Why does Joe Scarborough have a three-hour TV Show?

[DeathToTheOil]

Actually, let me rephrase that: Why does Joe Scarborough have a show on any network other than Fox? Especially when Chris Hayes is a vastly better host already on MSNBC's payroll?

[treestar]

1. Three hours?

Wow. On the radio I can see it but on TV?

[oldhippydude]

2. because it was easier

than convicing him of murder..

[GoCubsGo]

3. It's GE's way of saying that MSNBC is not "liberal".

Either that, or Scarborough has something on one of the big wigs.

[Atman]

8. Bingo. I think it's a good thing.

I actually kind of like the show, at least compared to anything else on morning tv. Yes,it is occasionally infuriating, but I think that is better than only seeking out that which you want to hear.

And it is also good for shooting a hole in the righty claims that MSNBC is just a left-wing Fox. MSNBC is right-leaning all morning, not just during Morning Joe. Show me even a five minute segment on Fox that is devoted to left viewpoints. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

[hlthe2b]

4. It seems as though one hour is repeated?

I don't watch, but I do listen (occasionally) on XM-SIrius and it certainly sounds like the third hour is a repeate of earlier material.

[Atman]

9. Not all of it, but much of it is repeated.

They'll often have an interview or discussion during the first part of the show which they repeat later, but not necessarily. For instance, it is 8:30 now and they're still live.

[CTyankee]

12. they seem to repeat the earliest segment, the 6 to 6:30 slot at 8 unless they have a special

guest on. It's fine with me since I get up around 6:30 anyway.

When he has real assholes on I just mute the sucker and read the NY Times editorial page...

[Enrique]

5. maybe it lines up with those other brainless morning shows

Today Show, Fox and Friends, etc. are all really long, it makes sense that they would want to match their schedules. Three hours seems kind of long, though...

[Renew Deal]

6. Because you and many other DUers like to watch.

DUers love to watch Scabs show and discuss every aspect on DU.

[Cigar11]

7. It was the only way to get him to shut up and ....

Liston for the other 21 hours.

[baldguy]

10. to "provide balance"

Can't have that many liberal viewpoints disseminated to the proles.

[vi5]

11. Because half of DU gives him ratings...

If all the "liberals" didn't watch him, he'd have no ratings and hopefully go away.

[CTyankee]

13. OTOH, he has other liberals on his show who argue with him.

Today Doris Kearns Goodwin was on. Howard Dean is a regular. Jeffrey Sachs proves Joe wrong with his charts and by verbally contradicting him with the facts. Joe looks weak opposite people like them. The only problem is whey Joe starts yelling and waving his arms. But since I am an adult I can turn off the set, push the mute button or go into the kitchen for another cup of coffee...

[Little Star]

14. As Michael Corleone said 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'..

I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on what the Repubs are thinking. I think it's better to keep up with them on MSNBC than on FOX.
Keep on keeping on CTyankee! I usually keep up by reading your & others threads about Morning Joe because I'm too busyto watch that early in the AM.

[CTyankee]

18. Gotta know what cooking in their tiny brains!

I understand some DUers frustration with the show, tho. Sometimes the discussion gets irrelevant with bloviating "commentators" and pols. That's when I say "enough!"

[vi5]

15. Ha! I decided against....

Adding a line to my post that said "Cue the usual clamoring of "BUT HE HAS ON GOOD GUESTS!!!!!!!"

It's the same excuse peopel gave for watching that racists Imus. I'm not buying it. There's absolutely no excuse for giving that idiot ratings or credibility of any kind.

And the bottom line is that the only people watching him are political junkies who already have their opinions formed one way or another. That is literally the only audience for any cable news show. It doesn't tell us what the low information voters are going to be seeing or hearing.

[sandyshoes17]

26. I agree 100%

As Howard Stern once said, I get a lot a angry e-mails but it's great, even people who hate me watch me. It still equals ratings. I see it as 3 hours of propaganda, they try to set the talking points of the day.

