American Idol-style contest for the next great progressive voice.  I'm half serious on this one.  There are some great minds across the blogosphere that are probably telegenic and good on their feet too.

Honestly, Maddow, Shuster, etc. would be a perfect complement, because they're good at doing commentary and reporting, which should be the primary importance, along focusing on issues that aren't getting as much play.

You mentioned Tavis Smiley up there, and I thought about the time where he managed the Democratic debate.  I thought he did a good job with it, and think he would do well in a national media position.  

My question though is this.  I was just thinking... How many news shows have an African American male host?  I can't think of any... No late night shows, during the day I usually watch MSNBC and they usually have women on for most of the early morning and afternoon.  (Although I should note they do have an African American female host for about an hour if I remember correctly).  But then I think about it, they don't have any African American male news hosts on any of the major news networks.  Other than commentary here and there of course.  

Shuster, Maddow or Smiley would all be great.

WE?.....

So youre GE?!  Or ss tthe "prog" movement GE?

Please dear lady wake up and get a clue.

Matthews and Hardball hurts our interests each night more than fox does in a month of broadcasting...

and they WANT IT THAT WAY!

PLEASSE START READING the daly howler, media matters, joe conason about this...

stop livng a fantasy...

and STOP promoting the complete bullshit Line that msnbc is anything more than corporate owned MSM Village tended -dem bashing cable tv.

Its where the pro gop - anti dem media narrative is scripted right in front of your eyes...and you cant even see it...lord...

start reading and learning about this not new problem -

and maybe turn off your damned boob tube until you do...

They'll never hire an honest-to-go progressive, at least not solo. The best we can hope for is a good pairing of liberal/conservative or someone relatively lucid and balanced (I'm willing to give Shuster the benefit of the doubt) who doesn't let someone like Laura Ingram bully the liberal guests (and there's an idea: liberal TeeVee commentators who aren't weak-kneed and clueless). I just hope they've learned from their little Tucker experiment that "hip and edgy" does not mean "obnoxious, dishonest, snide, rude and childish"

Why do we want a progressive version of Fox? Don't we criticize Fox not just because it's conservative, but because it's too ideological for a news service?

Also, I rather like Tucker's show. He is the only conservative who consistently invites smart liberals on the show to debate him (Rosa Brooks, Bill Press, Rachel Maddow. etc.). That's far better to me than some left-leaning version of Hannity's America. I personally don't like Keith Olberman's show as much as Tucker and Hardball because there's no genuine discussion on his show. It's not informative nor entertaining to watch one side of an argument. But, maybe others disagree.

In any case, if you want to fill a slot, go with the Dan Abrams slot. As much as I disagree with Tucker on most issues, I actually do think he puts on a good political news/chat show. He's genuinely interested, smart, and even a little open-minded. You may doubt that last part, but I've seen him be persuaded quite frequently by the smart liberal guests on his show. Also, Carlson is a libertarian-leaning conservative who tends to enjoy bashing republicans. It's much more fun to watch that than a democrat bashing a republican.

I'm sure my defense of Tucker will make me the oddball here, but really . . . do some really prefer Rosie? Or a progresive version of Fox?

Notwithstanding the supposedly radical realism of a previous response (thanks - will check out the Howler - a little civility, sir or madam, would better help get your plea addressed, I think)...

You all might wish MSNBC would think more holistically about their evening line-up, leading them to build a stable of talent well-suited to absolutely owning election specials coverage (debates, returns, etc).  In other words, it's not just one time slot - nor the current audience - which concerned viewers should be considering.

In related posts here and at Huff, I've suggested considering an arc for the evening which starts out fairly straight-up with news and analysis, and which then progresses through the evening to include more humor and entertainment features.

Since Matthews/Olbermann are establishing what seems to be a successful brand, I'd focus attention on their lead-ins and lead-outs, despite the fact that Matthews is so obnoxious at times it makes your teeth hurt.

