Showing posts with label msnbc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label msnbc. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

All or Nothing


Today's Daily Banter column takes a look at last night's debut of All In With Chris Hayes on MSNBC.

Here's the opening shot:

"As a guy who’s been married and divorced three times I obviously have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. And I was certainly wrong about what Chris Hayes’s new MSNBC show, All In, would look like. When I wrote about the audacious, revealing choice MS was making by casting Hayes as the new bedrock of its prime-time a couple of weeks ago, I figured that the network was going to, at the very least, tinker with the Chris Hayes morning show format so that while Hayes’s personal depth and wonkishness would travel to weeknights, 8PM, the profoundly cerebral nature of the program as a whole would stay safely behind on the weekends.

Well, MSNBC apparently has much bigger balls than I thought."


Read the Rest Here

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Quote of the Day


"This began with Ed coming to me ... And I will tell you that Ed has an incredible following in the network ... Ed and I were talking about his contract, and Ed is a very sharp guy. He said he wanted to be here long term ... He wanted to spend more time in Minnesota. I said, ‘Well, Ed, I am extending the weekend. I need someone for 5 to 7. It’s critical. It’s going to be as important as 8 to 10 (weeknights).’ And he came back to me and said, ‘I want to do that long term.’"

-- MSNBC President Phil Griffin on the network's decision to move Ed Schultz from prime time to weekends

I like to think that after 21 years in the TV news business -- in the trenches, writing about it, or consulting on it -- I'm anything but naïve and I'm certainly well beyond the point of being able to be shocked. But then I read something like this and I'm reminded that it's still staggering how easily and shamelessly the people who are trusted to tell you the truth about what's going on in the world can not only lie to your face but lie to your face and expect you to believe it. When it comes to official office PR, everything you hear that comes out of the mouth of a TV executive is exactly that: PR. This is especially true at NBC, where the network is still suffering the consequences of its incompetent, damn-near sociopathic handling of the firing of both Conan O'Brien and, of course, Ann Curry.

Still, maybe the quote above isn't a flat-out lie. It's probably more like an example of almost admirably Clintonian verbal sleight-of-hand, where every word has been carefully chosen so that technically what Griffin is saying isn't a lie -- it's just not at all the truth.

It probably went more like this, with the reality of the situation in parentheses:

"This began with Ed coming to me. ('He stopped by my office to shoot the shit about something completely inconsequential and not at all related to his place at the network or his time slot.')... And I will tell you that Ed has an incredible following in the network. ('I have to say this. It's the nice thing to do. The truth is that a lot of the staff like him, but no one enough to actually risk his or her own job going to the mat for him.') ... Ed and I were talking about his contract ('This was at a different time than when he came to me to shoot the shit.') and Ed is a very sharp guy. ('Again, I have to say this.') He said he wanted to be here long term. ('He let me know he was going to be staying late tonight.') ... He wanted to spend more time in Minnesota. ('He put in for a week-long vacation in April, as he always does.') I said, ‘Well, Ed, I am extending the weekend. ('Fast-forward to when I actually approached him about pushing him out of prime time.') I need someone for 5 to 7. It’s critical. It’s going to be as important as 8 to 10.’ ('Okay, so not really, but by this point in corporate-speak this falls under forgivable-things-you-say-to-convince-someone-that-he-or-she-isn't-really-being-demoted-when-he-or-she-most-certainly-is. Call it a pride-booster, even if it's crap.') And he came back to me and said, ‘I want to do that long term.’ (Ed: 'Because the choice is obviously that or I get fired, and since I'm going to get paid the same amount either way... Oh, and I still get my free town cars, right?')"

Friday, March 15, 2013

Extreme Makeover


Today's Daily Banter column takes a look at the decision that completes and sets in stone MSNBC's transition from Bush-era center-left opposition to Obama-era full-throated intellectual liberalism.

Here's the opening shot:

"Call it one hell of a shot across the cable news bow. In the span of just 24-hours MSNBC has made it perfectly clear exactly what kind of network it wants to be. The outraged populist with the combative tone, force-of-nature personality and tendency to let his constantly running mouth get him into trouble is gone. In his place will now be a cerebral, wonkish, self-described facts-and-figures nerd who couldn’t fit the traditional conservative cliché of an elitist left-wing weenie more if he wore a bow tie and had pure New England ivy growing out of his ass. Both are liberals, but the kind of liberals they are — at least in presentation and tenor — are light years apart. And MSNBC has chosen not only which person it wants but what message it wants to send in its highest-profile spot, cementing a line-up that officially marks the self-coronation of the network as an unapologetically intellectual powerhouse of liberal politics, for better or for worse."

