Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

MSNBC's 'All In with Chris Hayes' Falls In Ratings During First Week

'All In with Chris Hayes' fell 26 percent in total viewers across its first four days, as well as 24 percent in the all-important A25-54 demo. All told, 'All In' ratings were down 15 percent from the last week of 'The Ed Show,' which was hosted by fill-in anchors.

by Anonymousreply 60110/12/2014

I used to like Chris Hayes as a guest, and I was happy to see him get his Saturday morning show, 'UP.' However, my enthusiasm quickly faded for Hayes. UP became not worth waking up for on the weekend, and Hayes' new nighttime show, 'All In' is just boring.

Yes, Hayes is smart. And I'm a political junkie and love the discussion and debate. But I'm totally bored with Hayes' "wonky" direction of his primetime show. No one does wonk better than Rachel Maddow. Hayes belongs on a blog ranting his nerdy wonky rap--but not on TV.

I already miss Ed Schultz on weeknights. Hopefully Ed's new weekend show will succeed.

by Anonymousreply 104/06/2013

Maybe it will pick up eventually.

by Anonymousreply 204/06/2013

I'd rather the 8PM time slot be about foreign policy news or at least something very neutral and not heavily US politics-specifics. Something akin to CNN International. With Al Jazeera America premiering soon, I think the viewers who want something less partisan might flock there. I wish Phil Griffin could think outside the box. 4 hours of back-to-back discussion on the same news of day is not sustainable.

by Anonymousreply 304/06/2013

Good. He sucks.

by Anonymousreply 704/06/2013

I like Hayes' show, if we didn't have the Ed show to compare it to I imagine we wouldn't be hearing some of the negativity.

by Anonymousreply 804/06/2013

I think Chris Hayes comes across as too wimpy. And everyone can tell that he's a closeted gay man who decided to marry a woman and have a family. Therefore, I don't trust him.

by Anonymousreply 904/06/2013

And R1 is the problem. Not saying it is bad you don't enjoy it, but Hayes does a real intellectual exploration of the issues in a way you rarely see in primetime. Sadly that turns away some audiences.

Even Rachel Maddow who I love hardly does that, she is much more about showing why the right wing are idiots which gets her good ratings.

Hayes succeeding would be a good sign for this countries political discourse, hope his ratings stabilize.

by Anonymousreply 1004/06/2013

R9 thinks only gay men are 'wimpy', please...grow up.

by Anonymousreply 1104/06/2013

Well, Chris Hayes has given me a reason to turn the channel, have dinner at 8, watch the shopping network, look at porn or not be glued to MSNBC all night.

Sorry, but I'm not 'All In.' I'll pass on Chris Hayes, thanks.

by Anonymousreply 1304/06/2013

That's not a very fair assessment of Rachel's show, r10. Her show doesn't get good ratings because she bashes the GOP. That was the realm of Ed Shultz and Lawrence O'Donnell. Rachel is not that pedestrian.

Her priority is always about policy, how an idea becomes politics and how politics becomes policy and how policy is what becomes laws that affect the lives of those who are not decision makers.

She provides a story with context. A way for the average person to understand why and how things happens. It's not about showing why the GOP are idiots; it's showing how they are able to maneuver in an often seamless, yet overt act.

I learn more from her than a group of people sitting around just talking.

by Anonymousreply 1504/06/2013

Well this is legitimately disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 1604/06/2013

Anderson Cooper got a big gift from MSNBC when they put this wimp opposite him. AC's ratings have improved significantly.

by Anonymousreply 1704/06/2013

r14 how is providing information to a mass audience of political junkie in an intelligent and informative manner "snobby" and "elist?" Should we only provide the Cliff Notes and the misleading the HuffPost-like misleading headlines?

by Anonymousreply 1804/06/2013

"Hayes will never understand the importance of unions in a visceral, working class, non-intellectual way. "

This might be the single stupidest thing ever written about Chris Hayes, who went to public school in New York City and whose parents are both city employees.

Also, the "Reagan Democrats" we "need" to pull back into the fold (because, what, without them we'll never elect a Democratic president like we just did twice?) are Republicans.

And this ranting about elitism....Jesus Christ! We should actually place some value on education and intellectual achievement, not shun it.

by Anonymousreply 1904/06/2013

Chris is a very bright guy BUT Ed's more of a firebrand/populist. MSNBC shouldn't have fixed something that wasn't broken. Chris's show on the weekend worked and Ed's show worked as well. NBC was worried about the demos? Well you need ratings to accompany well heeled demos as well.Bad job by NBC...

by Anonymousreply 2004/06/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 2104/06/2013

If the ratings fall any lower they might have him take over the Tonight Show at 11:30

by Anonymousreply 2304/06/2013

Am I the only one who instantly decided I couldn't take him seriously because he refused to wear a necktie like the other grownups?

(The biz casual was ok for a weekend show)

by Anonymousreply 2404/06/2013

It was sad, Chris was practically shirtless last night in a bid for rating. His sleeves were rolled up and his shirt unbuttoned to the navel. LOL. Nobody wants to see that!

by Anonymousreply 2504/06/2013

Has he presented his hole on air?

by Anonymousreply 2604/06/2013

I can't stand CH anymore. I tried watching his 8pm dreck and couldn't get past 10 minutes. By 9pm I usually don't bother to go back to MSNBC for Maddow or the Last Word at 10pm. Hayes is going to bring the whole lineup down. Whoever threw Ed out of the 8pm slot needs to be fired along with Hayes. Hays is even too boring for the weekend.

Ed would have been all over this shit O is trying to pull with SS and Medicare. Hayes just about ignored it.

by Anonymousreply 2704/06/2013

R19, my education was just like Chris had. And if MSNBC gave me a show, it would be much like Hayes's. And given their current demo, that approach would get them exactly what ratings/audience Chris is bringing in now. It wouldn't appeal to the other wing of the party, the one I discussed in my post. The wing Bill, Hillary, Al, and Ed appeal to. The wing we need to *consistently* win in midterm years. The wing we want to win back from the lying liars that are the Republican Party.

I don't consider myself elitist, and I don't believe the MSNBC hosts think they are elitist. But absent anyone in prime time who even mildly reflects the working class stiffs, they will continue giving ammo to those conservatives who slime our party and tell the blue collar guys we think we are better than they are.

by Anonymousreply 2804/06/2013

MSNBC is a corporation, R14. Why do you think they care about a particular wing of the Democratic Party and if the Dems win in the mid terms? They care about $$$ and reaching a young, affluent audience for their advertisers. And if their ratings went up if a Republican was in office, they would be just as happy.

If you are looking to MSNBC to cultivate voters, much less a poor, blue collar audience in Ohio, you're dreaming.

I think you're also giving Ed WAY more credit than he deserves. Whether he has a show in prime time or not, will not effect the 2014 elections one iota.

by Anonymousreply 2904/06/2013

Chris Hayes is going to ruin MSNBC's nightly ratings and prove to be a terrible lead-in for Rachal Maddow, MSNBC's most valuable player...and my personal favorite, Lawrence O'Donnell.

Cut the losses now, and get boring, irritatingly wonky Hayes off the air now. O'Reilley on Fox is going to clobber Hayes and his no-tie. Does Hayes realize that he has the type of neck that craves a tie. Get a stylist.

by Anonymousreply 3004/06/2013

Like it or not, viewers tune-in to MSNBC to watch Republican bashing. Chris Hayes is one of those elitists who spends as much time bashing Democrats as they do Republicans. Steve Kornacki is the same.

by Anonymousreply 3104/06/2013

He's decent when he's in a group discussion, but he just isn't anchor material.

And he suffers, due to time slot and network, to the inevitable comparison to my beloved goddess on earth Rachel.

by Anonymousreply 3204/06/2013

No, 31. I tune in to understand the context about what is driving insanity in Washington.

MSNBC bashes bad policies and right now, the GOP is the party of obstruction. The President is not the King. He can't unilateral do much without the GOP being on board. He offered to cut SS, but Boehner still rejected it.

by Anonymousreply 3304/06/2013

Boehner make my teef itch.

Can't the Repugs put someone attractive in the leadership? Y'know like Mitch McConnell?

by Anonymousreply 3404/06/2013

I have to agree with everyone here about Chris Hayes. I have tried for the past week to watch All In, but find myself bored out of my skull. I can only think of one segment that didn't bore me and it was Chris's tribute to Roger Ebert.

I say all of this as a fan of Chris Hayes. I enjoyed Up on the weekends. I enjoy his wonky policy discussions, but it just doesn't work at 8 pm time slot for some reason.

I believe Ed when he said he moved his show to weekends for personal reasons. His wife just had a cancer scare and I don't see him ever wanting to work those kinds of hours again.

I thought Alex Wagner did a great job filling the week prior. Wagner at 8 pm held my attention & she is just as intelligent as Hayes and Maddow IMO. If not giving the time slot over to Alex, MSNBC should think about grooming a new hosts for the 8 pm slot such as Joy Reid.

by Anonymousreply 3504/06/2013

Karen Finney is getting a show on the weekend. They should give Joy a show. Ari Melber is on The Cycle now.

by Anonymousreply 3604/06/2013

When Ed announced on his tv show a few weeks back that he was leaving weeknights and would move to doing a weekend show on MSNBC, I knew once again MSNBC would not chose a strong anchor to fill that slot.

Just think back. Dononhue was the #1 rated show and they fired him for opposing the Iraq War which turns out to had been the correct thing to do. Who replaced him?

Then Keith Olberman had huge ratings too and got fired for his off-camera antics. The network replaced him wrongly with Larry O'Donnell and that flopped.

When I found out the network had named Chris Hayes to replace Ed, I immediately told a friend his show will unfortunately flop becuase he does not have a strong personality that is required to carry that 8pm time slot, just like Larry O'Donnell before Ed.

Chris Hayes, smart as he is, just simply does not have a strong enough personality to carry a prime time show.

And just like another poster referenced, Anderson Cooper and his lame show is now steadily increasing in ratings due to Hayes' horrible showing.

Chris Hayes at 8 pm was the biggest gift that MSNBC could have given life support riddled CNN.

Ed, like him or hate him, really taps into blue collar working class America. That is his roots.

He grew up in a town 30 minutes from me here in Virginia. Ed's Mother was a school teacher. He has become very succeful now due to his radio show which is now ranked #4 nationally, he owns a construction company and with his MSNBC salary is of course now able to live a great life financially.

I cannot wait until his weekend show starts. Ed's promised that his Sunday show will basically be a rebuttal to all of the beltway lies that are perpetuated by the GOP, corporate Democrats, and all of the tv host that is trotted out Sunday after Sunday

by Anonymousreply 3704/06/2013

IMO, The whole network went down the toilet when Keith left. They need a strong, aggressive styled anchor for that timeslot. Ed was good with that style. But MSNBC made him discontinue psycho talk and probably pushed him out. Lawrence O'Donnell is smart and direct but by the time he's on, I'm tired of political news.

by Anonymousreply 3804/06/2013

R38, that's right that if you do not have a strong aggressive personality type, you will not last long in that 8pm time slot.

I could not believe that Hayes waisted time talking about the President's comments about the California AG last night?

Meanwhile the President's budget was released yesterday with proposed cuts to Social Security and that didn't merit a real discussion from Chris?

by Anonymousreply 3904/06/2013

The format is bad. I can't believe they brought that round table discussion format to prime time. It doesn't work. It works for Sunday mornings, NOT week day prime. I liked watching obscure, esoteric discussion on his morning show, but they need to get serious and do a straight forward news program at 8pm. That's what Chris did when he subbed in for Rachel. That's what they'll probably end up doing as ratings slide.

by Anonymousreply 4004/06/2013

I like Chris, but by the time I get frustrated with waiting for the show to take off, I don't have the energy to watch Rachel or Lawrence.

Rachel shouldn't have fucking meddled by trying to sell her boy. They're too similar and not complimentary.

by Anonymousreply 4104/06/2013

Lawrence O'Donnell is the best. Rachel second. Chris Hayes shouldn't be a host. Sorry, he's like sitting in a boring professor's lecture hall.

I'm looking forward to new host Karen Finney with her new lead-in show to Ed Schultz's weekend show. Karen is a cool, smart chick who knows her stuff.

by Anonymousreply 4204/06/2013

I generally enjoy Rachel, but Larry not as much.

I hate his taped show on Thursdays and the Prison Lock up shows that they now run in Larry's slot on Fridays.

MSNBC needs a solid show for 5 nights in that slot, if Larry cannot commit to that they may need to find another host for that 10pm slot.

by Anonymousreply 4304/06/2013

I like his politics and his heart is in the right place, but have always found him hard to watch. He's like a combination of an over-caffeinated Jack Russell and smug sauce.

I enjoy wonkiness and in-depth conversations, but he's boring. Maddow can be just as wonky, but she knows how to tell a story so your eyes don't glaze over.

That said, give Hayes a chance. He's only had his show for a week. Every show needs to find its sea legs.

If the ratings keep tanking, Hayes will no doubt revamp his format.

by Anonymousreply 4404/06/2013

He's creepy. Not too educated. Awful speech. Get rid of him, Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton and hire some good voices who are eloquent.

by Anonymousreply 4504/06/2013

He's very well-educated, R45. Did you smoke some crack before you posted?

by Anonymousreply 4604/06/2013

He's Cher's favorite straight man right? What does Cher say on twitter about him & his show?

by Anonymousreply 4704/06/2013

They need to move Lawrence O'Donnell back to 7pm. And they need to put another O'Donnell in the 9pm slot....yes, Rosie O'Donnell. Give Rosie a show similar to what Joy Behar was doing on HLN. I don't know if Rosie would want to work that late, though.

by Anonymousreply 4804/06/2013

Just because Chris went to Brown doesn't mean he isn't well-educated!

by Anonymousreply 4904/06/2013

The savvy media critic @R12 is most certainly wrong about Al Jazeera, etc.

by Anonymousreply 5004/06/2013

Chris acts like he has tourettes?

by Anonymousreply 5104/06/2013

There's hardly an issue with which I disagree with Chris. But frankly it's difficult to stomach more than a few minutes of his over caffeinated nerdy know-it-all chat. It's fine early on a weekend but I can't take him, Maddow and that insufferable dick Matthews one after another 5 days a week.

by Anonymousreply 5204/06/2013

That's what happens when you take a favorite anchor away like Ed Schultz. His ratings were kick ass and I watched him religiously!

by Anonymousreply 5304/06/2013

r52 MSNBC is the only thing you watch?

My loyalty lies with Rachel and only Rachel. I watch her show religiously. If I miss the live show, I download it later.

After Maddow, I move on to the Cooking Channel, Food Network, or the Travel Channel. If there's a good movie on HBO, I'll tune to that.

There's no need to insult MSNBC's schedule because you don't seem to have any other interests beyond it.

by Anonymousreply 5404/06/2013

He's not very photogenic is he now. And his book is called Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy. Sounds like some uppity smarty pants gobbledygook to me.

by Anonymousreply 5504/06/2013

I love "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell."

And I dislike "All In with Chris Hayes" as much. What the hell is wrong with MSNBC head honcho Phil Griffin thinking that the public wanted an hour of Chris Hayes on primetime? Bad move. Hayes is fine as a guest panelist, or maybe he might be okay on a show like "The Cycle" with other hosts. But alone? Hayes is an annoying nerdy wonk on speed. No thanks.

Well, maybe now I won't rush through my workouts. There's no reason to get home to watch Chris Hayes.

by Anonymousreply 5604/06/2013

Chris Hayes is much like Ezra Klein and Ari Melber.

They are all good as guests on a panel on somebody else's show, but are terrible at hosting an entire show themselves.

MSNBC has made a mistake with this.

by Anonymousreply 5704/06/2013

MSNBC: Sometimes we just don't want wonk.

What the hell were you thinking giving Hayes an hour in primetime--and the 8pm slot no less? I'm an MSNBC junkie, but Hayes, as the expression goes, is a bridge too far. Fix this quickly or you've lost me.

by Anonymousreply 5804/06/2013

I'm willing to give him a little more time to adjust. I love that he goes deep into issues that no one else will cover, but it gets to be a little much right now. I'm waiting to see if he adjusts.

by Anonymousreply 5904/06/2013

Paging a blue-collar middle classer with a passion for politics and working America.

We need you to come to MSNBC to rescue the 8pm weeknight time slot!

Totally agree with R58.

by Anonymousreply 6004/06/2013

Is 8PM the coveted time slot? Why doesn't Rachel want that time?

by Anonymousreply 6104/06/2013

I read somewhere recently that supposedly Rachel Maddow has in her contract that she cannot be moved to any other time slot.

Don't know whether this is really true or not?

by Anonymousreply 6204/06/2013

How did Kornacki get Up?

by Anonymousreply 6304/06/2013

By getting on his knees r63.

by Anonymousreply 6404/06/2013

[quote]Is 8PM the coveted time slot? Why doesn't Rachel want that time?

Maddow has said that she doesn't want the 8 PM time slot because in her earlier career she was constantly moved around, and now she's used to the 9 PM spot and wants to stay put.

by Anonymousreply 6504/06/2013

[38] I think you are right on the mark.

by Anonymousreply 6604/06/2013

I love Chris Hayes and enjoyed "Up" but heaven help me he's too fair-minded and cerebral for my liking in the current show. If I am upset about something political happening enough to watch MSNBC in primetime off the bat, then I want to watch someone passionate like Ed Schultz rant about it. I also liked that he never let Obama off the hook for putting Medicare and Social Security at risk.

As for Lawrence O'Donnell, I can't take him seriously since I saw an episode of "The Newsroom."

by Anonymousreply 6704/07/2013

R67, " I love Chris Hayes and enjoyed "Up" but heaven help me he's too fair-minded and cerebral for my liking in the current show. If I am upset about something political happening enough to watch MSNBC in primetime off the bat, then I want to watch someone passionate like Ed Schultz rant about it. I also liked that he never let Obama off the hook for putting Medicare and Social Security at risk. "

I completely agree with your comments. I want someone that gets visisbly mad and calls out corporate democrats as well as the GOP when it is warranted.

Chris, like Ezra Klein and some others on the network are too reserved at times. Chris will not make it in at 8 pm slot just like Larry O'Donnell could not make in at that same time slot.

The problem is now that Steve Kornacki has replaced Chris on the weekends at 8, where will they put Chris when he taken out at the 8 pm slot?

by Anonymousreply 6804/07/2013

r6, what a great suggestion. A world report with Amanpour reporting live or achorning like Maddow would be wonderful.

by Anonymousreply 6904/07/2013

[quote]The problem is now that Steve Kornacki has replaced Chris on the weekends at 8, where will they put Chris when he taken out at the 8 pm slot?

They need to have Chris Hayes back as a panelist and guest contributor on any of the MSNBC shows in which he contributed. He does not belong as a host.

I know this is being harsh, and I'll try to give Hayes a chance since I would like to see Hayes and MSNBC succeed. But Hayes got increasingly wonky on UP. It didn't start that way, but it turned into very boring wonk. I'm afraid that Hayes is much too much or a nerd and wonk to work at 8pm.

by Anonymousreply 7004/07/2013

Melissa Harris-Perry is another one who I used to like as a guest on other showa, but that "nerdland" show of her own on weekend mornings is awful. I thought it would be good, and I was glad to see MSNBC expand on the weekends, but MHP is like Chris Hayes--an unappealing wonk.

Ed Schultz and Karen Finney on MSNBC weekend early evenings should be good. I just hope the new weekend time slot works.

by Anonymousreply 7104/07/2013

Big fan of Chris, but he was really in his element on "Up," and I hate reading these bad reviews of his new show. I was afraid of this... I wish he would've stayed put, even though it meant waking up at five on the weekends to catch it live with the twitter feeds running on the ipad.

Re: Melissa Harris-Perry, I don't know what it is about her ( not the lisp or the hair) but something in her personality... I just find her a little off putting. Manic, desperate. Sometimes they will do these reaction shots to her guests and they will have these bewhildered expressions of discomfort on their faces like WTF is happening?

by Anonymousreply 7204/07/2013

[quote]They need a populist, red-blooded EveryWo/man in that slot. I'm a well-educated intellectual in a blood-red region. Hayes will NEVER appeal to the Reagan Democrats we need to pull back into the fold.

Troll Alert!

There's no such thing as Reagan Democrats anymore, gramps. If Republicans want to be a viable party, they need to head left and act like Obama Republicans. This is a new era, old timer.

by Anonymousreply 7304/07/2013

[quote]They need to move Lawrence O'Donnell back to 7pm. And they need to put another O'Donnell in the 9pm slot....yes, Rosie O'Donnell. Give Rosie a show similar to what Joy Behar was doing on HLN. I don't know if Rosie would want to work that late, though.

Introducing rosebot!

by Anonymousreply 7504/07/2013

[quote]Chris is brilliant and he is also not strong enough to carry his own prime time show. He can get really annoying. It's his style. Doesn't work for everyone.

He's a nasty right winged turd. Look at what he did to Phil Donahue.

by Anonymousreply 7604/07/2013

R74 is a racist with a chip on his shoulder.

by Anonymousreply 7704/07/2013

There was no reason to make this change in the lineup in the first place. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Do network programmers just over think things?

by Anonymousreply 7804/07/2013

Well, tomorrow starts week #2 of Chris Hayes' new evening show, let's see if he or the show improves.

I have a suspicion that it will not because Chris would have to have a personality change. It does not appear to be in his nature to become a strong aggressive attack dog to the opposition. And this is exactly what is necessary to get a strong following in primetime on cable news.

by Anonymousreply 7904/07/2013

Yes, it made very little sense R78.

I hope that what Ed Schultz stated about wanting to spend more time with his ailing wife is what really happened. I hope that Schultz was not pulled from the 8 pm time slot because he dared challenge not only the GOP but corporate Democrats wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.

This is something he talked about regularly on his show and it seems that MSNBC and the corporate media loves Democrats like "Fix The Debt" former Governer Ed Rengell types who advocate cutting safety net programs to keep taxes loves on the 1% and corporations.

by Anonymousreply 8004/07/2013

I loved Chris Hayes on "Up". Whenever someone says that he was too 'wonky' or 'dull', I just think that that person is afraid of genuinely intellectual conversation.

I haven't seen his new show, but I can see his style not working at night. I love Steve Kornacki, though, and don't really want to see him lose the new "Up"... Hayes could really have screwed himself over with this change.

by Anonymousreply 8104/07/2013

Love it or hate it, most people after they have been through a grueling day at work do not want to hear a dull policy wonk at 8 at night.

Chris was better suited for 8 in the weekend mornings. Usually a new show generatesa alot of buzz their first week on-air. If Chris Hayes cannot get and hold solid ratings in week #1, I am not sure how long he will last?

The pitiful thing is Anderson Cooper (whose 8 pm show was basically on life-support) during week #1 of Chris' new program actually took the #2 ratings spot for one those nights last week. CNN being rated #2 during primetime had not happened in a very long time.

MSNBC had just given CNN a gift by not having a strong anchor on to kick the primetime slot off.

by Anonymousreply 8204/07/2013

Chris Hayes is a right-wing caricature of a nerdy, know-it-all, unsexy, bluestocking namby-pamby liberal. I knew that show would not work at 8 pm.

by Anonymousreply 8304/07/2013

MSNBC should change it up. All the hosts are just more of the same.

by Anonymousreply 8404/07/2013

It's strange how easily people could turn on others. This is Chris' first week. It's disappointing that his ratings aren't stellar, but everyone here is predicting gloom and doom. If you like he rapid pace of Chris Matthews, or the ferocity of Ed Schultz, then Chris' style takes getting used to. I like that Chris's panel consists of people who are not normally on political panels. They provide a unique perspective because they're not a personality. They just know their business.

Perhaps after a month or two and ratings flatline or decline, then there's cause for panic. Right now, I think there will be an audience. America needs more wonk.

For me, I watch only Rachel's show because there's not enough hours in the day to sit there and just watch one show after another. Chris has a lot of fans and I hope they tune in to support him and to learn something.

by Anonymousreply 8504/07/2013

r85 I think what you say about Hayes' style is true. Which is why he's perfect for weekend mornings.

by Anonymousreply 8604/07/2013

Has Ari Melber replaced Kornacki on THE CYCLE for good?

by Anonymousreply 8704/07/2013

[quote]Chris Hayes is a right-wing caricature of a nerdy, know-it-all, unsexy, bluestocking namby-pamby liberal. I knew that show would not work at 8 pm.

This! And his recent comment about American soldiers not being heroes was horrible.

by Anonymousreply 8804/07/2013

They're not collectively heroes, R88. Maybe a few individual ones, sure. The label 'hero' is too easy to come by these days. Were the Abu Ghraib soldiers heroes too?

by Anonymousreply 8904/07/2013

Drifting off topic ... sort of ... the military have been fetishized over the past decade, with passengers expected to clap for the uniformed service members on board, etc. So, I see what he may have meant.

by Anonymousreply 9004/07/2013

[quote]But except for Sharpton, MSNBC is frighteningly, Ivy-ly snobby

You mean except for Sharpton, Schultz, Scarborough, Brzezinski ,Bashir, Witt and Matthews.

Rachel did not go to an Ivy League school but I'll let it slip since she went to Stanford. O'Donnell, yes. Hayes, yes (if you count Brown).

by Anonymousreply 9104/07/2013

I think O'Donnell's an obnoxious has-been, desperately trying to stay "relevant", but what do I know?

by Anonymousreply 9204/07/2013

I like him, however not enjoying the new show at all - frankly, it's boring. Love TRMS - didn't like Ed that much however really enjoyed some of his fill ins - liked that Dyson professor - really smart, good questions, great interview skills - all the right questions, never talked over anyone - just a breath of fresh air - really was hoping they offered him the slot. anyway, I'll keep watching, maybe it will get better.

by Anonymousreply 9304/07/2013

Apparently some DLers just lived to participate in The Ed Show's nightly, hilarious, completely not useful phone polls.

I love Chris, and love the show so far. Except for Rachel, it's the only thing worth watching on the vast wasteland of cable news.

by Anonymousreply 9404/07/2013

Let's see how Chris does in his second week. I thought his first week was dismal. I'd like to see him succeed because I like MSNBC very much especially Lawrence O'Donnell.

Someone several posts back said people who complianed about Hayes' wonkiness are unintelligent or something like that. I disagree. I follow the issues quite closely, and I enjoy political and analytical discussions. But Hayes' type of wonky discussion belongs in a think tank organization or on C-SPAN--but it doesn't play well on network and/or cable TV. For paltable wonk, I watch Rachel who I enjoy.

by Anonymousreply 9504/07/2013

There is a very little audience for smug, elitist, Northeast, hipster, wonky, intellectualism. Rachel Maddow has attracted about the maximum ratings someone in that genre can in the UNited States. TV has one of them, and can't sustain any more.

by Anonymousreply 9604/07/2013

It's "whom I enjoy," person proclaiming their own intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 9704/07/2013

R97. Bite me.

by Anonymousreply 9804/07/2013

r95 you must not watch PBS' news shows.

Some of the posters here who complained about MSNBC being too wonky, elitist or smug is symptomatic of how intellectually lazy Americans have become.

There's nothing "think tank" about Chris' show. It's just a panel discussion. It's how adults talk when there's no shouting or soundbites.

by Anonymousreply 9904/07/2013

False R99, I myself am very wonky and policy oriented but Chris Hayes is just plain boring as a host.

In order for a person to successfully host any kind of television show or radio show, he or she must have some sort of personality or charisma as well as intelligence.

No matter how you slice it, Chris Hayes like Ezra and Ari Melber are boring and dull personality types for whatever reason.

None of this equates to getting good ratings for a television show.

MSNBC has just shot itself in the foot by moving Hayes form the weekend mornings to primetime. Now we are watching Anderson Cooper with his ridiculous show gain ground and even one night already last week take the #2 spot way from MSNBC for the 8 pm time slot.

Just plain stupid on Phil Griffin's part to think that Haye's show would work well at night.

by Anonymousreply 10004/07/2013

r100, you don't need to say "I myself am." That's just redundant.

Second, there's a difference between being a boring host and conducting a show like it's a think tank, which is what r95 said and I responded to. You have all these posters who think intelligent conversation -- Chris, Rachel, Ezra or whoever -- is "smug" and "elitist." That's laughable because it's a sad commentary on the state of union. We should rise to the occasion; not dismiss it as something only "intellectual elitist" would do.

Maybe I am boring because I enjoy watching political discussions and listening to a panel of guests discuss a topic without the shouting and soundbites.

by Anonymousreply 10104/07/2013

R101, stop trying to be the grammar cop, you know exactly what I am trying to say.

The point is television is in the business of getting ratings. To do that you could be the President of Mensa but if you do not have some sort of personality/charisma along with the high IQ, it will NOT translate into ratings in primetime television.

Ezra, Chris, and Melba are extremely intelligent, but they have the personality of a piece of paper. A person exhibiting those traits will not draw alot of ratings.

Remember Lawarence O'Donnell could not bring solid ratings to that same 8 pm time slot.

And by the way, I have been a political junkie since I was in high school. I'm now in my mid forties.

by Anonymousreply 10204/08/2013

I wanted to like Chris Hayes. I really did. I liked him on Saturday mornings. I wanted to like him at 8pm on weeknights.

I just don't, and I'm not sure why.

by Anonymousreply 10304/08/2013

You know, for decades now, people have been watching the MacNeil/Lehrer Snooze Hour (I don't know what it's called or who's hosting it now) on PBS. No one connected with that show has ever had any charisma or personality whatsoever, and yet people watch it - enough people, at least, that it's stayed on the air all these years.

There's definitely an audience for dull news, but the show has to find it.

by Anonymousreply 10404/08/2013

R101. A television viewer can be turned off by the wonk and nerd atmosphere creaated by Chris Hayes, Ezra Klein an Melissa Harris-Perry and still be interested in politics and the political debate. We can still have a grasp of the issues and opinions without watching or liking Hayes.

You seem to be saying that unless we like Hayes and people similar to him, then this is some sad commentary on the country. But you're wrong. A sad commentary on the country is when people take very little or no interest at all. But that's not me or apparently many people on this thread who are not enjoying Hayes. For example, I like Rachel Maddow, and no one does wonk better than her. And she doesn't have shouting and soundbites.

I don't need to watch Hayes to get my fill of the day's issues. In fact, I wanted to like Chris Hayes. He's a good guy and he's smart. But I just don't care for him as a host; I prefer him as a guest. And I had lost interest in him on Saturday mornings too. But now primetime on weeknights? No, I find him unrelateable and unappealing.

Everybody makes mistakes; it happens, and I feel MSNBC has made a misstep with this move. I hope things improve or even Rachel's ratings are going to suffer with this lousy Hayes lead-in.

by Anonymousreply 10504/08/2013

r89 Exactly

by Anonymousreply 10604/08/2013

I enjoyed Haye's new show. I like the panel format. I also like that he did topics that weren't just in the news-cycle. Far better than the smug and meandering Rachel Maddow. I like her, but she is good in small doses.

I wish MSNBC would report and investigate the news, rather than having 24/7 politic discussions on the same 3 to 4 topics. A foreign affairs and business oriented show would be nice.

by Anonymousreply 10704/08/2013

R104...Yes, MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS has been on the air for years, but it's entirely different from a cable opinion/commentary show.

MacNeil/Lehrer is basically a news show focusing in reporting the day's news. There a bit of commentary, but not an hour's worth such as on the MSNBC nightly shows. I would venture to guess that the ratings on MacNeil/Lehrer are also much lower than MSNBC, CNN and FOX. Of course, PBS is concerned about ratings, but they don't appear to be the 'be all and end all' to remaining on the air. Also, PBS does not have the overwhelming responsibility to its donors that regular networks have to their advertisers.

So yes, lowkey, or as you say, "dull" news shows have their place, but comparing PBS to MSNBC is apples and oranges.

by Anonymousreply 10804/08/2013

MacNeil/Lehrer has not been around for years because MacNeil retired.

And Lehrer, as evident by his moderation of the first presidential debate, is kind of catatonic now.

by Anonymousreply 10904/08/2013

Sleepy tv is not going to be very popular in the US, especially at 8 pm at night. Even Rachel Maddow tries to inject some zeal into her hyper intellectualism. CSPAN is great, but it is not exactly attracting legions of viewers. Chris Hayes is way too sleepy for prime time tv. He makes NPR look like Bill O'Reilly.

by Anonymousreply 11004/08/2013

His show is like an episode of Fresh Air with guest January Jones.

by Anonymousreply 11104/08/2013

People don't want to be lectured at during prime time tv. People don't fondly recall lecture hall professors.

by Anonymousreply 11204/08/2013

The show is boring. He's not charismatic.

by Anonymousreply 11404/08/2013

I think MSNBC is run by right wingers. They keep a few lefties who tow the line but get rid of the ones who shake things up. Rachel is extremely popular but does she ever rock the boat?

I miss Keith and now Ed.

by Anonymousreply 11504/08/2013

Cosign R115!

by Anonymousreply 11604/08/2013

"Rachel is extremely popular but does she ever rock the boat?"

Yes. Yes, she does. Do you remember her excellent coverage of the Uganda anti-gay debacle?

Do you smoke crack, R115/R116?

by Anonymousreply 11704/08/2013

Okay, I gave Chris another chance tonight. And just like last week, he was burnin' up the airwaves.

Good Gawd. Get him off the air!

by Anonymousreply 11804/08/2013

I liked his weekend show, I like this show. It's relaxing and interesting. I enjoyed Ed but I was hit and miss with his show. With Hayes I've added his new show to my Rachel/Lawrence DVR schedule.

I'll give Karnacki a shot on "Up" and see how it goes. He was the only panel member I could tolerate on his old show. Of course now they've added Ari Melber whom I also like but I still hate the other threej so, no.

Yes, I'm a wonky news junkie.

by Anonymousreply 11904/09/2013

[R15] I miss Keith too. But let's be fair, he quit MSNBC with the insane notion that he alone, without a functioning promotional/news apparatus, could make Current happen, even though it was available to at most 70% of cable customers, and hard to find on many cable outlets. Then, worse, he quit Current, essentially ending his career (word has been around that he's been looking for work every where for a year or more). You can't blame MSNBC for his departure, even if they didn't like dealing with him.

I have to think there is a story behind their removing ED. His wife is dying and he can do his radio show from home five days a week, coming to NY only for weekends. Maybe that had something to do with it, or maybe not.

I personally feel they should have gone more provocative, if there's no way they'd hire Keith back. I'd rather see The Young Turks at 8:00, confrontational and tough on all sides. Hayes is hopeless, in style, manner and presentation.

by Anonymousreply 12004/09/2013

[quote]MHP has made a whole identity for herself based on black (and female) victimhood, appealing to white liberal guilt.

No, she made a whole identity for herself based on being a smart black female who was right on target with her opinions and commentary.

[quote]Of course now they've added Ari Melber whom I also like but I still hate the other threej so, no.

I guess Toure gets most of the Cycle hate (I like him) and then S.E. Cupp, but how could anyone hate Krystal Ball?? She's awesome.

by Anonymousreply 12104/09/2013


don't forget Cenk Ughur.

by Anonymousreply 12204/09/2013

R17 Anderson Cooper's ratings have improved but he is still not beating All In With Chris Hayes (tvbythenumbers). That's not good when you have a "new comer" kicking your behind in the ratings. Even with MSNBC ratings falling in that time slot they are still beating CNN. I'd say it was still a really good move.

Poor Andy just can't catch a break. Nobody wants him anymore.

by Anonymousreply 12304/11/2013

R123. Chris Hayes' new show blows.

by Anonymousreply 12404/11/2013

So I had a chance to see Chris' show last and I have to say that it was pretty dry. It is a show that should be on Sunday mornings, not as a lead-in to Rachel Maddow. Not suited for the 8pm time-slot. Although the format is different, Chris covered roughly the same topics that Rachel covered last night.

With Ed Schultz, his topics and his style was pointedly different. I see what you all mean now. I just watch Rachel's show so whoever is at 8pm never really piqued my interest. However, if Chris's show effects Rachel's ratings, that would royally piss me off.

by Anonymousreply 12504/11/2013

[quote]I have to think there is a story behind their removing ED. His wife is dying and he can do his radio show from home five days a week, coming to NY only for weekends. Maybe that had something to do with it, or maybe not.

Maybe? That's all there is to it.

by Anonymousreply 12604/11/2013

What expectations do we have for Kornacki's new show that starts this weekend? I'm wondering how heavily he lobbied to get it, and whether it was motivated by a desire to leave The Cycle (with its daily on-air commitment).

by Anonymousreply 12704/11/2013

Chris Hayes, please relax and speak at a normal rate. I'm a New Yorker too. I spend my days listening to people speak fast. And speaking fast. When I watch tv journalism, I want reasonably paced exchanges that are pleasant to listen to.

by Anonymousreply 12804/11/2013

All I've learned from this thread so far is that a lot of you are dumber than dirt. This whining about how Hayes is too "smug" or "nerdy" or "dull" or "wonky" or "elitist" is just a way of saying, I turn on cable news only when I'm angry about something and I want my feelings confirmed by some shouting windbag. Hayes covers some unsexy issues that are complicated and at the heart of the many crises we're now in, and he does it in a much more interesting way than, you know, showing a clip of John Boehner saying something stupid and hypocritical and then mansplaining why it was stupid and hypocritical. He will also sometimes EXPLORE a topic, incorporating different points of view. That used to be what analytical news shows did before cable turned everything into a clownfest.

by Anonymousreply 12904/11/2013

Somebody like [R12] needs to STFU. First of all the Sarah Palin joining Al Jazeera America story is FALSE. Secondly, name any person that didn't grow up in a major city in the Northeast that doesn't talk that fast. Most do because that is their way of life. Finally, you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry may talk with a slight, I do many slight because I don't hear it all, lisp but at least she can put together a coherent argument until yourself in your waste-of-eyesight post...

by Anonymousreply 13004/11/2013

I have watched UP every weekend since it began and have be missing it for the past few weeks. I like the 2 hour slot since it lends itself to an exploration of a particular subject if the time is necessary. It also included a diverse pool of panelists that you couldn't see on other networks. I even liked Chris's manic temperment. However, I have been disappointed in the new show. I think because of the hour time frame that Chris seems more manic than usual so that he can cover all his bases. Everything seems much more rushed and there appears to be more clock watching than on Up. Last night he had on three guests in the last seven minutes of the show and it was all very cursory and ultimately unfulfilling in it's coverage of the issue at hand which was either immigration or gun control. I can't remember which. I do think that evening is much different than the weekend niche and he may not be the personality for that. I am keeping my fingers crossed on Kornacki. He may be a little too mellow. Oy.

by Anonymousreply 13104/11/2013

My problem with all the MSNBC shows is they are so repetitive. Yes, Obama is campaigning for gun control. Does that mean they have to devote every night to the topic? Is there nothing else to talk about?

by Anonymousreply 13204/11/2013

It is all about expectations. UP would be ok on Current or a less mainstream channel. But MSNBC has ratings and publicity expectations that are quite lofty. UP will be compared to other shows, and therefore, has to find a way to significantly boost its audience to survive. MSNBC will not tolerate it drawing fewer viewers that Ed Schultz did.

by Anonymousreply 13304/11/2013

Said it once and I'll say it again: I'm really, really, REALLY missing Ed Schultz!! This whole change-around has practically ruined my weeknights.

by Anonymousreply 13404/11/2013

[quote]MHP is a racist who's out to destroy the party. She's a trouble-maker with a chip on her shoulder. She should have been barred from media until she got that lisp fixed alone. [/quote]

Troll alert! MHP has a reason so be pissed off. Racism still does exist and is even alive and well on this board.

by Anonymousreply 13504/11/2013


by Anonymousreply 13704/15/2013

Joy Reid should be next. Then again, Joy is being smart and not taking things too lightly. She still runs the Grio web site.

by Anonymousreply 13804/16/2013

I love Joy Reid. She's definitely one of the brightest stars with NBC.

by Anonymousreply 13904/16/2013

I watched MSNBC throughout the Boston bombing coverage. Last night as the event unfolded, Chris Hayes was the weakest link in the evening lineup. He really showed himself to be a novice. I think during his show, for the most part, they had to switch to the local affiliate coverage of the event because was obviously out of his league. He's definitely limited in the scope of his profession. It was so disappointing. Sadly, I had to switch channel.

When Rachel came on, it was her show. She took back the NBC/MSNBC coverage of the breaking news and bringing on NBC's staple guests. Rachel can be both commentator, reporter, and anchor. Her coverage was so good.

by Anonymousreply 14004/21/2013

The sad thing is, Chris Hayes is a journalist by trade, whereas Rachel is a political scientist. It's sad that Chris couldn't even perform in his own element.

But I guess the true loser of the week is Steve Kornacki, whose show was bumped on Saturday in favor of a special on the Boston Bombing.

by Anonymousreply 14104/21/2013


Thank you so much for one again reminding us of how inferior blacks are to white men. I hadn't heard that all day; well not since the last thread I read on DL. Why don't you people simply preface every damn thread with the statement blacks are inferior to white men. Better yet begin every thread with the statement that everyone who isn't a white male is inferior. White men are superior. No one else matters. The sun rises and sets on white men. Everyone else sucks. No one is talented but white men. No one has made any contributions to society except for white men. White men are the only ones who work hard and achieve through merit. Everyone else is just receiving something that they didn't earn. White men are like Jesus, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rolled into one. Yayyyyyyyyyyyy White Men

by Anonymousreply 14204/21/2013

[quote] It's sad that Chris couldn't even perform in his own element.

I agree. What's worse for him is that it was his moment to shine. Viewers who watch MSNBC were more likely to tune to in that night and if they'd never bothered to see his show before, this was a great opportunity to get new viewers.

