'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.
MSNBC's 'All In with Chris Hayes' Falls In Ratings During First Week
|by Anonymous||reply 601||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 1||04/06/2013|
Maybe it will pick up eventually.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 3||04/06/2013|
Good. He sucks.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 8||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 9||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 10||04/06/2013|
R9 thinks only gay men are 'wimpy', please...grow up.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 13||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 15||04/06/2013|
Well this is legitimately disappointing.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||04/06/2013|
Anderson Cooper got a big gift from MSNBC when they put this wimp opposite him. AC's ratings have improved significantly.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 18||04/06/2013|
"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 Anonymous||reply 19||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 20||04/06/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/06/2013|
If the ratings fall any lower they might have him take over the Tonight Show at 11:30
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 24||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 25||04/06/2013|
Has he presented his hole on air?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 27||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 28||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 29||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 30||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 31||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 32||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 33||04/06/2013|
Boehner make my teef itch.
Can't the Repugs put someone attractive in the leadership? Y'know like Mitch McConnell?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 35||04/06/2013|
Karen Finney is getting a show on the weekend. They should give Joy a show. Ari Melber is on The Cycle now.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 37||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 38||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 39||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 40||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 41||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 42||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 43||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 44||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 45||04/06/2013|
He's very well-educated, R45. Did you smoke some crack before you posted?
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/06/2013|
He's Cher's favorite straight man right? What does Cher say on twitter about him & his show?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 48||04/06/2013|
Just because Chris went to Brown doesn't mean he isn't well-educated!
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/06/2013|
The savvy media critic @R12 is most certainly wrong about Al Jazeera, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/06/2013|
Chris acts like he has tourettes?
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 52||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 53||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 54||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 55||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 56||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 57||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 58||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 59||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 60||04/06/2013|
Is 8PM the coveted time slot? Why doesn't Rachel want that time?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 62||04/06/2013|
How did Kornacki get Up?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/06/2013|
By getting on his knees r63.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/06/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 65||04/06/2013|
 I think you are right on the mark.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 67||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 68||04/07/2013|
r6, what a great suggestion. A world report with Amanpour reporting live or achorning like Maddow would be wonderful.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/07/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 70||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 71||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 72||04/07/2013|
[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.
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 Anonymous||reply 73||04/07/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/07/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 76||04/07/2013|
R74 is a racist with a chip on his shoulder.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 78||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 79||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 80||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 81||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 82||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 83||04/07/2013|
MSNBC should change it up. All the hosts are just more of the same.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 85||04/07/2013|
r85 I think what you say about Hayes' style is true. Which is why he's perfect for weekend mornings.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/07/2013|
Has Ari Melber replaced Kornacki on THE CYCLE for good?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||04/07/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 88||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 89||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 90||04/07/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 91||04/07/2013|
I think O'Donnell's an obnoxious has-been, desperately trying to stay "relevant", but what do I know?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 93||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 94||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 95||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 96||04/07/2013|
It's "whom I enjoy," person proclaiming their own intelligence.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||04/07/2013|
R97. Bite me.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 99||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 100||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 101||04/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 102||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 103||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 104||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 105||04/08/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 106||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 107||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 108||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 109||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 110||04/08/2013|
His show is like an episode of Fresh Air with guest January Jones.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||04/08/2013|
People don't want to be lectured at during prime time tv. People don't fondly recall lecture hall professors.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||04/08/2013|
The show is boring. He's not charismatic.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 115||04/08/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 116||04/08/2013|
"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 Anonymous||reply 117||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 118||04/08/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 119||04/09/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 120||04/09/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 121||04/09/2013|
don't forget Cenk Ughur.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||04/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 123||04/11/2013|
R123. Chris Hayes' new show blows.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 125||04/11/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 126||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 127||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 128||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 129||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 130||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 131||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 132||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 133||04/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 134||04/11/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 135||04/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 137||04/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 138||04/16/2013|
I love Joy Reid. She's definitely one of the brightest stars with NBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||04/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 140||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 141||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 142||04/21/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 143||04/21/2013|
Watching his show is like being seated next to an insufferable guest at a Cobble Hill dinner party.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 145||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 146||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 147||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 148||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 150||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 151||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 152||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 153||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 154||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 156||04/21/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 157||04/24/2013|
MHP was on fire last weekend. SHE should have gotten the prime time slot.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||04/24/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 159||04/24/2013|
Chris is not long for this tv world.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||04/24/2013|
MSNBC is still getting it's ass kicked.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||04/24/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 162||04/24/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 163||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 164||04/25/2013|
I happen to agree with you r160.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||04/25/2013|
There are a lot of whiners on this thread...