Read the Rest Here

Friday, March 8, 2013

All That's Left


Today's Daily Banter column takes a look at MSNBC and what's becoming of it.

Here's the opening shot:

"I’ll make this quick because it’s Friday and I have no desire to work late tonight.

MSNBC’s heading faster and faster down a dangerous road and it needs to put the brakes on. Now.

For a couple of years now the network has been fielding accusations of being the liberal answer to Fox News and for a couple of years now I’ve defended it as being nothing of the sort. While Fox News has had a top-down political mandate from the start, one that’s not only allowed to but is expected to directly impact every single facet of its coverage, MSNBC has always been in a more precarious position journalistically."


Read the Rest Here

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

New Rules



My issue when it comes to the recent round of Republican soul-searching has mostly been that it seems focused more on "rebranding," meaning selling a bad product in a way that makes it appear more enticing, than actually presenting new ideas.

Well, even though this little soliloquy casts itself as a series of tips on how to rebrand the GOP, it actually offers some damn good advice -- good advice that would benefit the entire country.

And believe it or not, much to her credit, it comes from the normally groan-inducing S.E. Cupp.

Good for her.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

The Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show, 12.6.12



We spend the whole hour vigorously debating whether MSNBC has a so-called pro-Obama bias. Bob says no, I say yes, and we definitely go at it. Brought to you by Bubble Genius.

There’s political talk and much more in this week’s After Party -- Friday at Noon eastern time.

Listen and subscribe for free on iTunes

Download the mp3 (55 minutes, 23mb)

Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com

Define "Self-Evident"


Today's column for the Daily Banter pegs off of a piece Cesca wrote on Tuesday.

Here's a small excerpt and you can probably get where I'm going with it:

"The headline for Bob Cesca’s column from a couple of days ago really caught my eye, which I have to assume it was designed to. It read, “There Is No Pro-Obama Bias at MSNBC.” At first I figured... that Bob was just going for the attention-grab. But once I started reading the piece I quickly realized that, no, he really did intend to make the argument that MSNBC isn’t biased in favor of President Obama; he wasn’t just trying to get me to spend a few minutes cleaning coffee off the screen of my laptop."

Read the Rest Here (and be sure to listen to Bob and I almost certainly go at it over this on today's podcast)

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Hounding Fox


Today's column for the Daily Banter takes a look at a big and somewhat surprising milestone for MSNBC, one that could signal a shift in cable news viewing habits -- or could just be a hiccup.

Here's the opening shot:

"Several years ago, when I was still working at CNN, there was a morning where I walked into anchor Carol Costello’s office to find her buried in the overnight numbers. I plunked myself down in the comfortable chair in front of her desk and waited for her to finish going through the not-so-rosy details and, sure enough, after a minute or two she dropped the paperwork, rolled her eyes in exasperation and sighed, 'I don’t get it — how does Fox do it?' I chuckled a little, then answered, 'Because Fox News is a brand, not a product.'"

Read the Rest Here

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Stage Left


Continuing the apparent theme here today, if you didn't get a chance to listen to the Bob & Chez Show After Party that I referenced in my little diatribe against John Stossel it probably won't surprise you to learn that Al Sharpton came in a close second on my list of most disliked cable news personalities. The shockingly dumb stunt his unwatchable MSNBC show pulled last night is a perfect example of why I think he has zero place on the air at a major news outlet.

He and his crew staged a "reenactment" of Mitt Romney's Hamptons fundraiser on Sunday, complete with four actors playing the Biff and Muffy Hamptons cliché to the hilt -- all tennis-wear and phony finishing school accents, like they're extras in a Whit Stillman movie -- while rattling off actual quotes from the fundraiser's hyper-wealthy attendees. It was, literally, political coverage as cheap theater -- and it never should've been allowed on the air at MSNBC.

The argument is often made from the right that MSNBC is as horrifically biased as Fox News, just from the other direction. This isn't true, simply because MSNBC ultimately has to answer to the objective-at-all-costs NBC News mothership and it maintains a modicum of independence and fairness in its regular news programming, while Fox News has a top-down political mandate that infects every single show on its air. Still, despite the fact that Sharpton's show is opinion and nothing more, this kind of stupid stunt just makes the entire network look bad, adds more fuel to the fire of its critics and proves that political punditry on cable is nothing but a circus act these days. It isn't even decent and insightful advocacy because no one with an IQ above that of a gerbil will take it the least bit seriously.

Sharpton's a buffoonish, inarticulate joke -- and he and his show should be scrapped for finally resorting to this kind of nonsense in an effort to make its point.