Instead, what they got was a dud. But then again, for most of his show, they switched to the NBC local affiliate's feed. That was the only reason I switched back to MSNBC during Chris' hour.

Other than Chris, MSNBC's coverage was stellar.

by Anonymousreply 14304/21/2013

Watching his show is like being seated next to an insufferable guest at a Cobble Hill dinner party.

by Anonymousreply 14404/21/2013

The problem was he didn't know how to switch gear, which is what Rachel did. This is when a host of a show has to put on multiple hats -- from lone host, to reporter, to anchor, to being part of a breaking news team. Rachel was able to give her input into the situation as well as tossing it to Pete Williams to provide additional details. When she needed a broader international perspective, she brought in Richard Engel. For on-the-scene details, it was the team of reporters on the ground.

Chris just standing there still acting like a lone host of his show. When he needed to be on point with simple observations, he was pontificating. It was painful to watch. Thank god for Rachel.

by Anonymousreply 14504/21/2013

Steve Kornacki lacks progressive passion. He's not the best fit for "Up".

Chris Hayes is too similar to Rachel Maddow - he benefited by being away from her.

by Anonymousreply 14604/21/2013

Chris was equally inept during MSNBC's coverage of the conventions and debates last year. He was always the weakest link on the panel.

by Anonymousreply 14704/21/2013

Good point, R146. If anything, Chris helped bring a taste of Rachel to the weekends, and MSNBC was able to showcase thoughtful analysis outside of primetime.

Despite all of the criticism, I will say that nobody at MSNBC can touch Chris when it comes to panel diversity. He always has such interesting guests and they're typically not the same people you see over and over again (despite the fact that they bring little to the table)...i.e., Jonathan Capehart, Ezra Klein, Eugene Robinson, Michael Smerconish, Dana Milbank, etc.

by Anonymousreply 14804/21/2013

I disagree with you on one point r146: they are similar in their wonkiness, but world apart stylistically. Rachel is a wonk who knows how to communicate with news junkies that both inform and entertainment. Even if you're not a political junkie, her way of reporting on an issue is engaging.

Chris is a wonk who knows his stuff but does not communicate well in a broadcast news medium. You have to be quick, informative yet entertaining; be nuanced without losing your audience's attention.

This is print media.

by Anonymousreply 15004/21/2013

MHP's father was the Dean of Afro-American studies at UVA. She often speaks affectionately of her white mother, while conceding she thinks of herself as black and not biracial. MHP is not a racist, but her detractors certainly are...which is why I F&F them every time they post.

by Anonymousreply 15104/21/2013

Chris seems like the type to laugh at his own jokes. Rachel seems like the type to laugh at herself. Steve Kornacki seems like he doesn't laugh at all.

by Anonymousreply 15204/21/2013

Karen Finney is about to have her own show on MSNBC soon. The date has yet to be announced. It is going to be airing on the weekends. Who is excited about that?

by Anonymousreply 15304/21/2013

When someone says they think of themselves as black they are referring to the fact that if you are part black in this country you are viewed the same as other blacks. So she is saying that is the experience she related to. I had a friend who was biracial but she, too, considered herself black because that was how she looked and how she was pigeonholed.

by Anonymousreply 15404/21/2013

Well I am r 153. Karen Finney is a great progressive, worked under the Howard Dean Democratic Party so she's a real Democrat, and is just generally on point and articulate in her work as an MSNBC guest commentator.


Besides her lisp, she also had the most obnoxious commercials for MSNBC with the weird anecdote about how her Dad always signed her birthday cards "The struggle continues" and the other one about your kids are not your own that made progressives look like weird childstealers.

by Anonymousreply 15604/21/2013

I just checked the ratings on Monday, and Chris is falling behind Anderson Cooper. I think he's taking Rachel with him because Piers Morgan is inching closer. Rachel is still way ahead, but not as in 2012 or pre-Chris.

by Anonymousreply 15704/24/2013

MHP was on fire last weekend. SHE should have gotten the prime time slot.

by Anonymousreply 15804/24/2013

I misread the above post and thought the performance artist Karen Finley was getting a show on MSNBC. I was sort of hoping to see her stick a yam up her ass while discussing DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 15904/24/2013

Chris is not long for this tv world.

by Anonymousreply 16004/24/2013

MSNBC is still getting it's ass kicked.

by Anonymousreply 16104/24/2013

Without Ed I skip the entire lineup. Ed worked me up so I could tolerate Rachel and Larry. They need to give the 8pm spot back to Ed with their most sincere apologies pronto. Now there is no show on MSNBC for the every guy, for unions, for the poor and working class. Ed might be rich but he felt like one of us and had the passion to really fight for us, not just sit and talk about how shitty everything is.

Fire the idiot who fired ED from 8pm and couldn't see what a dud Hayes would be.

by Anonymousreply 16204/24/2013

R162, I couldn't agree with you more!

MSNBC ratings have completely tanked since Ed Schultz left that 8 o'clock time slot.


MSNBC is now pretty much 3rd place for the majority of their programming now starting with Chris Matthews.

I've noticed that everytime a popular host from 8 o'clock leaves this network, the rest of the shows ratings dramatically drop for a long while.

Same thing happened when Keith Olbermann was canned.

MSMNC was firmly #2 in the ratings now they are once again firmly last.

Alot of us want to see a show where labor is featured. While Chris Hayes does talk about labor once in a while, it's not with the same "every day man" style that Ed has.

I really miss Ed's tv show!

I very rarely watch MSNBC's prime time lineup now. When Ed was on I rarely missed that lineup.

I wonder how long, if MSNBC continues to stay in the bottom in the ratings, they will keep Hayes on in this slot?

by Anonymousreply 16304/25/2013

Chris Hayes has messed up my night. And now MSNBC, he going to mess you up.

I'm a solid, loyal MSNBC viewer. I watch morning, noon and night when I'm at home. But Chris Hayes has caused me to lose enthusiasm during my nighttime viewing habits. I now look forward to Rachel less so. And Chris Hayes has even managed to dampen my enthusiasm for my nightly favorite--Lawrence O'Donnell.

MSNBC: Wake up! Chris Hayes is ruining all that you've built.

by Anonymousreply 16404/25/2013

I happen to agree with you r160.

by Anonymousreply 16504/25/2013

There are a lot of whiners on this thread...

by Anonymousreply 16604/25/2013

What was head honcho Phil Griffin at MSNBC thinking with this huge Hayes blunder? As a loyal MSNBC fan, I don't look kindly at ruining my nighttime television.

by Anonymousreply 16704/25/2013

The MSNBC execs don't seem to realize that the kinds of people who make good panelists generally don't make good hosts. They need to stop treating the position of host as a reward for being a good panelist. Panelists can be nerdy and wonky, but hosts need to have charisma and personality, even if it's sometimes overbearing. Without an Ed Schultz or a Keith Olbermann to anchor its prime-time lineup, MSNBC will fail.

by Anonymousreply 16804/25/2013

Watched his show the other night and really enjoyed it.

It's a breath of fresh air to hear someone state the facts of an issue when other media outlets are only spinning the drama.

by Anonymousreply 16904/25/2013

Chris is his style has a very limited audience. Very few people will like his style and format.

by Anonymousreply 17004/25/2013

Count me as of them.

I like what Ed does and what he represents, but I rarely watched his show, although I loved his crazy polls.

I did make a point of watching Up when Hayes was on it and really liked his long panel discussions.

But if I were running MSNBC I'd have Alex Wagner on at 7:00 against Erin Burnett. I love Wagner's enthusiasm and energy and how she calls her guests out on their bullshit while still being charming.

by Anonymousreply 17104/25/2013

I'm glad you enjoy it R169. However, there is no denying MSNBC's ratings have tanked since Hayes came on the air.

The real concern is not necessarily "All In", but the effect it is having on the rest of the line-up. The question is how long does MSNBC give Hayes to improve. Six months? Three months?

by Anonymousreply 17204/25/2013

While geekdom and nerddom has a certain popularity today, Americans have low tolerance for people who seem to be condescending with their braininess. Perhaps, people think Chris is too smug with his intellectualism. Combine that with a chilly personality, and only a limited amount of people will be drawn to his show.

by Anonymousreply 17304/25/2013

[quote]But Chris Hayes has caused me to lose enthusiasm during my nighttime viewing habits. I now look forward to Rachel less so. And Chris Hayes has even managed to dampen my enthusiasm for my nightly favorite--Lawrence O'Donnell.

I don't think it is Chris's fault that you are bored with Rachel and Lawrence. I think it is the fact that all three shows cover the same topics ad nauseum. There is nothing left to say about the NRA and gun control and Republican obstructionism on the budget.

MSNBC's shows are hamstrung by their focus on politics when nothing much is going on politically.

MSNBC did not fire Ed. Why would they? He left to spend more time with his wife who is ill. They live in Montana so the demands of a nightly show were too much.

by Anonymousreply 17404/25/2013

I happen to LIKE nerdy and wonky and I'm also a big policy nut. That being said, I ALSO like charisma and personality and passion...none of which Chris Hayes outwardly manifests. That makes for a boring show.

I have already sent several emails to MSNBC urging them to bring Ed back to his former time slot.

by Anonymousreply 17504/25/2013

[quote] MSNBC did not fire Ed. Why would they? He left to spend more time with his wife who is ill.

Several media reports have said Ed was demoted. It had been reported for months that MSNBC was unhappy with Ed. From Politico:

[quote] Sources at MSNBC told POLITICO that that was a very generous interpretation of events. Schultz was pushed out to make way for new talent, they said.

by Anonymousreply 17604/25/2013

Can't argue with unnamed sources.

by Anonymousreply 17704/25/2013

R174. I wasn't less enthused about Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell when Ed Schultz was on the primetime schedule. I very much like Rachel and Lawrence (who's my favorite), but I'm less enthused about them with Chris Hayes on the schedule.

Sorry, but Hayes is a buzz kill and slows down momentum for the news of the day even if it's repeated throughout the night. The news was repeated when Ed was around. The problem is Hayes--not Maddow or O'Donnell.

by Anonymousreply 17804/25/2013

Would MHP be better in that slot?

by Anonymousreply 17904/25/2013

[quote]Would MHP be better in that slot?

Melissa would be better cut from the network. She'd be worse than Chris.

They're paying for Ed.

by Anonymousreply 18004/25/2013

I don't love Chris Hayes but I found Ed unwatchable. I couldn't bear his bellowing and looking like a 1980's used car salesman. I do not miss him.

by Anonymousreply 18104/25/2013

Same R181. I was never down with Ed and his blowhard style. I don't miss him at all.

by Anonymousreply 18204/25/2013

I agree with r171 that Alex Wagner would be great in the evening and the 7p slot would be perfect (why do they need to re-air Chris Matthews' show only an hour after it initially airs?!). Chris Hayes worked better on the weekends or perhaps he could take over Alex Wagner's weekday slot. I would move Al Sharpton to the weekends and give Joy Reid a daily show (STAT!) in his timeslot or in Chris Hayes' 8p timeslot.

by Anonymousreply 18304/25/2013

Alex is amazing!

Ed, love him or hate him, had a dedicated fan base. Hayes doesn't have that, and he talks over everyone, and acts like he's on speed. He's better on during the weekend.

by Anonymousreply 18404/25/2013

r182 I agree with you about Ed and I didn't watch his show for more than a few minutes. However, he was a needed voice for many progressives and held his own in the timeslot. His style is so different from Rachel's that the two shows complemented each other.

Chris has not been able to do that and has been a poor substitute. For MSNBC, Rachel, and Lawrence's sake, I hope his ratings go up. If not, MSNBC needs to put the kibosh on Chris and send him back to the weekends.

Rachel is the only show I watch and if Chris' ratings weakness effects Rachel(and there are signs that it is), then there is no doubt I want him gone.

by Anonymousreply 18504/25/2013

The Boston attack has everything to do with MSNBC's tanking in the ratings, not the absence of fatty blowhard Ed Schultz.

People simply will not tune in to MSNBC to get important breaking news. They go straight to CNN or Fox.

by Anonymousreply 18604/25/2013

There's no disputing that r186. I agree. However, MSNBC's overnight and daytime coverage of the bombing was spectacular; but people are so used to the 2 decade long domination by CNN and that's not going to end anytime soon.

As for FOX, Conservatives aren't going to watch MSNBC or CNN. Their go-to channel is FOX.

by Anonymousreply 18704/25/2013

And, after 8 days of bombing coverage, MSNBC is finally starting to get close to CNN in the ratings. Course, Fox is still kicking both their asses,

by Anonymousreply 18804/25/2013

CNN: News So Good It Isn't Real

Fox: News Without Reason

by Anonymousreply 18904/25/2013

r188 despite Fox "kicking both [CNN and MSNBC] asses" Romney loss big time to Obama. What does that say? Does ratings really reflect the reality of voters or viewers? MSNBC was clearly closer to how the electorates felt about politics. FOX is so out of touch.

If Fox's intent is to persuade, then they failed badly.

by Anonymousreply 19004/25/2013

I don't like Chris as a host.

I thought Ed was going to the weekends. Where is he?

I've stopped watching MSNBC since the election. Well, I shouldn't really say that, but my viewing has declined.

CNN and Fox seem more entertaining, so I just watch them. Oh, and HLN.

Why don't they give Joy Ann Reid a show? She is fucking awesome!

by Anonymousreply 19104/25/2013

Yeah well, they kept the House and enough Senate seats to prevent certain things from happening--- like the gun bill, spending increases.

Why do you think Obama and his administration always rails at them? They're not just bitching for the hell of it.

Fox can still do plenty of damage. Don't kid yourself otherwise. And I still don't think the 2014 election will be as pretty as we want it to be--- especially if the Affordable Health Care Act has a rough start.

by Anonymousreply 19204/25/2013

Good news for fans of Ed Schultz - he's coming back to MSNBC!

[quote]"We are proud to announce The Ed Show hosted by Ed Schultz will return to MSNBC starting Saturday, May 11 at 5 p.m. ET. The Saturday and Sunday show will debut as a one-hour long program expanding to a two-hour format from 5-7 p.m. ET later this summer." (source)

A powerful voice for truth and progressive values, Ed has been missed these last few months. And we're happy to have him back.

by Anonymousreply 19304/25/2013

R187, it was hardly "spectacular". There's a reason that MSNBC is always dead last when it comes to breaking news -- they simply don't work hard enough to cover the breaking story as the competition. They don't spend enough resources for it. It may be because unlike FOX and CNN they're second tier to NBC News, but nobody takes their coverage seriously. And if there is breaking news, they are often the very last channel to break in with coverage of it..

And if they do, they often just show local coverage from their NBC affiliate in the area where the news is happening.

The anchor they had when all hell broke loose last Thursday night/Friday morning in Boston, Mara Schiavocampo, was fantastic, though.

by Anonymousreply 19404/25/2013

You realize they have all the resources of NBC News at their disposal when it comes to breaking news?

by Anonymousreply 19504/25/2013

What am I missing here? (I realize I'm probably being dense about this)

If I'm reading the linked ratings chart right, less than 1.4 million people watch Fox News, and I think only 2 or 3 million watch its highest rated show, O'Reilly. In a country of over 300 million?

While 16 million people watch Dancing with the Stars?

How can Fox News be so influential?

by Anonymousreply 19604/25/2013

r196 Few people watch cable news or cable due to media fragmentation(500 plus channels). However for those that bother to watch news, Fox has influence. It should be noted that most people get there TV news from the networks- ABC, CBS, NBC- not cable.

by Anonymousreply 19704/25/2013

And those few people manage to dominate one of the two major political parties in this country? Isn't that insane?

by Anonymousreply 19804/25/2013

r194 I speak for no one but myself. I thought their coverage was spectacular because they utilized the NBC news crew. Who is to say your opinion is any better than mine? Did you even watch MSNBC that night? I never said MSNBC is the network people tune to for breaking news. CNN and FOX have been around much longer than MSNBC. Moreover, MSNBC still needs to work out its kink. It still has those prison docs in the weekend.

I don't watch CNN and I don't watch Fox and I'm a lot better off.

by Anonymousreply 19904/25/2013

[quote]CNN and FOX have been around much longer than MSNBC.

FOX launched nearly three months AFTER MSNBC back in 1996, babe, and MSNBC was originally America's Talking, which started in 1994.

by Anonymousreply 20004/25/2013

Still missing Ed here, Chris is ok but doubt I will ever watch an entire episode of his show. The visual problem of how Chris looks , to me, is that he wears glasses that sometimes look like those ones that get dark when it is time for sunglasses, and damn I never could stand those. And got to agree with an early comment, would like to see Chris with his shirt buttoned up and wearing a tie... oh, and his arms flying when he is trying to make a point ... also not so good.

by Anonymousreply 20204/25/2013

Chris was actually nailing his commentaries the end of last week in particular the rapidity with which Congress passed a bill allowing the FAA to rewind furlough of the ATCs. He was being very Ed in his delivery and emotion. Maybe he's gotten the memo.

by Anonymousreply 20304/29/2013

MSNBC is still kicking CNN's ass in the ratings department. The only time CNN beats MSNBC is when there is catastropic breaking news. CNN hasn't dominated the ratings in anything the past 10 years.

by Anonymousreply 20404/29/2013

This is last Thursday's ratings. Hayes isn't doing so well. And after regularly beating Hannity, Maddow has slipped too. Damn.

by Anonymousreply 20504/29/2013

r205 Rachel has never "beat" Hannity regularly in the ratings. She beats him in demo regularly. Big difference.

by Anonymousreply 20604/29/2013

He is bringing MSNBC down.

by Anonymousreply 20704/30/2013

Last night he had on Dan Savage to discuss the coming out of a gay black his racist ass is the official spokesman for gays.

by Anonymousreply 20804/30/2013

He goes head to head with Anderson on Brokacheata Cable in Louisiana. I think Chris has bigger muscles than AC, therefore he would win in a wrestling match. But AC is a little cuter. What to do, what to do.

by Anonymousreply 20904/30/2013

Dan Savage is not a good spokesman.

by Anonymousreply 21004/30/2013

Anderson Cooper (because he was ashamed) isn't either.

by Anonymousreply 21105/01/2013

In her wet dreams, Maddow beats Hannity in the ratings.

In reality, she never does!

by Anonymousreply 21205/01/2013

and guess what r212? Despite the demonization of Obama by Fox News, he still won. You can have high ratings and have zero influence on the way people vote.

At least MSNBC didn't mislead their viewers into thinking their candidate was a shoo in. Fox News viewers were devastated. They live in a bubble that was created by Fox and reality popped it.

by Anonymousreply 21305/01/2013

I'm just saying.... don't delude yourself into thinking that Maddow gets higher ratings than Hannity, because she doesn't.

That's just a fact.

by Anonymousreply 21405/01/2013

r214 I posted @r206 so I'm quite aware of where Rachel ranks with Fox. I don't really care as long as Rachel stays on air and I can watch her every night.

She does beat Hannity in the demos and that is what most networks look at.

MSNBC isn't widely available as FOX News. That's just one reasons. The other reason is that FOX just has monopoly on Republican viewers.

Moderates/Liberals are split between CNN and MSNBC and Network News. Since the Republican viewers seem to think that there's a liberal bias in the media, they will go to Fox where they'll get the "real, unslanted news."

by Anonymousreply 21505/01/2013

Everyone once in a great moon she beats Hannity in the demos. I don't think that's anything to crow about!

Show me where(link), in the past 4 wks, she's beaten Hannity in the demos. Maybe once? Twice at the most!

by Anonymousreply 21605/01/2013

Like I said, I don't care for numbers or whatever. If her ratings are good enough that MSNBC will keep her on air and I'll be able to watch and be informed by her, that's all that matters to me.

For all the ratings that FOX News gets, I've never watched Fox. Never.

You can put Rachel down all you want, it makes no difference to. She is who she is.

by Anonymousreply 21705/01/2013

Yeah, but you said Maddow beats Hannity in the demos, BUT she doesn't. That happens just once in a blue moon.

by Anonymousreply 21805/01/2013

I'm still convinced Chris Hayes has a vagina.

by Anonymousreply 21905/01/2013

She did beat Hannity in the demos and it doesn't happen once in a blue moon. In 2012 during the election, Rachel was beating Hannity in that timeslot.

All news viewership has dropped and Rachel's show included. You obviously don't know about it which is why you keep linking to that same link. That same link doesn't tell you what the ratings or the demos were like in 2012 during election season.

I assure you that I'm aware of Rachel's demos and ratings because it's always reported.

by Anonymousreply 22005/01/2013

MSNBC is in a dangerous position now. The culmination of Chris Hayes' show, the Boston Marathon bombing and Jeff Zucker heading CNN could mean people switch over to CNN. MSNBC got no ratings bump from the Boston Marathon bombing. While CNN did and has kept some of it since. CNN was second among cable news (behind Fox News) in April. The first time in awhile.

by Anonymousreply 22105/01/2013

r218 You should really google it instead of relying on your one recent link to make the claim.

