6. I'd rather keep Rachel at 9:00 so I can stil watch KO,
then Lawrence at 10:00 and Schultz could replace Tweety altogether. Generally I like Schultz more than Tweety but it's sometimes a tossup who's style I dislike more. Shouting and/or spittling is just icky.
34. I've always thought Rachel Maddow was the most informative of those shows
She has an obvious (and declared) political bias, but after making her case she often brings on a right-leaning guest to give the other side of the story. And unlike many of those other shows, she doesn't talk over them and lets them actually finish talking before she argues them. It's the closest thing to actual genuine debate on cable news, IMO.
I definitely agree with you about Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O'Donnell kind of just being echo chambers for liberals (I haven't watched MSNBC regularly since a good bit before Keith left so I don't even follow who is on anymore). But I always found Rachel Maddow to be completely different and probably the most informative thing on cable news.
As far as Tweety goes, he just provides a forum for people to shout at each other and cut each other off, hence "Hardball". Just because he claims to be non-partisan, doesn't make his show informative. Jon Stewart very rightly pointed this out when he went on Crossfire and pretty much single-handedly got the show canceled. Having both sides represented on a show isn't informative if all they are doing is just yelling party talking-points at each other.
38. Tweety's show is partisan in the sense that Tweety is a Democrat, and openly
gives his views on subjects, which are of course Democratic views.
But he has guests on from both parties. KO would have, too, if they would've come on his show, but they wouldn't. KO was too rude.
Tweety can also give it really good to Republicans and tea partiers who spout their loony theories. Tweety's ready with facts...he even had a copy of Obama's birth certificate to show a crazy birther, which really made that birther loony tune look even loonier. It's my favorite MSNBC show, and its ratings are pretty good.
He was a Tip O'Neill staffer way back when and so at one time he was certainly affiliated with the Democrats, but he will not declare a partisan current partisan leaning. He also seems to kiss ass to people on both sides depending largely on what is popular at the time.
Again, that's not my issue with the show, though. My issue with the show is that Tweety has people on so that they can yell at each other and sometimes so that he can yell at them. It may be entertaining to watch a tea-bagger get yelled at, but it's not informative.
Rachel presents opposing viewpoints without the stupid theatrics. And if they are truly idiots with no facts on their side, her format simply allows them to dig themselves into a giant hole, which is far more informative than having somebody screaming at them that they are full of shit.
37. Tweety isn't a liar. Republicans like to think so. But he's not. He's pro-Democratic...
and presents a biased show in the sense that he has an opinion show, not a news show, and he, the host, is a Democrat. So he presents his views with no bones about it, which are Democratic views, but has guests of both major parties on.
35. Doubtful, the White House doesn't have the time to dictate the every move of the DOJ
Yes I'm sure that on things like not prosecuting former Bush Administration officials or not putting anybody from Goldmann Sachs on trial, the President made the final call. But the President can't possibly micro-manage the Justice Department and run the country at the same time. Which is why they generally appoint somebody who they know will do their bidding without constantly having to supervise them.
14. Absolutely - because MSNBC definitely needs another white male host in its primetime lineup
Edited on Wed Jul-06-11 05:28 PM by Empowerer
Lord knows, white folks just don't get enough airtime on cable news. And since it's obviously impossible to find any qualified black or Hispanic primetime hosts, its a wonderful idea to give a white guy with Spitzer's journalistic experience and credentials and moral/political authority a second bite at the apple . . .
You didn't like to be called out on your comment. You were the person who made a race comment, if you can't back it up, back it up, but don't blame the person trying to get you to be specific about your initial comment.
18. I'm a lot less worried about who's white, black, red, or purple with green polka dots
Edited on Wed Jul-06-11 06:34 PM by 21st Century FDR
or who's male or female, for that matter, as long as they tell the goddamn truth!
If MSNBC wants to give Reverend Al a full time gig, I'm all for it. Rachel has certainly done a great job on that network. But is the important thing that he's a black man and she's a woman, or is it that they speak the truth?