Although it's admittedly humorous and ironic that, in keeping with the need for liberal political correctness, the show included a black guy among the cast playing the Romney fundraiser guests. I'm betting the only black people at this thing were the ones serving the food and drinks.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Pretty Vacant


As promised, my latest piece for the Daily Banter is up and it deals with MSNBC's comically transparent decision to hire conservative commentator S.E. Cupp.

Here's the opening shot:

"I happened to stumble across the very good 1994 movie Quiz Show on cable the other day. For those who haven’t seen it or don’t know much about it, the film dramatizes the television quiz show scandal of the late 1950s, in which 'Twenty-One' and other popular TV game shows were revealed to have been fixed by the producers behind them. The most infamous revelation during the scandal, and really the one that started the snowball rolling downhill, was that handsome and seemingly brilliant 'Twenty-One' returning champion Charles Van Doren — who rocketed to pop culture stardom because of his supernatural staying power and apparent wealth of knowledge on a broad number of topics — had actually been given the answers all along by TV exec Dan Enright and had initially won on the show only after the previous long-time winner had been ordered to take a dive. That previous champion, Herb Stempel — who admitted that he too had been handed the answers on the show during his extended run — was a somewhat schlubby dullard from Queens, while Van Doren was a youthful and engaging academic from a successful family."

Read the Rest Here

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Quote of the Day, Jr.


"He's like a character in a Bruce Willis movie. He just knows how to stay alive. He's running through the jungle, fighting back, shooting from the hip, takes a lot of hits, stays angry the entire time, and he is giving a voice to a lot of people out there whose lives have been completely upended."

-- Tom Brokaw on Rick Santorum, during MSNBC's coverage of the Republican primaries last night

Where to even being. It's this kind of nonsense that frustrates the hell out of anyone looking for intelligent, responsible political reportage and analysis on cable news. No, Tom, Santorum isn't like a character in a movie, nor is he a horse in a race; he's very real and his rhetoric and proposed policies have the potential to impact the entire country. And the people he's largely giving a voice to -- the ones whose lives have been "upended," mostly by the frightening march of progress -- are those who believe that we need to return to the 19th century when it comes to our politics and pervading beliefs on subjects like religion and women's rights. He says the separation of church and state makes him sick, that a college education is for snobs and those willing to be indoctrinated by liberal thinking, and that Satan, the father of lies, is behind this country's troubles. But instead of parsing the policies and views of a man running for President of the United States and the way they could affect each and every one of us, Brokaw can only sit back and marvel at Santorum's supposedly ferocious tenacity.

This is why no one with a mildly functional brain gives a shit about anything the TV news networks have to say about politics anymore.

Yeah, Tom -- Santorum is like a character in a Bruce Willis movie. He's Brad Pitt's delusional mental patient Jeffrey Goines from 12 Monkeys. And if you don't have the balls to at least notice that because you're too busy clinging to some horseshit illusion of objectivity, then no one should be listening to you.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Quote of the Day


"After ten years, we’ve parted ways with Pat Buchanan. We wish him well."

-- MSNBC's official announcement that it's firing America's most prominent avuncular neo-Nazi

I was gonna go with Buchanan's pissy response to MS's decision, which of course blames everybody in the world you'd expect and casts him as the victim of a liberal witch-hunt, but, well, fuck him -- we've heard from him enough over the past several decades.

You can go ahead and start the clock now counting down how long until Fox News announces the hiring of its latest resentful, aging white guy contributor. It would only make sense to hire a marquee racist grandfather since it's the network everyone's racist grandfather watches.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Quote of the Day


"Folks, the Republican Party has been in a mad rush to its extreme white wing, and Rick Santorum has been there waiting the whole time."

-- Al Sharpton on MSNBC

A lot of hay is already being made of this comment, with people asking whether he actually meant to say "white" or if it was simply a gaffe. And by people I mean the three households nationwide who watch Al Sharpton's show and the internet media who make money and score page views by blowing up any dumb thing anyone says on television into an earth-shattering controversy.

Did Sharpton really mean to say "white wing?" Well, on the one hand he's conditioned himself to see blatant racism everywhere he looks, so it wouldn't be a surprise if he naturally ran his views on Santorum through that prism -- nor would it be a shock if the racism center of his brain simply misfired, Tourettes-like, because it had been a while since he'd said anything racially incendiary or just plain blamed whitey for something. On the other hand, I don't get the idea that Sharpton's mind is stratified enough to be capable of dynamic repression, so I'm not sure a Freudian Slip is even possible. Chances are he just fucked up the word "right" because he's a buffoon who can't go two minutes without tripping over his own tongue.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Songs That Voices Never Share


A very quick excerpt from my book, Dead Star Twilight -- one that attempts to relate the chaos, fear and overwhelming heartache that permeated New York City in those first hours and days following the 9/11 attack.