All cable network has seen a steep drop in their viewership -- Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

However, during late 2012 election season, she was regularly beating Hannity.

by Anonymousreply 22205/01/2013

then gives us a link r220. You're full of shit.... which is why you can't back up what you're saying.

by Anonymousreply 22305/01/2013

I did give you a link, dummy r223. You're the one relying on current links.

by Anonymousreply 22405/01/2013

A Monday and Tuesday in November 2013 IS once in a blue moon.

It's May 2014, honey.

by Anonymousreply 22505/01/2013

"You're the one relying on current links."


by Anonymousreply 22605/01/2013

sorry May 2013.

by Anonymousreply 22705/01/2013

He's slowly getting better imho.

by Anonymousreply 22805/01/2013

I agree. yesterday's show was his best. The segment on the GOP takeover of the North Carolina General Assembly was excellent.

by Anonymousreply 22905/01/2013

I think Chris is growing into the role. He seems more focused and calmer than he was at the beginning. Love his controlled rage at times. I still wish he was on Sat and Sun ams still even though I like Steve alot as well.

by Anonymousreply 23005/01/2013

At first I wasn't too keen on this show but now I LOVE IT. Chris Hayes does a great job with little heard of IMPORTANT information and has depth to his coverage. His approach to a story is unique and valued and necessary considering the misinformation flying at us from every corner. Thank you MSNBC - I think I'd go bonkers politically without you! Smart people.

by Anonymousreply 23105/01/2013

I agree that he's getting better but the topics he discusses are still more suited for his old morning program. People watching primetime TV are more invested in the news of the day, not the obscure topics -- no matter how important they are -- he discusses.

His ratings are dragging down the rest of the lineup.

by Anonymousreply 23205/01/2013

He's gotten a lot better in his delivery. I see this as a regular show now.

by Anonymousreply 23305/01/2013

CNN takes the #2 spot for the first time in 2 yrs.

by Anonymousreply 23405/01/2013

Tee Hee.

by Anonymousreply 23505/01/2013

Hayes is getting better. It's Steve Kornacki we should be worried about - his dispassionate, apolitical style is alienating to progressive "Up" viewers.

by Anonymousreply 23605/01/2013

Yesterday Nancy Grace beat both Cooper and Hayes in total viewers and the 35-64 demo.

by Anonymousreply 23705/01/2013

r235 see post r186.

by Anonymousreply 23805/01/2013

rut roh.....

It's May 1 and MSNBC has all day breaking Boston bombing news to deal with.

by Anonymousreply 24005/01/2013

Which means that they'll get a ratings bump, R240, but it'll be disproportionately less than CNN/FOX.

by Anonymousreply 24105/01/2013

[quote]CNN was second among cable news (behind Fox News) in April. The first time in awhile.

CNN always does well in the ratings when there is major breaking news, and the Boston bombing was huge. However, they have been unable to sustain those ratings. They will fall back to third place again once the Boston story dies down.

by Anonymousreply 24205/01/2013

r242, I don't think they will let Boston die down.

by Anonymousreply 24305/01/2013

All in with Chris Hayes has grown on me but I have to admit if I am at home I will watch The People's Court over AC360 and Chris Hayes. Who can turn down a spicy, screaming latina? I can't. Afterwards I switch over to Piers Morgan. I can never get enough of Piers.

by Anonymousreply 24405/01/2013

I wonder how long MSNBC will keep Chris Hayes on in this 8 o'clock time period? His ratings are terrible.

He is just awful. He was solid during the weekend mornings, but not in primetime.

His show just does not work in the new time period and the ratings are demonstrating this.

by Anonymousreply 24505/01/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 24605/01/2013

Yes, R246 it is pretty bad.

MSNBC made a huge mistake in putting in Hayes on during primetime hours.

by Anonymousreply 24705/01/2013

Chris is just so boring, I can't even stand to watch his commercial on msnbc. His glasses are also a big problem. They are not flattering.

Since his show started I haven't watched msnbc at all after Hardball.

I do agree that Joy would be a great show host, as would Richard Wolffe.

by Anonymousreply 24805/01/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 24905/01/2013

I agree that Joy is an excellent analyst and pundit, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she'd transition into a good one-hour host. The perfect examples are Steve Kornacki and Karen Finney, though I absolutely love the latter of the two.

by Anonymousreply 25005/01/2013

Steve is so dry. Has he gained weight recently?

by Anonymousreply 25105/02/2013

Steve had a goofy boy haircut last week and he needs to get out of that stupid gray jacket with the open shirt. Take a page from the Ari Melber playbook and clean up your act. I do like him though but the men's wearhouse sartorial motif has got to go.

by Anonymousreply 25205/02/2013

Steve looks like his hair is cut by a blind monk.

by Anonymousreply 25305/03/2013

The jobs report comes out today and while this country has miles and miles to go in terms of job creation, this report was better than expected and the unemployment rate (7.5%) eguals the low of 5 years ago, and Chris finally mentions it 30 minutes into the show and has no rountable discussion on jobs and the economy, but instead refers us viewers to his webpage for some insight on the jobs report.


If that was Ed Schultz, his lead off into the intro of the show would have been about today's jobs numbers.

I can't remember how long execs at MSNBC let Larry O'Donnell stew in the 8 o'clock time, but they cannot afford to let Chris Hayes continue for months or else MSNBC will be cemented into 3rd place again like a few years ago.

by Anonymousreply 25405/03/2013

In April, FOX easily held on to its #1 spot and beat CNN and MSNBC combined. CNN saw significant gains (up a whopping 127 percent). But MSNBC somehow lost viewers during a month (the last half, anyway) when the country was glued to their television sets.

Since the bombing story started subsiding, MSNBC has invariably finished in the lower half of the four-horse cable news race, including fourth in the prime time demo Monday through Thursday of this past week.

Another factor in MSNBC’s ratings reversal may be attributed to Griffin’s decision to replace Ed Schultz, 59 with Chris Hayes, 34, at 8:00 PM…all in an effort to draw younger viewers.

But after one month, All In with Chris Hayes is down 18 percent from The Ed Show‘s audience for the same month last year. As for enticing those younger viewers, Hayes finished last in the demo in April.

by Anonymousreply 25505/03/2013

What is it about MSNBC that every time they find a host at 8'oclock that at least puts them solidly in 2nd place, they get rid of them?

Donohue, Olberman, and possibly Schultz.

I guess they were speaking too much truth and logic about Washington by exposing the GOP and Democrats who are not working on behalf of the majority of Americans?

by Anonymousreply 25605/03/2013

MSNBC didn't get rid of Keith, he quit. NOBODY knew Keith was on his way out. As a matter of fact, I remember coming to DL as soon as KO suddenly announced his show was ending.

by Anonymousreply 25705/03/2013

Yes, R257 but weren't the execs at MSNBC trying to control and muzzle Olberman in terms of what he could say on his program?

Just like they reportedly hassled Schultz about his "psycho" segment.

by Anonymousreply 25805/03/2013

LOL r239

I can't fucking stand her.

by Anonymousreply 25905/03/2013

I'm a political junkie and I never thought I would say that someone is too much geek, but this describes Chris Hayes in spades.

MSNBC made a mistake by putting him on at 8 pm.

His show is sleep central most nights.

The 8 pm slot needs a person with a strong personality but who also knows issues. Chris possesses the second part, but not the first.

by Anonymousreply 26005/04/2013

MSNBC 'Now with Alex Wagner' hits series low.

On Thursday, just 26,000 in 25-54 demo.

by Anonymousreply 26205/05/2013

MSNBC was firmly in 2nd place for the last year or so by leaps and bounds over CNN.

Nothing has changed except Schultz is no longer on at 8pm in terms of the weekly lineup.

The connection I can see is that when Schultz left, whether it was his own decision or the network's, the numbers for primetime have really plummeted.

So much so that that Wall Street B Erin Burnett is now rating in 2nd place for her show at 7 when just a few months back, she was always rated 200 points or so behind Chris Matthew's rerun show at 7.

Anderson Cooper is now running close to 200 points ahead of Chris Hayes' show.

The only single change from Monday-Friday on MSNBC has been Ed Schultz leaving the 8pm slot.

Maybe, the audience that Ed appeals to, the working class viewer, has turned off MSNBC in large numbers because maybe they feel Ed was forced out of his primetime slot and therefore MSNBC doesn't give a damn about this demographic, but only the Ivy League educated geeks in their 20's like Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow?

Looking at the ratings on TV By The Numbers, Phil Griffin's firing should be gearing up pretty soon.

by Anonymousreply 26305/05/2013

R263. Ed Schultz leaving is one thing. Replacing him with Chris Hayes is quite another. And as good as the rest of the MSNBC primetime lineup is (even if their ratings aren't always through the roof), Chris Hayes is going to bring everyone down terribly. It's already happening.

Sorry, but Chris has got to go. But I had gotten to the point that I couldn't even take Hayes on "UP" on Saturday mornings. He's too boring as a host. He's fine as a guest on someone else's show. I don't like him as host.

by Anonymousreply 26405/05/2013

R264, it used to be that Rachel Maddow's ratings on a low night was around 700 points or so, she is now down in the upper 500's in the ratings.

Most nights her show generally got around 800-900 ratings points.

This was only just a few months ago.

Hayes is definetly dragging her numbers down drastically!

They've got to move Hayes out of the 8 pm slot.

In my dream world they would bring Olbermann back at 8.

by Anonymousreply 26505/05/2013

Uh, the Boston Bombing is what changed things, r263.

How many times do you and the rest of the Schultz fangirls have to be told that?

by Anonymousreply 26605/05/2013

MSNBC became the 2nd highest rated cable news network in 2008 after Rachel Maddow got her 9pm show and in the run up to the Presidential election. They've been number 2 until now. I think a lot of black viewers have left because Obama got reelected and it's his last term. I think pushing Ed Schultz out and putting Chris Hayes in, the Boston Marathon bombing and new programming on CNN because of new CNN president Jeff Zucker has created the situation MSNBC is in now.

by Anonymousreply 26705/05/2013

R267, I think alot of blacks as well as progressive whites have turned off cable news since the election.

A problem with MSNBC is that you have hosts on the network who are not apparently progressives because they are advocating for things like cuts to Social Security benefits (Mika B, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, and Larry O'Donnell). They are corporate Democratic types or moderate Republicans.

Can anyone imagine FOX News having several of its network hosts being Democrats of any persuasion, moderate or otherwise? They have Sheppard Smith, but that's it. Everyone else are right wingers.

Why MSNBC continues to have corporate Democrat types or moderate Republican types hosting programs on their network, I will never know?

Just because a talking head supports gay equality does not make them a progressive when they are also pushing an agenda that includes chainged CPI, raising the retirment age, cutting corporate tax rates, etc.

Yet, there

by Anonymousreply 26805/05/2013

R266, what's the matter are you a Hayes fangurl and mad that Hayes is killing this network's ratings?

The Boston bombings are not being covered wall to wall now. What's the reason why Chris Hayes as recently as last Thursday is behind Anderson Copper's show by almost 200 points when Ed Schulzt was kicking Cooper's ass by nearly 200 points most nights?

by Anonymousreply 26905/05/2013

No, I can't stand girly Hayes, but you obviously love Schultz and that's blinding you to reality.

People do not go to MSNBC for serious news events. It's as simple as that.

The absence of fat Eddie has very little, if anything, to do with the drop in the ratings.

by Anonymousreply 27005/05/2013

r263 - Lawrence O'Donnell has termed his political outlook "practical European socialist"... I'm very surprised that he is advocating cuts in Social Security. Are you sure about that? (the rest of your list I agree with)

I wish there was some easy way to put Chris back on early morning weekend duty with Up and give Joy Reid his current Weekday slot. Give Steve K an hour show after Chris's up with a more political focus and MHP can do her thing (whatever) after that. Or... give Chris a late night Charlie Rose type 60-90 minute interview show after Lawrence, even though it would come up against The Daily Show & Colbert.

by Anonymousreply 27105/05/2013

Getting rid of Ed was an excellent idea (only old farts love him - hence the DL outrage), but putting Chris is in his place might have been a mistake. Making Steve the host of "Up" was definitely a mistake, though... That clunker needs to be rectified immediately.

Here's my suggestion: 1) move Chris back to "Up", 2) give Steve and Nate Silver a quirky weekend afternoon show which deals with the arcane logistics of both American and international politics (why so much "Lockup", MSNBC?), 3) give Joy Reid the old Ed slot, and 4) never let Ed back in the office again.

by Anonymousreply 27205/05/2013


by Anonymousreply 27305/06/2013

For one thing, MSNBC needs to be serious about being a total news station. When a breaking news story is in progress, don't use commentators and opinion personalities to cover breaking news in progress. You lose credibility when Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews are giving play by play during a huge breaking news story. You should use pure straight news reporters and anchors during breaking news.

by Anonymousreply 27405/06/2013

Sad to say, I've started tuning out of MSNBC when Chris comes on. I generally agree with almost everything he has to say, but he lacks fire and passion. I really miss Ed (and, no, I'm not one of the "old folks"). I think MSNBC made a HUGE mistake when they took Ed off the timeslot.

by Anonymousreply 27505/06/2013

Chris Hayes' voice is too whiney for broadcasting. The nasal quality and his "I'm a lot smarter than any of you" attitude rubs me the wrong way. Besides...he looks like a troll. There, I said it.

by Anonymousreply 27605/06/2013

Dull and tedious.

by Anonymousreply 27705/06/2013

I am watching hockey. I am bored by Chris Hayes.

by Anonymousreply 27805/06/2013

Not if but when MSNBC replaces Chris Hayes, are they going to put him back on the morning show (and thus axe Steve because of Hayes's failures) or do they pull the plug on Hayes altogether and have him appear as a guest every once in a while?

by Anonymousreply 27905/06/2013

MSNBC is barely covering the Ohio story...which is a huge mistake.

Anderson broke the story last night at 10:00 and just look at the ratings he got.

Greta 1,790,000 Cooper 1,212,000 O'Donnell 576,000

Last night MSNBC didn't say 1 word about it, at least not that I saw!

by Anonymousreply 28005/07/2013

How is not covering the Ohio story a huge mistake? I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested. It's not of great national concern. It's a crime drama, much like the Arias' story.

If you want your fill of crime dramas that doesn't remotely affect your life, r280, then tune to CNN.

MSNBC is talking about Elizabeth Warren and other issues that actually will affect your life.

r281 is just creaming himself over the ratings. CNN is getting its ratings back by becoming more of a non-news network. Wall-to-coverage on both the Arias trial and Cleveland kidnappings. It will get you viewers, but not a more informed electorate.

by Anonymousreply 28205/09/2013

It's too bad we judge a news network based on ratings. Fox News with its obsession with the Benghazi "cover-up" and predicting a huge Romney win may be king of cable news, but what purpose does it serve other than an outlet for rightwing conspiracy theories?

CNN? I don't even watch that network. Any network that calls itself a news network should cover the news that matters. CNN's viewers know more about Jody Arias and the poop cruise more than they know what is happening in Washington as we speak. It's infotainment and unfortunately, infotainment sells.

by Anonymousreply 28305/09/2013

Obviously it's a ratings mistake.

by Anonymousreply 28405/09/2013

I'm an MSNBC junkie; however, Chris Hayes has screwed up my night causing me to lose interest.

MSNBC would do well to cover the Cleveland kidnappings at least for a while for rating's sake.

But lest we forget, other than MSNBC's current slogan "Lean Forward," the network's other slogan has been "The Place For Politics."

The Cleveland kidnappings, Jodi Arias, etc., are not politics.

by Anonymousreply 28505/09/2013

Are you fucking serious r282? Elizabeth Warren? LMAO

3 abducted young women raped, tortured, and held captive for 10 yrs is a national concern and MSNBC didn't even touch the story the night it broke.

I suppose Trayvon Martin being shot dead wasn't of great national concern either.

by Anonymousreply 28605/09/2013

It's not a ratings mistake. It's not election season and people want their trash news and that's what CNN is providing.

MSNBC primetime is still covering stories that matters to us, but apparently people are more interested in Jody Arias than the fact that Elizabeth Warren is fighting for college students. Fox News viewers really seem to think Benghazi will bring down the Obama Admin. The Fox bubble will eventually be burst and those sheeps will be sorely disappointed.

r285 I do believe that Chris Hayes is taking Rachel and Lawrence down with him. Lawrence's ratings have also been dropping.

by Anonymousreply 28705/09/2013

Why I just lay awake all night wondering what Elizabeth Warren is going to do for the betterment of mankind

by Anonymousreply 28805/09/2013

[quote]I suppose Trayvon Martin being shot dead wasn't of great national concern either.

The Trayvon Martin story broke on the Internet. Network TV didn't touch it well after the Internet made the scandalous lack of charges against Zimmerman a story of national interest.

by Anonymousreply 28905/09/2013

r286 it's not a national issue. It's a tragic crime that occurred in OH. It's a local news that was picked up by the national press for its sensationalism. Of what interest and concern is it to the nation other than than its . Is Jody Arias also a national concern?

Trayvon Martin is also not of national concern, as similar cases in states like TX has also occurred. Because it involved a young black youth and a very controversial "stand your ground" law, did it get national attention. In some ways, the real issue is the "stand your ground" law.

The Cleveland kidnappings, Trayvon and Jodi Arias does not affect your life one bit. What is happening in Washington right now does.

I'm quite sure you're the type of viewer I was talking about r286. You're riveted by sensationalism. You're the kind of viewers that is giving CNN the great boost. You know what? That's fine. But to expect and even demand that MSNBC emulate CNN's wall-to-wall coverage of these stories is nonsensical.

by Anonymousreply 29005/09/2013

r288 if you have a child who is about to go to college and seeking federal assistance, you better bet Warren's bill is of great concern.

Starting in a few months, student loan interest rate is set to double. Student loan default is at a record right now. Congress wants to make a difficult situation even worse.

What's more important to the average family with a child seeking a loan to attend college: Jody Arias/OH kidnappings or coverage of the proposed bill?

by Anonymousreply 29105/09/2013

You're absolutely delusional, r290. Get some sleep.

by Anonymousreply 29205/09/2013

Jesus, you love to hear yourself talk!

Nighty Nite, Lizzie.

by Anonymousreply 29305/09/2013

I thought Chris Hayes was going to kick ass in the ratings department. I'm surprised he's not doing so well for MSNBC, I figured he was exactly what their viewers wanted. I'm still watching AC at 8 and Rachel at 9.

by Anonymousreply 29405/09/2013

He needs to stop trying to make Click 3 happen.

by Anonymousreply 29505/09/2013


by Anonymousreply 29605/09/2013

I am watching MSNBC less these days. Part of it is post-election fatigue, exasperation with the hyperpolitical climate of this nation, but Chris Hayes is a factor. His show is dull, and at that time of night, I want excitement.

by Anonymousreply 29705/09/2013

MSNBC needs to revamp their programming.

by Anonymousreply 29805/09/2013

O'Donnell seems a conceited prick to me, but hey ... what do I know!

by Anonymousreply 29905/09/2013

I'd rather have O'Donnell's brand of "conceited prick" than O'Reilly's.

by Anonymousreply 30005/09/2013

Brutal Wednesday

At 8 - total viewers

Hannity 3,383,000 Cooper 1,391,000 Grace 918,000 Hayes 573,000

At 9 - total viewers

Hannity 2,628,000 Morgan 1,085,000 Dr. Drew 940,000 Maddow 877,000

And the demographics aren't any better.

In sum, it's quite apparent MSNBC may come in last for the month of May (instead of 3rd).

by Anonymousreply 30105/09/2013

Make that O'Reilly at 8

by Anonymousreply 30205/09/2013

I know that Jodi Arias doesn't affect our daily lives (I did not follow this trial), but between Arias and Chris Hayes, MSNBC is getting its ass kicked. And MSNBC is my favorite, but lately, I just don't know why I feel unenthusiastic about the network.

by Anonymousreply 30305/10/2013

I don't know why people have the need to tell us why they're not watching this show or that channel? Don't watch it. Who cares?

It is what it is. It's not election season and sometimes heavy news is too much to bear after a long day of work. You just want to come home and watch junk, even it's covered by the newly tabloid CNN.

It's okay r303. MSNBC's ratings are dipping because CNN is better at covering tabloid news. Its ratings may not be as high as during election season, but it will survive the loss of your viewership.

by Anonymousreply 30405/10/2013

Just avoid the thread, Ms Prisspot.

It will certainly survive the loss of your input!

by Anonymousreply 30505/10/2013

I'll post in whatever thread I feel like.

by Anonymousreply 30605/10/2013

Also much better at covering breaking news like the Boston bombings.

by Anonymousreply 30705/10/2013

are you being sarcastic? CNN had the worst coverage of the Boston bombing.

by Anonymousreply 30805/10/2013

Just wanted to say that I started this thread because I was so disappointed with Chris Hayes' show. I very much like MSNBC and want it to succeed.