Diversity is a great thing, but in the case of the media, it should come in second behind integrity.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I ask because it's easy for people who see mostly people who look like them in these positions to dismiss diversity as nothing more than superficial fluff. But diversity is more than window dressing. It is important on several levels.
I suspect that if MSNBC or any other network replaced each host as openings occurred with black hosts until all of the hosts were black and none were white, the fact that they all had integrity and spoke the truth would not be enough to forestall the questions about an all-black lineup. As a black woman, I might not immediately see a problem since that would be within my comfort zone. But I'm sure that an all-black primetime lineup would not be viewed by many as an appropriate presentation, any more than an all-white lineup should be.
And I get what you're saying about wanting to see "more black faces" on TV. But if FAUX Noize suddenly hired a bunch of African American anchors who were spreading the exact same lies that the white guys Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly spread, then what's the difference?
MSNBC has Eugene Robinson and Melissa Harris-Perry on their shows often as contributors, and I'm sure if either of them (or Reverend Al) got their own shows, they would do very well, if indeed they were even interested. They may not be, since they are all fully employed elsewhere, but who knows?
And I don't think CNN has had a reliable anchor since Bernie Shaw left, though I can't blame him for leaving. He clearly saw what was coming with the AOL takeover and got the fuck outta Dodge.
But no one is talking about putting on a slate of black right-wing nutcases. There are plenty of black progressive/liberal journalists, commentators, pundits, bloggers, etc. that would make great hosts. But for some reason, none are ever given the chance. Yet, on the other hand, all manner of white folks are given a shot at hosting. It's frustrating and insulting, at least to this black woman.
When I see folks like Willie Geist and Dylan Ratigan groomed, promoted and then handed shows on a silver platter - and then see people suggest that Eliot Spitzer, a disgraced former politician whose silver-platter show tanked, be given another coveted slot, while the network still hasn't managed to find a black person it deems worthy of a similar forum - it really makes me wonder how progressive so-called progressives really are.
This is not just about appearances or diversity for diversity's sake. Racial and ethnic diversity are substantively important. And, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, it's easy to not notice or care about diversity when the monolithic pool looks and sounds like us. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and we find ourselves forced to deal with a tableau that doesn't look or sound like us, it is pretty frustrating to be told by those who ARE represented in the picture that diversity doesn't really matter.
Who would you put on MSNBC right now, if you could do so?
I seriously want to know, because if there's some great Liberal voices out there that I'm missing, I'd like to know where I can see/hear/read them.
As for Elliot Spitzer, I honestly was surprised when he got a TV show. As I've said elsewhere, I'd rather see him running the Justice department and going after some real criminals who have seriously damaged this country (Koch Brothers/Bush Crime Family/Wall Street felons/etc.) I really could care less about the whole thing with him and the overpriced hooker.
Joe Madison, Melissa Harris-Perry, Wes Moore, Bev Smith, Jamal Simmons, Hazel Trice-Edney, Kweisi Mfume, Michael Baisden, Cynthia Tucker, Eugene Robinson, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Donna Brazile, Al Sharpton, Jeff Johnson, Ed Gordon, George Curry,
A lot of them are on MSNBC already as contributors. Reverend Al seems to be their "revolving substitute host" now, doing Ed's show last week and now Cenk's show. And considering that's exactly how Cenk, Ed, Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow got their shows, then I would say he has an excellent chance at his own show. If I was running MSNBC right now, I'd drop the extra Tweety rerun (they don't need to run any show twice in three hours) and add him as a host.
As I said somewhere before, Eugene Robinson and Melissa Harris-Perry seem to be on the network all the time, though I'm not sure either would want to anchor their own shows, as they're probably too busy. I listened to Joe Madison on occasion when I was an XM radio subscriber, and think he might translate well to television. He's appeared on Ed Schultz' TV show, and seemed to do TV well from those limited appearances
Admittedly I am not a Donna Brazile fan - for the same reason I'm not a Bob Shrum fan. Bad DLC strategists who lose elections aren't who I want to hear from. I don't like that Steve McMahon guy who Tweety always has on either. Donna does appear regularly on ABC though, doesn't she?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.