September 13th, 2001


I have a song echoing through my head. I know it’s from Moby. I think it’s called My Weakness. I’m not sure. I’m not sure of much of anything at this moment. I’m simply forcing myself to pay attention to what’s happening around me, because I know that someday someone will ask me to describe this and just shaking my head in overwhelmed silence won’t do it all justice—even though it will seem the most appropriate response. I’m surrounded by people. There’s sound everywhere and yet for some reason there’s no sound at all. It’s almost dead quiet to me—as if each individual noise has merged into the other at some sub-atomic level, creating one punishing, dull drone. It’s constant. I want to scream but I already know that it would simply disappear—consumed in the vacuum created by the sudden disappearance of so many lives. This is not the world I know. This is a hole punched in the fabric of reality created by more human suffering than is imaginable.

One particular sound finally slices through the deep thrum. I recognize it immediately and my brain quickly categorizes the possible sources of it. I look up to the sky. As I do, I catch a glimpse of hundreds of other people doing the same, many with looks of fear and confusion on their faces. They’ve heard this sound before—and the last time, it brought with it terror and death. I wasn’t here for that. For me the sound of a jet still qualifies as nothing more than routine. Now, though, it’s the sight that shocks me back to whatever is left of reality: Three fighters, in tight formation. They streak by—the shockwave of sound deafening. For a moment the entire crowd at the corner of 25th Street and Lexington Avenue is stunned into absolute silence. It is an eerie and frightening moment. The jets are visible for only a few seconds. From my perspective on the ground, they appear almost directly overhead, clearing the horizon created by the top of one building—screaming diagonally across the open sky and leaving vapor trails like dark scars—then disappearing behind the top of the giant building on the other side of the street. The sound lingers long after the spectacle that created it has disappeared from view. My mind comprehends it all and finally puts it into impossible words inside my head:

There are fighters flying cover over an American city.

As the artificial thunder of the jets reverberates and retreats through the canyon of structures surrounding the historic National Guard Armory, I stand across the street, taking in the incomprehensible scene playing out all around me. I arrived only a short time ago, taking the PATH train from Hoboken to 33rd, then catching a cab to this location. This is where I’m supposed to meet my crew because this is where hundreds of people have gathered to look for, at best, hope—at least, answers. The Armory at 25th & Lex is the processing area for the families of those still missing less than forty-eight hours after the attack that leveled the World Trade Center. If the Trade Center site itself overwhelms with the sheer size and scope of the recent cataclysm, this place overwhelms with the inescapable anguish caused by it.

I’m moving through the crowd now, trying to push the fragile figures in my path aside as gently as I can. Some are crying loudly. Many are implosively silent, their—figuratively, literally—ashen faces proof enough of their pain. In the confusion, I feel someone grab my shoulder.

“Are you from the TV?”

I spin around and I’m face-to-face with a young Hispanic woman—probably in her early twenties—and an older woman who I immediately assume is her mother. The old woman is shouting something in Spanish. I’m confused over the odd phrasing of the question for a moment, then I realize that yes, I guess I am from the TV.

“As of about an hour ago—yeah,” I answer, noticing that the young woman has reached down and is holding the MSNBC ID dangling from around my neck.

“Can you put us on TV? We’re looking for my husband. He worked in One World Trade,” she says, as the elder suddenly produces a white piece of photocopied paper from somewhere and hands it my way. On it is a dark reproduction of a wedding photo: The woman standing in front of me and the man she’s now trying to find. Above the picture are his name and a telephone number. If I pull my eyes away and look in any direction, I’ll see hundreds of similar fliers being carried by hundreds of different people. The format will be the same: Picture, name and phone number. The desperation will be the same—some say, “please help us,” or “we miss you.” Some will even have the gut-wrenching augmentation, “I love you daddy.” Only the names and faces will be different. People are walking around with these things. They’re taped to walls and public telephones. They’re everywhere—an endless, collective cry for help.

I’ve got my hand on the woman’s shoulder now and I notice I’m shouting above the crowd.

“What’s your name?”

“Alicia.”

“Okay, Alicia, who’s this?” I say, motioning toward the older woman.

“This is my husband’s mother.”

Guess I was wrong.

“Alright, listen to me—” I’m trying to be as authoritative as I can. “I’m gonna get you some help. Come with me.”

