Rachel Maddow beats Bill O'reilly in the Friday demo

[NJSecularist]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_may_16_85159.asp

I realize Bill had a fill-in in E.D. Hill, but MSNBC has to be very excited by the ratings Rachel Maddow is getting when she fills in for KO. I wonder if her own show could be upcoming? She could take Gregory or Abram's place. Both of them are flatliners.

[Juche]

1. I like Abrams

he hates Rove and followed up the Siegelman case after 60 minutes broke it.

[99th_Monkey]

2. ^^^ What he said ^^^ give Abrams credit where it's due. ~nt~

[MessiahRp]

3. Maddow needs her own show..

I'd like Stephanie Miller to have a show as well... maybe film live from her studio so she doesn't have to fly out to do it like she did when she did MSNBC fill ins after the Imus debacle and replace that Morning Joe garbage.

Rp

[GreenTea]

4. There's alway a need for more progressives on televison, and it means BIG ratings now.....

The lack of progressives is the reason I (and so many others) don't watch any television news shows, except for Keith Olbermann whom I watch or TIVO each night....I mostly like Dan Abrams as well, who follows Olbermann on MSNBC...Abrams seems to see the writing on the wall...people sick of BushCo and the republicans television lies & bullshit forced on us show after show...liberal/progressive television now means big ratings....(just as it's beginning to show big ratings on liberal talk radio as well)!

Abrams also has the bright & lovely Cathrine Crier on his show often, as she always sheds light on the usual republican bullshit concerning law....I'm sure Rachel Maddow of Air America Radio will have her own show on soon....Someone, (obviously not Fox) will absolutely pick the sharp, cheery, charismatic & pretty Maddow's up.

[LaPera]

7. With the growing of progressive radio - AAR, Nova M, Ed Schultz network, Peter B Collins

Live from the Left Coast network, Sirius Left, XM, KPFA, Public radio & the number of independent progressive radio personalities growing, and all progressives on radio can, and are listened to via the Internet, it's certainly about time for television to finally catch up.

[rusty quoin]

9. I think at least MSNBC sees the market correctly. CNN is still in the dark.

[LaPera]

11. There is Free Speech Television, Link TV on Dish Network also PBS but still a long ways to go

Then there's IFC, Sundance and HBO at times, they are progressive networks on TV. However, these three networks are not news shows. Finally the Daily Show & Colbert Report and thats all there is for national television.

[KharmaTrain]

25. I Wish There Was Better Progressive Radio

It's better than a couple years ago, but Progressive Talk is still an afterthought or non-existant on most radio dials. In many markets AAR stations have performed poorly...primarily due to being on bad signals and with no promotion. People can't find a show if they don't know it's there. Sadly networks like Pacifica aren't rated so its hard to tell how many people really listen. Meanwhile right wing hate radio still dominates along with obnoxious sports talk.

AAR's in its death throes...I don't see it being around a year from now. The jury is out on Nova-M as they try to build a network in a very difficult time with very few dollars or resources. Jones is the leader in Progressive talk now with Schultz and Steph Miller, but even then they still don't have the numbers due to small stations and poor signals.

I still have hopes that Progressive radio can grow...but I see the bigger need on a local level...that's where radio has been the most effective and can spread the Progressive message with a special hook you don't get on a national program.

[LaPera]

27. I know what you mean. - But, consider Peter B Collins for one is local where I live ---

And Peter B is absolutely terrific, great! However, he does get only limited local sponsorship.

And I see very little wrong with either Thom Hartmann or Mike Malloy, though very different....I also don't see the end to progressive radio any time soon, at least not before the general election.

Sure there will be some causalities, even AAR will have to change and they do have some backing now, as for Nova M, I hope, but who knows, though they too obviously have the drive....but even more moderates to left like Ed Schultz seems to point to a hunger for progressive radio and many of those same listeners will expand to more liberal fare such as Hartmann and Malloy.

Sirius Left, XM will carry what's out there....and the growing independent progressive voices will have to claw, unfortunately.

Curiously, how would you like to see progressive radio change, to what direction, personalities or formats in so much as it would increase listeners and inevitably more sponsors?

