I love Ed Schultz. I wish he was keeping his show, but his ratings made the show unsustainable

[stevenleser]

I don't know what viewers are looking for, but whatever 'it' is, Ed wasn't getting it done. Same with Hayes. Both were getting clobbered not just by Fox but by CNN. I don't think making this into a conspiracy is helpful.

What we need is some kind of expert think tank on the Liberal side to figure out how to get folks to tune in to liberal media.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/thursday-cable-ratings-ed-schultz-hits-new-low-of-25k-in-demo/

Ratings for MSNBC’s The Ed Show continue to fall and Thursday saw a new low for the 5 p.m. program with just 25K viewers in the 25-54 demo tuning in. That’s about ten times less than Fox News’ The Five, which had 245K and a quarter of CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, which had 95K.

From 5 to 6 p.m., MSNBC’s PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton managed to more than double Ed Schultz’s ratings, rising to 57K in the demo. Then, Hardball with Chris Matthews did it again at 7 p.m. with 103K.

[hlthe2b]

1. Does he have any radio presence left or just a podcast?

Yes, I'm sorry to see this happen.

[Ilsa]

52. He shut down his radio show a couple of years ago,

IIRC. I miss him on Sirius radio, too. I don't know if he has a podcast.

[librechik]

2. Why should ratings determine the viability of a news show?

It hasn't always been that way. And network executives make exceptions for their pet shows all the time. That's why we still have Meet the Press.

We shouldn't accept this situation as citizens.

[stevenleser]

5. Even if profit wasn't the motive, if no one is watching, what is the point of the show being aired?

I don't understand what you think is being accomplished.

[librechik]

31. no one reads every book in the public library

yet we archive important books and unread histories as if they were important to somebody.

Huh. This used to be a hallmark of civilization. I suppose I need to give that up now too.

[stevenleser]

33. The cost of a book sitting in a library is miniscule

Putting out a production of a national cable show is very expensive, particularly if no one is watching

[librechik]

36. Yes indeed. It's all about money

not the preservation of culture or creating an informed electorate.

[stevenleser]

40. Even socialist and communist government have to deal with scarcity of reaources

And resource allocation.

[librechik]

42. don't go there. We can spend our money on books or bombers

Resources are hardly even looked at as we rush to buy and sell weapons and stir up war while children go hungry. There is plenty of money.

[stevenleser]

45. I have no problems going there. It will never make sense to pay or allocate resources

To a show that isn't being watched. That is a different argument to whether or spending priorities overall are misplaced.

[librechik]

46. Conservatives never have a problem going there

if there's somebody to be sneered at because they aren't "successful" in your pedestrian judgement, you are there to be the first to tell them you told them so and they deserve their strapless boots

That's what makes this country great!

[virtualobserver]

34. Have you been on CNN and MSNBC as well?

Is Fox as strange as it seems or are they just playing to their audience?
What is the vibe like at CNN and MSNBC ?

[stevenleser]

43. It's probably not a good idea for me to compare and contrast the three publicly.

Believe me I want to but it would not be a good thing.

[virtualobserver]

51. I understand

It would probably not be a good idea to burn (or blow up) any bridges.

I'll try another one..

You realize that I am a Bernie supporter, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why the NYT would print such an incredibly misleading and inaccurate (even sloppy) article about the supposed "criminal investigation" request relating to Hillary.

It this what we can expect going forward from the NYT?

[rock]

63. Since the "News" changed to "Infotainment"

It is about the ratings = the money.

[Adrahil]

65. Well, The Ed Show is NOT a news show....

it's an opinion show.

Having said that... yeah, network execs protect poorly performing pet shows all the time.

I liked the Ed Show, but it did grate on me at times. I HATED the completely fucking useless cell phone polls. I also think Ed was a more emotionally driven guy than I prefer.

Still, I miss his populist voice. Will not watch the Chuckie Todd show.

[onenote]

69. Meet the Press probably draws in 30 to 40 times the number of viewers

in the prime demographic.

It's not even a close comparison.