She acknowledges and says something to her mother-in-law. What I neglect to tell her of course is that I have no idea how I’m going to get her some help. I just arrived and don’t have the slightest idea where the hell my crew is. As I push through the throng, with the two women in my wake, I’m simply trying to get a handle on the fact that someone actually asked to be put on camera. Normally, news people are looked upon as vultures, and when you see one of them coming, you run like a scared four-year-old. But that was before everything everyone knew to be true was turned upside down by some very pissed-off Arabs with control of four commercial planes. Now as I glance around I pick out dozens of news crews—each with a line of people waiting patiently, fliers in hand, ready to make their pain public in the hope that someone, somewhere can make it stop.

I’m still not spotting my own crew among the crush of journalists, so I reach behind me, grab Alicia’s hand and begin moving off the street and toward the sidewalk along Lexington. Somewhere in the middle of all the chaos, I spot one reporter and photographer who look as if they’ve just finished setting up. So far no one seems to have noticed them. Perfect. I direct the two women toward the reporter. As I get closer, I see that his photographer is wearing an ID around his neck: WWOR—Channel 9 in New York. Locals.

Oh well—beats the Travel Channel, I suppose.

I move Alicia up onto the sidewalk, with her mother-in-law right behind her, and ask them to stand next to the photographer. Hopefully, given the situation, any amount of ass-kissing on my part should be painlessly minimal.

“Hey—can you talk to these two?” I say to the reporter, thumbing over my shoulder. “The young one’s looking for her husband.”

“Her and about a thousand other people here,” he says, forcing a look that he doubtlessly hopes will scream sympathetic nice-guy. Unfortunately, from where I’m standing it comes off more like irritated asshole. “Giuliani’s supposed to come through here in a minute. I’ve got to finish setting-up.”

Okay, look you arrogant prick—talk to these people or I’ll pull that tape out of your camera and smoke it on a piece of tin foil, and believe me, I COULD RIGHT NOW.

“Look, man,” I say, choosing to be sweetness-and-light for the sake of the two women standing nearby. Now I lower my voice—speaking just loud enough for the reporter to hear me above the surrounding noise. “September 11th was their third wedding anniversary. She just had a baby—he’s a month old. He probably doesn’t have a father now.”

I’m not trying to appeal to his humanity. I’m simply piling it on thick—baiting him with the kinds of angles sure to elevate a story from good TV to Emmy-assured TV. He punches his fists into his hips, one hand holding his microphone. He looks off into the distance, craning his neck above the crowd—probably to see if hizzoner is coming.

“Please. They need help,” I say quietly. Now I am appealing to his humanity.

He lets out a loud sigh.

“Okay. Let’s go.”

As he moves them in front of the camera, Alicia gives me a joyless smile and mouths a quiet thank you. It’s not hard to grasp that this will likely be the first of countless times over the next few months that someone else’s searing pain and loss puts my own into perspective. For a moment, everything goes quiet and everyone else disappears. I look at Alicia and return her sad smile, mouthing back a silent good luck.



On a corner, one avenue over from Lexington, I’ve found a relatively calm place to make a cell phone call to my elusive photographer and reporter. I’m appreciating the irony of standing under the awning of an Afghan restaurant, one which chose to close its doors today—probably wisely. A handwritten sign on the door reads: Our hearts and prayers are with our fellow New Yorkers during this terrible tragedy. May God bless us all. As the line rings, I lift my eyes from the sidewalk and look across the street to where a WABC news van is parked, surrounded by the constantly shifting mass of people. The engineer inside the truck has his feet up on the dashboard. He’s asleep.


Download Dead Star Twilight Here

(The physical copy of the book, unfortunately, is still in the proofing stages, so it won't be available for another couple of days.)

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Steve-D'oh


This is pretty damn hilarious.

Anyone who's read my little book, Dead Star Twilight, is familiar with the name Steve Hyvonen. He's a guy I used to work with years ago at the NBC owned and operated station in Miami and who I wound up being under again immediately after 9/11 -- that's because he was an executive producer of dayside news programming at MSNBC at the time. In the book, I describe him as a pretty harmless and likable goof -- certainly not a bad guy by any means but likewise no ferociously uncompromising journalistic iconoclast. Hyvonen always perfectly represented the kind of tediously average, whiter-than-white-bread influence that seems to assert itself more these days in local news than just about any other. He was never the type to make waves and he seemed content at all times to just do whatever that management guidebook he'd once read dictated and be back home to his suburban wife and 2.3 kids by supper; think Bill Lumbergh by way of Ned Beatty's Otis character from Superman. He certainly wasn't the kind of guy worth getting worked up over for any reason at all.

