There has been much speculation that Ed Schultz would take the 10PM (Eastern) spot on MSNBC. Schultz has said he wouldn't take a spot if he had to give up his radio show. But...

Last night just before Keith Olbermann signed off, he said there would be a big announcement on his show tommorrow (today). And today Big Eddie said he would be a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Hmmmm. 1+1=?

Who's show would go away?

The repeat of Countdown at 7 Pacific.

It aint gonna happen any time soon.

"NBC News has a big financial incentive to keep things the way they are. It costs the network nothing to show the rerun, while a new program would cost millions of dollars for on-air talent and production costs."

Huffington Post

Ed Schultz gets a new show on MSNBC: "The Ed Show"

Keith Olbermann's Big Announcement: Ed Schultz Comes To MSNBC!

They should get rid of the Rachel Maddow show. Its just a female clone of Olberrman.

The Rachel Maddow show is intended for an intelligent audience, so I can see how some might not "get" it. I think she has a great show.

I think her show is great too.

I will say again, that Rachel Maddow is the smartest pundit on the air.

Here is how Olbermann describes the MSNBC lineup:

Chris Matthews: "Poltical inside Baseball guy"

Rachel Maddow: "affable charming ploicy wonk"

Olbermann: "I'm the A-hole".

Ed say's he'll "represent the people who take a shower after work".

I'm not a big fan of Ed Schultz - kind of full of himself, a bit of a self-promoting blowhard at times. He has more bluster than insight. However, I can see how he might develop a watchable TV show that might attract an audience.

I'm not a big fan of Ed's either.
He's gotten better, but he seems to be more opinion without the real deep understanding of the facts.

But then again, this is prime conservative methodology, maybe trying to pick up market share from Fox veiwers to whom facts are less important than idiology.

I agree with Andrew. And I wonder about his Middle America shtick? Oh, how I miss Al Franken on the radio.

As for Rachel Maddow, Amus is right on the money. She's the smartest pundit on the air. I'm not a big Chris Matthews fan. He turns on people rather quickly when it's convenient.

Franken had great guests on his radio show, and I do miss that portion of his show - but in the last year of his show, after Katherine Lanpher left, his monologues got pretty dull, almost unlistenable. Perhaps that was rehearsal for speaking on the Senate floor...

Maddow's is one of the few shows (Like Stewart's and Colbert's) that are worth checking out via the web if you don't have cable. Olbermann occasionally has a good rant but I don't make it a habit to seek out him or anyone else on MSNBC even weekly.

Mc74 wrote:
They should get rid of the Rachel Maddow show. Its just a female clone of Olberrman.

And the commentators at Fox. They aren't clones?

I love Rachel. I got hooked on Olbermann, but now if I had to give up one or the other, it'd be him. She just has great knowledge, great guests, asks great questions, and even calls out the "libs" when she feels the need. And she's funny too.

See and I am a big sports fan and back in the late eighties and early nineties Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick were two of the wisest wise-asses on cable TV. Olbermann taking the tongue-in-cheek commentary of dry sport reporting to Dan Patrick's straightman impersonation. The two covered the 1991 Miami vs FSU football game that had me in stitches by the end of the segment. So I find some of Olbermann's rants humorous and the taglines on the ticker at the bottom get me to laugh too.

Rachael is a bit of a smartass from time to time but she is so wonky on most issues that I get bored with her presentation, be it on the radio or the vision of tele.

As for Mr. Shultz, congrats big man but I wont tune in. When Eugene had progressive talk radio, I turned it off after Al Franken. When Thom Hartmann took Al's spot, I still turned off the radio at 12 pm. Why? I think Ed Shultz is a gas-addled windbag. His sports views used to piss me off. His political views are average. He cant interview to save his life. I tuned in today just to see what it was like. He had Minnesota (D) Senator Amy Klobuchar and it was awkward and didn't flow like it was natural... /shrug.

Count me in the Rachel fan club too.

She is great!

What I like is her humor and honest social elements to her commentary.

Present some facts:

Ask, "Hmmm?"

Analysis.

Humor, where it makes sense!

Like when the Republicans were basically trying to not be Republicans. She did the reporting on that, then declared: "Come on Republicans! Stand Proud! You are Republicans! Shout it out!" It just underscored how silly it was for anyone to trust in a party that's in major league self-denial. That kind of stuff packs a punch, and is often missed. She doesn't miss it all that often.