[CTyankee]

41. au contraire, if you know the talking points, you can frame the rebutals. That's just smart.

[99Forever]

16. Joe who?

I've never quite understood why someone would continue to watch a program that they have a huge issue with, such as one of the main characters on it. Those who work to ferret out falsehoods, sure, but beyond that, why subject oneself to it?

[CTyankee]

19. well, I don't just sit there and "take it."

As I said, I am an adult. I only take what I want and the rest, bah humbug...

[99Forever]

22. "Take" what?

I really don't understand. How in the world can some fool on the idiot box make you, me or anyone else, "take it?"

That's why I have a remote, too much stupid, I change the channel. No talking head has power over me or my mood.

[CTyankee]

25. Meaning: I don't sit there and get mad at what assholes are saying...

either I mute it or shut it off and do something else. I like to see how current events are being framed. Politics is an amusing and sometimes informative activity. For instance, Goodwin today had some interesting historical perspectives from her knowledge base about former presidents. She injected sanity and facts into the discussion. I don't pretend to know as much as she does about this subject so I listen. I know from past experience that she will pretty much be rational and stick to facts. Michael Steele, otoh, pretty much bores me and he gets muted. This is fine. I can multi task during the show. ditto barnicle. I can make up my own mind and discern what is a waste of my time and what is interesting and informative.

[99Forever]

27. Perhaps I'm...

... misreading what you are trying to say, but you sound almost angry at me for explaining how I handle the drivel some personalities lay out on the tv. I've got a multitude of sources for current events myself, and in my opinion, the least reliable of all of them, is the droning 24hr stuff on cable "news" networks. I find that when it comes to real current events, they purposely ignore many of the MOST important ones. Just my opinion. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.

[Atman]

32. "...I've got a multitude of sources for current events myself..."

Me, too. I think that is part of the point CTyankee is making (coincidentally, I am also from CT. Want more strange trivia? Mika used to be an anchor up here on our Hartford CBS affiliate, although I don't ever remember seeing her on the nooz). I've got a multitude of sources for current events. And Morning Joe happens to be one of them. If I only listened to Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow or Ed Schulz, I'd only be getting their left-wing perspective. I actually LIKE listening to/watching Morning Joe. Especially when he isn't there. The show has some excellent authors, filmmakers, pundits, etc, as guests. Sure, Michael Steele and Barnical are clowns, but they aren't the entire show. I think there is a wide perspective of views offered on the program, even if some days suck ass worse than others. For instance, yesterday was a total GOP damage-control festival after the polls came out indicating America blamed them for hosing the tax cut deal. But I accept/expect that. Just like I used to find Rush Limbaugh amusing during the Clinton era. No one "forces" me to watch anything. I just like various points of view.

[CTyankee]

33. really, you didn't offend me...

(this is my second try at a reply, forgive me if it is a repeat)

I'm a little stressed out right now. My husband is in the hospital with a ruptured disc and will have surgery later today...been a bit tense for a while. So that's part of my edginess...

I agree with you about the media ignoring most of the stuff that is important. I think MJ does a better job than a lot of the media but I agree it's not nearly enough.

so, no real problem with what you are saying...

[99Forever]

36. Good to hear...

.. and sorry about the stress you are under. Sometimes meanings get blurred when posting. Thanks for the clarification.

[ddeclue]

17. Because Scarborough is far too liberal and sensible to be carried on Fox.

I'm sorry but you have to give Scarborough credit - he doesn't really toe the party line mindlessly like the fools over on Fox. He regularly calls out Republicans for being wack jobs. Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity he is not.

I was actually quite afraid that he was going to run for President because he is well spoken and entertaining on TV and doesn't come off as the right wing-nut type like the existing GOP field and would have appealed to a lot of middle of the road voters. It is too late for him to do this now but there is still a chance he could get picked as a VP candidate to try to carry Florida so hopefully either he won't accept or they won't offer.