Which is why it's all kinds of amusing to find out -- and I missed this the first time around -- that last year Hyvonen made Keith Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World" list at one point. That fact alone is worth pointing and laughing at; the fact that the inclusion was apparently made at the behest of a few people at MS who are still aware of Hyvonen's time at the network and have, shall we say, less than fond memories of him, is even more entertaining. What Hyvonen did to earn Olbermann's ire, by the way, tells you everything you need to know about his thinking. Once again, I have no problem at all with the guy -- but it's still a hoot.

Incidentally, the reason I stumbled across this has to do with my plans for Dead Star Twilight for the upcoming 10th anniversary of 9/11. A full announcement will be coming within the next few days.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Assistant Quote of the Day


"I’ve known Rev. Sharpton for over a decade and have tremendous respect for him. He has always been one of our most thoughtful and entertaining guests. I’m thrilled that he’s now reached a point in his career where he’s able to devote himself to hosting a nightly show. ‘PoliticsNation’ is going to be an incredibly strong kick-off to our evening schedule."

-- MSNBC President Phil Griffin, officially giving the unfathomably awful Al Sharpton his own show on the network

And you thought a 5.9 earthquake along the Eastern Seaboard was the only disaster to happen today that you never thought you'd see.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Speech Impediment


I'm not even going to bother saying, "I told you so," because I shouldn't have to; it's perfectly clear to anyone not currently Phil Griffin that allowing Al Sharpton to be the on-air host of a cable news show is a galactically freaking stupid idea. Putting aside Sharpton's considerable credibility problem as well as his lengthy history of playing the very press he's now ostensibly a part of -- always in the name of feeding his insatiable narcissism -- one fact just can't be overlooked: his broadcasting skills don't even rise to the level of rank amateur.

Case in point, this cringe-inducing, entirely predictable on-cam gaffe, which was apparently the result of the most basic of live TV hazards: a prompter drop-out.



Look, here's what it comes down to: If MSNBC is really looking to do something about the dearth of black or brown faces in prime on-air positions, it should considering going with one of the 83,000 or so black journalists currently working in America (at least a few of whom can found in the newsroom up the hall from Griffin's office). Putting Sharpton on the air looks like exactly what it is: a cheap gimmick, and nothing more. It's an insult to anyone who actually worked to get a shot at his or her own hour in the spotlight. Sharpton's a joke -- and one guaranteed to embarrass himself and the network over and over again should he be given the chance to.

Somebody in the comment section of the previous post on Melissa Harris-Perry suggested that she be a candidate for her own show on MS; that's a damn fine choice, actually. It seems ridiculous to make the conscious decision that whoever gets the six o'clock show, that person will have to be black -- and I can't say with certainty that that's what MSNBC has done -- but it's even more ridiculous to assume that any high-profile black guy will do.

For God's sake, get Sharpton out of there and give the show to somebody with actual talent.

Monday, July 25, 2011

He's the Establishment, Man!


If you thought that my largely even-handed piece last week on the departure of Cenk Uygur from MSNBC would be met with magnanimity and an interest in healthy debate, free from petty dismissiveness, over at the Huffington Post -- well, you obviously don't read HuffPo much. While there were a few comments that could be called thoughtful and engaging, a good portion of them sounded like they were written by people who had just been forced to gargle a tall glass of cat piss.

The biggest argument seemed to be that Cenk's unrefined, blunt-instrument delivery -- which I think works alright on his internet show but is a little irritating on television at six o'clock -- just proves how genuine he is and constitutes a much-needed breath of fresh air on cable news.

"Mr. Pazienza..­..sorry you don't appreciate the straight-f­orward... and honest style of journalism that Cenk Uygur embodies, but maybe you need to get over that."

-- LelioRisen

"I completely disagree with this person'a assessment of Cenk. Everything he said he backed up with facts. He's REAL."

-- efffox

Then there were the people who specifically zeroed-in on my use of the word "polish" to describe what Uygur lacks.

"'I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaste­r, so from that perspectiv­e I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while.' Yeah, we are all looking for 'polish' vs adherence to principal in our reporters."

-- zlohcuc

"Does the author mean polished like most of on-air hosts on most of the networks in the U.S. who don't know what questions to ask and do not listen to the answers given for proper follow up but look good doing it? That kind of polished?"

-- gysgt213

For the record, and I've made this clear here a couple of times, saying that Cenk isn't polished was a really nice way of not saying that he sounds like he's talking with a mouth full of marbles. What he's saying is decent -- it really is. How he's saying it needs work, and his combative delivery just makes his deficiencies when it comes to enunciation more pronounced. I'm certainly not saying that he should be banished from network news for all eternity; I'm saying that he needs to learn to be passionate without letting it consume him to the point where it highlights his faults as a broadcaster and therefore works against him when it comes to trying to effectively get his point across, and that's simply something you learn with training and over time.