[KharmaTrain]

29. I Used To Listen To Peter B Back In The 70's

He did a late night talk show here in Chicago and I'm familiar with his station in Sacramento. Fortunately he owns the station and has been able to pay the bills...all most of us radio types who go into ownership really care for. Sponsorship for talk radio is also tough as many advertisers want to stay away from anything controversial...and for the past decade that's been poison for any liberal talk radio. The right wing has a far more entrenched and established financial model that enables them to keep going despite poor ratings and limited advertising as they are generally funded through the profits of other formats. An example would be Faux Noise...they're surely the loss leader of the Faux television empire, but it's the moneys made by the other networks that get siphoned to keep that pop-stand afloat. Salem radio props up their hate radio network through "dollar-a-hollar" preachers who buy up lots of airtime on the company's stations as well as loading up the weekends with infomercials. Progressive talk radio really doesn't have this luxuary.

AAR's in terrible shape...and it's a matter of time before the Greens no longer see the value in continuing to throw money into keeping it going. They've lost their two most popular hosts and IMHO have stuck around to help Hillary (the Greens are big supporters)...it'll be interesting to see how things develop there after Senator Clinton drops out.

I have a lot of hopes for Nova-M...I've watched them turn things around in Phoenix, but they're up against a lot of tough sledding as operating a fulltime network involves lots of people...not just behind the microphones, but in areas such as station relations, marketing and sales and the balancing act is to try to build as much as you can and try to get what you can where you can. Hopefully they've learned from the AAR mistakes...by not offering a full slate but growing slowly...and to promote and market their quality talent that will get them on more and bigger stations.

There's a definite market for Progressive Radio, but it has to be on several levels. National is well and good, but radio has and always is the most effective on the local level. Many AAR affiliates just play off the satellite with little local programming or identity and that hurts getting an audience....you can hear what you don't see. There are many good young and eager talents out there who would love to take a shot...there's also many good community stations that are the training ground for those talents. The more voice in more places the better.

My dream is one day to be able to drive anywhere in this country and be able to turn on a Progressive talk station...just like, sadly, is the case with Rushbo and other right wing asshats. It's not easy and from my own experience working with many of these people is like herding cats.

Cheers...

[LaPera]

30. "advertisers want to stay away from anything controversial" perhaps you meant...

"away from" any liberal ideology that's "controversial"? The pigman Limbaugh, not controversial?

I do know what you're saying about AAR, but I have hope (we need them) and I don't believe the money was just thrown away month's ago without any foresight.

As "to drive anywhere in this country and be able to turn on a Progressive talk station." You're correct, only Sirius and XM offer that at this time....and they can NEVER discontinue liberal radio....you know "fair and balanced".

"Bigger stations" will only come with ownership and that is a republican goal to nix it whether sports or Christian stations to avoid it. Like Archer Daniels Midland Company, sells to no one, but controls the content.

Yes, again, I agree, "talent" means everything, which sponsorship will evolve.

Still the liberal radio cats are out of the bag....I don't see it going away just evolving with the necessary causalities.

Except for complete Bush fascism I don't think it's ever going away, perhaps shinking now and again, but as long as there is an alternative voice offered it will succeed....prosper, doubtful, all corporate entities are against it no matter what one offers in the form of progressive thinking and broadcasting.

My best to you!

[KharmaTrain]

31. The Best To You As Well...

I was around at the "birth" of Rushbo back in 1988...he "succeded" in a time slot that was one of the least productive for many AM radio stations...mid days. He was cheap, easy programming...stations could, and did fire local talent and just hooked up to his slimefest...whatever money could be made was gravy. Yes, Rushbo is controversial and if you listen around most the commercials are "generic"...Gold Bond or Motel 6...or by investment dudes (seems like dittoheads love to throw money at these vultures) or some other local dittohead...the rates are generally very cheap.

A revisit to Telcom '96...one that was originally required in 2002 but never done is long overdue...and I hope that a Michael Copps-run FCC will start that ball rolling. A good sign was the Senate's repeal of the last giveaway of the broadcast spectrum that could cost Rupert Murdoch a lot of money. Yes, local ownership is the key, but so is the evolution of radio.