|by Anonymous||reply 166||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 167||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 168||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 169||04/25/2013|
Chris is his style has a very limited audience. Very few people will like his style and format.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 171||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 172||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 173||04/25/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 174||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 175||04/25/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 176||04/25/2013|
Can't argue with unnamed sources.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 178||04/25/2013|
Would MHP be better in that slot?
|by Anonymous||reply 179||04/25/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 180||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 181||04/25/2013|
Same R181. I was never down with Ed and his blowhard style. I don't miss him at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 183||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 184||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 185||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 186||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 187||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 188||04/25/2013|
CNN: News So Good It Isn't Real
Fox: News Without Reason
|by Anonymous||reply 189||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 190||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 191||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 192||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 193||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 194||04/25/2013|
You realize they have all the resources of NBC News at their disposal when it comes to breaking news?
|by Anonymous||reply 195||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 196||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 197||04/25/2013|
And those few people manage to dominate one of the two major political parties in this country? Isn't that insane?
|by Anonymous||reply 198||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 199||04/25/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 200||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 202||04/25/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 203||04/29/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 204||04/29/2013|
This is last Thursday's ratings. Hayes isn't doing so well. And after regularly beating Hannity, Maddow has slipped too. Damn.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||04/29/2013|
r205 Rachel has never "beat" Hannity regularly in the ratings. She beats him in demo regularly. Big difference.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||04/29/2013|
He is bringing MSNBC down.
|by Anonymous||reply 207||04/30/2013|
Last night he had on Dan Savage to discuss the coming out of a gay black athlete...like his racist ass is the official spokesman for gays.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||04/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 209||04/30/2013|
Dan Savage is not a good spokesman.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||04/30/2013|
Anderson Cooper (because he was ashamed) isn't either.
|by Anonymous||reply 211||05/01/2013|
In her wet dreams, Maddow beats Hannity in the ratings.
In reality, she never does!
|by Anonymous||reply 212||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 213||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 214||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 215||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 216||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 217||05/01/2013|
Yeah, but you said Maddow beats Hannity in the demos, BUT she doesn't. That happens just once in a blue moon.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||05/01/2013|
I'm still convinced Chris Hayes has a vagina.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 220||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 221||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 222||05/01/2013|
then gives us a link r220. You're full of shit.... which is why you can't back up what you're saying.
|by Anonymous||reply 223||05/01/2013|
I did give you a link, dummy r223. You're the one relying on current links.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||05/01/2013|
A Monday and Tuesday in November 2013 IS once in a blue moon.
It's May 2014, honey.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||05/01/2013|
"You're the one relying on current links."
|by Anonymous||reply 226||05/01/2013|
sorry May 2013.
|by Anonymous||reply 227||05/01/2013|
He's slowly getting better imho.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||05/01/2013|
I agree. yesterday's show was his best. The segment on the GOP takeover of the North Carolina General Assembly was excellent.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 230||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 231||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 232||05/01/2013|
He's gotten a lot better in his delivery. I see this as a regular show now.