Then, of course, comes the inevitable guy who accuses me of working for Fox.

"More importantly Chez. Who pays you? Roger or does Rupert pay you directly. This was a hit piece on MSNBC if I ever read one. The snide comments about being yelled at, bellicose, lame at broadcasti­ng, nonstop left handed remarks about KO, Shultz, Cenk, and others."

-- Liberalbuzz

But the number of people who had one very specific word to describe me -- presumably for having the gall to not offer what they deemed an unequivocal defense of Cenk -- well, just see for yourself.

"This from a guy with 20 years inside establishm­ent news. Hmmm..."

-- HeevenSteven

"'presumabl­y, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction' C'mon, that is absurd! Uygur is nothing but respectful with guests who are respectful to him... Get with the program, Chez."

-- Aber

Rersponse: "He's establishm­ent, what do you expect. Both sides are "50/50", always."

-- MyMindSpray

"HuffPost's tone is set to defend the establishm­ent. Impressive­! Why don't you tell us why Phil Griffin is more credible than Cenk?"

-- Genna

"'It's one reason I respect Cenk so much - he sticks to his principles first.' This would be the reason Chez, and any number of other media figures critical of people like Cenk have a problem, you see. Because he maintained his integrity, even at personal cost. While the ones griping are those who've sold theirs off a piece at a time for a little more cash and notoriety. People who wholly abandon their principles for mere profit of one kind or another are always upset with someone who won't, no matter the pressure. Because it makes them realize what weak, hollow, and pathetic excuses for human beings they really have become. Everyone should be just like them, so they don't have to feel bad about being a sellout."

-- Asmodeus

That last comment I actually responded to, which I rarely do. All I wrote was, "That's pretty rich. You don't know much about my history, do you?" The idea that anyone should have to pass a political purity test is obscene to begin with, but to call me in particular "establishment" is fucking ridiculous. Like Cenk, I whipped right around and publicly bit the hand that fed me -- burning not just a job but potentially my entire career to the ground -- immediately after being fired by CNN for blogging. Speaking my mind, and the suicidally stupid need to go on speaking my mind, cost me a whole hell of a lot. It's a breeze to be ferociously vocal about your views -- and to criticize those who aren't -- when you're hiding behind an online handle and posting comments at the Huffington Post. Try doing it when there are serious negative repercussions that threaten your livelihood and everything you hold dear. If you can't do it then -- or until you're even in that position -- shut your goddamned trap.

This guy had a decent question (although he was apparently trying to get it to read the way Cenk often talks):

"Wait a moment, first you say he got a big of an ego, and then you say 'To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibi­lity to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down.' So which one is it, integrity or ego. ?"

-- Zacky Ahmed

Why can't it be both? You think it isn't possible for someone with a healthy ego to have integrity as well?

Then, needless to say, came the Sharpton defenders.

"Don't knock Rev. Sharpton! He doesn't have the experience as Cenk didn't, but give him a chance. I'm sure he will improve if he's allowed to stay. This is a new venue for him and hopefully, he will find coaches to help him refine his presence on TV."

-- madatnewsmedia

"Sharpton's rhetorical style may differ because of his background as a minister but there is nothing incoherent about him. I think Pazienia may not be experience­d in listening to a diverse group of speakers."

-- db08

The problem with Sharpton is that, unlike Cenk, it's not just what he says and how he says it -- but who he is. Cenk makes good points, he just does it poorly sometimes from a broadcasting perspective. Regardless, his passion is commendable and I do believe he's 100% sincere in his beliefs. Sharpton is on TV because nobody likes seeing himself on TV more (besides maybe Gloria Allred, but if I get into that we'll be here all day).

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Turk Off


Well, as somebody who's never met a bridge he couldn't plant 600 pounds of explosives under, I'll say this for Cenk Uygur: The boy's got some industrial-sized balls on him.

Rather than even wait for a planned teleconference to explain his sudden departure from MSNBC, Uygur -- who always seems to be on a Red Bull IV drip anyway -- took to the comfortable environs of his Young Turks YouTube channel last night to basically fire a couple of impressive parting shots at his former employer. He claims that despite respectably sturdy ratings for the 6PM show during his six months or so at the reins, MSNBC president Phil Griffin made the decision to "go in a different direction" with it, basically relieving him of the show with the promise of a lower-profile on-air gig in a slot as yet to be determined. I've said before, numerous times in fact, that I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaster, so from that perspective I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while. But of course, Uygur says that his technical skills as an on-air host weren't the primary reason the network decided to cut him loose at six.

He says it's all about his politics and his often combative defense of them.