Smarter than anyone else on air too.

Well for all you people that complained how biased Fox news is you now have your own channel.

Congrats. Cant beat them, then copy exactly what they do.

Never listened to Ed Schultz.

My favorite Schultz is Sgt. Schultz!!

"Colonel Hogan, I know noooothinggg!!!"

Now That was a great program.

MSNBC does not claim to be unbiased. Fox does. That's the beef, loser.

Again, that's not true.

The bias is absolutely clear, and without Orwellian slogans like "Americas News Room", or "Fair and Balanced".

There is no need. It's liberal / progressive news and commentary, and the clarity between what is fact and what is commentary is more than enough.

The slogan there is "The Place for Politics"

Way different ball game there. MSNBC offers a lot of political programming. That's not news, but entertainment and food for thought, and advocacy.

All perfectly valid things, good things and worthy things.

Notice on MSNBC we have very often a one to one deal. Somebody gets interviewed or questioned, or something, and it's not a gang bang, mic editing 2 or more to one affair like it is on FOX.

The reason why is very simple. The hosts are smart, and have absolutely nothing to hide, and often are well aligned with people. No distortion means just airing the other view in contrast with few worries.

On the radio Thom Hartman does the same thing, and does it regularly.

So it's perfectly ok to call MSNBC biased. It absolutely unabashedly is! And they are getting the ratings and they are doing it fair and square, one new host at a time.

Thanks to Olberman, who showed that it absolutely can be done, is appealing and there it is.

The mistake many conservatives make, and they do this because they have to compartmentalize their world to deal with all the untruths and lies they have accepted, is false comparison and the false bit is simply failure to consider all the elements of the broadcast.

Biased is good. Frankly, I think we need more of it, and from different viewpoints besides the major two. This is good advocacy entertainment, and when done with good clarity of fact and opinion, is educational and stimulating.

IMHO, a home run.

I've no problem at all with FOX being a Republican mouth piece. What I have a problem with, and have always had a problem with is their claim to be fair and balanced, and their claim that implies they do straight up, objective news, when they really just do infotainment.

FOX viewers have a very inaccurate grasp of the facts of the events of our time. They are often the lowest, and that's a dis-service really. It's one thing to be entertained by people who have a take on the news we identify with. It's another to come away from that ill-informed, thinking we are informed and because of that, thinking that the opinions identified with are solid, when they are highly likely not to be solid.

That's propaganda under the guise of informative programming and it's a lie.

Now, if they want to be honest about that stuff, I'm there to support them 100 percent! They get to do that!

But, if they are honest, a whole lot of the shit aired on FOX won't hold up, and with that goes the game.

So, they do the Limbaugh move. Carry an air of authority, while not actually being authoritative, and when called on it, they claim "entertainment" or some unfair attack, using the false comparison of bias, just as you did Mc.

When not called on it, those who swallow their crap whole, think they are being informed and that the affirmation they are getting rings true, when it doesn't.

Instead of advocacy that resonates, they are simply consuming propaganda and it feels ok, because of how it's presented, with said presentation being very dishonest at worst, unclear as hell at best.

I know it's tough, but that is the difference between most all left leaning media that matters.

We lefties see absolutely no reason to hide our bias. We believe that our positions either have merit, or they don't, and that people will judge that on the facts.

If those opinions don't hold, we reconsider them, because advocacy based on lies doesn't do anybody any good, and for a great example of the implications surrounding that, just look at the mess we are in right now!

We learn our own lessons, challenge one another and look for the best ideas, and when we like one, we share it, build consensus and start movements.

Many conservatives are all about "teaching people a lesson". This manifests as "needing to be led" because "the world is complicated".

At the core, to sustain that, a fairly authoritarian culture is needed. That strength and clarity of vision punches through the confusion and the compartmentalization and that is what FOX does.

FOX viewers need to be led.

MSNBC viewers want to be represented, and learn, and grow smarter, and share what they know, so they can be sure they are well represented.

MSNBC and FOX share production values and format guidelines. Frankly, that's great. FOX is fantastically well produced TV. Kudos for them for that. Well done.

MSNBC going down that road is a nice compliment to a working formula. The similarities end there however.

Now I get to do a shorter CJ style post!

The world is more complex than that. Ask Deane, he will tell you! LOL!!!

You don't get to say that because there is an MSNBC now, that FOX is somehow ok.

FOX still has it's issues, nothing has changed, but for the competition it now faces from solid, entertaining, rational TV.

You mean it's not Fair and Balanced?

Well, I was right about them not investing in a new show and not putting anything new in the 10pm slot. I was wrong about them not hiring Ed yet to replace David Shuster and "1600" in the MSNBC lineup. I think he could do quite well between Tweety and Keith.

Moman74 sums up my feelings about KO & DP in the glory days of SC. ESPN introduced me to his genius and wit, so following him to another cable network was natural. No doubt, Keith opened the doors of the industry for other folks dedicated to critical thought.

Several of you have nailed how I feel about Rachel Maddow too. She is simply the best at what she does in a totally natural and unpretentious way. Her appeal is rooted in her ability to use her intellect to connect with her audience, not just to holler hyperbole.

MSNBC is burying CNN in some slots and drawing even in others. The average listener to Limbaugh is 67 with viewership of O'Reilly & Beck on Fox near the same age. Strapped advertisers are reading the numbers and abandoning controversial voices with nursing home demos.

>>abandoning controversial voices with nursing home demos.
Met a 20 something male today infatuated with AM Talk radio and FoxNews...Amazing...

>>abandoning controversial voices with nursing home demos.
Met a 20 something male today infatuated with AM Talk radio and FoxNews...Amazing...

Was he high on meth?

Just the opposite...met today on jury duty...America might have redemption with it's babyboomer kids.

America might have redemption with it's babyboomer kids.



ONLY if they don't become neo-CONers!!!!

Now all they need is Mike Malloy and its Air America on the tv.

Let's review some of the MSNBC line-up:

Joe Scarborough is conservative, considers himself a Libertarian and represented Florida as a Republican.

Chris Matthews is a hawkish Democrat who supported G.W. Bush and still swings wildly right with prevailing political winds.

Ed Schultz was once a staunch conservative and when the chips are down he tends to tack center-right as a Democrat.

Andrea Mitchell is a corporate centrist with multiple conflicts of interest and should have left journalism after her marriage to Alan Greenspan in 1997.

Keith Olbermann is an unabashed and unapologetic liberal who sacrificed a long cozy sportscasting career to speak truth to power.

Rachel Maddow is also a liberal Democrat, tenacious researcher and by leaps and bounds the smartest person on television.

Only two of these hosts have spent any time on Air America affiliates. I do not see a liberal lineup nor does the "anti-Fox" rhetoric match reality.

To add to the Ed Schultz news, Norah O'Donnell is probably the one who stands to benefit the least from this move.

Nice wrap up LS.

One exception.

Keith hasn't totally sacrificed is sportscasting career.
He and Dan Patrick were part of NBC's Sunday Night Football pre-game and halftime reports this past season.

"Rachel Maddow is also a liberal Democrat, tenacious researcher and by leaps and bounds the smartest person on television."

If she is the smartest person on television, why is she a liberal Democrat? Just wondering.

If she is the smartest person on television, why is she a liberal Democrat? Just wondering.

Intelligence has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative. It's only the unintelligent ones that do not realize that.

William F. Buckley was once the smartest person on television.

What made him a conservative Republican? Just wondering.

Pete is right.

Good point Amus, it was fun to watch KO & DP bantering again like the old days.

If she is the smartest person on television, why is she a liberal Democrat? Just wondering.

Intelligence has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative. It's only the unintelligent ones that do not realize that.



F'in
*PLONK*

"William F. Buckley was once the smartest person on television.

What made him a conservative Republican? Just wondering."

God and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley. This book may lend some insights into what helped shape his vision of conservatism. I’ve never read it. But when he died, those who held in high regard spoke well of it.

When I was really young and living in Southern Ontario, I think I remember a Keith Olbermann on one of the Buffalo NY t.v. station Same person?

So I briefly tuned into the maddow show tonight and who do you think she had on....

Thats right, a reporter from Air America.

Nothing else needs to be said.

I think you are confused. Air America no longer has a news division - hasn't for over a year. So why would they have reporters?

Further, Air America is no longer the "liberal talk" network. All of the original talent is gone (Maddow was the last original on-air talent to leave.) The new ownership has taken the company away from being a "liberal talk" network more to being a syndicator that has a few liberal talk shows in the line up. Portland's KPOJ has a whopping 2 hours a day of Air America content in their 6a-11p broadcast day.