|by Anonymous||reply 233||05/01/2013|
CNN takes the #2 spot for the first time in 2 yrs.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||05/01/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 235||05/01/2013|
Hayes is getting better. It's Steve Kornacki we should be worried about - his dispassionate, apolitical style is alienating to progressive "Up" viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||05/01/2013|
Yesterday Nancy Grace beat both Cooper and Hayes in total viewers and the 35-64 demo.
|by Anonymous||reply 237||05/01/2013|
r235 see post r186.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||05/01/2013|
It's May 1 and MSNBC has all day breaking Boston bombing news to deal with.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||05/01/2013|
Which means that they'll get a ratings bump, R240, but it'll be disproportionately less than CNN/FOX.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||05/01/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 242||05/01/2013|
r242, I don't think they will let Boston die down.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 244||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 245||05/01/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 246||05/01/2013|
Yes, R246 it is pretty bad.
MSNBC made a huge mistake in putting in Hayes on during primetime hours.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 248||05/01/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 249||05/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 250||05/01/2013|
Steve is so dry. Has he gained weight recently?
|by Anonymous||reply 251||05/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 252||05/02/2013|
Steve looks like his hair is cut by a blind monk.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 254||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 255||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 256||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 257||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 258||05/03/2013|
I can't fucking stand her.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||05/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 260||05/04/2013|
MSNBC 'Now with Alex Wagner' hits series low.
On Thursday, just 26,000 in 25-54 demo.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 263||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 264||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 265||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 266||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 267||05/05/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 269||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 270||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 271||05/05/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 272||05/05/2013|
FOR MSNBC'S SAKE, PUT ED SCHULTZ BACK ON THE 8PM SLOT. GIVE US OLD FOLKS A BREAK! WE ACTUALLY WATCH THE NEWS SHOWS. AND WE LISTEN TO THE NEWS TOO. PUT CHRIS HAYES ON AT 11PM WHERE THE YOUNG CROWD IS JUST SETTLING IN TO WATCH TV TO HELP THEM GO TO SLEEP.
|by Anonymous||reply 273||05/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 274||05/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 275||05/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 276||05/06/2013|
Dull and tedious.
|by Anonymous||reply 277||05/06/2013|
I am watching hockey. I am bored by Chris Hayes.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||05/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 279||05/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 280||05/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 282||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 283||05/09/2013|
Obviously it's a ratings mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 284||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 285||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 286||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 287||05/09/2013|
Why I just lay awake all night wondering what Elizabeth Warren is going to do for the betterment of mankind
|by Anonymous||reply 288||05/09/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 289||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 290||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 291||05/09/2013|
You're absolutely delusional, r290. Get some sleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 292||05/09/2013|
Jesus, you love to hear yourself talk!
Nighty Nite, Lizzie.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 294||05/09/2013|
He needs to stop trying to make Click 3 happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 295||05/09/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 296||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 297||05/09/2013|
MSNBC needs to revamp their programming.
|by Anonymous||reply 298||05/09/2013|
O'Donnell seems a conceited prick to me, but hey ... what do I know!
|by Anonymous||reply 299||05/09/2013|
I'd rather have O'Donnell's brand of "conceited prick" than O'Reilly's.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 301||05/09/2013|
Make that O'Reilly at 8
|by Anonymous||reply 302||05/09/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 303||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 304||05/10/2013|
Just avoid the thread, Ms Prisspot.
It will certainly survive the loss of your input!
|by Anonymous||reply 305||05/10/2013|
I'll post in whatever thread I feel like.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||05/10/2013|
Also much better at covering breaking news like the Boston bombings.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||05/10/2013|
are you being sarcastic? CNN had the worst coverage of the Boston bombing.
|by Anonymous||reply 308||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 309||05/10/2013|
What do you propose r3"9?
|by Anonymous||reply 310||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 311||05/10/2013|
With cascading ratings, you can expect big shakeups at MSNBC this summer.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||05/10/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 313||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 314||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 315||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 316||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 317||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 318||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 319||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 320||05/10/2013|
Good point R321, didn't think of that.
|by Anonymous||reply 321||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 322||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 323||05/10/2013|
MSNBC has really fallen in the ratings.