(The other VP candidate I am scared of is Marco Rubio who will appeal to Hispanic voters and also give the GOP a chance to carry Florida - the ticket I most fear is Romney/Rubio because Romney is their most moderate sensible candidate and Rubio will give their conservatives something to vote for as well as drawing Hispanics and Floridians.)

[MADem]

30. Google his name and "dead girl in office" and you'll see why he would never run.

Also, he's a former member of the Gingrich "Contract with (or more accurately, on) America" brigade, a Congressional shutter-downer, a true believer back then. That kind of stuff stinks, and you can still smell it after all these years...!

[ddeclue]

37. as for "dead girl in office" please don't stoop to the level of Republicans who claimed that the

Clintons had people killed. There's just absolutely no evidence to support any such claim..

and yes he was a COA pledgee but he is absolutely tame compared to the current generation of Republican wing-nuts.

[MADem]

39. Huh? Why would I do anything of the sort?

I am a huge fan of WJC, warts and all.

I guess I'm not taking your point. Are you seriously suggesting I would do such a thing re: Clinton?

[livetohike]

20. It's a much better show without him

He goes on and on about his experience in Congress in 1994. He brings nothing new to the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if the show disappears from MSNBC in 2012. They're stale.

Who thought Michael Steele was a good addition to any program?

I like to watch tv in the morning while sipping coffee and eating breakfast. My husband thinks I should switch to "Three Stooges" re-runs, but I tell him that Morning Joe is just as funny.

[JVS]

21. Maybe they keep him around in case of intern trouble.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. In part because of his audience in our Party and their constant promotion of him

and his show and his partner, Mikey or Micha or something. Their antics are reported here daily, breathlessly, religiously. Why? Don't know, and can not speculate within the rules of kindness.

[oldhippydude]

24. actually

msnbc was meant originally to capture the same audiance as fox.. whatever else you may say of fox, they are in fact , very sucessfull as cable programs go.. much like you see, as the pawn shop stuff on cable, then a knock off, this was no different.. its all about demographics, and advertising not philosophy..

when i started watching the evening was predominently conservative.. Oberman turned that around, but if the truth be known i think that was largly a marketing decison, after they proved they couldent out fox the fox

for the most part they have moderated their programing to be more centerist, leaning left.. the exception is Joe. and Pat Buchanan in the morning

[TreasonousBastard]

28. I don't know and I don't care...

since I usually have the radio on in the mornings. (Unless I fell asleep during the all night "Law&Order" reruns and wake up to an interesting "Angel" rerun.)

I don't understand why anyone watches that stuff-- shows like that are made up of self-important bloviators with little actual "news" filling between the bullshit. A three minute NPR piece can sum up both sides of an issue with actual experts not running for office or looking for a job.

[MADem]

29. No one else wants that timeslot. He was the replacement for Imus after he screwed up.

MSNBC knows they'll never get ratings like "Imus" again, unless they could get someone like Howard Stern in there (and that will never happen). I think he pulls in "acceptable" numbers, sufficient to generate enough advertising to make the whole process at least a break-even exercise, and they're OK with that....!

He also helps THEIR "fair and balanced" stats. They can point to him as one of their pet Republicans, to show that they cover both sides of the street.

[MilesColtrane]

31. MSNBC execs thought he would kill in the ratings.

[joeybee12]

34. Because he's killed once and MSNBC knows he might kill again!

They won't cancel him because of that!

[NorthCarolina]

42. ...

Best answer so far by a long shot.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Is Pat Buchanan still on his show?

I've watched this show just a handful of times and each time the show mainly consisted of Pat Buchanan telling some inside joke and everyone laughing their head off: unwatchable.

[Kate Sorensen]

38. West Coast Viewers

I can't imagine Morning Joe has many folks [left or right] on the West coast who follow this show. It comes on at 3 a.m. and off at 6 a.m. Appears I am not missing much.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Because he bombed in prime time and they had to do something with him