I just never thought we'd have more than 300 responses. Good going. Wake up, MSNBC! Your ship is in trouble.

by Anonymousreply 30905/10/2013

What do you propose r3"9?

by Anonymousreply 31005/10/2013

I like Chris. But he needs to relax and not talk 200 miles a minute. He has important things to say and offers us great and engaging guests. But it would be good to have that information expressed at a digestible speed.

by Anonymousreply 31105/10/2013

With cascading ratings, you can expect big shakeups at MSNBC this summer.

by Anonymousreply 31205/10/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 31305/10/2013

MSNBC's problem is that it's all politics, almost all the fucking time.

Can't believe they started covering the kidnapped women in Cleveland.

And, just as I expected, decided to cover the Jodi Arias trial when the verdict was reached.

I'm watching the network very little these days.

I like a dose of stupid with my news.

by Anonymousreply 31405/10/2013

It feels weird to me to watch Rachel or any of the other MSNBC host covering a story like the Ohio kidnapping, Rachel usually doesn't do it much though, she'll do it for one or two nights and that's it.

by Anonymousreply 31505/10/2013

MSNBC gets on to one topic, like these kidnapped girls and is like a dog with a bone. They just won't let go. WTF wants to hear about that or guns or any story 24/7.

Also, OP, Ed was MSNBC's anchor. Without him at 8pm I've lost all desire to watch any of them. I've tried. I've yet to be able to sit through an entire CH. By then I'm too fed up for Rachel or Larry.

Ed might be rich but he satisfied the every man need I had. I'm sick of rich yuppy after rich yuppy with hardly a word anymore about fighting for unions or helping the poor.

I will happily watch Ed on the weekend but I know it won't be the same. Whoever made the decision to fire Ed from 8pm should be fired him or herself and never be allowed near programing again.

by Anonymousreply 31605/10/2013

I thought Ed said he made the decision to cut back on his broadcast himself, I guess that's just spin. Ed was doing pretty well, much better than Hayes is now, what made them drop Ed for Chris? I don't get it.

by Anonymousreply 31705/10/2013

I stopped watching after Ed said he was going.

I didn't think he was that popular, but it appears that he is/was.

With all of the sensational stories going on right now, it looks like many people have just tuned out.

by Anonymousreply 31805/10/2013

Who in their right mind would want to advertise on MSNBC, they don't have any viewers. Now conservative Duck Dynasty can get 9 million viewers for one hour, MSNBC can't get that all day.

by Anonymousreply 31905/10/2013

r316 you're right. She doesn't normally cover these sensational local events UNLESS they have a broader national issue attached to it.

For example the shooting of Trayvon Martin has national implication because of the 'stand your ground' law in vary states.

She covered the Cleveland kidnapping on Tuesday with a segment about human trafficking, specifically the sexual exploitation of children and women. See how she does things? While CNN goes on ad nauseum about the sensational details with no broad implications, Rachel is tying it to a broader national concern.

by Anonymousreply 32005/10/2013

Good point R321, didn't think of that.

by Anonymousreply 32105/10/2013

Since Schultz took a break/or was forced out of the primetime slot, MSNBC rarily talks about issues effecting the working class American.

I for one am sick as hell of "wall to wall" coverage on cable new stations of the Cleveland kidnapping. It was a horrible horrific sick crime and I hope that bastard that perpertrated this crime rots under a jail cell or worse, but I am sick of the media dissecting every angle of this mess every minute of the damn day on-air.

Meanwhile in DC, President Obama, Wall Stree and corporate Democrats and Republicans are talking cutting benefits to SS and raising the retirement age.

Which story is more pressing to you>

Jody Arias, the Cleveland kidnapper, or the corporate/political elite in DC getting ready to try and cut your SS benefits that you paid into all of your working life?

I feel the media uses stories like the Jody Arias murder trial to divert our attention away from important things that will directly effect our lives.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of murders that take place in the US every year, what the hell is earth shattering about Jody Arias?

I don't get it.

Meanwhile, you have Americans who are up to their ears in thousands of dollars in student loan debt and can't get jobs or jobs that pay living wages, and all the damned media wants to talk about is murder trials, Benghazi, and celebs 24/7.

by Anonymousreply 32205/10/2013

Thursday at 9 -

Hannity 2,269,000 Morgan 1,161,000 Maddow 696,000

I'm glad Maddow's starting to get shitty ratings because she's so clownish now! How can anyone take her seriously?

Thursday at 10 -

Greta 1,743,000 COOPER 1,130,000 O'Don 530,000

Larry so deserves his slide. This wk, on air, he asked Elizabeth Warren for her autograph. WTF?! She's been a U.S senator for less than 4 months! Are they trying to make her happen or what? RIDICULOUS!!

Oh, and my sweet honey, Robin Meade, beat the Morning Joe crew.

by Anonymousreply 32305/10/2013


MSNBC has really fallen in the ratings.

Wonder what heads will roll over this?

by Anonymousreply 32405/10/2013

MSNBC Total Day.... 356,000.

MSNBC Primetime.... 586,000.

Ummmm, hideous.

by Anonymousreply 32605/10/2013

Just goes to show that people want to see endless stories about rapists, murders, bombers, and NOT politics.

Wake up, MSNBC.

by Anonymousreply 32705/10/2013

I think it shows people want ALL the news, not just politics.

by Anonymousreply 32805/10/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 32905/10/2013

That's one of the reasons I love headline news in the morning (Robin being the other).

I get all the important news/plus sports in the 20 minutes it takes me to eat my breakfast. Then I'm informed and out the door.

by Anonymousreply 33005/10/2013

Rachel is not clownish and never has been.

by Anonymousreply 33105/10/2013

So many wingnuts/libertarians/truthers on DL now.

r333 her Tuesday show was quite serious and she was serious. She covered the Cleveland kidnapping and human trafficking; Mark Sanford, Military Sex Assault and marriage equality; and Politifacts

What's your agenda? I don't get it. It's obvious the haters don't watch MSNBC and pretending that they were ever regular viewers.

by Anonymousreply 33305/10/2013

"Toning down the juvenile, clownish snark" is what the wingnuts say when they're laughed out of the room and get their ignorant asses handed to them, r335.

by Anonymousreply 33505/11/2013

Again, pull your head out of your ass!

You'll think more clearly with a little fresh air.

by Anonymousreply 33605/11/2013

Wake up MSNBC!!!

by Anonymousreply 33705/11/2013

I take it "The Cycle" doesn't get stellar ratings..... not with that average daytime audience

by Anonymousreply 33805/11/2013

Ed is back, bitches.

And he was fucking awesome!

by Anonymousreply 33905/11/2013

On the West Coast, Ed's show is on at 2PM. I'm not sure that's the best time slot. People are out and about. It's Saturday. There's also no repeats at night.

MSNBC needs to get rid of the prison blocks and Caught on Camera during its afternoon and evening programming. I know that Phil Griffin said he's working on changing the weekend programmings, but that change needs to come quickly. There are a lot journalists out there that would love to have a news show on the weekend. They also need a show like Anthony Bourdain or something, anything other than the prison docs.

I love MSNBC and want them to succeed.

by Anonymousreply 34005/11/2013

[quote] Ed is back, bitches.

Did anyone even notice? Nobody is going to remember that Ed's now on Saturday afternoons. MSNBC decided to bury Ed by moving him to the weekend.

Meanwhile, the appeal of Chris Hayes was that he supposedly would attract the younger demographic. But take a look at the numbers from Thursday. Not only did Hayes finish dead last in the 25-54 demographic, behind all the other cable news networks, but he actually did worse in the 25-54 demographic (132) in prime time than Al Sharpton did at 6 p.m. (136).

by Anonymousreply 34105/11/2013

r342 how many times are you going to post that link? WE KNOW ALREADY, ASSHOLE, because you've been posting it every chance you get!

Either Ed fans are a really bitter crowd or the GOProud has become so infested on DL it's really like posting on the GOProud forum. If this is the norm, it's time to just flee this Republic hellhole.

by Anonymousreply 34205/11/2013

It's the first time I've posted on this thread, R343. And I'm hardly a Republican.

by Anonymousreply 34305/11/2013

please do, asswipe at r343.

by Anonymousreply 34405/11/2013

Then that would make you the very bitter Ed fan, wouldn't it, jerk? You'd rather see MSNBC taken down because your dumbass seems to think Ed was victimized.

I don't know the behind the scene issues, but MSNBC is the only place where Ed Schultz could ever have a show. Do you understand that? What's the alternative? Do you think CNN and FOX would give him an hour long?

I'm sure you're hoping that if Chris Hayes' show is canceled, that would teach MSNBC a lesson, right? It doesn't work that way. If Hayes' show is canceled, they're not going to give Ed back that timeslot. Ed's wife is suffering from cancer and he didn't want the same workload.

by Anonymousreply 34505/11/2013

Chris Hayes has ruined everything.

by Anonymousreply 34705/11/2013


by Anonymousreply 34805/12/2013

Yippity, ck. out these ratings for Friday....

Matthews 483,000

Revrund 428,000

Matthews 418,000

Hayes 414,000

Maddow 683,000

by Anonymousreply 34905/14/2013

Lawrence O'Donnell so wants to lick Warren's pussy.

by Anonymousreply 35005/14/2013

Maddow used to get much better ratings than those even on a Friday.

by Anonymousreply 35105/14/2013

Yes, R352 Maddow on a low ratings night would get in the 700 ratings point.

On her best nights she would garner in the 900 ratings points.

Those ratings were consistent for about the last year and half until very recently.

MSNBC has to do something about Chris Hayes.

by Anonymousreply 35205/15/2013

A ton of bullshit. Anderson Coopers revamped 10 o'clock panel show was a complete clutter fuck. It was a joke. What CNN doesn't understand is it's not the format of the shows they are introducing that doesn't atract viewers. It's the people they have hired to host the shows.....hence Anderson Cooper. Jake Tapper, Brooke Baldwin. Chris Hayes can walk on water when going up against the CLUELESS COURTover at CNN. He has nothing to worry about.

by Anonymousreply 35305/15/2013

Ummm, doubtful Hayes will be in his slot much longer.

by Anonymousreply 35405/15/2013


Just what are you smoking?

by Anonymousreply 35505/15/2013

I'm curious what the ratings will be like this week. With the Obama "scandals" this week and all eyes are back on politics and not distractions like Jodi Arias and Cleveland kidnappings, who will the viewers tune to?

I'm thinking that liberal viewers would rather watch MSNBC than CNN and FOX because that is where Obama is taking the most beating.

Rachel has been very thorough and fair in her cover of the IRS and AP story. She's critical of the Admin, yet measured. Rachel is using historical context in trying to explain that this is not an isolated incident and has happened in other Admins.

by Anonymousreply 35605/15/2013

[quote]On the West Coast, Ed's show is on at 2PM. I'm not sure that's the best time slot. People are out and about. It's Saturday. There's also no repeats at night.

R341. I with you. I was excited to have Ed come back on the weekend especially when MSNBC was hyping his show for 5pm. Well, I didn't realize until last weekend that 5pm was Eastern Time. But here in California, it's 2pm, and that just seems like a deadly time slot. MSBNC--fix this please with later reruns. You're going to kill Ed's show before it even gets started.

On another note, I happen to like the prison "Lock Up" shows. I don't even know how I haven't seen them all. But I even like watching the reruns. And every once in a while, a prison show comes on that I haven't seen.

by Anonymousreply 35705/15/2013

[quote] You're going to kill Ed's show before it even gets started

I suspect that was MSNBC's intention. Move him to the weekend to get rid of him. The fact that they're not even airing a repeat of Ed's show later in the day shows that MSNBC isn't really committed to Ed.

by Anonymousreply 35805/15/2013

If Ed was doing well at 8, what was the purpose of moving him to weekends? I still don't get it. Why do they want him gone?

I liked AC360's panel show and wish they would bring it back R354, it was actually one of the best things CNN had done in a long time with the exception of some of the guests.

by Anonymousreply 35905/15/2013

Just as I suspected, when the spotlight is back on politics and political news, Rachel's ratings surpasses Piers Morgan. Last week, her show was falling behind PM by a significant margin as he was covering the Arias and the Cleveland kidnappings.

On Monday, Rachel regained the edge on Piers. Unfortunately for Chris Hayes, he's still falling behind Anderson Cooper.

People are very predictable. Their viewership is even more predictable. Unless you're a political junkie, when it's off-season, most people just want entertainment and be as far away from political news as possible.

by Anonymousreply 36005/15/2013

I'm guessing liberal viewers will not want to watch political news at all when the news is nothing but bad news for Democrats.

by Anonymousreply 36105/15/2013

I'm watching R362 because all this "bad news for Democrats" will blow up in the GOP's faces because it's all a bunch of bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 36205/15/2013

There are many less political junkies that are liberal than there are conservative junkies. It takes very extraordinary times for large numbers of liberals to watch political programming nonstop, where conservatives tend to be very politically engaged and zealous longterm. Liberals seem to lament the dirtiness and combativeness of politics, whereas conservatives savor it.

by Anonymousreply 36305/15/2013

Chris brings in just 88k viewers in the key demo last night. That's got to be a new low. It's not just Chris, either, as the Hardball and PoliticsNation ratings are plummeting as well.

I watched Lawrence and Maddow last night and basically forwarded through most of it. I'm just not interested in the Benghazi or IRS sideshow stories, and I'm guessing the viewers are not either.

by Anonymousreply 36405/15/2013

88,000 viewers is pathetic!

Whoever at MSNBC that made the decision to pencil in Chris Hayes at 8 pm should have their asses fired.

Hayes has the energy level of a dramamine.


by Anonymousreply 36505/15/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 36605/15/2013

Ari Melber got Steve Kornacki's spot on "The Cycle" and it's driven me away from the show. He doesn't make eye contact often with the S.E. It's weird and makes me uncomfortable.

by Anonymousreply 36705/15/2013

Whatever happened to Keith Olberman?

by Anonymousreply 36805/15/2013

Thanks for your concern r262 but Democrats are doing well. It's the obstructionist GOP who is the reason why the country is not moving forward.

Did you miss the CBO's release of the deficit numbers yesterday? Despite the country being "destroyed by the socialist communist President," the stock market is very strong and the deficit is receding.

by Anonymousreply 36905/15/2013

R369, Olberman would bring back alot of viewers I believe to the network. He was great in that time slot for MSNBC.

That would likely be the smartest move they could make, but of course will likely not make.

Many low-lifes in DC that have screwed their own lives up and our countries can seemingly have no problem getting on-air as regular guests on Sunday morning "news" shows and even be considered for host of their own cable news show. But Olberman screws up behind the scenes and likely will never get another major gig on tv.

by Anonymousreply 37005/15/2013

R368 makes me WANT to watch it now.

by Anonymousreply 37105/15/2013

Keith O did not just "screw up," he blazed a path of destruction and bitterness from ESPN to MSNBC to Current. IT is telling that he can't get along with his employer no matter where he works.

by Anonymousreply 37205/15/2013

Yes, R373, but that was behind the scenes stuff.

He was very popular with MSNBC viewers and brought very good ratings for that network. He was also a great lead into Rachel's show.

If MSNBC resigned him tomorrow, the ratings would be almost triple to what nerdfest Chris Hayes is currently doing.

by Anonymousreply 37305/15/2013

What gave MSNBC the boneheaded idea that Chris Hayes would be a success as the lead-off anchor for their prime-time block? Looking at the numbers at R361, it's obvious that viewers are watching Al Sharpton and Hardball, then tuning out when Hayes is on, then tuning back in for Rachel.

by Anonymousreply 37405/15/2013

Here's Tuesday...

At 8 -

O'Reilly 2,935,000

Cooper.. 497,000

Hayes... 396,000

At 9 -

Hannity 1,983,000

Maddow 607,000

Piers 473,000

by Anonymousreply 37505/15/2013

MSNBC was upset because Ed Schultz was only attracting 249,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demographic. From the NY Times in March:

[quote] Mr. Hayes, 34, will be the youngest host of a prime-time show on any of the country’s major cable news channels, all of which seek out youthful viewers but tend to have middle-aged hosts and a core audience made up of senior citizens. Of Mr. Schultz’s one million viewers last year, for example, only 249,000 were between the ages of 25 and 54.

Looking at R361's numbers, Hayes is now drawing 145,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo. And that's on a day when there was lots of political news. That's a drop of more than 40%. Way to go, MSNBC!

by Anonymousreply 37605/15/2013

I agree with r364. I just don't believe liberals will ever tune in in exceptionally large numbers to cable media or politically oriented talk radio. Whereas for uber-conservatives, it seems to take over their lives to a certain degree.

by Anonymousreply 37705/15/2013

And R378 this is precisely why so much of the extreme agenda of the far right gets implented into law.

Many liberals seemingly only tune into cable news and politics only months before a Presidential election whereas the extreme right generally watches year round.

They are generally more motivated by the issues they care about and they watch year round whereas liberals say they care about certain issues but genrally don't tune in until a few months before the next Presidential election.

Recent example: 2010 mid-term elections.

Liberals by and large tuned out and stayed at home in state after state. The result, Governor Walker (Wisconsin), Governer Snyder (Michigan), Governor McDonnell (Virginia), Governor Kasich (Ohio), Governor Christie (New Jersey), and Governor Corbett (Pennsylvania) all get elected to key states. They have since did everything they could to eliminate collective bargaining rights, voting rights, eliminating elected Mayor by replacing them with Emergency Managers (Governor Snyder in Michigan), supported extreme things like vaginal probes (Governor McDonnell Virginia) just to name some of the things they have supported and championed since winning their elections in 2010.

There have been rare exceptions to the lack of liberal engagement during off-year elections (2006) that we generally see.

Alot of us do not know what's going on in Congress or in our own states until it's too late and you wake up to see you have a Governor or some other politician from your state trying to outlaw birth control, planned parenthood, the minimum wage, etc.


by Anonymousreply 37805/15/2013

[quote]Looking at the numbers, it's obvious that viewers are watching Al Sharpton and Hardball, then tuning out when Hayes is on, then tuning back in for Rachel.

r275 pretty much summed up the situation. I thought Hayes would pull Rachel down with him, but it appears that many viewers are just skipping his show and then wait for Rachel's show to begin.

It's been a heavy does of political news this past week and I thought maybe Hayes' ratings would be competitive. It's not happening.

by Anonymousreply 37905/16/2013

DL has more comments about Hayes than Hayes has viewers.

by Anonymousreply 38005/16/2013

Hard to take Hayes seriously when he looks like a 13 yr old girl.

by Anonymousreply 38105/16/2013

R360 and let's not forget with the exception of the host. Anderson Cooper was horrible when he had a panel on his daytime show.....hence the cancellation and he was horrible with his panel on his evening show.

Again Chris Hayes has nothing to worry about. His show is new so he's building his viewers and is doing a damn good job. AC360 has been on for over 10 years and he has barely winning his time slot the past 2 weeks. The reason he has doneell the past weeks is because of the major news story that is going on in Ohio. Once the news becomes slow MSNBC will go back to kicking CNN's ass.

by Anonymousreply 38205/16/2013

God I can't stand this guy's show, I really tried to watch it but I just couldn't. Because of him, I don't even watch Rachel anymore and I've loved Rachel's show for years- My entire evening routine is completely scattered by inserting this 'arm wrestling guy' into this time slot- he's a smart guy but unlike Rachel and the others, it is very tough to listen to him for more than 3 minutes without getting totally bored

by Anonymousreply 38305/16/2013

[quote] Again Chris Hayes has nothing to worry about. His show is new so he's building his viewers and is doing a damn good job.

He's not building viewers. He's turning viewers away. The ratings for Fox, CNN, and HLN all rise sharply at 8 p.m. when prime time kicks in. MSNBC is the only cable news network that actually LOSES viewers when prime time starts -- thanks to Hayes. If Hayes can't even pull in as many viewers in prime time as the 7 p.m. repeat of Hardball or Sharpton's 6 p.m. show, that's a big problem. And his low numbers ARE dragging down Rachel Maddow. She may be able to beat Piers Morgan but it's by a much smaller margin than she was beating him just a couple months ago. You can try to spin it however you want, but the fact is that Hayes isn't cutting it in prime time.

by Anonymousreply 38405/16/2013

[quote]and let's not forget with the exception of the host. Anderson Cooper was horrible when he had a panel on his daytime show.....hence the cancellation and he was horrible with his panel on his evening show.

The host was fine, the guests and some on the panel were awful. And furthermore, I liked AC hosting the daytime show too and hope he gets back into that as well. If AC360 was doing so badly after TEN YEARS, don't you think they would've cancelled it by now? I get it, you don't like Anderson Cooper, but try to be logical.

by Anonymousreply 38505/16/2013

Maddow grew 144%(!!) from its lead-in last night, growing from 95k in the demo for Hayes to 232k. Can you imagine the ratings she'd be getting if she had a decent lead-in?

She even tried helping poor Hayes out by appearing on his show as a guest.

Time to pull the plug.

by Anonymousreply 38605/16/2013

That's great news. Do you have a link r387?