Wonder what heads will roll over this?
|by Anonymous||reply 324||05/10/2013|
MSNBC Total Day.... 356,000.
MSNBC Primetime.... 586,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||05/10/2013|
Just goes to show that people want to see endless stories about rapists, murders, bombers, and NOT politics.
Wake up, MSNBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 327||05/10/2013|
I think it shows people want ALL the news, not just politics.
|by Anonymous||reply 328||05/10/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 329||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 330||05/10/2013|
Rachel is not clownish and never has been.
|by Anonymous||reply 331||05/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 333||05/10/2013|
"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 Anonymous||reply 335||05/11/2013|
Again, pull your head out of your ass!
You'll think more clearly with a little fresh air.
|by Anonymous||reply 336||05/11/2013|
Wake up MSNBC!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 337||05/11/2013|
I take it "The Cycle" doesn't get stellar ratings..... not with that average daytime audience
|by Anonymous||reply 338||05/11/2013|
Ed is back, bitches.
And he was fucking awesome!
|by Anonymous||reply 339||05/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 340||05/11/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 341||05/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 342||05/11/2013|
It's the first time I've posted on this thread, R343. And I'm hardly a Republican.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||05/11/2013|
please do, asswipe at r343.
|by Anonymous||reply 344||05/11/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 345||05/11/2013|
Chris Hayes has ruined everything.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||05/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 348||05/12/2013|
Yippity, ck. out these ratings for Friday....
|by Anonymous||reply 349||05/14/2013|
Lawrence O'Donnell so wants to lick Warren's pussy.
|by Anonymous||reply 350||05/14/2013|
Maddow used to get much better ratings than those even on a Friday.
|by Anonymous||reply 351||05/14/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 352||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 353||05/15/2013|
Ummm, doubtful Hayes will be in his slot much longer.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||05/15/2013|
Just what are you smoking?
|by Anonymous||reply 355||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 356||05/15/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 357||05/15/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 358||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 359||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 360||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 361||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 362||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 363||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 364||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 365||05/15/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 366||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 367||05/15/2013|
Whatever happened to Keith Olberman?
|by Anonymous||reply 368||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 369||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 370||05/15/2013|
R368 makes me WANT to watch it now.
|by Anonymous||reply 371||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 372||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 373||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 374||05/15/2013|
At 8 -
At 9 -
|by Anonymous||reply 375||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 376||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 377||05/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 378||05/15/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 379||05/16/2013|
DL has more comments about Hayes than Hayes has viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 380||05/16/2013|
Hard to take Hayes seriously when he looks like a 13 yr old girl.
|by Anonymous||reply 381||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 382||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 383||05/16/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 384||05/16/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 385||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 386||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 387||05/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 388||05/16/2013|
OMG do you see Hannity's numbers? Damn! The Republican viewers are lapping the scandals up and Fox is the beneficiary.
|by Anonymous||reply 389||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 390||05/16/2013|
Those are really bad demo numbers for Chris at 8.
|by Anonymous||reply 391||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 392||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 393||05/16/2013|
ummm, then explain the huge loss of viewers, r394.
|by Anonymous||reply 394||05/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 396||05/16/2013|
O'Donnell's show made no sense at 8. It was Last Call, but with two hours of programming left.
|by Anonymous||reply 397||05/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 398||05/17/2013|
Unfortunately, Hayes needs to be bumped. Embarrassing but necessary.
|by Anonymous||reply 399||05/17/2013|
You can get feel about Ed's ratings from these....
