but it doesn't stay long and gets rejected by all their opinion hosts.

Why doesn't reality pay more visits to MSM in general? Why do viewers have to long to know something that is actually true?

[TampaAnimusVortex]

38. Hermetically sealed realities isnt the answer...

Expecting one channel to provide you with your reality is exactly the problem with most people. Lack of critical thinking and blindly following established dogma (from either side).

Don't be a robot and assume you, or any single entity out there has all the answers. Even if you disagree with someone, it pays to listen to them to know how "the enemy" thinks.

[BillZBubb]

53. The problem is "the enemy" doesn't think.

If they did they couldn't support the BS they spout. It doesn't pay to listen to pure propaganda of the sort any of the Faux talking heads push. It is rare for an opposing viewpoint on any of those shows to get a fair hearing. Hannity is the absolute worst. O'Reilly just somewhat better.

Expecting Faux to provide you with anything reality based is exactly the problem with too many people in this country.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

62. I agree...

But, your comment "It is rare for an opposing viewpoint on any of those shows to get a fair hearing." goes exactly to the heart of what I was saying about MSNBC. No opposing viewpoint is presented at all, in any manner. If your worried about the fact opposing viewpoints don’t get heard, both sides play that game.

[Johonny]

67. I'm not a robot

but you sound like one. Reality is in fact hermetically sealed. You can live in FOX news world where the "facts" need to be debated. I'll live in the world where facts are facts. Global warming is real. Gravity is here to stay. Evolution is reality. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no Fema camps. There were no death panels. It is called the news. The news use to deliver it or at least try there best to. Yesterday either rained or it didn't. I'll watch the news that doesn't waste time debating things that are not true, that they know are not true, that will never be true.

If you want to live in the world where fantasy needs to be debated... then your the robot not me, my friend. But don't worry FOX will program you very well and then one day you'll wake up broke, used, and confused while the facts will remain the change. Reality is the truth my friend.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

71. You have that backwards...

I already stated I don't watch any of the main news channels (so we bring your reading comprehension skills into the equation right off), so your premise is brainless on the face of it. If you want to sit around and have people tell you what to think, be my guest. You go right on watching that one channel... Good luck with that.

[sabrina 1]

52. Any reality that makes its way to the Tabloid Empire of Rudolph Murdoch is allowed ONLY so it can be

shot down.

Anyone who even thinks that in the world of the neocon/neoliberal modern day 'Goebbels' reality is possible other than to slap it down, is falling hard for the deception.

I haven't watched the MSM for nearly a decade. I am not interested in propaganda from Corporate owned Media outlets.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

63. Then your exempt from the point I was making.

My point was that all the mainstream channels either give little or misconstrue the other side (as in the case of FOX), or don't present any alternate ideas at all (as in the case of MSNBC). Staying away from all of them is about the smartest thing one can do.

[Johonny]

68. but reality has no other side to give

Rachel Maddow does invite the other side on her show. They don't come. Why? Because she refuses to let them get away with distorting reality. So they don't come on her show. She invites them.

People that watch FOX know less about the current event in the world than people that watch MSNBC. More alarming they know less than people that consume no news. You claim to "know" more by having the other view, but FOX is interested in informing you. They are propaganda. Do liberal engage in propaganda... probably, but hardly to the same scale. They simply do not own the news agencies to distort reality like FOX and RW talk radio. Plus they generally don't have to. Reality has a liberal bias.

[Vinca]

12. I don't think it's because they don't try to offer alternative views.

The right, for the most part, is scared sh*tless of Rachael Maddow. They won't even answer her calls for interviews.

[zeemike]

20. I don't think they are scared of Maddow.

They have her right where they want her.
First she is in the big money world of news, and it is really hard to give up the big bucks...so she must please management and cover only what they want covered.
And second, she is their cover for them being part of the MSM...see we have liberal voices.

As for me I never watch TV...no need for it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Your last line explains alot....

[Atman]

47. I was invited to be a guest on Fox "News"

To discuss health care, of all things. Why? Because at the time I had a popular health care comic strip available on the interwebs. I have no health care background, other than my wife being an APRN. But they wanted to bring me on as a panelist to discuss health care in the United States. I respectfully declined the offer (they would even pay for my airfare and hotel to come to NYC). Five minutes on air. The goal was obvious...make fun of the hippie liberal. Why anyone agrees to appear on Fox "News" is beyond me.