I saw Rachel on Hayes yesterday and immediately thought she was trying to get her viewers to tune to Chris. Well, it worked as I did -- but for the segment with Rachel on it!

by Anonymousreply 38705/16/2013

Ratings link

by Anonymousreply 38805/16/2013

OMG do you see Hannity's numbers? Damn! The Republican viewers are lapping the scandals up and Fox is the beneficiary.

by Anonymousreply 38905/16/2013

YIKES! Haye's numbers are horrible. Right after they fire him they need to fire whoever kicked Ed out of the 8pm slot. I don't for a minute believe Ed wanted weekends. His wife is finished with her treatment now.

Are there any ratings for Ed's Sat/Sun show?


by Anonymousreply 39005/16/2013

Those are really bad demo numbers for Chris at 8.

by Anonymousreply 39105/16/2013

R391, when you go to TV BY THE NUMBERS website they only give total viewers for weekends. The break down for individual shows was not given unfortunately like they provide for the weekdays.

But, Ed Schultz said on his Monday radio show that his ratings have been pretty solid for the weekend tv show.

I have a feeling that in a month or so that Ed's viewership for the "no man's land" Weekend timeslot for his tv show will out number Chris Hayes' numbers for his primetime show.

I am a political junkie and rarily missed MSNBC shows from 8-11 pm. Now, I routinely miss them. Hayes' show is so bad that I have no interest in watching what comes on after him on the network.

Horrible move by MSNBC.

by Anonymousreply 39205/16/2013

I never miss Rachel's show. Come 6 or 9 pm I tune in. I don't care if Chris is on at 8pm. His show isn't all that bad. So much hyperbole in this thread.

What is it about some of you who are so hysterical? You hate Chris' show and suddenly there's a lack of interest in the rest of the line-up? Pick and choose your show. I certainly do.

Unless some of you *cough r293 cough* was really never a viewer to begin with.

by Anonymousreply 39305/16/2013

ummm, then explain the huge loss of viewers, r394.

by Anonymousreply 39405/16/2013

Precisely, R395!

by Anonymousreply 39605/16/2013

O'Donnell's show made no sense at 8. It was Last Call, but with two hours of programming left.

by Anonymousreply 39705/16/2013

r395 I suppose it's a combination of bitter Ed Schultz fans, post-election season burn-out, being a new show in a very competitive time slot AND that Hayes has yet to master the art of conveying his political viewpoint in a way that is both intellectual as well as entertaining).

I don't doubt that Chris has much to learn and his show much to improve upon. I just don't think it's as bad as some of these posters on DL are making it out to be. It's a definitely hyperbole, and Schadenfreude from Ed's fans.

I'm a liberal and I want MSNBC to succeed. Considering that we live in a very partisan climate with a group of people who fervently want Obama to be impeached for every missteps; and liberal ideals are under attack. I'd say MSNBC is very much a needed "voice" to counter all the lies and half-truths on Fox News and the lamestream media.

It's the same way I felt about Air America and Keith Olbermann during Bush's reign of terror. With the rise of Obama and liberalism, both Air America and Olbermann, liberals must have felt that they were no longer need and was more a nuisance than a benefit. Shame.

Sorry for my long post. I'm just getting tired of Chris and MSNBC bashing in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 39805/17/2013

Unfortunately, Hayes needs to be bumped. Embarrassing but necessary.

by Anonymousreply 39905/17/2013


You can get feel about Ed's ratings from these....

Saturday May 4 Total day -

MSNBC 338,000

Saturday May 11- Ed's first show -

FNC 883,000

CNN 462,000

MSNBC 273,000

The MSNBC average of total viewers went down 65,000.

by Anonymousreply 40005/17/2013

I liked Hayes' segment with DeChristopher, the environmental civil disobedience guy who just got out of prison. I haven't seen that covered anywhere else.

by Anonymousreply 40105/17/2013

MSNBC needs to air Ed's weekend show at 5pm on the West Coast--not at 2pm which is how it currently airs. Come on, 2pm on a Saturday afternoon?! That's a deadly time slot when no one is home and a prescription for cancelation.

Huckabee airs on Fox weekends at 8pm Eastern Time, and 5pm Pacific. That's more like it! Let Ed Schultz go head-to-head against Huckabee. But don't allow Ed to air at 2pm. For christssakes MSNBC...what the hell are you doing?!

by Anonymousreply 40205/17/2013

[quote] Come on, 2pm on a Saturday afternoon?! That's a deadly time slot when no one is home and a prescription for cancelation.

MSNBC and Comcast clearly want to get rid of Ed. Do you think they really expect him to do well on Saturday afternoons? If they were really committed to Ed's weekend show, they'd air repeats of it later in the day. The fact that they can air about 10 hours of "Locked Up" and 4 or 5 hours of "Caught on Camera" but can't even air one fucking repeat of Ed's weekend show says a lot.

I think this is mostly about money. I'm sure Ed had to take a huge pay cut to go from weekdays to weekends. And I'm sure Chris Hayes is making a lot less than Ed was. Comcast is replacing older, more expensive talent with younger, cheaper talent (for example, replacing Jay Leno with Jimmy Fallon or replacing Ann Curry with Savannah Guthrie), even if it means settling for poorer ratings. It's probably just a matter of time before Lawrence O'Donnell and Martin Bashir are replaced by Ezra Klein or Krystal Ball.

by Anonymousreply 40305/17/2013

Soon they'll be outsourcing to India.

by Anonymousreply 40405/17/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 40505/17/2013

Krystal Balls? Oh no. Just no.

by Anonymousreply 40605/17/2013

I can't stand Martin Bashir.

by Anonymousreply 40705/17/2013

For the Chris Hayes troll, the ratings don't lie.

Chris Hayes is not cutting it in the 8 pm slot. If Hayes's show is so good why is virtually no one watching his show?

by Anonymousreply 40805/17/2013

Saturday May 18 total day -

FNC 966,000

CNN 376,000

MSNBC 279,000

Also, FNC is top news source for tornado coverage, beating the weather channel.

by Anonymousreply 40905/22/2013

Obama scandals bring MSNBC 7-year low while Fox News rises.

by Anonymousreply 41005/22/2013

Use to always watch the Ed Show. Chris Hayes puts me to sleep.

by Anonymousreply 41105/22/2013

Of all the MSNBC hosts, Ed has the most important things to say that need to be heard. Fuck MSNBC for giving him a time slot where no one is listening. I don't watch MSNBC anymore. I tried after Ed left and it just didn't work for me.

I'm one of the few who watch him faithfully on Sat. and Sun.

by Anonymousreply 41205/22/2013

[quote]I can't stand Martin Bashir.

I love him. He consistently and forcefully calls out right winger bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 41305/22/2013

Chris did really bad last night and Rachel Maddow suffered for it too.

by Anonymousreply 41405/22/2013


Larry O'Donnell I think lasted in the 8 o'clock time slot for a few months.

Chris Hayes is in that slot going on 2 months.

When will MSNBC pull the plug on this awful experiment?

by Anonymousreply 41505/22/2013

I agree R414. It took me awhile to warm up to him, but I've come to love the way he calls out right wing bullshit.

He also has a great dry wit.

by Anonymousreply 41605/22/2013

r12 Aljazeera is free online and on youtube. And it isn't terribly biased. And it covers more than middle eastern news.

by Anonymousreply 41705/22/2013

MSNBC's ratings are terrible. They had started to rebound somewhat last week, now they are right back solidly in the cellar.

Every show mostly is just "preaching to the choir" type of programming.

Bill O'Reilly most nights spews his lies generally taking on centrist/ and or democrats. This is what is missing from all of the primetime shows. When they have on guests it's generally people that share the same opinions as the host on a given subject. How the hell would this be riveting television?

If Thom Hartmann, the progressive radio host, who is only on a handful of radio affiliates can get right wingers to debate from Cato, The Heritage Foundation, The Tea Party, and other extremist groups, why the heck can't the hosts on MSNBC?

Part of what makes for good television is yes educating your audience, but also taking down the liars and extremist on the right who get to go unchallenged day end and day out on cable tv as well as on the 3 major news networks on the Sunday morning news shows.

Why not bring on the righties and dismantle their lies in debates on a given subject rather than just have everybody around the table for a panel discussion sitting around in agreement?

That crap makes for boring tv. I would love to for just once watch a right winger get their asses handed to them in a debate on tv.

I think their ratings would increase if they did some of this.

by Anonymousreply 41805/22/2013

r419 good point. MSNBC preaches to the choir too much. it gets boring. And when they do get a conservative voice they are slow - Megan McCain and SE Cupp come to mind.

by Anonymousreply 41905/22/2013

Another point is that FOX spends 99.9% of the time catering to their right wing base. MSNBC does NOT do the same. MSNBC does not really have progressive programming until usually Al Sharpton's show at 6 and then again starting at 8 pm.

MSNBC instead has programs on like Morning Joe, The Daily Rundown, The Mitchell Report, and Hardball that mainly caters to the DC corporate and political elite (which means very few progressives) where the hosts actively advocate for things like globalization, getting rid of unions, cutting Social Security benefits (Chained CPI), going off into unneccessary wars, lowering taxes on the wealthy, cutting corporate tax rates, etc. Can anyone imagine FOX News doing this same thing in reverse on their network?

If you claim to be a liberal cable news network then program the darn network that way. Until MSNBC does, they will never have large viewership except during Presidential elections. No political news network can survive this way.

by Anonymousreply 42005/22/2013

I tried watching Chris Hayes' show tonight, but it was exhausting. It's a one-hour show that feels like about three hours.

by Anonymousreply 42105/22/2013

Yes, it pretty bad for a primetime show R422!

How long will the network let this show stay in this time slot?

by Anonymousreply 42205/22/2013

About as long as they indulged Rachel's red headed pal who she co-hosted her Air America program with.

by Anonymousreply 42305/22/2013

Yeah, Tuesday's ratings were truly hideous!

5:00 -

The Five 2,229,000

Blitzer 975,000

Matthews 494,000

6:00 -

Brett Bair 2,163,000

Blitzer 773,000

Sharpton 400,000

7:00 -

Shep 1,924,000

Burnett 717,000

Matthews 385,000

8:00 -

O'Reilly 3,211,000

Cooper 902,000

Hayes 377,000

9:00 -

Hannity 2,389,000

Piers 864,000

Maddow 590,000

10:00 -

Greta 1,548,000

Cooper 903,000

O'Don 414,000

by Anonymousreply 42405/22/2013

"What's Wrong With Chris Hayes"

Good piece.

by Anonymousreply 42505/23/2013

Isn't Rachel MSNBC's biggest draw? Why isn't she on at 8?

by Anonymousreply 42605/23/2013

I think it's time for Chris to move on. It's not working. He's not making his stories very interesting. It really does feel like a professor lecturing his student.

He's definitely made for the weekend. Chris wasn't able to transition well into covering the breaking news in OK. He let Melissa Rehberger go on and on about what kind of coverage we're going to see in the days after the tornado. All the wonderful stories of resilience. I kid you not.

Same problem he had with Boston bombing. It was really bad that they switch to the Boston local news coverage. Once Rachel show started, she took the coverage back to MSNBC.

by Anonymousreply 42705/23/2013

Bring Ed Back. Or give that prime time slot to Alex Wagner.

Even better, put them both in this time slot together. I think that would be great.

by Anonymousreply 42805/23/2013

Replace Chris Hayes with something different: Karen Finney and Joy Ann Reid as co-hosts.

by Anonymousreply 42905/24/2013

On Thursday, Rachel and Lawrence beat CNN for 3rd place in the demos behind HLN. Chris is again in 4th place @ 8PM. Fox viewers are lapping up the "scandals" and they're glued.

HLN has come in second all last week thanks to the obsession with Jodi Arias.

It's no wonder that polls are showing no one outside the Fox sphere cares about the "scandals" plaguing the WH. No one is watching enough news to even know much about it to even care.

by Anonymousreply 43005/25/2013


by Anonymousreply 43105/25/2013

R432, thanks for the link to the ratings.

by Anonymousreply 43205/26/2013

Mr. Hayes went after Rahm Emmanuel this week for the massive school closings in Chicago. He also named and shamed freshman Democrats on the House Banking Committee. Well done.

And I want more Ed too. Please cut Chris Matthews time down. All he does is invite interesting guests and interrupt them so much they can't finish a coherent sentence.

by Anonymousreply 43305/26/2013

Give somebody the 7 p.m. slot. We don't need a repeat from Chris Matthews after Rev. Al Sharpton's hour is up.

by Anonymousreply 43405/26/2013

Maybe one of you guys will agree to do a blow bang if it gets Joy Reid her own show?

by Anonymousreply 43505/27/2013

Karen Finney starts her own show on the 8th of June.

by Anonymousreply 43605/27/2013

Interesting read

by Anonymousreply 43705/27/2013

I also wish Joy Reid had her own show, she is awesome.

by Anonymousreply 43805/27/2013

thanks for the link r438, it is interesting and I generally like Alex Pareene's writings (although I detest Salon because of its web design).

I wish MSNBC would use some of their NBC assets and have a one hour news channel in the evening instead of only political debate and analysis. Something BBC-ish for just an hour for real news.

And I also wish Joy Reid had her own show, she pops when she's on air, the opposite of Chris, whom I really liked back in his UP slot.

by Anonymousreply 43905/27/2013

MSNBC needs something less somnabulant for the 8pm slot. Nothing against Chris Hayes, but it's not the right spot for him.

That being said, recent ratings are heavily influenced by the "scandals" in Washington right now. People who think the IRS/Tea Party, DOJ/AP, and Benghazi controversies are important are more likely to be tuning in to news/commentary shows right now, and the shows they are watching are ones that they perceive to be sympathetic to their (right-wing leaning) views.

If Chris Hayes were spouting Alex Jones talking points on Fox, his ratings would probably double, at least. Doesn't mean he would be a better host, just a more popular one. He just needs to find his niche.

by Anonymousreply 44005/27/2013

To say the ratings for Hayes’ program are abysmal would be an insult to abysses. On Friday, May 17, Hayes lost to CNN and Fox in the key demographic and in overall viewers and tied in the demo with HLN’s Nancy Grace. Hayes On Tuesday, May 21, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly had ten times the total viewership of Hayes’ program. These prime time ratings are simply unsustainable for any network. Less than a year ago, in the heat of an election cycle, Schultz could regularly boast of beating CNN’s Anderson Cooper in both the demo and in total viewers. Hayes predecessor would often even beat Maddow in total viewership.

by Anonymousreply 44105/27/2013

MSNBC is having ratings troubles. It came in fourth in April, after Fox, CNN, and HLN. Things have not improved in May. May 13-17 was MSNBC’s lowest-rated week since summer of 2006. So what’s wrong?

We should maybe state at the outset the “fourth place” thing isn’t quite as bad as it sounds, because HLN has been doing insane ratings lately thanks mostly to Jodi Arias (and the channel’s stunning shamelessness in general). HLN is regularly kicking CNN’s ass, too. But it is still pretty bad, considering that last year MSNBC was challenging Fox for ratings dominance some nights. Now, it’s once again far behind the conservative cable news leader. And worse, CNN has finally, apparently, caught up.

One theory, from Deadline Hollywood, is that MSNBC is suffering because Obama is suffering. The crazy scandals we all love hearing about so much are making liberals too dispirited and depressed to tune into their favorite liberal shows, I guess.

Conservatives tend to like this theory. Liberal things failing (Air America, the Current) is usually taken as a sign, on the right, of the broader failure of liberalism. Various right-wingers have been crowing about MSNBC’s ratings woes, with, for some reason, lots of conservatives piling on Chris Hayes, whose new weeknight prime-time show hasn’t been a runaway ratings success. (I have no clue why the right hates Hayes, especially considering that part of his whole deal is that he regularly asks conservatives to appear on his show and then engages with them civilly. He’s not O’Donnell!) Liberal media just aren’t popular, the right cackles, as they also accuse all non-explicitly right-wing media of being radically left-wing.Perhaps there just isn’t a huge, permanent, year-round liberal audience for political news and discussion. Which is effectively all MSNBC does, because political discussion is cheap as hell, and gets good ratings when certain periods and certain personalities align. Young liberals tune in during election years. The rest of the time they keep up with the news online (or on “The Daily Show”) and spend their evenings watching actual TV. Like, “Game of Thrones” and stuff.

(Though it may be old people, and not the youngs, who are more to blame. MSNBC’s April 2013 showed no drop-off in 25-54-year-olds compared to April 2012, though the network’s total viewership declined. “Old people” are also, probably, the demographic that most misses thick-necked loud-talking Midwestern talk radio veteran Ed Schultz.)

As MSNBC suffers from post-election indifference to politics, Fox is fine because it is one part tabloid news (Arias!) and one part right-wing anger-stoking machine. The right-wing anger-stoking machine never shuts down. Talk radio turned it into a perpetual motion machine a generation ago. There’s no boom and bust, just steady, money-making rage. (Though, you know, as angry old people die the model may start to show some cracks.)

Meanwhile, CNN’s been given gift after gift by whichever minor demons are responsible for the creation of cable news stories. The channel’s new Zucker-approved softer focus and lack of dignity allowed it to capitalize on Jodi Arias nearly as much as its trashy sister station HLN did. The Boston bombings were a perfect CNN story, even if CNN botched the hell out of its coverage. The Dzhokhar Tsarnaev manhunt was precisely the sort of story that makes people go through their channel guides trying to remember which one CNN is. And then there was the West, Texas, explosion. CNN capitalized on all of this because CNN’s brand is “breaking news.” Fox capitalized because there are simply a whole bunch of people out there whose TVs are tuned to Fox basically all the time. MSNBC’s brand is “people either talking calmly or yelling at you, or each other, about politics.” These weren’t stories that made people think, “What does Chris Matthews have to say?” (Another problem: During huge stories, like the Boston bombing and subsequent manhunt, MSNBC frequently finds itself in the odd position of competing with its own sister network, when NBC News tover the broadcast network.)

MSNBC is actually making some good decisions, lately, from the point of view of someone who’d like (talking head) cable news to be better. And anyone who says the network’s failing because of liberalism should probably have to account for the fact that the channel’s highest-rated show remains Rachel Maddow’s. (Followed by O’Donnell, who really is the insufferable smug self-satisfied liberal caricature everyone thinks all of MSNBC is.)

But do you know who watches cable news all day? And at prime time? When there’s not an election on, or a war, or some terrorism? Older conservative people. If MSNBC wants better ratings, it’ll either have to train a generation to want to pay attention to political years all the time, or it’ll have to produce a scripted show about zombies.

by Anonymousreply 44205/27/2013


by Anonymousreply 44305/28/2013

I looked at Chris Hayes' show tonight.

He's still a problem for this 8 o'clock slot.

I wonder could MSNBC steal Bill Maher away from Comedy Central and HBO?

by Anonymousreply 44405/29/2013

[quote] could MSNBC steal Bill Maher away from Comedy Central and HBO?

I doubt MSNBC would pony up the money to hire a big name like Bill Maher. They'd have to pay Maher a lot more than they're paying Chris Hayes. I think the appeal of people like Chris Hayes, Steve Kornacki, Melissa Harris-Parry, etc., to MSNBC/Comcast execs is that they're not big TV stars, so they don't demand huge salaries.

by Anonymousreply 44505/29/2013

They landed in 4th for May, too.

Three words: REHIRE Keith Olbermann.

by Anonymousreply 44605/30/2013

I agree with you r447.

by Anonymousreply 44705/30/2013

I say rehire Ed. Ed being gone is why I stopped watching. I know I'm not the only one. They should put Keith on at 10 and move Larry to 7pm. One Hardball is more than enough.

by Anonymousreply 44805/30/2013

Hayes is a weak younger version of Al Gore. NO ONE will watch him - it's a huge mammoth mistake on the part of MSNBC. It's a disaster.

by Anonymousreply 44905/30/2013

After the EPIC failure of Current Tv, and now MSNBC's problems, Keith Olbermann is somewhere laughing his fucking ass off!

by Anonymousreply 45005/30/2013

MSNBC got some very tough ratings news on Wednesday.

Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably expecting some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year, but it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden, defensive month. Overall, MSNBC saw its lowest total day viewer numbers since 2007, and its lowest prime time numbers since 2009.

MSNBC's prime time numbers were down across the board. Rachel Maddow delivered what the Hollywood Reporter said were her lowest total viewing figures in her show's history, and she even fell behind timeslot rival Piers Morgan—a very rare victory for the CNN host. Chris Hayes also delivered sharply lower ratings than the man he replaced, Ed Schultz, did in 2012. Both of them, along with hosts from Chris Matthews to Al Sharpton to Martin Bashir, landed in fourth place in their timeslots—a marked change from their normal second-place status. ("Morning Joe" did manage to come in second in its slot in total viewers.)

CNN, meanwhile, celebrated a big win over MSNBC, touting its status as the second-highest rated network in prime time for the month. It was up a whopping 85 percent in prime time on weekdays, and 61 percent in total day, compared to May 2012, when it experienced its worst ratings in 20 years. HLN did even better, with a 135 percent spike in prime time viewing. Nearly every anchor had something to crow about. Anderson Cooper, for instance, was up 99 percent in total viewers. Erin Burnett posted a 97 percent gain in the same category. There were even bigger increases in the all-important A25-54 demo.