Satellite is just one element of the future...and dare I say, a small one. Again, it lacks a local identity that has always been radio's biggest and strongest asset. Wireless Internet radio is about to burst on the scene...turning your cellphone or PDA into a radio and opening up radio just like cable did to TV...and with it the monopoly of the Clear Channels will begin to subside (if they don't go belly-up first...they're an Enron just waiting to happen).

Thank you for a very enlighting discussion...

:toast:

[KharmaTrain]

5. In Due Time...

I heard Gregory's show on the local Air America station today...and had to chuckle how it was being promoted as a joint broadcast. There's a definite change going on at the network and I see Rachel as part of those plans. IMHO, she does a lot better in her current role where she's placed on all different shows and can conteract the wingnuts like Buchanan than to wedge her into her own hour. In her own show she wouldn't be as free to say and it's a lot of work...especially for someone who is a newcomer to the goofy world of network television.

BTW...Abrams just mentioned he won the 18-34 "money" demo on Friday as well...beating out Hannity and whomever...and has done some very good shows recent...especially on the Siegelmann case.

The network's success should be noted by the childish tantrum the boooosh cabal threw today about being "taken out of context". That sure didn't bother them one bit when it's a Democrat's soundbite that was treated that way.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Rachel commented that if she had her own show she would

be able to decide what issues get talked about, rather than just responding to Reich Wing spin. Rather than being reactive or talking trivia, she could put out things that are otherwise being ignored. Made sense to me.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Unfortunately It's Not Her Decision

For the first couple years he was back at the network, Olbermann was kept on a short leash. While Rachel may have ideas of what she'd like to do, she's not in the position to tell the network what she wants...and one night of ratings does not make a network powerhouse. I do hope she gets her own program, but I also know how the politics, money and ratings games go.

The good thing is that she is being considered...something that wouldn't have happened even a year ago. I've followed Rachel's career from early days at AAR (she worked her ass off for that place...still does) and am proud of all she's accomplished. Again, I think her value right now as being a counterbalance to all the right wing ameoba that still crawl through that place is very valuable.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. she's in a position to agree to work for them on her terms.

Every such contract is negotiated. If she chooses to sign up as a lackey thinking that over time her negotiating position will be better, well, that might be good strategy in the long run. But she could also demand more control over the content on her program and pit her risk of losing the gig against their risk of losing a ratings opportunity. The point is, of course, that she does have some power in shaping the amount of autonomy she is granted in the contract.

[KharmaTrain]

21. With What Bargaining Chips??

She's far from being a lackey, but be assured her deal with NBC is far more coin than the Greens underpay her at AAR. She's definitely in no position to demand anything...especially the content of a program...and especailly someone who has little to no track record in the medium.

I've dealt on both sides of broadcast contracts and the house ALWAYS wins. When I programmed radio stations I had plenty of great ideas (and a damn good track record that made stations lots of money), but even with those credentials there are always those in upper management who want the ultimate control...and as the old golden rule says, those who have the gold make the rules.

Right now I would imagine Rachel works as a contractor...she's probably paid an exclusive not to appear on another network and this agreement allows her to continue her radio and other freelance work. A contract like your talking about is one that an Olbermann can now negotiate with his track record and ratings. Also, this network has now thrown money away on several high priced "talents"...Carlson and Cosby come to mind and got burned...with bucks being tight, Rachel is fortunate to have gotten this gig and hopefully she can open the door for others.

You can't eat "opportunity"...and surely the network would see giving her her own show as a risky situation. Would you let a rookie with little pro experience run your team? She's still learning and growing...as I said in my earlier post. In Due Time...

[ConsAreLiars]

22. She can choose to sign or not sign.

I don't think the mini-mega-bucks involved would be particularly powerful in influencing her decision. By not being motivated simply or largely by greed, she is in a far more powerful negotiating position. It may reduce the odds of her getting a show, but it increases her odds of only doing the kind of show she would regard as worth doing on its merits, with personal pay scale being out of the picture.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Megabucks???