[GitRDun]

7. It's boring and stale

For one, they have a theme of the day that runs through all post Morning Joe shows. You've seen one program you have seen them all for the most part. Generally the theme is some over-sensationalized topic that does not amount to real reporting.

Much of what they show is older news. I often find their topics being something I read about a week earlier.

Lastly, they rarely ask the tough questions and leave lies told by guests unanswered. The "get" outweighs real reporting.

There is occasionally good stuff on RM and Chris Hayes, but not often enough to watch them regularly.

I'm not saying MSNBC is worse than the others, they are mostly the same. The only difference is in the daily theme.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

40. Exactly - little if any challenging of viewpoints.

It's a hermetically sealed propaganda channel, just like Fox. Just because they might lean towards "our team" doesn't make listening to someone parrot the party line interesting or useful.

[840high]

49. Bingo.

[otohara]

8. Rid Themselves of Todd, Milbank, Russert

and all the other useless fill-in wrong on everything pundits/guests.

At least Mark Halprin and John Heilemann are gone but not forgotten... by the hundreds of commercials being run on msnbc for their new Bloomberg show.

Firing those who have been so wrong, so hateful during the Obama years would help.

[arcane1]

9. Because it's owned by General Electric and Microsoft?

[DesMoinesDem]

11. Not owned by Microsoft. They sold their stake in 2005.

[arcane1]

13. Interesting. I wonder why it still has "MS"?

[OregonBlue]

14. Not to mention MTP. They said they were looking for a big shake up. One that would make the show

a standout and a fresh format. They even tried to hire John Stewart. And then what do they end up with? Chuck Todd. I don't think he's a really bad guy. Kinda Republican light but the problem is he's a total insider. He has no prospective whatsoever what the average American is concerned with. All he does is repeat the talking points and unfortunately, create new, totally clueless ones of his own.

I don't think he's actually stupid, just clueless. He really doesn't know what he doesn't know. I never thought I'd say it but I think David Gregory was way more interesting. At least we know he was a NeoCon and he didn't pretend otherwise. Chuck pretends to be a moderate and also pretends to actually examine the issues and draw his own conclusions. So far, he's done nothing but spout the McConnell line.

Big mistake and I predict the show is finished. It deserves to be.

[randome]

64. I think you called that exactly right.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

15. I think we are always comparing apples and oranges when we talk about Fox/Rush and MSNBC.

Fox is a conservative propaganda outlet with emphasis on entertainment. It is the same with Rush. I never understood why some on the left(not you) cannot figure out why Fox and Rush are so popular. They dumb it down and keep it entertaining to their viewers. It seems as though MSNBC came out as a Fox from the left and they have been chasing that. They are nothing like Fox from the top down. Most say that is a good thing, you just can't expect them to have the same ratings as Fox. Not going to happen. MSNBC is not an entertainment or propaganda outlet. They cannot be fairly compared to Fox.

[jwirr]

16. I do not see a lot of difference between MSNBC morning w/joe and faux news. I do like Ed Schultz,

Rachel, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell. Yes they often talk about the same issues but if that is the news of the day what do we expect them to talk about? Usually they each approach it differently. And they also tell us what the rest of MSM is telling its viewers.

[Greybnk48]

42. I watch the same line-up that you mentioned.

Rachel, Chris, Lawrence and Ed. I also like Joy Reid and Alex Witt.

I feel like morning T.V. has been gone for years and I still miss it. I just cannot stomach Joe Scarborough whiney, condescending demeanor. I've tried, It's unwatchable.

[jwirr]

48. Thanks for the tip on Joy and Alex.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Scarborough isn't the main reason MSNBC has failed - it fails the same reason liberal radio fails

He's but a drop in the bucket. His show is irrelevant to their nighttime block and that's where they're failing.

It fails because the demographic it's going after doesn't watch cable news. It's the same issue liberals have run into with talk radio for years - it's a medium tailored more toward conservatives.