MSNBC will presumably hope for the normal equilibrium of cable news to reassert itself in June. CNN embraced the Arias story nearly as enthusiastically as HLN did, but it has no guarantee of a similarly juicy story rearing its head any time soon.

Fox News, which had a plethora of Obama scandals to choose from, appeared to have bounced back from its relatively dire situation earlier in 2013.

by Anonymousreply 45105/30/2013

R447, I've been saying the same thing for a few weeks when it is clear that Chris Hayes is a disaster for MSNBC primtetime.

The ratings would surge and put MSNBC primetime solidly back into 2nd! MSNBC would make up alot of ground just making this one move!

by Anonymousreply 45205/30/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 45305/30/2013

It's strange that NBC doesn't just ditch the news/commentary programming and switch to reality shows instead. I wonder how low the ratings have to be before they switch formats.

by Anonymousreply 45405/30/2013

Ed Schultz is on the weekends now r449.

by Anonymousreply 45505/31/2013

MSNBC needs to retool their primetime lineup or the network will be done.

by Anonymousreply 45606/01/2013

Liberals couldn't do talk radio, what makes anyone think they could do talk t v?

by Anonymousreply 45706/01/2013

Chris is an effete, boring cartoon liberal.

by Anonymousreply 45806/01/2013

I hope MSNBC doesn't switch to a reality/pop culture sleaze format just to entice viewers obsessed with tabloid-esque trials du jour like Jody Arias or Casey Anthony. That truly is the only type of viewer that HLN attracts and that whole network has very little to do with actual news.

I also don't think the answer is to become less liberal. That is one angle MSNBC should continue to captialize and expand on. They just need more dynamic voices and personalities and diverse style news programming to break up the monotony a bit. I sincerely hope they succeed as a network and I definitely count myself as a regular viewer.

I also tend to agree with the notion that the slump may have to do with the fact that liberal viewers are not as interested in the current barrage of "scandal" related news that the Obama administration is finding itself mired in at the moment.

by Anonymousreply 45906/01/2013

MSNBC falters in covering big breaking news. If a cable news channel can't do that well, its credibility is severely undermined. They need to learn how to coverage news well.

by Anonymousreply 46006/01/2013

Liberals love to eat their own. It's always been that way. Conservatives rally around their own, while liberals When the going gets tough, beat them down further. Don't look at the reasons behind

Olbermann was the voice of reason during the Bush Admin, but once Obama came to office and he was no longer needed, then all the sudden liberals started mimicking rightwing attacks on Olbermann.

All cable ratings are down. It's not an election year. There really hasn't been that much political news outside of the fake-outrage from the right. Moreover, Obama has never had so much scandal in his 4 years in office. Liberals, already burned out by post-election, are further alienated because no one really wants a daily negative deluge of a President they voted for and whose politics they agree with.

Keep beating MSNBC down and enjoy it when the only voice we hear on cable news is Fox News lambasting Democrats and liberals; and stupidity of CNN reigns on.

by Anonymousreply 46106/01/2013

I'm in a hotel at the beach this weekend.

They have all the usual news channels - fox, CNN, etc.

But no msnbc.

Might that have something to do with their low ratings? Corporate sabotage?

by Anonymousreply 46206/01/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 46306/01/2013

Liberals do eat their own. That is a basic fact. I have no problem with critiques, but some of you have your own agenda.

We all know that during election season, MSNBC handily beat CNN and at a few points also out-rated FOX. It had its highest ratings EVER. So what changed? Post-election burn-out. All of cable news ratings have dropped.

THEN, the Obama scandals began -- 3 scandals in 1 week. Devastating scandals on the surface when it broke. Scandals that stretched for weeks as Issa's witch-hunt began. Liberals tuned out. MSNBC doesn't tote the WH line, and criticized the President on IRS and AP. More liberal viewers stopped watching. It didn't help that MSNBC removed Ed Schultz and replaced him with Chris.

MSNBC drop in viewership mimics what happened to FOX after the election win. After Obama won and the Romney went down a flame of misery, FOX New's ratings dropped dramatically. It stayed that way until well after New Years.

What that tells you is that conservatives viewers were despondent and shied away from the news because their guy and their causes lost.

All of this noise about doom and gloom is just typical of how liberals are. Attacking their own is what liberals do best.

by Anonymousreply 46406/01/2013

[quote] MSNBC falters in covering big breaking news. If a cable news channel can't do that well, its credibility is severely undermined. They need to learn how to coverage news well.

MSNBC will never be able to cover breaking news well because it's not really a news network. It's a political commentary network. Fox and CNN will always beat MSNBC in breaking news coverage. Even with its right-wing lunatic agenda, Fox actually has a reporting and news anchor staff. MSNBC is stuck with having commentators like Al Sharpton or Chris Hayes pretend to be news anchors when breaking news happens. And MSNBC has to lean on NBC News and the Weather Channel because they don't have reporters of their own. I doubt that Comcast has any desire to spend the big bucks that would be needed to actually turn MSNBC into a news powerhouse.

by Anonymousreply 46506/01/2013

I'm just glad that Ed Schultz is back on MSNBC even if it's only on the weekends.

by Anonymousreply 46606/02/2013

I keep forgetting to watch Ed.

I'm pretty sure the ratings are down, too.

by Anonymousreply 46706/02/2013

R468, Ed mentioned one day last week during his radio show that the ratings for his MSNBC weekend show were solid.

He then stated that he was #1 in his cable news timeslot one of the days last weekend.

by Anonymousreply 46806/03/2013

Piers Morgan's lame twitter jab at Maddow

by Anonymousreply 46906/06/2013

Piers Morgan is a cunt!

by Anonymousreply 47006/07/2013

Did you guys see the ratings for this week?

Mon, Tues, Wed - MSNBC primetime shows beat CNN/HLN. Chris Hayes, still the weakest link, beat Anderson Cooper on Tuesday and Wed.

Without Jodia Arias, HLN takes a dip.

For CNN, it really does rely on natural disasters and breaking news.

I'm actually pretty glad that MSNBC will be having full coverage of the Zimmerman trial for the daytime programming.

by Anonymousreply 47106/07/2013

I was just going to post this, r472.

With NO *Breaking News*, and no Jodi Arias, CNN and HLN have gone to shit!

They better hope another evil bitches butchers her boyfriend, and quick!

by Anonymousreply 47206/07/2013

It is extraordinary for me to see Fox's ratings. It's monstrous. The conservative viewers are just reveling in Obama's missteps.

by Anonymousreply 47306/07/2013

I miss The Ed Show on weeknights. I like to watch Chris Hayes, think he's a bright guy with good in-depth research done by him and his team regarding what he and his guests will be discussing each night, but I still miss The Ed Show, and I'll admit I am not a loyal watcher of MSNBC during that time-slot anymore. I was pretty loyal about tuning into The Ed Show most evenings because I felt like he did a good job of covering the issues that the working class or the working poor have to deal with every day in this upside-down country of ours. It's really too bad they didn't keep The Ed Show in its time slot and try out All In With Chris Hayes during the Politics Nation slot. Even if I make it home from work in time to watch that show (PN) and I tune in to it, I generally don't stick with it and watch much more than a few minutes of it. Sometimes, it's just time to retire and focus on your first passion (a message I wish the host of that show would get).

by Anonymousreply 47406/08/2013

Yeah, but both CNN and MSNBC were hovering around 4 to 600,00 viewers for each hr.....

that is just pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 47506/08/2013

Notice Chris Hayes is wearing ties now.

Hayes just does not have the persona to carry a primetime show.


by Anonymousreply 47606/12/2013

MSNBC should give some air time to real pot-smoking wacky lefty loony liberals with beards and beads and radical ideas instead of these button-down Bozos from inside the Beltway.

by Anonymousreply 47706/12/2013

Anyone see Chris Hayes at the gym? Hairy chest?

by Anonymousreply 47806/12/2013

Oh dear

Hayes graphic labels Gov George Wallace a repub.

Later Hayes issues an apology on twitter -

It's a stupid, inexcusable and historically illiterate mistake. We'll correct it on-air tonight. I should have caught it and apologize to viewers for not catching it.

by Anonymousreply 47906/12/2013

CNN will NEVER beat MSNBC in the ratings. Most of their host are stuffy old white men who pretend they aren't tea baggers. Chris Cuomo is the best thing they've got going but I still won't watch. They might as well link themselves with Fox news and call it a day. They will never be able to chip away at MSNBC's ratings. Not with that lineup!

by Anonymousreply 48006/12/2013

CNN beat MSNBC in the ratings in April and May.

We'll see what happens in June.

by Anonymousreply 48106/12/2013

MSNBC has already pulled back into second place in ratings over CNN.

According to TV By The Numbers, MSNBC was second place for this past Monday, June 10th.

The only spot of course where MSNBC fell behind to third place in the ratings was during Chris Hayes Show, both the live and repeat version fell to third place.

Every other MSNBC show from Chris Matthews to Larry O'Donnell was second place in ratings.

MSNBC has got to repalce Chris Hayes. Changing his glasses and getting him to wear suits and ties isn't going to pull in ratings for his show.

by Anonymousreply 48206/13/2013

Since the Jodi Arias case ended and all the "breaking news" natural disaster that CNN has been exploiting, MSNBC bounced back since last Monday (June 3rd) or so. It has bounced back since the NSA scandal.

Look at Rachel's rating on Monday: She almost tripled Morgan's: RM: 725; PM: 295. Phil Griffin stated that you have to look at the long term. MSNBC is establishing itself (at least the Prime-Time shows) as the place for political in depth discussion with context, whereas CNN is more interesting in just reporting without any depth. CNN is basically headline news.

CNN's new show 'Stroumboulopoulos' tanked in its premiere.

by Anonymousreply 48306/13/2013

You have got to be kidding me. MSNBC has been beating CNN over the past few years. Unless CNN is up for that challenge I wouldn't call winning the ratings in April and May a competition. Especially when they were in the field covering the kidnapped girls and the Boston bombings. They always and only thrive when there is late breaking news. That's already on record!

by Anonymousreply 48406/13/2013

r485, but a few weeks ago, some were already writing eulogies for MSNBC. It's clear to anyone who is a political junkie and watches the news, that post-election, most people were just burned out. And in recent months as the Obama Admin were hit with scandals after scandals, I have to assume most liberals weren't tuning into the news. Who wants to watch their losing team?

CNN can look forward to the Zimmerman trial. No doubt they are going to do wall-to-wall coverage. Exploit it for all for ratings.

I'm glad MSNBC will be providing live coverage of the trial. Why let CNN get all the ratings?

by Anonymousreply 48506/13/2013

Why do people not expect MSNBC to not cover breaking news well? Are they not owned by NBC/GE, which has a huge national news team and scores of affiliates throughout the country? When big news breaks, why don't they use NBC news anchors, reports, correspondents, and NBC affiliates to give continuous, intelligent, non-biased coverage. For instance, get NBC news personnel on air on MSNBC to take over the network with continuous live coverage. Use your NBC affiliates copiously to give competent local perspective. They are without excuse.

by Anonymousreply 48606/13/2013

You obviously don't watch MSNBC r487 because they do all of that. During the Boston bombing, they had Pete Williams on and they also went to the local affiliates in Boston and had local reporters on. I always watch MSNBC, and did so during the Boston bombing. It was spectacular coverage - from daytime to Primetime to overnight coverage. Unfortunately, NBC reporters' first priority is NBC, and MSNBC only gets them once their segment is done. Pete Williams had to go back and forth from NBC to MSNBC. So why tune to MSNBC when they can just go straight to the news source -- NBC News.

The problem is that when people think of breaking news, their natural instinct is to go to CNN. The same CNN that misidentified the Boston bomber and was wrong on the Supreme Court Obamacare decision.

Both times MSNBC/NBC News were cautious and accurate in their reportings.

by Anonymousreply 48706/13/2013

Politics is very very boring right now. Everything is gridlocked so nothing is happening. There are no major elections to talk about except special elections in NJ and MA which the Democrats are sure to win. Only NJ and Virginia are electing governors and the NJ race is over.

Tornados, wildfires, floods, murder trials help CNN. Fresh "scandals" feed the Fox viewers.

At the moment, being the place for politics is not going to bring ratings.

by Anonymousreply 48806/13/2013

r489 politics is boring to YOU. There are a lot going on in domestically and abroad. If you care about reproductive rights, the GOP on both the state and federal level are passing a slew of anti-choice legislations I guess you have not been following the NSA and IRS "scandal." Politics is and will always be in the news. For those who want more than Dancing with the Stars or Desperate Housewives, cable news is the place to go.

If you watch cable news, then of course you are part of a very small fraction of the American public who cares about what is going on in the world and in DC. The rating for cable news is a mere fraction of network viewership.

by Anonymousreply 48906/13/2013

I agree that issue is important but it is not important enough to fill up hours of airtime a day, five days a week, or to attract many viewers. It's an off year for elections. The immigration bill is taking forever. Gun control is DOA.

by Anonymousreply 49006/13/2013

If anything, there is not enough hours in the day to actually give any one issue the context and background it deserves. Maybe you're used to just reading the headlines, but if I'm going to be sufficiently outraged, I first have to understand why an issue is worth being outraged over. Most people, if they pay attention to the news at all, it's usually a national story. But if you pay attention to what is happening in states that are controlled by Republicans, it's crazy out there. State issues that have national implications and no network news is really covering it quite as well as cable news show, particularly Rachel and Chris.

by Anonymousreply 49106/13/2013

Rachel can (and has) covered the issue in context fairly exhaustively. MSNBC can't survive on hardcore news junkies alone.

by Anonymousreply 49206/13/2013

[quote]Anyone see Chris Hayes at the gym? Hairy chest?

Could be wrong but I imagine he is smooth.

by Anonymousreply 49306/13/2013

They have to beat CNN for the month of June, r483, not just for a couple of days.

If MSNBC takes the month of June, then they can say they reclaimed the second spot.

That's how it works.

by Anonymousreply 49406/13/2013

r495 why does that even need to be said? Do you think you're being insightful? By the way, it's not a couple of days. It has been that way since the start of June when the NSA snooping scandal was exposed.

by Anonymousreply 49506/13/2013

Watching Ed's show for the first time since they moved him to the weekend. He just annihilated all the anti-gay Repubs who went crazy this past week.

Now Brian Sims is on the show. He's the openly gay state rep. in PA that was silenced when he tried to speak on DOMA because some teabagger rep. said he was "going against God's law."

by Anonymousreply 49606/30/2013

MSNBC delivered its worst quarterly primetime showing among total viewers and adults 25-54 since 2007.

And although MSNBC had the better month of June, CNN had the better quarter(April, May, and June). Therefore, CNN has reclaimed the 2nd spot from MSNBC for the 1st time since 2010.

On another note, Megan Kelly is moving to primetime, which is generally considered to be 8 to 11. Which spot she will take has not been announced. Greta tweeted that she's staying in PT so I bet she ends up taking Shep's slot at 7.

by Anonymousreply 49707/02/2013

On Friday, Maddow had a grand total of 512,000 viewers. She even got beat by Piers Morgan.

by Anonymousreply 49807/02/2013


by Anonymousreply 49907/02/2013

Keep wishing for the failure of MSNBC and all you will hear nonstop is attack on gay rights, women's reproductive rights, the environment and liberalism.

r499 you pick and choose what you want, but Rachel Maddow for the most of June has beaten Piers Morgan. In fact, on Monday, Rachel beat Morgan again. CNN has to rely on crime dramas. Morgan was all over the Zimmerman case on Friday. Rachel does not cover Zimmerman.

In June, her show was #2 on cable news. MSNBC was the #2 cable news network.

Let's see how the summer months bode.

by Anonymousreply 50007/02/2013

r498 she's replacing Greta at 10PM. She will be going head-to-head with Lawrence O'Donnell.

by Anonymousreply 50107/02/2013

MSNBC really needs to focus on international news more... Egypt is receiving minimal coverage.

Anyway, All In is like a rehash of Maddow. The problem with that is Hayes' show precedes Maddow. He essentially spoils the plot on a nightly basis so that Maddow's infinitely superior presentation and commentary on the news cycle falls flat--I feel like these two shows share a production crew and all that is missing from All In is the superior writing that Rachel does herself and every bit of the charisma, likability and good-natured humor that Chris utterly lacks. In other words, Chris Hayes is what Rachel would be like if she was worse in every way imaginable. A day-time guest when Rachel is in the office, perhaps, but redundant weak sauce in primetime.

I didn't watch Ed much because he depressed the shit out of me, but he provided an important service. Hayes' niche is already well-covered by his big sister whom he is currently ruining. Please resign, Chris. Rachel largely made you. Show some class.

by Anonymousreply 50207/02/2013

Do you think Andrew Sullivan would make a good replacement for Chris Hayes? Sullivan has an in-your-face style that makes for good TV.

by Anonymousreply 50307/02/2013

British accents don't do well on American tv.

by Anonymousreply 50407/02/2013

It's hard to take a barebacking POZ pig seriously.

by Anonymousreply 50507/02/2013

Is there anyway I can get that lard ass George Zimmerman off of my tv?

I'd really like to see some news, but I guess the Martin trial is all the networks want to cover.

by Anonymousreply 50607/06/2013

CNN improved its ratings fortune a whopping 90% in the news demo of adults 25-54 and nearly 60% among viewers of all ages last night when it telecast the perfect-storm special, which brilliantly tapped into viewers’ summertime appetite for all things Paula Deen AND George Zimmerman. An average of 612,000 people watched The N Word — 218,000 of them in the demo. The previous four weeks, CNN had averaged 388,000 viewers in the time slot, and 115,000 in the demo. Sure, CNN still finished fourth among cable news networks — third in the demo — with the controversial special. But, hey, up is up.

by Anonymousreply 50707/08/2013

Yeah, but for sometime Maddow's ratings have been hovering between 600,000 to 750,000.

That's not very good.

by Anonymousreply 50807/08/2013

[quote]Do you think Andrew Sullivan would make a good replacement for Chris Hayes?

The last thing MSNBC needs to do is hire another Republican.

by Anonymousreply 50907/09/2013

What R506 and R510 said.

by Anonymousreply 51007/09/2013

The last 3 or 4 days CNN and HLN have beat MSNBC.

by Anonymousreply 51107/16/2013

The last thing MSNBC needs is to hire another gay.

by Anonymousreply 51207/16/2013

One of the things that is a problem for MSNBC is that their hosts on their programs do not nothing most of the time except have guest on dutifully knodding their heads in agreement.

People tire of this format!

Why are right wingers from in the local, state, and federal level not ever booked to appear on their primetime programming? Where are those right wing crazies from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Insititute, or The Tea Party not booked so that the constant lies that they tell daily from once issue to the next can be taken apart and completely dismantled on live tv?

This is what generally goes on in the reverse on FOX NEWS on programs like Bill O'Reilly and Hannity, except on FOX the things that they generally accuse the left of are outright lies.

I want a daily "take down" of these lying extremist whose sole job seems to be just to rep for the 1% exposed!

This would make for great tv!

They need hosts who are real progressives and NOT DLC or third way fake Democrats!

If radio host Thom Hartmann can book these type of guest daily on his radio show, certainly MSNBC should not have any difficulty doing the same.

I'm tired of MSNBC from show to show just re-airing the lastest lies and garbage from the right wingers and then trying to correct or rebuke their lies with these folks not present for an interview.

Ridiculous. Book them or other right wingers that share the same views on and take them down on-air.

Liberal, just like conservatives, do not want to watch only segments where all the guests are sitting around a table hand-holding and singing.

This is one of the main reasons FOX gets the ratings and MSNBC does not.

by Anonymousreply 51307/18/2013

CNN places 2nd in Total Day and Primetime in July.

Tops MSNBC for 3rd consecutive month.

by Anonymousreply 51408/01/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 51508/01/2013

Rachel Maddow's fill in, Melissa Harris Scary, is getting shitty ratings this wk.

by Anonymousreply 51608/01/2013

CNN is doing bad in the ratings again, Chris is winning at 8 and Lawrence is doing well at 10. CNN only wins when something big happens, otherwise, no one watches them.

by Anonymousreply 51708/01/2013

Obviously R517 is a fucking RETARD.

See post R514, Moron!

For the past 3 months, CNN has had more viewers and better demographics than MSNBC.

by Anonymousreply 51808/01/2013

All In and Last Word beat 360 last night. CNN was doing well but things are beginning to slide again. As I said, CNN does well on big stories but when the news is slower, they don't do as well, that's the pattern.

by Anonymousreply 51908/01/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 52008/01/2013

CNN has struggled for a LONG time ratings wise and it may take longer than a few months to really see if whatever momentum they have continues. Zucker wasn't brought in because they were doing WELL. Maybe it's starting to turn around but it's still too early to tell for certain.

by Anonymousreply 52108/01/2013

R519 is in serious denial.