Money decides all in the broadcast world...and Rachel's motivations mean nothing to a suit who signs the checks and the contracts. All they care about is how much money she can make the company or if there's something else or someone else who can. Also, if they develop a show, then who is it sold to? Again, if she's given a show it's gonna be on both a short and tight leash...take it or leave it.

There's no greed here, just business...and I'm very sure Rachel and her agent know the game very, very well. Unfortunately altruism and principals mean little in broadcasting. If that were the case, I'd still be doing talk shows. The behind the scenes are both byzantine and is always by the golden rule. Rachel should feel fortunate, and I'll bet she is, that she has the opportunity to get on a network and say what she does...I'd hate to see her ruin that...but you can't eat altruism.

Again, Rachel is still a fresh face on the television scene and giving her own show would be a big risk for the network...not one she controls but they do. It's their electrons.

In the end, Rachel may need to hold on to whatever NBC offers as I see AAR in its death throes...

[stratomagi]

6. And we have Olbermann to thank for paving the way for people

like Maddow and Abrams, though I definitely think Maddow could've made it on her own.

[halliburtonsux]

8. Abrams is good - he should have his own show.

n/t

[Clintonista2]

10. She should take KO's place

[GreenTea]

13. No KO?

Olbermann was ground breaking and gets all the republican wrath and handles it perfectly!

[hokies4ever]

15. I say wait until after the election

and get rid of 'Race to the White House' since the race will be over. The question remains, however, as to what format should her show be. She does well in the Countdown format, but two of the same show may not go over well. I'm thinking some kind of version of Hannity & Colmes. Would be great to see Rachel's brilliant mind tearing down Republican talking points night after night.

[rusty quoin]

17. Rachel opposite Pat Buchanan.

[hokies4ever]

18. Ugghh

That's the one choice I will veto. Rachel has great on-screen chemistry with most people. It could definitely be better with Pat, but it's not too bad. Actually, now that I think about it, it could work okay. But that's just because I'm comparing it to a Rachel vs. Joe Scarborough. Now THAT matchup I will have to veto. :patriot:

It would definitely get some high ratings and would be a legitimately balanced show. Pat is a good sport about taking hits from people while on TV, and so is Rachel with the way she laughed off Pat hinting at her being a Marxist thinker earlier this year.

[ConsAreLiars]

20. Rachel without any fundie-crazie-dittohead would be far better.

Olberman does fine without a corporate shill on his show. Why would you want her to be saddled with one?

(edit typo)

[hokies4ever]

23. I disagree

One of Rachel's best qualities that is also unique to her is her superb ability to debate points on the merits. If you don't use that skill, it's as if she doesn't have it. Therefore, either give her a co-host or set up the format to have frequent guests to debate various issues. A 2nd Countdown might sound fun and exciting at first, but it isn't the best use of her talents, especially since KO already does a great job with Countdown. I don't want to try to replace KO with Rachel. I want them to both be able to shine to the best of their abilities.

[ConsAreLiars]

26. Maybe a format like Hartmann?

I think being tied to some particular moron for a whole season would be a disaster, but doing as Thom does and taking on righty-ranters on a regular basis might be a plus for the show.

(edit syntax)

[hokies4ever]

28. I think the luxury with Rachel

is that you could sit her next to a right-winger and she would easily beat down their arguments. I think that her fans would really enjoy seeing her take it straight to the Republican talking points and dismantle them one by one. Think about Rachel's appearances on 'Race to the White House'. Her best lines are the ones in which she's putting Joe Scarborough in his place. I always love it when she smacks him around and sends him away crying. One time he even stormed off the set, hehe. :rofl:

[GreenTea]

19. I think before the election (knock off some republicans show/slot) and after as well!

Another progressive voice on television ASAP is a necessity with the coming avalanche of republican smears, distortions and lies before the election, it's important to have Rachel on now...whether on MSNBC, CNN or even a Sunday morning television network news show.

Create a show if necessary, (and it is)!

[Reader Rabbit]

32. Billo got his ass kicked by a girl!

:evilgrin:

Not technically correct, of course, but it sure was fun to type!