Adding progressive voices to cable news

Earlier this week, the NYT noted that MSNBC is becoming a hub for left-wing talk on cable TV.  The article's assertion that Chris Matthews counts as a liberal, or Joe Scarborough as a moderate, is a pretty big stretch.  And the network's decision to replace Don Imus's racist and sexist morning talk show with Joe Scarborough several months ago hardly counts as a progressive programming decision.  Nevertheless, Keith Olbermann calls MSNBC his home; Tucker Carlson's show is on the ropes; and until Wednesday, network executives were considering adding a talk show with Rosie O'Donnell to the mix.  (The O'Donnell deal fell apart, apparently, because MSNBC wanted a longer commitment than O'Donnell was willing to make.)  If Carlson does get the boot, and a new liberal talk show host akin to O'Donnell joins the MSNBC lineup, then the network will easily count as the most progressive of the three major cable news channels.

The cable news industry - indeed, the entire cable TV industry - is in a very interesting position these days.  Poor service and high prices have led to widespread dissatisfaction with cable carriers, especially Comcast. There's significant buyer dissatisfaction with the overall cable-purchasing model as well, as most cable subscribers clamor for a la carte channels.  At the same time, there are signs that the FCC will almost certainly begin regulating the industry more heavily.

The new FCC regulations, which appear to be focused on expanding access to cable news channels by liberalizing leased access rules, open up some interesting opportunities for bringing more progressive voices to cable news.

For example, an entrepreneur could undertake an experiment to lease cable access in order to air a progressive talk show, like the Stephanie Miller show, at a time that competes with MSNBC's Scarborough morning show.  (When MSNBC fired Don Imus a few months ago, Miller auditioned for the morning time slot; despite several well-received Miller shows and a spirited petition effort on the part of progressives, Scarborough got the slot.)  If the entrepreneur coupled that move with a concerted strategy to market Miller's show to progressives - incorporating YouTube excerpts, blog and social network marketing, etc. - then Miller's show might gain audience share against Scarborough.  If the experiment could be conducted in enough major markets to put a dent in Scarborough's ratings, MSNBC might eventually be persuaded to replace Scarborough with Miller.

This kind of experiment would be novel.  Most leased access shows are localized, and rely on local or regional advertising for revenue.  Moreover, leased access is obtained through local cable providers, not on a national level, so it would be very difficult to string together leased access in enough markets to make a significant dent in the ratings of a national show.  (For a good background piece on leased access, check out this Videomaker piece.)  On the other hand, a liberal entrepreneur willing to try this out could crowdsource the process of obtaining leased access, by enlisting progressive netroots activists in the time-consuming effort of contacting and cajoling local cable offices.  Moreover, because progressives are emphatically ignored on cable and broadcast TV, there's a large, untapped potential for capturing advertising dollars for products that are best marketed on TV and have a natural liberal audience - for example, progressive movies and documentaries.  In other words, this kind of experiment would be massive and novel, but potentially very profitable.

Ultimately, the viability of this kind of experiment depends on the FCC's new regulations.  Hopefully, we will soon have many more opportunities to challenge cable carriers to carry more progressive networks, and to challenge existing cable news networks to carry more progressive programming.  Liberal entrepreneurs interested in cable should stay on their toes for a potential opportunity to make money while making way for progressive voices on cable news.



Display:


are you high? (none / 0)

the idea of Chris Matthews counting as a liberal has been presented to you ass a public service from Jack Welch and the nice people at GE.

Every night me main stream insider MSM get together on Hardball and decide what the script will be for the day.. Its Imuss in the evening.

It's always to our disadvantage.  Besides Olberman, that network is much more dangerous to our interests than anything Fox News presents..Why?  Because the NYimes and the Wash Post insiders wont go on nor watch Fox, thats why.

Have you never read the Daily Howler or Media Matters?  How come you do not understand this basic thing about our media?  MSNBC - progressive?  It is clearly...well.insane.  I suggest you go to those two websites and read until you understand the world we live in...and how MSNBC helped make it the way itt is.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:33:12 PM EST

read the post (none / 0)

Uhh, read the post.  I never said Chris Matthews was liberal, in fact, I take issue with the NYT's characterization as such.  What I wrote was that if MSNBC boots Carlson and adds a new progressive talk show host, it will become the most liberal of the three cable news channels.  Not a reliable progressive ally, just the cable news channel with the most liberal lineup.  It's a pretty low bar to jump over, but it's still true.