Newspapers shut down because they don't have enough readers to be sustainable. Commercial tv shows shut down if they don't get enough viewers.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. First mistake

This is not a news show. It is an opinion show.

[obliviously]

80. If a newscaster farts during a newscast and there is nobody listening

Does it make a sound?

[greytdemocrat]

82. That stinks.

[zappaman]

93. Yes

[itsrobert]

3. When Ed was on at 8pm ET he was drawing a lot more viewers than Chris Hayes

And Rachel Maddow and Lawrence had better ratings at the time because the audience would continue to build. I'm afraid the weak link is Chris Hayes and he is Phil Griffin's pick and he's double downing on him.

[NOVA_Dem]

28. Funny how your post gets ignored.

MSNBC seemed to hobble the successful hosts that would openly and vigorously challenge the administration.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. That's not accurate. Hayes, just nominated for Emmy awards, gets much better numbers than Ed

July 22, Ed total 553,000 viewers. Hayes, 758,000, Rachel topped a million at 1,012,000 and Larry drops back to Hayes territory with 784,000.

[itsrobert]

54. You cannot compare a 5pm ET (Non-prime time slot) to a prime time slot 8pm ET

You are one not being accurate.

[Kingofalldems]

4. Sorry. Have not trusted your opinion since I found out

you appear on Fox news.

[stevenleser]

6. That's OK, I've never trusted your opinion. nt

[stevenleser]

8. By the way, since Bernie, Hillary, Biden, O'Malley, Greenwald etc have been on Fox...

I guess they all go under the bus too?

Or is this just a dumb ad-hominem aimed at me.

I'll go with the latter.

[Kingofalldems]

16. It's not ad-hominem. If it is, so is your attack on Ed.

Back at you.

BTW, when is your next appearance on Fox?

[stevenleser]

18. Not surprisingly, you don't know what ad-hominem is.

Saying you like someone is not an ad-hominem attack. Explaining empirically why something happened is not an ad-hominem attack.

What you wrote about me is a form of ad-hominem called Ergo-Decedo

[Kingofalldems]

19. You're just so clever. And so much better than me.

Oozes out.

[stevenleser]

20. It's not hard to be better than someone that consistently uses ad-hominems in every post. nt

[Kingofalldems]

23. Ad hominem---an argument against the perceived failings of an adversary

rather than the merits of the case.

I just said I didn't trust your opinion. Then you decided to scold me and tell me how stupid I am.
So my distrust of your opinion is no more ad hominem than your little OP.

[stevenleser]

27. No, that is not an adequate definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

Nothing I wrote had anything to do with Ed's character. Nor did I attempt to use an irrelevant fact. The ratings are central to the issue of why his show was cancelled.

[Kingofalldems]

30. I said nothing about your character. I said I didn't trust your opinion.

Meghan Kelly may be very nice in person but I don't trust her opinion.
See there?

[stevenleser]

32. Yes, that is an attack on character rather than what I was saying

look up Ergo Decedo, it is a specific subset of ad-hominem, and what you have done in virtually every interaction with me.

[Kingofalldems]

35. This is the first time I have ever posted to you.

Kept quiet until today. Why don't you attack the vicious liars on Fox news once in a while?

[stevenleser]

37. Nope, it is definitely not the first time you have attacked me

I prefer to attack conservative arguments rather than people.

Going around attacking people makes one look like a small bitter person.

[Kingofalldems]

39. I don't recall anything. Got a link?

What did I say to attack you?

[stevenleser]

41. Why, is the search function on your computer broken? nt

[Kingofalldems]

48. You're the one making the accusation. So you got nothing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. you are PAID to be on fox.. they are not

Fox pays your income.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Honestly I don't know anyone that leans liberal that has ever been asked to participate in the

ratings.
Chances are, if it is like everyone else, it is skewed conservative.
Welcome to the New World Order.

[stevenleser]

9. I don't think it is skewed. I dont think Schultz or Hayes think it is skewed either.

You can get a rudimentary idea of how many people watch by the amount of chatter about a show on Social media. The amount of feedback I get for appearances, for instance, changes dramatically by which show I am on and it seems to dovetail completely with the ratings for each show.