Saturday May 4 Total day -
Saturday May 11- Ed's first show -
The MSNBC average of total viewers went down 65,000.
|by Anonymous||reply 400||05/17/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 401||05/17/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 402||05/17/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 403||05/17/2013|
Soon they'll be outsourcing to India.
|by Anonymous||reply 404||05/17/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 405||05/17/2013|
Krystal Balls? Oh no. Just no.
|by Anonymous||reply 406||05/17/2013|
I can't stand Martin Bashir.
|by Anonymous||reply 407||05/17/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 408||05/17/2013|
Saturday May 18 total day -
Also, FNC is top news source for tornado coverage, beating the weather channel.
|by Anonymous||reply 409||05/22/2013|
Obama scandals bring MSNBC 7-year low while Fox News rises.
|by Anonymous||reply 410||05/22/2013|
Use to always watch the Ed Show. Chris Hayes puts me to sleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 411||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 412||05/22/2013|
[quote]I can't stand Martin Bashir.
I love him. He consistently and forcefully calls out right winger bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 413||05/22/2013|
Chris did really bad last night and Rachel Maddow suffered for it too.
|by Anonymous||reply 414||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 415||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 416||05/22/2013|
r12 Aljazeera is free online and on youtube. And it isn't terribly biased. And it covers more than middle eastern news.
|by Anonymous||reply 417||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 418||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 419||05/22/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 420||05/22/2013|
I tried watching Chris Hayes' show tonight, but it was exhausting. It's a one-hour show that feels like about three hours.
|by Anonymous||reply 421||05/22/2013|
Yes, it pretty bad for a primetime show R422!
How long will the network let this show stay in this time slot?
|by Anonymous||reply 422||05/22/2013|
About as long as they indulged Rachel's red headed pal who she co-hosted her Air America program with.
|by Anonymous||reply 423||05/22/2013|
Yeah, Tuesday's ratings were truly hideous!
The Five 2,229,000
Brett Bair 2,163,000
|by Anonymous||reply 424||05/22/2013|
"What's Wrong With Chris Hayes"
|by Anonymous||reply 425||05/23/2013|
Isn't Rachel MSNBC's biggest draw? Why isn't she on at 8?
|by Anonymous||reply 426||05/23/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 427||05/23/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 428||05/23/2013|
Replace Chris Hayes with something different: Karen Finney and Joy Ann Reid as co-hosts.
|by Anonymous||reply 429||05/24/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 430||05/25/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 431||05/25/2013|
R432, thanks for the link to the ratings.
|by Anonymous||reply 432||05/26/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 433||05/26/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 434||05/26/2013|
Maybe one of you guys will agree to do a blow bang if it gets Joy Reid her own show?
|by Anonymous||reply 435||05/27/2013|
Karen Finney starts her own show on the 8th of June.
|by Anonymous||reply 436||05/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 437||05/27/2013|
I also wish Joy Reid had her own show, she is awesome.
|by Anonymous||reply 438||05/27/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 439||05/27/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 440||05/27/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 441||05/27/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 442||05/27/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 443||05/28/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 444||05/29/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 445||05/29/2013|
They landed in 4th for May, too.
Three words: REHIRE Keith Olbermann.
|by Anonymous||reply 446||05/30/2013|
I agree with you r447.
|by Anonymous||reply 447||05/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 448||05/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 449||05/30/2013|
After the EPIC failure of Current Tv, and now MSNBC's problems, Keith Olbermann is somewhere laughing his fucking ass off!
|by Anonymous||reply 450||05/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 451||05/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 452||05/30/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 453||05/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 454||05/30/2013|
Ed Schultz is on the weekends now r449.
|by Anonymous||reply 455||05/31/2013|
MSNBC needs to retool their primetime lineup or the network will be done.
|by Anonymous||reply 456||06/01/2013|
Liberals couldn't do talk radio, what makes anyone think they could do talk t v?
|by Anonymous||reply 457||06/01/2013|
Chris is an effete, boring cartoon liberal.
|by Anonymous||reply 458||06/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 459||06/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 460||06/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 461||06/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 462||06/01/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 463||06/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 464||06/01/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 465||06/01/2013|
I'm just glad that Ed Schultz is back on MSNBC even if it's only on the weekends.
|by Anonymous||reply 466||06/02/2013|
I keep forgetting to watch Ed.