Compared to conservatives, I'd wager liberals watch far less TV, especially when it comes to cable news.

[librechik]

19. then why does Stephanie miller consistently beat Rush in ratings whenever they're

programmed opposite each other? This "don't watch" meme is a lying scam the radio owners do in order to excuse their stupid programming. The only thing that happens to Stephanie's show when she beats Limbaugh over and over is that they remove them both and program sports talk. It's the owners who make programming decisions and for some reason they don't like liberals, even very popular liberals. Maybe it's because they are popular, like Phil Donahue. We don't have liberal media anymore because the conservatives have the power to make it disappear and they have.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. Read this thread to see why.....we on the Left have knee jerk responses....

[Eatacig]

18. Cable Channel line up

No one (even on MSNBC) mentions that it is not on the basic cable
channels like fox and cnn. You have to pay for extended basic to get
it. I'm sure there is a reason but I don't understand it.

[Different Drummer]

21. MSNBC has made some mistakes with its programming...

as far as its hosts go. They have let some progressive voices go over the years and this, at least in my mind, contributed to the network's decline. First, it was Keith Olbermann--an ass, to be sure, but an entertaining ass nonetheless. Then, there was Cenk Uygur. Finally, who could forget Scarborough using his influence with Phil Griffin to get Martin Bashir ousted over Bashir's remarks about Sarah Palin?

[grasswire]

60. First, it was Phil Donahue. nt

[polynomial]

22. America the beautiful was hiding torture, yep!

Cross the line, is very funny, now having a laugh and chuckle thinking about news telecasting that for years mainstream media denied the thought America the beautiful was hiding torture.

No we don’t torture over here, only over there, over there, over there, America won’t stop torture till it over, over there. Make George Bush a real Yankee Doodle dandy. The patriot, follow in the foot steps of Great grandpa Prescott Bush financing Nazi to gas the Jews, still at here in country to gas the general public through high prices.

With leadership by the Grand Old Party and that steadfast AWOL drunk character, in addition to sacking the Treasury for at least two trillion, shipping billions of dollars to Iraq on skids wrapped in plastic wrap for bribery and political favors. Now America has real-estate Persian mogul profiteers renting out to pension people to supply ISIS.
That's what is is.

All done while inventing a war at the same time crashing the housing market, scrubbing records to erase his AWOL, and anything that does not lead to knowing about all those Arabs America trained to fly into the twin towers, or those that fled the country via Jeb Bush at Florida. The scandals are worse than an atomic reaction.

The best part is the family connection to the Bin Laden’s for decades as business partners, and George wanting Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, then didn't care. Jeb working hundred billion dollar real-estate deals. Here is where the news media is so complicit and corrupt it is pathetic especially MSNBC knew it all the time and lied all the time.

The mainstream media have no recourse but to keep lying with all the defiance and confusion to keep any Democratic majority from power to keep the Bush family, and those complicit in the media away from the pillory and condemnation to an honest conviction they really deserve, and will eventually get.

The more I think about it the more it is solid theater a fix in the system. The GOP saw Obama rise in popularity. Why not create a terrorist that rhythms with Obama like Osama... Good Public schmoozing and confusing.

Never forget ground zero, it will zero out the Republican Party

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Oh good gawd!

^^^ THAT is why we lose!

[H2O Man]

35. You forgot Poland.

[LittleBlue]

23. The golden age of MSNBC is long over

I recall looking forward to watching Ashleigh Banfield. Her travels and commentary were so interesting.

Then later guys like Donahue and Keith. MSNBC has fallen so far I stopped watching years ago.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and ^^^this is why

we lost the election.....

Non-participation as protest!


MEANWHILE.....the Other side SUPPORTS theirs!

Losers take their balls and go home!

(more carrots less stick please)

[Fumesucker]

39. We lost because someone wasn't watching MSNBC?

I don't get the connection..

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. the attitude......

lets smack the messenger....give the TV over to them to propagandize the public at will!

Look at how giving up on Talk Radio has worked out for us!

Don't watch if you don't enjoy it....but don't expect to be respected for wearing it like some badge of honor...