[yeoman6987]

38. The Nielsen family is at fault. They are not watching the show.

[Buns_of_Fire]

66. That damned Nielsen family again. I KNEW they'd have a hand in it!

They're the reason I can't watch quality programs like My Mother the Car anymore.

On the other hand, they LIKED Phil Donahue, and MSNBC cancelled him, too. Maybe I should cut them a little slack.

But I miss My Mother the Car.

[MH1]

10. Did they/are they taking Hayes off too?

I liked "Up with Chris Hayes" much better than either "All In with Chris Hayes" or "Up with Steve Kornacki". I like Steve Kornacki but I thought Chris did that format better. And I think the Up format is much better than All In no matter who is running it.

JMHO. I have missed "Up with Chris Hayes" ever since he went to weekday. But on the bright side, I get more done on Saturday mornings now.

[stevenleser]

12. I believe that's what they said. Again, sad but if you look at the link I posted in the OP

those two shows do the worst against CNN and Fox. It seems like purely a ratings decision, like much of everything else on TV.

[dsc]

17. the emmy nods might save him

especially if he were to win.

[AngryOldDem]

78. Agreed -- he was better on Saturday mornings.

He comes off just a tad too pompous at night, from where I sit.

[DawgHouse]

88. Yeah, I preferred Up with Chris Hayes, too.

[Erose999]

11. Liberals just don't do cable for news. It's all online these days.

[stevenleser]

14. They say that about radio too and it may be right in both cases. But it's not a good thing.

[Polly Hennessey]

13. Just a note

Chris Hayes was just nominated for two Emmys. I don't think he is going anywhere for the foreseeable future. I can't think of any other shows on MSNBC that have been nominated for an Emmy. Chris is too good to let go. His audience will grow.

[stevenleser]

15. All of the news reports I have seen indicate that Hayes is on the chopping block

This one for instance: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/24/tanking-msnbc-gets-a-serious-shakeup.html

[Polly Hennessey]

22. Well, I hope you are wrong.

I usually DVR Ed, Al Sharpton, Chris Hayes, Rachel and Lawrence. I get so much information from them while I am feeding the cats and fixing dinner. I am going to miss Ed.

[stevenleser]

24. It's not me, its the folks writing the articles talking about what's happening. nt

[kentuck]

21. My opinion:

I think there are a certain number of conservatives and liberals that are political "fanatics". It just so happens, after many years of provocative talk radio, that conservatives have much larger numbers than liberals in the radio and TV spectrum. However, in the grand scheme of things, both are rather small in their numbers.

It does appear that liberals are more inclined to the written word, making the social media and blogs more popular for liberals. Which is more beneficial to their respective political Parties? I would have to say that the social media is the present and future wave of political communication, not talk radio or FOX TV.

The fact that liberals do not do well on talk radio or news television should not be of any major concern to liberals, in my opinion.

[Polly Hennessey]

26. Agree, Kentuck

Ii's just that is so easy to listen to nightly MSNBC while I am in the kitchen. I turn on the set, up the volume and then go about my after work business. If something of interest comes on I stop and watch. Also love the mute button.

[jeff47]

49. There's also probably an age factor

The conservative fanatics skew older, and so will be more likely to use "old media".
The liberal fanatics skew younger, and so will be more likely to use "new media".

Unfortunately, we've built up an insane model of the effectiveness of TV and radio advertising, so there's a lot more money in "old media". "New media", where they can actually measure the effectiveness of an ad, has less money.

[kentuck]

74. Good points.

I think for liberal talk radio and news-talk TV to be effective, they would need to take a different approach than what they presently do. The truth and facts are just not very entertaining sometimes.

I think they would need to take a more absurdly funny and comedic approach, that people could laugh at, would be the way to go for liberal media. If someone can come up with this formula, I think they will be a hit...sort of like Jon Stewart.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That's pretty simple

find a way to reduce liberal positions to slogans (preferably slogans that appeal to patriotism, motherhood, baseball, and apple pie); learn to engage base emotions like fear and anger. Can't do that? Then liberal media is never going to be as popular as conservative media.

...stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it. - JS Mill

[bigdarryl]

29. I always though that giving up his radio show over a TV show was a bad move on his part

Because his show has always been on shaky ground.He has a hour podcast I hope he extends it to three hours now

[sufrommich]

44. They've been trying to find the right mix for a while now.They are

stumbling for an answer,no doubt about it. I remember reading a while ago that they thought one of their big problems was a lack of real news programs.My parents turn on MSNBC in the morning and watch it all day sometimes,it's hard not to notice when I'm visiting them that it's basically the same stuff over and over again. That being said,I hate Chuck Todd with every fiber of my being.

[flamingdem]

47. dang .. hope they keep Chris

and Lawrence

[Triana]

53. Besides Schultz, what other shows did MSNBC drop? n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. The Cycle & Alex Wagner to be replaced by Brian Williams. Chuck Todd to replace Ed Schultz.

Rumors that Keith may be coming back to an evening slot.

http://www.examiner.com/article/massive-changes-at-msnbc-3-shows-cancelled-and-chuck-todd-to-return

[Triana]

62. Brian Williams. Chuck Todd.

They certainly like losers, don't they? I guess Comcast has lowered the boom on them such that they have to follow corprat orders.

[AngryOldDem]

77. I knew at least someone would be sacrificed to give Brian Williams a job.

Used to be, when you did what Williams did, you were finished in the biz. Something about ethics and integrity, I think. But now, you get a nice sabbatical when you can ponder the error of your ways, and then come back to get your own show.

And why the fuck does Chuck Todd deserve a show? Could this possibly spell the end of Meet The Press? (I hope, I hope, I hope...)

[Triana]

81. Tx

[still_one]

55. They gave him a terrible time slot

[msongs]

56. anger and hate generate more ratings than peace and positive solutions. progressive radio

flopped because it had no agitation and rant factor with which a mass of disaffected people agreed.

[B Calm]

57. Doesn't matter who they put in that time slot, their ratings will still suck.

[Cleita]

59. Actually, he used to do just fine on his radio show

before just about all progressive talk shows were dropped from AM radio. So I think is ratings are more the fault of MSNBC and I think there has been an attempt to shove him into time slots that wouldn't bring him great ratings.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. C'est la vie. Not a fan. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Two observations that are sure to outrage simebody.

1,- Liberals in that demographic tend not to watch liberal programming on tv partly because of MSM argle bargle, or something. Those viewers are their own worst enemies.

2.- it is a business. If there are no eyes on screen...Part of this is media deregulation, and I wish we went back to a time news was not measured in money (er ratings) only. That train left the station a long time ago. That long time ago also had three evening newscasts, not those plus now three major 24/7 cables and a few minor ones.

Liberals and progressives want this programming to remain... It is simple, tune in. In the hundreds of thousands.

You want independent media to challenge the big boys as well. Supporting them with more than just words would help.

Yeah, we need labor voices on national TV. But they need you to fracking tune in. And I do not mean the OP, he is in the business. We get it why the program is going away.

One last thing. Comcast can afford to lose the viewers who will disconnect from the service. They are trying, and I suspect will, replace you at least 100 fold.

[stevenleser]

67. Good points. I read a lot of posts on DU where people say they won't watch MSNBC. And then...

...when a show there gets cancelled, we invent conspiracy theories as to why it happened.

If you don't want a show cancelled, turn on your TV and watch it and convince 20 of your friends and family to do the same and tell them each to convince 20 friends and family and so on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. I have it on

Because it is my cheap AP. but I help with the ratings.