An example for such a line-up (all times EST):

6pm - Ray Suarez (and/or) Rachel Maddow
7pm - Chris Matthews
8pm - Keith Olbermann
9pm - Tavis Smiley (and/or) Rachel Maddow (and/or) Robert Krulwich
10pm- Harry Shearer (and/or) Rachel Maddow

The tendency in this discussion here, at Huff and elsewhere, is to push forward the most progressive voices available.  While I appreciate the sentiment, I suggest balancing that concern with one that cares about broadening the audience for news and public affairs programs (especially to include the younger demographic), fostering its appetite for civic engagement.

To that end, humor and the entertainment beat become essential elements.  Get the mix right, and you could get something like the Daily Show in primetime, but with great heart and activating purpose.

I think this is a great thread to continue to push.  What other TV news outlet is receiving so much thoughtful free advice from its mostly loyal viewership?  Keep up the good work, ye posters all!

Going to be a real progressive TV network. They are owned by GE. GE has it's interests. They want to make profit but they don't want to hurt there interests. The best thing we can hope for I think is making it a little more progressive.

Maybe add Bill Press to Tucker and Make it Tucker and Press. Press is smart and progressive and they are friends.

Shuster could replace Dan Abrams. He's not a progressive but he's more interesting then Abrams. Maddow can be a regular guest but it would be hard for her to host a show without quitting her Air America show and I don't think she'd do that.

Someone like Ed Schulz would be great because he has the ability to appeal to folks in the nations purple and even some of the red states. He's folksy and reliably progressive on most issues without being shrill. That could generate real wide appeal. His radio work might make it impossible, though.

Been watching her in the mornings and she's ready for prime time.

We have been fighting this issue for a decade now and STILL some FOOLS refuse to even learn whats going on!

OH I SAY FAUX NEWS INSTEAD OF FOX NEWS AND I CALL MATTHEWS TWEETIE - AND O WE STOPPED THAT FAUX NEWS DEBATE AND LOO AT ME...IM FIGHTING THE EMPIRE!

LOOK BUD YOUR DUMB AS A POST IF YOU THINK THAT THE PEOPLE AT GE  ARE LISTENING TO YOUR "WISH LIST"...

These people caused the impeachment, cost us 2000 and 04 and are prepped to do it again....and you ask for civility?

Go read the daily howler you dumb twit - understand a bit about the reality of the corporate media and get your head out of ....
the sand....

I'm sick of the slanted new channels. Fox definitely....and MSNBC is starting to annoy me. Why can't we get a news channel that doesn't have a bunch of blowhards trying to push political agendas. Why can't we have a news channel that doesn't spend half their time bashing the other channels. I'm at the point where I can't even watch Keith Olbermann anymore. His incessant attacks on Fox bore me and are childish. We all know what Fox is. He should attempt to rise above the level that Fox operates on. I'm tired of feeling every time I watch cable news I have to think "why is this person saying this, and what is their agenda". I wish NPR/PBS would start their own cable news channel. I wish BBC World was offered by my cable provider.

Last winter a similar discussion was taking place on the progressive blogs. In response, I started what I considered to be the media equivalent of a "draft" site, called Televise Cliff Schecter. Cliff now runs the Brave New Films blog, but also has his own site and does a weekly post for AmericaBLOG, among other outlets.

Schecter had done a long string of appearances on cable news where he absolutely eviscerated the Republicans he was up against and did so in pretty hilarious fashion.

Here's a clip of Cliff beating up on Rush Limbaugh.

And this MSNBC appearance is really good too.

I also did a diary on Daily Kos early this year that included a poll in which 90% of respondents said that they would watch a show hosted by Schecter.