According to Uygur, Griffin told him that "people in Washington" weren't happy with the tone of his show. Cenk of course takes that to mean that he was upsetting the merchants' carts in the temples of political power; Griffin says that by "people in Washington" he meant NBC producers who were having trouble booking guests because, presumably, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction. Uygur goes on to say that at one point Griffin warned him that while he was content to rail against the establishment, MSNBC in fact is the establishment, and that that had to be kept in mind at all times. Whether this conversation really took place doesn't matter one bit because what Griffin supposedly said is a revelation about on par with finding out that the sky is blue. MSNBC, which is now part of the largest media conglomerate in the world, vertically integrated like no other, is the establishment -- well, no shit.

Whether Cenk's wounded pride was a factor in his decision to turn down MSNBC's consolation prize we'll never know for sure; obviously he's got a bit of an ego to think that he has the ability to scare the Beltway types to the point where they'd lock themselves inside their homes. But he's not lying when he says that whatever money he was being offered to stick around was almost certainly a hell of a lot more than he gets being an internet superstar. (I also couldn't help but nod knowingly at his mention of the various high-end "perks" that come with working for a corporate media behemoth; suddenly feeling like you're James Bond is nothing short of intoxicating.) So yeah, he definitely walked away from a nice paycheck and that alone could speak volumes about the purity of his motives. To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibility to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down.

Since making a conscious decision to lean to the left, MSNBC has been precariously walking a fine line between giving its progressive voices the freedom they need to be effective as hosts and understanding that that freedom will often have them saying and doing things that will make the network's corporate overlords want to drop a hundred-thousand-pound anvil on the whole place. Again, MS is the establishment -- which means that while guys like Phil Griffin want their anchors, reporters and contributors to work outside the box, they need to make sure they work inside a slightly larger box. Uygur was a bit of a loose cannon on-air, but not so much that it should have cost him his job; Ed Schultz is infinitely more bellicose as a host and astonishingly he's still firmly in place in prime-time, despite a couple of recent, entirely predictable hiccups. The difference, I think, is one of inelegance. Even Schultz's occasionally obnoxious outrage has been carefully honed to the point where it's not quite the blunt instrument wielded by Uygur. While I'm not a big fan of Schultz's, he's a better broadcaster than Uygur. The same goes for the dearly departed Keith Olbermann, who was kept on for as long as he was only because of his immense and undeniable talents as a television host. Olbermann pissed a lot of people off, from his peers to his managers to the overlords in the adminisphere; MSNBC's decision to finally cut him loose wasn't a case of Olbermann saying things management didn't want him to say as much as him infuriating everyone in his path. Griffin just decided he wasn't worth the hassle because his ratings were great but not that great.

And that's really what it comes down to. Cenk's numbers were decent, but they weren't through the roof, in MSNBC's mind not good enough warrant giving him time to develop in a hugely important spot in its line-up. That plus his deficiencies as a network broadcaster -- and that includes his tendency to appear as if he's always one step away from challenging his political adversaries to a roshambo in the parking lot -- probably sealed his fate at six. What does all of this mean for his apparent replacement, Al Sharpton, a guy whose jarring on-air pauses and inability to complete a coherent thought make Uygur look like Murrow? Name recognition and novelty factor aside, he'd better hope his ratings are damn good -- and that they stay that way.

Still, in the end did Cenk apparently stand up for what he believes in -- and what his online audience expects of him -- in the aftermath of his demotion? Sure looks that way.

And for that he gets to walk out with his head held very high.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Uygrrrr


Look, I've never been a huge fan of Cenk Uygur as far as his being a broadcaster -- I think I've made that pretty clear. While I do agree with some of his politics, I'm not into shouting and I am into being able to distinctively pronounce each and every syllable in a word. Nothing personal against the guy, I just didn't think he was ready for prime-time, as it were, and wanted to see him do a little more work online before somebody pulled him up to the big leagues.

That said, I don't feel strongly enough about him to cheer the fact that he just lost his plum gig at MSNBC, as de facto host of the network's 6PM hour. I'm especially not going to be doing the Snoopy dance if it turns out that MS really is pushing him out in favor of Al Sharpton, as all speculation is pointing toward.

Cenk's a little annoying. Sharpton is a shamelessly corrupt narcissist without an ounce of broadcasting talent to speak of. He's been disgraced and discredited over and over again and has no business being anywhere near an NBC studio, much less having his name on an NBC show and an NBC paycheck.

Needless to say, Uygur's apparently less-than-thrilled with being given the boot and he'll supposedly be talking about it tomorrow via a press teleconference. If Sharpton takes his place? Well, then the rest of us get to be pissed as well.