[Fumesucker]

43. In case you haven't noticed no one gave them the TV, they bought it

Just like they did talk radio, Limbaugh gives his program away for free to some stations in exchange for some advertising spots of his own on the station during the broadcast.

I got a few recs for an OP on the best way to hurt Limbaugh back in 2012.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002374653

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. right and hardly anyone in this country has one.....

but there is one TV channel that at least has our views....but lets kick them some more until moral improves!

My grandmother always said..."catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar".

[LittleBlue]

66. I voted. Your incessant trolling isn't even funny

If you're going to troll, at least make it amusing

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. its not about amusing or entertaining you...

if that is what you came here for....

[Scuba]

24. No, no, MSNBC is a "complete counterbalance" to Fox. At least that's what my neighbor told me.

[Stellar]

28. Joe Scarborough has 15 hours a week to drum his point across.

Rachel Maddow/Lawrence O'Donnell/Joy Reid, (all, my personal favorites) have 14 hours combined to support the Democratic cause. WTF is up with that? That is one of the main reasons I know longer watch MSNBC, not even my favorites.

[liberal from boston]

50. MSNBC

As noted MSNBC is not included in basic cable package (consumers pay extra); whereas, both Fox & CNN are part of basic cable. Also Nielson ratings only use TVs using landline phones & does not include mobile devices, IPhone, SmartPhone,Kindle, etc. College age & young adults do not own TVs & I read Nielson is planning to include mobile devices in computing ratings.

[CanSocDem]

31. They've been bragging lately...

...that their morning show has the highest ratings for the past couple of years. Just coincidentally, that is how long Soledad O'Brien has been away from CNN.



.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Highest ratings in cable 'news' morning shows. All three of the Network morning shows individually

trounce the entire cable news morning show line up. That is to say, the least watched of the network morning shows CBS This Morning, draws more viewers by itself than all the cable news morning shows combined. And they are the lowest rated of the three. Good Morning America is doing about 5.6 million daily viewers. Morning Joe, 330,000. CNN, 320,000 Fox and Friends 1.2 million.

I dearly hope DUers understand this. The American public, by and large, simply does not watch cable news of any sort in any large numbers. It is niche, special interest programming. Cable 'news' shows or outlets that say they are #1 mean '#1 compare to the other two losers' not '#1 in television'.

[samsingh]

32. and chris mathews is not reliably progressive

[ladjf]

33. I think MSNBC knows clearly what their scheduling is doing. nt

[maced666]

34. No one is watching.

I doubt a scheduling change is enough to turn anything around. Even prime audiences are microscopic.

[fredamae]

36. Well, for me-it's a simple answer

Corporate Monopoly Rules Messaging.
GE/Comcast own MSNBC, I understand.
I didn't see one segment covering Net-Neutrality, no investigative, detailed follow-up on many Disastrous chem/oil spills and explosions....Too tight a control on progs for message/content.
Yes, they've lost me too.
Chuck Todd
Joe Scarbourough
Andrea Mitchell (wife of Alan Greenspan)
Luke Russert
and more RW shills and guests are still there and typically get the last word.
Gone:
Keith Olbermann
Martin Bashir
and nearly Ed Schultz

If there isn't any substance on real issues, nothing to learn so whats the point? Re-runs of anything are more entertaining.
They're trying to somehow twist this toward blaming Obama..but I started backing off Long before PBO ever ran for POTUS...they've no one to blame but themselves.
Content, Context and Current Events should not be skewed, amended and modified to suit their own corporate interests. Truth and facts matter.
imo and experience anyway

[florida08]

37. just my 2 cents

But viewership is down across the board. The people who pay attention to politics have become so disenchanted with just talking about the problems while the obstruction continues they are taking a much needed break. They reflected it in their recent absence at the voting booth. Hence the de facto of nuts and total whack jobs that got in...temporarily. I voted but it was the duty and not excitement that defined the turnout. The problem is they can do a lot of damage before they are removed.

People were excited about B.O. I think the rule of the oligarch is slowly waning but if the democrats don't turn out someone as exciting as Obama was...well. They are cynical as hell and believe the republican meme that they are both the same. And in some things they are. Having a depressed electorate is bad for dems and bad for the republic but good for goppers. That's been the game play all along though and it worked. Add to the fact that the country saw once united democrats shrink and peel off from the leader was the nail in the coffin. That opened the door wide for republicans daily echo of --see I told you we're both the same.