The guest to which MC74 is referring is Ana Marie Cox, Air America Radio.

According to Gawker, this is a brief snippet on Ana Marie Cox and her job at Air America Media (published Jan 13 2009):

Air America Media (www.airamerica.com) has hired Ana Marie Cox as its first Washington, D.C.-based national correspondent, travelling the country to profile people and stories illustrating life in America. She will contribute text, video and audio content to airamerica.com, as well as to a weekly program to air on Air America’s radio network.

___

I don't think there is anything nefarius about having this person on the Rachel Maddow Program. She had an important point to contribute -- a piece on US Senate Democratic moderates and their positions on the Obama Budget.

Ana Marie Cox AKA "Wonkette" AKA "HOT!"

Thats right, a reporter from Air America.

Nothing else needs to be said.

You seem to be implying something there, but you don't have the intestinal fortitude (oh heck - guts) to come right out and say it.

Nothing of substance!

Exactly.

An Air America reporter is going to be biased like a FOX reporter is. No big deal there. EVERYBODY HAS BIAS. Bias is good people! It's how we do advocacy and express our opinion. As Maddow would say, "Stand Proud! Shout it out!"

We lost probably the best objective person we had. Tim Russert. He really was special in that he was very objective, or at least willing to insure that multiple biases were present in his program, while being fairly entertaining.

The key is in the presentation. Is the difference between fact and opinion clear? Is the bias honestly presented?

In the case of the Maddow program, the answer is yes, meaning it's good news, in that the bias and context is clear. When you are done viewing, you do know the facts, and can simply consider the opinion.

This is how it is supposed to be. We then consider a few opinions, form our own, or accept some, if they resonate with us, and move on.

If FOX were to be honest about their presentation bias, and clear with fact and opinion, I would have NO problem with them being on the air.

The fact that they refuse to do that, limits any real characterization of their programming to propaganda.

"We lost probably the best objective person we had. Tim Russert."

Hmmmmmm.
Dick Cheney's death squad perhaps? ;-)

Yeah, no kidding!!

I'm not a huge fan of Ed Schultz either. However, I think it's great that MSNBC has put another liberal on the air. I think they realized that they couldn't outfox FOX, (I believe they would try if they could) so they have gone the liberal route and it seems to be paying off for them. I would have rather seen Sam Seder get the gig. Or Lawrence O'Donnell - I love his analysis.

Col. Klink on MSNBC also??

Col. Klink on MSNBC also??

Hmmmm. Hogan's Heros your speed, 62?

I just watched some MSNBC this morning while working out at a hotel gym. First time I've really watched the "news" on MSNBC in a while. Wow, what an awful station! It's really as bad as Fox or CNN. For 45 minutes, their "news" was a car chase in southern California. Oh, big freakin' deal. I was running on the treadmill, could not change the channel, so I simply didn't look at the screen until the commercials came on!!!

I'm glad Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC, but if I had cable, I would never watch MSNBC otherwise. Yuck.

That's what you get for watching MSNBC in the day time. All the good stuff is on in the evening.

cancle Mad-Cow!!!!
time to Hannittize MS-NBC!!!!

You prefer lies to the truth, 62? You probably don't watch MSNBC, so why do you care what they have on?

62kgw wrote:
cancle Mad-Cow!!!!
time to Hannittize MS-NBC!!!!

Must have taken all night to think that up.

62 REALLY needs to stop the meth!


Hannittize MS-NBC!!!!

So tell lies for a whole entire hour instead of giving the people the news... Might work at FAUXNews but the reast of the world like to REALLY know what is going on.....

I like Eds radio show but his tv show sucks.

.

TPete, all you need to do is listen to AM860 after noon!!??then you will get over it!!??

you too, Talpx!!??

Hannity? Yuck!!!! Gag me with a maggot. I want to barf.

All you need to do is listen to AM860 after noon!!??then you will get over it!!??



All you need is to stop taking so many drugs 62!
WOW!

we also learned all about the WW2-in Pacific,related military history by watching McHale's Navy!!!That program covered some Europe WW2 stuff during it's last season based in Italy I think??!!

just say no to Mad-cow and Olverbite!!!on M.S.L.S.D!!!

LAY OFF THE DRUGS!!!

which F-Troop character is on AA??