I'm pretty sure the ratings are down, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 467||06/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 468||06/03/2013|
Piers Morgan's lame twitter jab at Maddow
|by Anonymous||reply 469||06/06/2013|
Piers Morgan is a cunt!
|by Anonymous||reply 470||06/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 471||06/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 472||06/07/2013|
It is extraordinary for me to see Fox's ratings. It's monstrous. The conservative viewers are just reveling in Obama's missteps.
|by Anonymous||reply 473||06/07/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 474||06/08/2013|
Yeah, but both CNN and MSNBC were hovering around 4 to 600,00 viewers for each hr.....
that is just pathetic.
|by Anonymous||reply 475||06/08/2013|
Notice Chris Hayes is wearing ties now.
Hayes just does not have the persona to carry a primetime show.
|by Anonymous||reply 476||06/12/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 477||06/12/2013|
Anyone see Chris Hayes at the gym? Hairy chest?
|by Anonymous||reply 478||06/12/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 479||06/12/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 480||06/12/2013|
CNN beat MSNBC in the ratings in April and May.
We'll see what happens in June.
|by Anonymous||reply 481||06/12/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 482||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 483||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 484||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 485||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 486||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 487||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 488||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 489||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 490||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 491||06/13/2013|
Rachel can (and has) covered the issue in context fairly exhaustively. MSNBC can't survive on hardcore news junkies alone.
|by Anonymous||reply 492||06/13/2013|
[quote]Anyone see Chris Hayes at the gym? Hairy chest?
Could be wrong but I imagine he is smooth.
|by Anonymous||reply 493||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 494||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 495||06/13/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 496||06/30/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 497||07/02/2013|
On Friday, Maddow had a grand total of 512,000 viewers. She even got beat by Piers Morgan.
|by Anonymous||reply 498||07/02/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 499||07/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 500||07/02/2013|
r498 she's replacing Greta at 10PM. She will be going head-to-head with Lawrence O'Donnell.
|by Anonymous||reply 501||07/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 502||07/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 503||07/02/2013|
British accents don't do well on American tv.
|by Anonymous||reply 504||07/02/2013|
It's hard to take a barebacking POZ pig seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 505||07/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 506||07/06/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 507||07/08/2013|
Yeah, but for sometime Maddow's ratings have been hovering between 600,000 to 750,000.
That's not very good.
|by Anonymous||reply 508||07/08/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 509||07/09/2013|
What R506 and R510 said.
|by Anonymous||reply 510||07/09/2013|
The last 3 or 4 days CNN and HLN have beat MSNBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 511||07/16/2013|
The last thing MSNBC needs is to hire another gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 512||07/16/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 513||07/18/2013|
CNN places 2nd in Total Day and Primetime in July.
Tops MSNBC for 3rd consecutive month.
|by Anonymous||reply 514||08/01/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 515||08/01/2013|
Rachel Maddow's fill in, Melissa Harris Scary, is getting shitty ratings this wk.
|by Anonymous||reply 516||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 517||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 518||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 519||08/01/2013|
[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 520||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 521||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 522||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 523||08/01/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 524||08/01/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 525||08/02/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 526||08/02/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 527||08/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 528||08/03/2013|
MSNBC needs to shake things up. Faltering network.
|by Anonymous||reply 529||08/15/2013|
He needs to stop adding a rhetorical "Right?" to the end of everything he says.
|by Anonymous||reply 530||08/15/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 531||08/18/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 532||08/18/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 533||08/19/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 534||08/19/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 535||08/19/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 536||08/19/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 537||08/27/2013|
Did MSNBC blow a fuse?