For me, the reason Cliff should be our top choice for a show is simple. Most people don't get to see Democrats on TV who stand up for what they believe in and call out Republican hypocrisy and scandal. The messengers we tend to have lack skill in messaging and don't know how to attack. Cliff is a gifted messenger who goes straight for the GOP jugular. That's exactly the sort of attitude that we need to show this country what Proud Democrats look like and how dangerous and weak the Republican Party really is.

I actually like Tucker Carlson in a weird sort of way.

I'd like to see MSNBC find a strong liberal for Tucker to play Alan Colmes against in a talking head show.  I definitely would like to see someone who is not a retread like Bill Press (who was suggested above) would be.  

Other people want to give Rachel Maddow a show.  I think that she would be a good person to partner with Tucker Carlson.  My first impressions from her come from her regular appearances on his show when he first started on MSNBC.  Since it had that sort of PTI-ish format, I thought that Tucker Carlson needed a Wilbon to play to his Kornheiser and I felt at the time that Rachel Maddow was someone who would be capable of having good on-screen chemistry with Tucker Carlson in that role.

I'm with Matt Browner Hamlin. I'm biased, because I write for Cliff on his BraveNewFilms site.

BUT--I wasn't always biased. I've followed Cliff since the days before he was one of the best commentators MSNBC ever had, when he blogged on Gadflyer.

I was a fan who was blown away when I saw him here

Here was a guy who had an encyclopedia in his head, could rattle off facts that stunned the opposition, and did/does it all with a wicked sense of humor.

My background is TV/stage comedy. I can tell you this: Comedy reaches people in a way that nothing else can. It creates instant intimacy and interest. Cliff makes his points with humor that people want to listen to, which makes him someone who a wider audience will appreciate.

But his is some of the most intelligent snark I've ever seen.

He needs air time, his own show, to whip the rest of these guys in shape. And the best thing about him? He's not afraid to show the GOP who's in charge. MSNBC didn't nickname him Bulldog for nothing.

he feels like from another era now, but i still miss phil donahue.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is Big Ed Schultz.  He's definitely looking to go on TV and he's got that mid-West schtick going which MSNBC is lacking.

Lawrence O'Donnell is one of my favorite liberals. He's handsome, smart and has gravitas. IMO he would be perfect.

I'm sorta used to Carlson, but get a strong Progressive on with him.

I used to watch the lying weenie on cross-fire. He used to get destroyed by the liberal. then they moved the show from the evening to the afternoon. before tivo, i couldn't watch it in the afternoon. I think they were just trying to destroy a show that had any type of liberal opinion expressed. Then they cancelled the show. Tucker got his own show, and the liberal was never to be heard from again (until last week when he showed up on CSPAN doing a talk show during the time of the daily journal). Oberman  is about as progressive as they will allow.

Who knows how accurate this is, or if it's even the only explanation, but the inside scoop from TVNewser says that MSNBC just doesn't have a replacement available.

... off-the-wall comments to some, but sincere nonetheless:  

-) You guys are talking small potatoes. We need to think strategy here, not just tactics arising from current broadcast gossip.  We should be pushing MSNBC for TWO or THREE new hosts; not just one.  Two loaves of bread might just get us the one loaf we want... and besides; MSNBC owes us.

-) Nothing is more riveting or entertaning than the plain, unvarnished truth.  Keeping that in mind, I'd vote for Randi Rhodes to select the replacement. She would be great herself but she already has ten or twelve times the audience MSNBC could provide.  If she turns it down, she still has the gutsy judgement to recognize the winner among her collegues that MSNBC needs.  

-) Nobody has mentioned Naomi Klein, Stephanie Miller or Christine Craft. They would all be great. Give Klein a place on CNBC if she finishes second.  

-) I cast a reluctant 'no' for Amy Goodman. That good, gray lady needs to stay on Pacifica where she can quietly continue to do the good that she does.  I vote "Amy for frequent guest."

-) Also; God save us from Ed Schultz, who would KILL for the spot. Ed has his moments, but is late to catch up with the events we all care about. We need a real Progressive in that spot.

b73