Let's see.... CNN beat MSNBC for the month of July, but R519 is crowing over the fact that 2 MSNBC shows beat CNN on July 31st.


by Anonymousreply 52208/01/2013

I like Chris and think he's that perfect mix of both smart and adorable; however, that said, I think the problem with his show is that he's so buttoned-down. Why don't they let him chuck the suit-and-tie and dress a little more casually? Also, give him contact lenses and mess up his hair a little (or at least don't make it look like a frozen sundae).

In short, let Chris be and act like the young guy that he is and maybe they'd be able to attract more younger viewers. The way he is now they're lucky to attract all those younger viewers' grandparents.

by Anonymousreply 52308/01/2013

I'm not in denial, I'm just looking at CNN's past history. I'm not saying things can't change but I'd still like to see how long this lasts, I don't think that's an unreasonable way to look at it R522.

by Anonymousreply 52408/01/2013

[quote]In an interview with Steinberg, Griffin said, “There has been an inordinate amount of big, breaking news, and that is, honestly, when CNN does well. It’s pure muscle memory." He also noted that MSNBC's ratings thrived during the 2012 election year when viewers could tune in for 24/7 political analysis. Ratings are bound to drop in a non-election year.

by Anonymousreply 52508/02/2013

I'm sorry, but he's off-putting in that he acts, sounds, emotes, expresses almost IDENTICALLY to Rachel. I mean, if you didn't know better you'd think they were the same person. I'm sure he's fine and all, but I just can't watch him - he makes me cringe he's so much like Rachel. Kind of like how I could never really watch Christian Slater because I thought he was just such a Jack Nicholson impersonator. Maybe it's just me.

by Anonymousreply 52608/02/2013

MSNBC has faced some serious ratings woes this year, with not as many people tuning in as they did during the 2012 election. Network president Phil Griffin defended the network in an interview with Variety, arguing that all this breaking news over the past few months (big trials and royal babies among them) is good for CNN, because that is the network made for breaking news, a battle that MSNBC gave up two months ago.

You’ll recall that Griffin conceded in June that MSNBC is “not the place” to go if you’re looking for breaking news. This was highlighted well by Variety‘s Brian Steinberg, who made this important point about the network’s new mission.

[W]hen big stories do arise, you need newsgathering muscle, not gum flapping. Activist Sharpton can’t do what Brian Williams does, and the more Maddow and Chris Matthews pontifi cate, the farther they get from being able to present news events in an objective fashion. Who is the face of MSNBC should terrorism cripple a major American city?

And whereas Fox News has a selection of anchors like Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith to go to for breaking news, MSNBC’s news anchors have seemingly become more comfortable inching towards the opinion side of the dial.

Griffin admitted to Variety he expected MSNBC’s weaker performance in a non-election year, saying, ““There has been an inordinate amount of big, breaking news, and that is, honestly, when CNN does well. It’s pure muscle memory.” He also made it clear that this doesn’t mean they’re going to change their mission at all.

The cabler will focus on getting past political malaise, he said. “There is a sense that America doesn’t do big things. We do, in some ways as much as ever. We have to find it.” Look for the network to dabble in digital community-building with a new website in the fall.

MSNBC came in dead last the night of the George Zimmerman verdict announcement and during the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, and this year they dropped to a seven-year ratings low. However, Griffin may be right that breaking news is really all CNN is good for, since ratings numbers show the network’s viewership plummeted after the Zimmerman trial was over.

h/t Variety

by Anonymousreply 52708/03/2013

I really think that Keith Olbermann coming back would have been good for MSNBC.

Oh, well. I guess he's all about the sports now.

by Anonymousreply 52808/03/2013

MSNBC needs to shake things up. Faltering network.

by Anonymousreply 52908/15/2013

He needs to stop adding a rhetorical "Right?" to the end of everything he says.

by Anonymousreply 53008/15/2013

I guess no one is watching Chris' show. What is the deal with Chris Hayes acting like he knows nothing about the gay discrimination law in Russia. He did not seem to think it is a big deal!

He had Harvey Fierstein and Dan Savage on the other night and both called him on it.

by Anonymousreply 53108/18/2013

Emprog DudeBro Hayes doesn't want to go after Russia because his boy Snowden is residing there so he's willing to ignore the atrocities visited upon the gays as long as his "heroic" leaker is safe there. That's all that counts to him.

by Anonymousreply 53208/18/2013

Here is what Harvey Fierstein said about Chris Hayes' comparison of the the proposed boycott of Russia to the Cuban embargo...

“I watched the Chris Hayes show last night with open mouth. One would swear the entire Russian controversy was about the stupid Olympics. I wondered if there is any way to reach a white male Christian heterosexual and let them know what it’s like to live in fear of your safety. I wonder if he’d be so off-topic if our elected officials threatened to pass a law that would remove his baby from his home. Might that wake these folks up? Because that’s what’s happening to us, Mr Hayes,” wrote the Tony award-winning actor and playwright.

Fierstein told Hayes on his show Wednesday, “What’s going on in Russia is absolutely frightening. Even in your intro just now you talked about one law.

There are three laws that have already come out, one saying that gay couples or singles may not adopt all. The other says that nobody in any country that allows gay marriage can adopt out of Russia. The third is the propaganda. The fourth law which was not passed which is rumored by the press to have been ready to be passed was one that said that children would be removed from gay and lesbian households.”

Hayes protested, “There are horrible laws discriminating against LGBT folks everywhere in the world.”

“You remember when the AIDS crisis first hit,” Fierstein said, “I would have people say to me, why are we spending so much energy on AIDS, there’s cancer too? One doesn’t negate the other.”

Fierstein went on to offer Hayes a history lesson.

“You must fight injustice wherever that injustice is,” he said. “You cannot just ignore evil. When evil shows its face you have to answer. When you don’t answer, look what happens. You were talking about Hitler, so we went to the Olympics in Germany, right? Yes, they took down the anti-Jewish posters for two weeks, and what happened? Owens won a gold medal and then 6 million Jews were killed.”

by Anonymousreply 53308/19/2013

Chris Hayes also questioned the role that Russian vodka brands have in creating “Putin-promulgated laws that are targeting, heinously and unquestionably targeting–LGBT folks in Russia.”

Dan Savage said the goal of the boycott is to raise awareness about the laws by targeting “Russia’s most iconic product.”

He objected to the fact that Hayes repeated the “lie” being pushed by the Stolichnaya that it is actually made in Latvia.

by Anonymousreply 53408/19/2013

Hayes show still isn't unique enough. Putting him in a suit doesn't do anything. Let him be himself, more casual and conversational. No tie, unbutton the top button. Give him some contact lenses instead of the glasses. Go back to the lighter hair color.

Let him stick to the issues that he discusses best. I think he has it in him to do a good show if the powers that be let it happen.

I do think time is running out though. Even Rachel Maddow seems tense when they do their toss from his show to hers.

by Anonymousreply 53508/19/2013

He used to be my boyfriend, but lately he's become a tad bit insufferable. The whole Trayvon Martin thing, felt like he was alleviating 200 years of white guilt with his show, or trying too hard to be down with the oppressed. He becomes a little too passionate about his topics and then rarely give his guests time to speak. His handling of the Russia issue was atrocious for someone who wants to feel everyone's pain.

Good on Harvey for calling him out. He seemed to do an about face in the next day, so we'll see

by Anonymousreply 53608/19/2013

Chris Matthews had an NBC News producer on tonight to talk about Michele Bachmann. His name is James Novogrod (or grad) and he's hot as fuck. Anyone know him?

by Anonymousreply 53708/27/2013

Did MSNBC blow a fuse?

by Anonymousreply 53809/03/2013

Chris' ratings almost double AND he easily beats Anderson Cooper:

Some good news for Chris Hayes: "All In" scored ratings highs in the first week of MSNBC's new primetime lineup, according to The Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday.

The network's primetime schedule changes, which began August 26, saw Ed Schultz at 5 p.m. and Chris Matthews moved to 7 p.m. The experiment paid off for Hayes' ratings: he drew an average of 772,000 total viewers and 224,000 in the key 25-54 demo.

THR reported that the ratings — with the exception of breaking news about the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15— were Hayes' best ever at 8 p.m. He has been in the timeslot for five months now. The numbers were a big jump from the week prior and August overall, when the host got an average of 475,000 in total viewers and 125,000 in the key demo.

"All In" also beat "Anderson Cooper 360," which drew 577,000 total viewers and 170,000 viewers ages 25-54, last week.

by Anonymousreply 53909/04/2013

I had trouble watching Chris tonight. He looks like a woman dressed like a man. The glasses don't fit him right.

by Anonymousreply 54009/19/2013

Maybe it's the lighting or makeup people at MSNBC, but he looked very attractive and masculine on Bill Maher last night, not like on his own show where he looks like a woman in male drag.

by Anonymousreply 54109/22/2013

MSNBC plunges to lowest ratings since 2007.

by Anonymousreply 54204/30/2014

They need to stop running Prison porn on weekends

by Anonymousreply 54304/30/2014

I agree, R543. MSNBC could be way more competitive during primetime on the weekends.

by Anonymousreply 54404/30/2014

Chris is a hot, intelligent muscle hunk.

by Anonymousreply 54604/30/2014

The person who wrote the article at R542 wants Olbermann back?


by Anonymousreply 54705/01/2014

Bumping a six month old thread for what purpose?

CNN is about breaking news (missing plane for weeks on end)

Fox is about promoting its own agenda and that dictates everything

MSNBC leans left, but is more about politics than agenda-serving

Let's come back and talk closer to the midterms.

by Anonymousreply 54805/01/2014

For ratings news, of course.

And in what universe does MSNBC not serve an agenda?

by Anonymousreply 54905/01/2014

grow up, 550

by Anonymousreply 55105/29/2014

I can't even stand to look at Schultz.

by Anonymousreply 55205/29/2014

[Vagina Hayes]


One of the girliest looking men I have ever seen in my life.

by Anonymousreply 55305/29/2014

[quote]Just how long can fat Eddie hold on to his TV job? His radio show is already gone.

Probably longer than that 25 cent per troll post gig you have, hon.

Ed Schultz's show, which airs daily on around 60 stations, was recently guest hosted (during Ed's vacation) by Raw Story's A-Gay, muckraking Mike Rogers. Rogers did a superb job.

by Anonymousreply 55405/30/2014

Megyn Kelly is absolutely kicking Rachael Maddow's ass(in viewers and demographics)....

Thursday June 5


Kelly 2,980,000

Maddow 724,000

25-54 demographic:

Kelly 469,000

Maddow 180,000

by Anonymousreply 55506/06/2014

And thus, R555, proof that America is growing stupider by the minute.

by Anonymousreply 55606/06/2014

I said this before and I'll say it again....

Maddow talks about shit next to no one cares about.

During the Bergdahl high drama, her lead story was some stupid, small shit that I can't even remember now.

Later in the wk she tried to compare Bergdahl to that blonde female POW in Irag who took a wrong turn. I mean, WTF!

by Anonymousreply 55706/06/2014

I think Chris is the nerdiest hunk I've ever been attracted to, and I can't explain it. I bet he smells, too, but I can't help myself.

by Anonymousreply 55806/07/2014


MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner hits an all-time low in the 25-54 demographic on Tuesday, July 15..... drawing only 19,000 viewers.

4:00 pm -

FNC's Cavuto 1,239,000(145,000 in 25-54 demo)

CNN's Tapper 471,000(147,000 in 25-54 demo)

MSNBC's Wagner 311,000( 19,000 in 25-54 demo)

Good, I hate the bitch!

by Anonymousreply 56107/16/2014

Aww, I love Alex, she's so chirpy.

by Anonymousreply 56307/16/2014

Oh fucking please, Susan Rice/Vagina Hayes at R562.

The Army hasn't even conducted their investigation yet. NONE of his platoon members have even been interviewed.

How fucking naïve can you be?

by Anonymousreply 56407/16/2014

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is returning to "regular duty," a status change that means investigators can now question him about what led to his disappearance and capture by insurgents in Afghanistan.

The Army has launched an investigation, headed by Maj. General Kenneth Dahl, into the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance.

Whenever Maj Gen Dahl is ready to speak with Bergdahl, he will do so, said a Pentagon spokesman.

Under the Obama administration, that probably means NEVER. Nor will they EVER contact any of his platoon members.

Complete whitewash in the making.

by Anonymousreply 56507/16/2014


by Anonymousreply 56607/31/2014

Schultz has already been demoted once.

Why MSNBC brought him back to primetime I have no idea.

by Anonymousreply 56707/31/2014

Americans have an aversion to knowledge and truth. Our country celebrates and worships ignorance, duplicity and mediocrity. Hence the ratings over at Fox News. Brain dead Republican bigots spend 24 hours a day glued to their television screens drooling over every bigoted remark, every distortion, every misrepresentation and every piece of misinformation uttered on Fox. Every time they hear a racial or homophobic slur they wet their pants with sheer delight. They high five each other in celebration of the bond of stupidity that they share with Fox. Yayyyyy there's someone out there who is as stupid as we Fox viewers are. God Bless America

Intelligent progressive people do not spend their days glued to a television screen; which is why MSNBC's ratings suffer. Intelligent, progressive, people have better things to do with their time, than sit in front of a television screen binge eating and drooling; waiting for corporations to inform them about the world around them.

by Anonymousreply 56807/31/2014



OMG that's fucking hysterical. Maybe people don't like her stupid, food Nazi bf Sam Kass.

by Anonymousreply 56907/31/2014

Give Ann Coulter a show. Watch the ratings skyrocket

by Anonymousreply 57007/31/2014

Some guy on Fox called a woman a "slut" on-air yesterday.

I like Chris. I like him a lot.

by Anonymousreply 57107/31/2014

Chris has a live show at 11 EDT tonight. He's dressed informally. He's a hunky nerd.

by Anonymousreply 57208/15/2014

He looks so fucking hot like that.

by Anonymousreply 57308/15/2014

I can't believe his show has survived this long

by Anonymousreply 57408/25/2014

I like Chris but can't take him in large doses. He becomes overexcited when making his point, and his commentary disguised as a talking point or question is unnecessary. He reminds me of an ultra liberal sociology professor, full of self righteous steam, whose rants overtake discussion.

by Anonymousreply 57508/25/2014

Removing Ed Schultz and putting Chris Hayes in his spot was the moment the downward spiral began. MSNBC is now third behind CNN. I also think having angry black people as anchors like Melissa Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton has hurt.

by Anonymousreply 57710/12/2014

[quote]NYT Monday.... MSNBC in deep ratings spiral. HA HA HA.....take that you insufferable Maddow bitch!! Who the hell can watch her without vomiting? So ugly, so stinky, so fucking smug, and often so fucking WRONG. Will so be back tomorrow to post the link!!

Americans have an aversion to knowledge and truth. Our country celebrates and worships ignorance, duplicity and mediocrity. Hence the ratings over at Fox News. Brain dead Republican bigots spend 24 hours a day glued to their television screens drooling over every bigoted remark, every distortion, every misrepresentation and every piece of misinformation uttered on Fox. Every time they hear a racial or homophobic slur they wet their pants with sheer delight. They high five each other in celebration of the bond of stupidity that they share with Fox. Yayyyyy there's someone out there who is as stupid as we Fox viewers are. God Bless America

by Anonymousreply 57810/12/2014

I'm liking Rachel again. I had stopped watching her, and recently resumed, and I am impressed. I really like the first segment. She usually goes into detail on the background of whatever story she is covering, so you really get an understanding of it. Plus the first segment is long, without commercial interruption. Even though I DVR the show, the commercials are a killer.

by Anonymousreply 57910/12/2014

Hunky nerd Chris recently appeared on The Cycle. He towered over little Ari, sub host Josh Barro, and the rest of the crew. He's only 6' tall, but The Cycle crew must be tiny.

by Anonymousreply 58010/12/2014

It's been said and rumored that Rachel Maddow is the power behind the scenes.

If so, she ain't do a very good job.

by Anonymousreply 58110/12/2014

One time the MSNBC camera cut to hunky nerd Chris Hayes a second early, and Chris was doing deep breathing to calm himself before his appearance. This was before he got his own show, and was doing guest spots on Rachel and Olbermann.

Chris, I don't care if you flap your arms like a penguin, or breath deeply, you are adorable!

by Anonymousreply 58210/12/2014

[quote]Removing Ed Schultz and putting Chris Hayes in his spot was the moment the downward spiral began. MSNBC is now third behind CNN. I also think having angry black people as anchors like Melissa Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton has hurt.

You're an Ed Schultz fan but Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry are too "angry" for your taste. Ed Schultz is one of the angrier host on television. Yet you didn't refer to him as an Angry White Man. Your real issue is that you don't believe racial bigotry needs to be addressed. Racial bigotry is still a huge problem in this country and your statements only help to illustrate that.

by Anonymousreply 58310/12/2014

R581, Rachel's the main host on election night, so it makes sense. I don't know how Chris Mathews let the crown slip from his fingers.

by Anonymousreply 58410/12/2014

R583, I don't know how black people can stand living in this country, to be honest.

by Anonymousreply 58510/12/2014

Hayes needs to transition already.

by Anonymousreply 58610/12/2014

Ed Schultz is a gross, fat, bloviating ass clown.

Don't even get me started on Rev Al and dumber than shit Harris-Perry.

by Anonymousreply 58710/12/2014

Anyone have a crush on nerdy Steve Kornacki?

I love his game show segment on Saturday mornings.

by Anonymousreply 58810/12/2014

Chris Hayes is a total hunk. Muscular...with more meat on him that that scrawny and puny Anderson.

by Anonymousreply 58910/12/2014

[quote]Ed Schultz is a gross, fat, bloviating ass clown. Don't even get me started on Rev Al and dumber than shit Harris-Perry.

Harris-Perry graduated from Wake Forest University with a bachelor's degree in English and received a PhD in political science from Duke University. She more intelligent and better educated than most.

Sharpton has no college degree but neither do Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Sharpton however is far from dumb.

by Anonymousreply 59010/12/2014

Does anybody watch Kornacki? I used to get up so early (west coast) on weekends just to catch Hayes's Up, now I watch neither his weeknight show nor Kornacki's. The couple of times I saw Kornacki's "game show" schtick I was so annoyed and acutely embarrassed for everyone there. Up with Chris Hayes used to be something really special and rare, an intelligent cable news show.

by Anonymousreply 59110/12/2014

[quote]Chris Hayes is a total hunk. Muscular...with more meat on him that that scrawny and puny Anderson.

I like Hayes but he is not muscular!

by Anonymousreply 59210/12/2014

She's dumber than shit, R590.

Can't wait for her next apology. I enjoy them so.

by Anonymousreply 59310/12/2014

Au contraire, R592, I suspect there be muscles under those nerdy clothes! You need to see Chris in his casual clothes. Perhaps we could convince him to do a spot in a muscle shirt.

by Anonymousreply 59410/12/2014

MHP isn't dumb. I can't imagine where that thought comes from. Well, I can, but I hate to think that little of people.

by Anonymousreply 59510/12/2014

Ummmm, it comes from attempting to watch the dumb bitch.

by Anonymousreply 59610/12/2014

I hate it when nerdy hunk Chris gives his news subjects nicknames. It was embarrassing when he started calling the Boston Bomber "Joe", like they were pals. If I wasn't dumbstruck, I would have grabbed the phone and called the station "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP CALLING THE TERRORIST-MURDERER BY AN AFFECTIONATE NICKNAME". He's done that other times, too, with other subjects. Chris is hot, but he's not perfect.

by Anonymousreply 59710/12/2014

[quote]Ummmm, it comes from attempting to watch the dumb bitch.

The caveman at R596 posted these 2 gems in the Greg Abbott/Wendy Davis Thread.

[quote]Duh, I ignored your fucking question and concentrated on you. And, I just don't care to have a drama queen Mary as Governor of a state. She'd probably be as incompetent as "I'm just a grandma" Governor Blanco of Katrina fame. Remember her.... and, well, at least she didn't dare run for re-election.

[quote]No, dumb women are bad and should be nowhere near the Governorship of a state. And, let's be honest, Wendy Davis didn't might having a sugardaddy to pay her bills. But, when the husband wrote that last check to pay off her student debt, she promptly dumped him. Her moral character is also low.

by Anonymousreply 59810/12/2014

Okay Nancy Drew

by Anonymousreply 59910/12/2014

I didn't realize MSNBC's ratings and apparent appeal had fallen by so much (I no longer watch cable news myself)

today's NYTimes:

Leaning Forward, MSNBC Loses Ground to Rival CNN OCT. 12, 2014

... MSNBC’s other numbers are no prettier. Over all in prime time, MSNBC, which for years had squashed CNN head-to-head on weeknights, has recently dropped consistently behind that network. The falloff over the last five years is stark. In the first quarter of 2009, MSNBC averaged 392,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic for its weeknight lineup. In the third quarter of this year, the number was down to 125,000.

by Anonymousreply 60010/12/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!