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not enough (none / 0)

maybe not a reliable ally?....dear me -  theyre our biggest problem besides the GOP itself...and they would still be if they gave Stephanie and Rosie their own shows.

so that would influence 300,000 viewers mostly already confirmed liberals...the scripting effects the coverage seen by tens and tens of millions voters...including those pesky and decisive undecided....ya know those people who will never ever see msnbc...and gets to decide who will live at 1600.

and then lets talk about Russert...

please go read Bob at the Howler...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 03:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I uudersstand your pie in the sky (none / 0)

Stephanie Miller wishes and dream stuff - but from someone who has dealt with these people and these networks for over a decade now - you are talking fantasy - the impact on our dialog isnt in the ratings anyhow - its in the scriptig of the narrative ad the thrashing of our candidates and cause.

This is the real world for 20008 at minimum.  Id be much more interested in your trying to get our people to boycott guest appearances on that network - besides Keith - then buying into anything an insider and hardball guest writes in the frigging NY Times.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:42:51 PM EST

I Just Want Good Journalists, Not Party Activists (none / 0)


Look, I'll settle for some real journalism at MSNBC. Why not just give David Shuster the time slot that Carlson has now? Let's go back to the days of old, when the point was REPORTING.

But, if you're going down the party activist road, then at least give us Rachel Maddow over Stepanie Miller. Maddow is brilliant. Or Randi Rhodes, maybe. Or Al Franken, perhaps. But, Rosie O'Donnell? Are they nuts? Rosie needs to get her act together again; she's gone completely off the deep end, and is behaving like a wacko. Why MSNBC would even discuss a talk show with her is bizarre beyond belief. Talk about nuking your credibility!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM EST

but you see ...GE wont do tthis.... (none / 0)

and hell, the only "good" - non pack herd - political journalist I know is David Corn...and sometimes Jonathon Alter...there really are no others in DC.

None.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 03:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Just Want Good Journalists, Not Party (none / 0)

I agree here, having David Schuster as a talk show host would be pretty cool, and having Rosie O'Donnell as a news anchor is quite ridiculous IMO. Rachel Maddow would be an interesting host, but I'd love to see someone like Ron Reagan get a show.


by KainIIIC on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shuster has my vote (none / 0)

Though he did cover the Colbert-Edwards SC mash-up as serious news.  Can't win 'em all :)

Tucker was recently announced as being the host of new reality game show in the near future, so I'm sure he's gone from his...cough...journalist's chair...cough.

I like Rosie, but she really needs to develope her own network :)  She way too strong a personality to not have full control.  A shorter contract may have been a smart move on MSNBC's part, easier to get rid of her if it failed.


by catchawave on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shuster has my vote (none / 0)

I'm not familiar with Shuster, I've seen a bit of Maddow and Miller, and both seem reasonable.  I know people think O'Donnell is a little nutty, and she is, perhaps too much so to be a "serious" pundit.  Then again, she's human and real, and I kind of prefer someone with a bit of flair and personality to another ho-hum talking head.  Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I don't really care who wins the slot, as long as we succeed in moving mass traditional media back to the left.


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adding progressive voices to cable news (none / 0)

Joe Scarborough is one of the more honest conservatives out there right now which doesn't make him great but an improvement over most dreck.

Okay--so who would make a good liberal talk/popnews host? We need someone who is physically attractive, intelligent, funny, outspoken and independent.

A tall order but let's start generating names!


by MNPundit on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:16:29 PM EST

Re: Adding progressive voices to cable news (none / 0)

Katrina vanden Heuvel?


by Oregonian on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too old by 10 years. N/T (none / 0)


by MNPundit on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I like my cup of Morning Joe (none / 0)

Mika balances him nicely, though I like John Ridley better than Willie Geist.

Gives me reason to get up at 6 a.m. again :)


by catchawave on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adding progressive voices to cable news (none / 0)

How about Lawrence O'Donnell? Everytime I've seen him I've been impressed.

My absolute favorite choice would be Phil Donahue, but I realize that probably wouldn't work.

But I would love to see them get rid of Carlson, he's so totally stupid that I can't watch him.


by Kewalo on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 08:51:28 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.