|by Anonymous||reply 538||09/03/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 539||09/04/2013|
I had trouble watching Chris tonight. He looks like a woman dressed like a man. The glasses don't fit him right.
|by Anonymous||reply 540||09/19/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 541||09/22/2013|
MSNBC plunges to lowest ratings since 2007.
|by Anonymous||reply 542||04/30/2014|
They need to stop running Prison porn on weekends
|by Anonymous||reply 543||04/30/2014|
I agree, R543. MSNBC could be way more competitive during primetime on the weekends.
|by Anonymous||reply 544||04/30/2014|
Chris is a hot, intelligent muscle hunk.
|by Anonymous||reply 546||04/30/2014|
The person who wrote the article at R542 wants Olbermann back?
I DON'T FUCKING THINK SO.
|by Anonymous||reply 547||05/01/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 548||05/01/2014|
For ratings news, of course.
And in what universe does MSNBC not serve an agenda?
|by Anonymous||reply 549||05/01/2014|
grow up, 550
|by Anonymous||reply 551||05/29/2014|
I can't even stand to look at Schultz.
|by Anonymous||reply 552||05/29/2014|
One of the girliest looking men I have ever seen in my life.
|by Anonymous||reply 553||05/29/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 554||05/30/2014|
Megyn Kelly is absolutely kicking Rachael Maddow's ass(in viewers and demographics)....
Thursday June 5
|by Anonymous||reply 555||06/06/2014|
And thus, R555, proof that America is growing stupider by the minute.
|by Anonymous||reply 556||06/06/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 557||06/06/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 558||06/07/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 561||07/16/2014|
Aww, I love Alex, she's so chirpy.
|by Anonymous||reply 563||07/16/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 564||07/16/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 565||07/16/2014|
|by Anonymous||reply 566||07/31/2014|
Schultz has already been demoted once.
Why MSNBC brought him back to primetime I have no idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 567||07/31/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 568||07/31/2014|
OMG that's fucking hysterical. Maybe people don't like her stupid, food Nazi bf Sam Kass.
|by Anonymous||reply 569||07/31/2014|
Give Ann Coulter a show. Watch the ratings skyrocket
|by Anonymous||reply 570||07/31/2014|
Some guy on Fox called a woman a "slut" on-air yesterday.
I like Chris. I like him a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 571||07/31/2014|
Chris has a live show at 11 EDT tonight. He's dressed informally. He's a hunky nerd.
|by Anonymous||reply 572||08/15/2014|
He looks so fucking hot like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 573||08/15/2014|
I can't believe his show has survived this long
|by Anonymous||reply 574||08/25/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 575||08/25/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 577||10/12/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 578||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 579||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 580||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 581||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 582||10/12/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 583||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 584||10/12/2014|
R583, I don't know how black people can stand living in this country, to be honest.
|by Anonymous||reply 585||10/12/2014|
Hayes needs to transition already.
|by Anonymous||reply 586||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 587||10/12/2014|
Anyone have a crush on nerdy Steve Kornacki?
I love his game show segment on Saturday mornings.
|by Anonymous||reply 588||10/12/2014|
Chris Hayes is a total hunk. Muscular...with more meat on him that that scrawny and puny Anderson.
|by Anonymous||reply 589||10/12/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 590||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 591||10/12/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 592||10/12/2014|
She's dumber than shit, R590.
Can't wait for her next apology. I enjoy them so.
|by Anonymous||reply 593||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 594||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 595||10/12/2014|
Ummmm, it comes from attempting to watch the dumb bitch.
|by Anonymous||reply 596||10/12/2014|
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 Anonymous||reply 597||10/12/2014|
[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 Anonymous||reply 598||10/12/2014|
Okay Nancy Drew
|by Anonymous||reply 599||10/12/2014|
I didn't realize MSNBC's ratings and apparent appeal had fallen by so much (I no longer watch cable news myself)
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 Anonymous||reply 600||10/12/2014|