[sub.theory]

84. Millenials don't watch cable TV

I think that Ed's message is probably more popular than his ratings showed. Unfortunately, a large segment of his potential supporters don't watch cable TV. I haven't had cable in years and I know many friends who also don't or only watch it for sports. I get pretty much all of my news and commentary online. Older viewers tend to skew more conservative and thus watch CNN and Fox News, from what I understand. The only shows with much penetration with Millenials were the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Take heart. Don't take it that because Ed was canceled it means that people don't agree with his message.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. The demo does not just include milenials

and Air America failed for the same reason, and they were not the target at the time.

If the demographic wants this kind of programing they need to support it. The same goes for alternate media.

[Rex]

71. Wow MSNBC looks to be in some trouble by those scores.

Yikes! No wonder he is getting bounced, people should realize it has to do with the bottom line.

[stevenleser]

73. Yep, big trouble. Right now I think the survival of that network is very much in doubt.

How do you sell ad space with those numbers?

It's a disaster. The numbers that Rachel is getting should be the minimum for a sustainable show in any of the 5-9 slots, not the best numbers of any show.

[Rex]

75. I do too, I did not until reading those numbers. MSNBC is in deep trouble.

They must be losing billions in sponsor ads that are going to other stations.

[seveneyes]

72. At the end of the night

The trusty viewers will have clicked their heels and remotes to the place they feel the best.

[Snotcicles]

86. Between noon and midnight 5:00-6:00 is least viewed hour, thats why hardball use air twice a day. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. Ratings were definiatly the downfall of his show.

He simplay could not grab a big enough audience.

[SoCalDem]

79. Here's hoping that for the duration he shitcans ALL rightwingers

We should at least have a solid month of true liberalism on display before he leaves.. I suspect that he will leave early, by taking vacation days and having a stand in for him...

[MerryBlooms]

83. This doesn't surprise me.

I haven't watched national news or cable news in years except for the occasional breaking news story. Half hour of local in the morning and evening (huge storm news exception-we're in the midwest).

I read my news during the day, and frankly, by evening time, the last thing I want for recreation time is 'news'.

[meow2u3]

85. Ed's show was on at the wrong time slot

5 PM is not a good time to air a show geared to blue-collar viewers. The Ed Show's ratings were excellent when he was on at 8PM.

[moonscape]

89. According to this speculation:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Keith-Olbermann-MSBNC-Ed-Schultz-Al-Sharpton/2015/07/20/id/658044/ - they might bring back Olbermann. That really surprised me.

Cancelling Sharpton? Okay!

As long as they don't mess with O'Donnell ...

[NCTraveler]

90. Something you might know the answer to stevenleser.

While I didn't look in depth, it looks like these numbers are individual viewer counts. Is there a difference in the number of households these other shows are broadcast in compared to the shows that are said to be failing? Is that somehow taken into account with the numbers in reading here? Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. I actually know the answer

the all important demographic is the first series of numbers. They are low... very low. Those are the people who are still in the commercial arena, why they matter that much to advertisers. The second set of numbers, is the total, and yes, they are viewer counts. The folks at your cable system know what you are watching right now. Your cable box feeds that info to the home office every so often, with that of every other viewer in your system. It is baked into the cable box, DVR you have. And yes, it is creepy.

Mine has gotten cute and turns my connection off if I do not change the channel every two hours. I just don't My TV will remain on MSNBC all day, unless there is prison porn or something is of interest at the Science Channel. They are my cheap sub for the AP, which I still turn to ever few hours during the day.

I usually tune out the contact by the way.

[moonandsixpence.]

92. I firmly believe that progressive hosts have to carry somebody's water.

I have seen a change in the conversation of Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann, for example. Thom seems to go back and forth. I heard him praise Bernie for something and then quickly backtrack and say that he will support whoever the nominee is. I mean, if you see a clear contrast in your preferred candidate to another one who stands a good chance of winning the nomination, you'll automatically vote for that person because they're running as a Democratic (but actually a DINO)? To me that suggests he is being told to say that. Whether he will do so in his private life is another story.

And the thing that bugs me the most is the mantra of "Republicans did this or that." It may be 100% true but doesn't acknowledge the DINOS who have sold out our party and actually destroyed it for the most part. It's not gonna work anymore, especially after TPP.