So they have decided to tune out until there is hope again.

[okieinpain]

44. msnbc fails because they report the news. americans do not

want the news they want entertainment, which is what fox does. fox is the king of loud mouths, short dresses and glass table tops and they all carry the company line.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. But they don't. They don't even have a News Hour. It is all commentary with 'news breaks'.

Not that many people watch FoxNews either. More than watch MSNBC but it is still a tiny, niche audience even in their highest moments. What Americans want in TV news they still get from the Big Three Networks.
Last night, FoxNews best hours had about 2.5 million viewers. Each of the three Networks had audiences ranging from about 4 to over 8 million. So about 20 million Americans get news from Networks and about 2.5 go to FoxNews.
I think if 90% of Americans make another choice in news it is not correct to characterize them as wanting FoxNews? 20 people like soup, two don't. This means people hate soup?

Television fact: all cable 'news' outlets are niche markets, small audiences with special interests. There are something like 360 million Americans. FoxNews draws less than 1% of the total population at their best moments.

[okieinpain]

61. you're right on the numbers, but fox still has a winning strategy

that is hard to ignore. sex, sex, and violence.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Look, if almost no one watches them it serves them to claim they are where America turns for news

Because in reality, Americans turn elsewhere for news by the millions. Less than one percent of this nation watches FoxNews, so obviously it is very easy to ignore their programming. Almost everyone does.
Liberal people seem married to this idea that FoxNews is far more than it really is. That trope serves FoxNews well. It's incorrect and needs to be put to rest.

[Yavin4]

51. The MSM number 1 job is to build consensus around corporate rule

Sure, they let some American liberals like Maddow, Hayes, etc. have shows, but they do not really challenge the notion of corporate rule. They just want to make things more even and add more the public commons.

[BillZBubb]

54. Sadly, yes.

[still_one]

55. It's Obama's fault why MSNBC ratings have dropped

Only kidding. I think part of the problem is more people are cutting the cord. Cable and satellite is getting too expensive. They provide you with 95% garbage you don't watch verses the 5% you do watch

[oldandhappy]

56. I suspect MSNBC knows exactly what it is doing.

Who watches in the morning? Not me, and I am am home.

Many of us watch very little TV anymore. MSNBC has their ratings guy in the morning and their heavy hitters in the evening and they are bringing in the money. They are not interested in balancing fake news. I am not sure where to get real news anymore.

Anyway, like your headshot scene. Nice.

[MellowDem]

58. Don't watch MSNBC, they're part of the problem...

They are corporate for profit media. They saw a formula that worked on Fox News and an open market (liberals). Americans identify as 40 percent conservative and 20 percent liberal, but still an untapped market.

MSNBC is not that liberal of a channel because the left in America isn't that liberal. The Democratic Party is a center right party.

Once you realize they are simply there to milk a profit from a niche market, like all private media, you realize it makes them a terrible news organization. I say this as someone who really likes Rachel Maddow. But MSNBC isn't good for news or for the country. No corporate media is.

Stick to NPR, PBS and BBC for your news.

[New Deal Dave]

69. MSNBC can't stop bleeping up

They've made so many mistakes over there that trying to find one thing and say 'this is why' is silly.

Some of their personalities have been, frankly, jackasses. Bashir's statement about Palin eating dung was stupid. Sure, she ought to be served up a heaping plate and forced to eat it, but a guy with a network show can't say that. he should have brought someone on to say it for him.

I hate seeing MSNBC fade like it has.

[Old Nick]

70. I hate the boomer music leading in and out of commercial breaks

"Oh yeah, we're still hip." Uh, no, you're not.

[Rhinodawg]

72. Wow... So MJ is why we lost ?

I guess we shouldn't ....


blame the pukes
blame voter suppression.
blame student suppression
blame the the racist id requirement
blame the dems that stayed home.
blame the candidates than ran from Obama.
blame the media
blame the failure to get out the vote.
blame Obama ( yes, him) who didn't extol his successes.