The New York Times' Brian Stelter writes about MSNBC. But everyone is going to be talking about this paragraph buried in the second page near the end'
Several MSNBC employees, who spoke about programming plans on the condition of anonymity, said the most likely candidate for a new show was the Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, a frequent substitute for Ms. Maddow. Mr. Klein may start with a weekend time slot, but these people said the 8 p.m. weekday time slot held by Mr. Schultz was also a possibility.
If it's being floated, even as a trial balloon, it suggests things are not well in the Ed Schultz/MSNBC relationship. But it also could mean more trouble for MSNBC if the network went through with it.
Ed Schultz is in the Keith Olbermann mold. He's in the Bill O'Reilly mold. He's in the Nancy Grace mold. He's an attack dog, perfectly suited for the fire and brimstone strong POV 8pm ET timeslot that those three all occupied for years. 8pm is where the fireworks take place. CNN's counterprogramming non-withstanding.
Now consider Ezra Klein. He's articulate. He's scholarly. He's relatively restrained. He's in the Maddow/Hayes/Perry mold. In other words he's not 8pm material. MSNBC should know this already and not be entertaining the idea of putting Klein there. They already tried the more restrained route with The Last Word after Olbermann quit. It didn't work and Lawrence O'Donnell went back to 10pm where his show was better suited. I cannot believe that Phil Griffin would want to attempt to repeat what in hindsight turned out to be a mistake.
Because it seems so far fetched that MSNBC would attempt to go against the 8pm grain with Klein, I think this leak is more of a message from MSNBC to Ed Schultz and the message is, 'You are replaceable.' What prompted it is unknown. Is there a contract negotiation going on and Schultz is asking for too much? Or is it pushback, as Mediaite's Joe Nicosia notes, to Schultz allegedly claiming on his radio show to be the reason for MSNBC's success? Though I don't read Schultz's quote the way NewsBusters is reading it. I read it as Schultz saying that sticking up for the blue collar (union) working man was never a targeted demographic on MSNBC the way it now is on his show. And, he's basically right about that. Schultz has cornered the market in that demographic far more so than anyone else at the network.
On the other hand, look at Schultz's numbers for October.
'The Ed Show' at 8:00 p.m. had the program's best delivery ever among both A25-54 and total viewers and the best performance in the hour since March 2009. 'The Ed Show' topped CNN in all categories, with a 125% advantage over CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360' among A25-54 (399,000 vs. 177,000) and a 140% lead over CNN in total viewers (1.33 million vs. 554,000). Compared to Oct. 2011, 'Ed' is up 127% with A25-54 and 57% with total viewers, more growth than all cable news channels in the hour combined. 'The Ed Show' is also up 120% with A18-34 compared to Oct. 2011.
Sounds impressive. Best since 2009. Ah, but what about before 2009? I don't have the October 2008 numbers but in November of 2008 this is what Countdown did'
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' maintains its ratings dominance at 8 p.m. over CNN, with a huge advantage among both A25-54 (780,000 vs. 472,000) and total viewers (2,107,000 vs. 1,321,000).
That's almost double what The Ed Show did last month. Now, obviously, the November 2008 numbers were somewhat juiced by the 2008 election. But so should have the October 2012 numbers been. But let's look at this from a slightly different angle'
Here are Rachel Maddow's numbers for last month'
'The Rachel Maddow Show' at 9:00 p.m. had its best A25-54 and total viewer delivery since Nov. 2008. 'Maddow' was #2 in all categories, topping CNN's 'Piers Morgan Tonight' by 209% among A25-54 (538,000 vs. 174,000) and by 172% among total viewers (1.57 million vs. 575,000). Compared to Oct. 2011, 'Maddow' is up 151% with A25-54 and 83% with total viewers, more growth in the time period than all cable news channels combined. 'Maddow' is also up 149% with the younger demo of A18-34 compared to Oct. 2011.
And here are Maddow's numbers for November 2008'
'The Rachel Maddow Show' continues to be a huge ratings success, out-rating CNN's 'Larry King Live' among both A25-54 (672,000 vs. 565,000) and total viewers (1,826,000 vs. 1,705,000) in November.
Maddow, like Schultz, couldn't regain the highs of 2008. But Maddow was a lot closer to her 2008 numbers than Schultz was to Olbermann's numbers in 2008.
It may turn out that MSNBC thinks it can do better numbers at 8pm than it has. But whatever the reason MSNBC is entertaining ideas of moving Schultz's show, or dropping him entirely, I don't believe Klein is the right choice for reasons I outlined above.
Update: MSNBC issues a non-denial denial to Mediaite'
'We're very happy with the performance of our primetime lineup, which topped Fox News Channel three nights this week. There are no changes planned.'
Operative word: 'Planned'. Things don't have to be 'planned' for Stelter's story to still be accurate. I still think it's unlikely though.
-
Anthrax spores are in the Nancy Grace mold.
-
I confess I never think of Ezra Klein as host, at least not one in the MSNBC Fox news mold. As has been mentioned in this article, Klein is very articulate, calm , with an almost freakish encyclopedia like knowledge of the history of American politics.
Hes not an attack dog in the form of Ed Schultz, Bill O Reilly and certainly not Sean Hannity. Even Maddow gets worked up on her shows over things. Anytime Klein subbed in and appeared to get worked up, you almost got the feeling it was forced, and not his real personality. Klein is not someone who gets overly passionate about issues, hes scholarly and gives reports more in a professor form then that of a talk show host.
I'm not saying his approach isn't good, frankly I find it refreshing in comparison to most talk shows, but I also know something like that doesn't draw ratings because Klein really doesn't do sensationalism, he gives reasoned, rational arguments backed up by historical facts, and while that may serve the electorate and the public well, it also won't keep their attention.
-
Ed Schultz is a fool with a big mouth and a propensity for allowing his Inner Jackass to show through on live television and/or radio. For a better definition, see Levin, Mark.
Ezra Klein is just a boring momma's boy who couldn't get a job without his Dick Carlson's Boy-like connections.
Either way, MSNBC is just swapping Judea for Samaria. Or vice versa. Never can keep those two straight.
-
I like Ed. They've basically got five people hosting their own version of the exact same show every night, and Ed provides a lot of contrast in style. He's got a big personality, but he's not annoying about the way Olbermann could be. Klein is sort of a milquetoast TV personality, he lightly pursues points and sounds like so many other voices on MSNBC, which I don't really mean as a bad thing, but he's not the answer to regaining Olbermann's numbers. And by the way, if they didn't want to lose the ratings Olbermann brought in, then maybe they shouldn't have fired him.
-
I like him, but my eyes glaze over when Ezra is on for extended periods of time.
Do something else with the Hardball re-run but keep Ed on please!
-
Sorry to say, Ezra Klein seems more like a fill in not a guy who can host a show. Kind of like Juan Williams for O'Reilly. If a pundit is boring they serve no purpose at all.
-
Ezra is wonderful, but he can never replace Big Ed'.nobody can'..I live for his show..
-
MSNBC should give Ezra his own show and leave Big Ed alone'no one can replace him'.also do re-runs of Al Sharpton to increase viewership'get rid of prison shows'
-
Agreed!
-
Hmmm. If a loudmouth pundit is fired at MSNBC, does he make a noise?
Schultz is no different than Hannity or any of the other bomb tossers at Fox. All shouting and very little reality.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar