The Way Things Work at MSNBC

Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm by Bob Cesca

Sadly, my friend Cenk Uygur is parting ways with MSNBC, and for all of the reasons we’ve discussed here over the years.

I’ve long hypothesized that the content at MSNBC is controlled by a small clique of “very serious” Washington insiders and cable news executives who decide what goes on the air — ratings are entirely irrelevant anymore. I can’t highlight that enough.

Ratings mean nothing. The personal reputations of the members of those cliques (specifically Phil Griffin in this case) mean everything. This is why Chris Matthews, the host of the lowest rated show on cable news, gets to earn more than $5 million a year and occupy not one but two hours of air time every evening and why someone like Cenk gets nitpicked to death because of “tone”.

Here’s Cenk to explain:

(via Chez)

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in The Media and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • nepat

    “…ratings are entirely irrelevant anymore. I can’t highlight that enough.”

    Seriously? While this hypothesis conveniently lets Uygur off the hook for his show’s crappy ratings, outside of public broadcasting, ratings always matter. Unless the parent corp. – NBC Universal – is willing to underwrite a vanity project with as meandering and unclear an agenda as MSNBC, ratings rule the TV world.

    And Matthews’ ratings were not the lowest in cable TV news. Uygur’s were – which is why he is gone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Conner/100000495528525 John Conner

      I agree at least with Hardball provided some form of entertainment when Matthews and his right wing guests fight. Cenk on the other hand was down right shitty. I rather watch monkeys in the wild have a shit throwing war than watch another minute of Cenk’s show. I don’t get the appeal of Cenk,when they had a Air America show every person I talked to hated that show and didn’t understand why it was on.

      Now people are giving this man what he wants by repeating the meme he was pushed out due to tone. He wasn’t pushed out cuz of tone he was pushed out because no one was watching his ass.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YM23FX2FBZEC3UVDPZRGCUBIZ4 staci

        I would “like” you a thousand times if I could for this reply. Cenk is the same as Arianna Huffington, Glen Greenwald and Jane Hamsher – fuck ‘em all with their contrary, hypocritical, lying asses. If I never heard another word from each and every one of them it would make me a happy girl.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Did you watch the video? Cenk was #1 in A18-34 — he beat Fox News. The 6PM numbers all around were up from the previous year. Phil Donahue had huge ratings and was canceled.

      • NintendoWii10

        Sure Bob, because we alllllllll know how important the 18-34 demo is… not. The 18-34 demo are the same folks who watch reality TV.

        It’s always older folks who determine popularity of cable TV pundit shows, and amongst older folks, Uygar wasn’t getting any traction. Rev Al on the other hand has traction with older folks, hence why your premise of Uygar having huge approval ratings is misleading.

        • http://twitter.com/HoosierJason Jason

          So you are arguing the 18-34 crowd just isn’t that important to cable? What a pant load. Older folks determine popularity on Fox News perhaps.

          • NintendoWii10

            Sorry, the younger folks aren’t that important to cable, at least political teevee. It’s always older folks tuning into political talk, just look at AM radio. Do you honestly see young folks tuning into AM radio daily?

            And yes, MSNBC has to compete with Fox News and CNN for viewership, that’s the market. And you’d be naive to ignore the fact that Rev Al had higher ratings and viewers than Uygar ever had, and that’s all around, not just the 18-34 demo. #2 to Fox News all around… yeah ratings has NOTHING to do with Uygar being booted, now that is a pant load.

          • i_a_c

            So you are arguing the 18-34 crowd just isn’t that important to cable?

            Yes, that’s exactly the argument. Cable networks sell a certain kind of advertising, targeted to the 25-54 demo. While being top in 18-34 is nice to tout, it doesn’t translate to ad revenue, not on a cable news network.

  • NintendoWii10

    Gotta disagree Bob. Ratings are important, which is why Rev Al will most likely maintain the 6 PM timeslot and Uygar is out.

    How else can you explain Uygar taking a long “vacation” and his sub Rev Al getting more and more viewers than Uygar ever did? Other than the fact that Uygar was a condescending jerk and made it extremely difficult to book guests. Apparently folks don’t want to see the boring and eccentric egotistical Uygar, they want a straight talker like Rev Al calling out the bullshit from the firebaggers and the teabaggers, which is most likely why Rev Al courted more viewers than Uygar ever did. Uygar only got the firebagging bloggers, which was pretty much the same folks that tuned into his TYT podcasts every single day and read his diaries on DKos… apparently not enough to last long on cable teevee.

    Good riddance to that fat fucker.

  • http://twitter.com/HoosierJason Jason

    The 3 posters are here operating on one false premise, that his ratings were terrible. They weren’t, even Phil Griffins admitted it. If you’re going to attack someone, let’s try to stick with the facts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Conner/100000495528525 John Conner

      Actually I’m working off the premise that Rev Al had better ratings at that time slot than Cenk did. MSNBC offer Cenk something else and since he thought their offer was beneath his “talents” he pulled the plug on himself. Either way I’m not sad to see Cenk sent packing and if Cenk is claiming he was pulled to tone then why Ed Schultz still have a gig on MSNBC? He told Democrats and the unemployed to stay home on election night and every other word is caved when he talks about President Obama. Facts are Al Sharpton had better ratings and Cenk is a douche with a big ego.

      • NintendoWii10

        That’s the point that I’m making, that Rev Al had more viewers than Cenk ever did… and Bob and Jason ignore it to attack the “Washington insiders” and blame it on the tone.

        I understand that Bob is friends with Cenk, but seriously, cut the bullshit. Bob is not doing Cenk any favors by continuing to carry water for him, and attempt to establish the meme that ratings had nothing to do with it. Sure, it is just coincidence that Rev Al has higher ratings and viewers than Uygar ever did, who are you kidding?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Conner/100000495528525 John Conner

          Anyone who believes Cenk’s account of events are doing it at their own risk. That video was nothing more than a self serving garbage and him quoting a fanboy comment was the cherry on top he was a tiger and now he’s a tiger in the zoo. All his fanboys are hoping for him to bounce back on Current because Keith Olbermann invited him on to whine about losing his show to a better person and refusing a new time slot.

  • cgwalt

    I liked the guy. He was deliberatively obnoxious and assumed we were in on the joke. The thinned-skinned honchos driving the lobbyist bus are afraid of 80 grit sandpaper.
    They should realize that getting roughed up a bit can be a good thing sometimes.

  • http://52novels.com/ Rob in Denver

    What am I missing here? If you run the network you get to decide who and what goes on the air.

    • http://twitter.com/HoosierJason Jason

      You’re missing several things. A network that dismisses someone with good ratings, because they aren’t “establishment” enough. Please. Bob made a great point about Chris Matthews and his ratings, they keep him not because of his ratings, but because he offers the establishment perspective he and Washington would like to see.

      • http://52novels.com/ Rob in Denver

        I read what Bob wrote, and it doesn’t change the fact that the people who run the network get to decide how they run the network… and that includes firing a guy who gets decent ratings and keeping a guy who doesn’t. When you own things, you generally get to make them how you like them. Bob owns a few things, surely he understands this concept.

      • NintendoWii10

        “Good ratings?” Puh-leeaze, amongst the same folks who watch Jersey shore and reality TV.

        And how can you dismiss the fact that Rev Al has and continues to get more viewers than Uygar ever did, and is #2 in ALL demos all around, not just 18-34?

        Sorry, it was ratings that killed off Uygar, just like ratings killed off Eliot Spitzer, Campbell Brown, and even Glenn Beck. And you’d be dishonest to say so otherwise.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          HA! :)

          I have acquired a permanent dislike for Uygar. I’d rather watch Sharpton.

  • Gavin McDougald

    Personally? I like his politics, but his style made him unwatchable. His diction is sloppy and his sentence structure is scattered. He’s better suited as a producer, not a talking head.

    /a former TV guy

  • Paul Warren Jr

    Not my favorite guy in the world, but MSNBC is seriously a bunch of douchebags.

  • Clancy

    I only made it about 2 minutes and thirty seconds into his 12(!) minute explanation before I hit the pause button. This explains two reasons why Uygur no longer has a show on MSNBC: (1) He took forever to make a point that’s pretty simple to summarize, and (2) He’s annoying as all hell.

    It really doesn’t matter what your politics are, if you’re boring and annoying at the same time, you probably won’t last long in television. Frankly, I’m surprised he lasted as long as he did.

    • ranger11

      He can take a long walk into a deep ravine for all I care. That network is seriously fucked though. They can’t figure out what they want to be. Were much better off when Bush was president for this network. At least Fox knows what it is.

  • http://twitter.com/JPFrankenstein JPFrankenstein

    All I know is that Cenk was a lot more relevant than the Ed show and as an 18-34 year old, I’m not super pumped to tune into more baby boomer TV with Al Sharpton.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Conner/100000495528525 John Conner

      When Rev Al took over the ratings improved, Cenk has limited appeal to people that hang off his and Jane Hamsher junk.

  • MorganleFay

    I used to like Cenk, and still pay for TYT podcasts, ( haven’t listened for a while), but I felt like I was phone banking and canvassing for Democrats in 2010 in SPITE of the Cenks telling me how disheartened I was.

    The constant whining gets tiresome.

    Ed Schultz told people he was not voting in 2010, but THAT tone was OK?

  • Lexamich

    Ah, yes, the bozo that likes teetering on the edge of calling President Obama both a punk and a sellout. The Internet-bound bozo that openly campaigned to be on MSNBC, thereby bumping up his social profile. The bozo who tells Democrats to stay home along with his buddy Schultz. Another in the sea of recovering Republicons co-opting liberal causes. It’s not really rocket science to play the role of passionate lib crusader. Social climbers like Uygur are the prime example of this. I read this dude from jump, and I along with a few others partonizing his YT page informed him we did not appreciate the schoolyard smacktalking he consistently aimed at the president. His fanboys leapt to his defense in the same manner they accuse their fellow Americans when they defend the president. I actually found his show to be pretentious, making points that had already been beaten to death by other, more studious individuals. It always seemed to me that Uygur believed he was as thoughtful and/or entertaining as, say, a Bill Maher, John Stewart, or Steven Colbert. No, actually he was just a hack that told lame jokes in the middle of rants centered around liberal causes. He was no important voice, and will be forgotten beyond the circles that buy his little martyr act. It’s not the fact that he’s critical of President Obama. Hell, I’m that on occasion. It’s the fact that people like him seem to enjoy lambasting this man because they know he’s not going to turn around and tell them to shut the fuck up. They know he’s genuine, unassuming individual, which it appears is cause for them to amplify their critiques to the point where they read and sound like Republicon plants. I was just telling Ashby about how to spot the trolls. Cenk was one of the more crafty ones, or perhaps he’s just a genuinely misguided, blinded-by-vanity liberal peacock. Whatever, his constant “poutrage” wears thin.

    People are watching Sharpton because they expect him to stick it to the Republipunks because he has an actual record of keeping it real, unlike Uygur who simply co-opts common liberal consensus and struts like a liberal El Rushbonehead. It’s the same shtick Special Ed gets away with on MSNBC (not for long, I reckon). Sharpton is a real crusader for civil justice unlike Uygur who got caught up in attempting to play Iago to President Obama’s Othello. The last thing Obama needs his ridicule or his advice in a televised forum.

    No disrespect, Bob, but I’m not impressed with those of Uygur’s ilk. Uygur did his best to fit in with that Washington crowd, just like the two-faced Hamsandwich. I saw her struggling to credit Republicons with a win on C-Span last week after McConnell’s complete abdication. This was a week or so after of the bullshit about impeaching the man. Only media dorks were pretending that the Cons had some devious scheme at work that would trap Obama (oh, and con-servaknave trolls on the ‘Net). They covered the nonsense with glee, and two-faces like Hamsandwich encourages the duplicity and raise their profiles on it. Uygur fits right in that category.

    Good riddance.

    Sorry.

    P.S.
    Sharpton needs to tighten up his television persona. It’s obvious he’s struggling to find a proper tone. I’ve listened to him on local radio, and I know he’s a better broadcaster. Hopefully, he’ll improve, but the awkward shifts in vocal tones and the obvious cue card reading is a bit overwhelming.

    • agrazingmoose

      Lex,

      Love the comment but I’m getting on in years. Some paragraphs would help.

      ec

  • D_C_Wilson

    I can’t say I liked Uygur’s style either. Too smug and in love with his own voice for my tastes. Quite frankly, I don’t think much of most of the personalities on MSNBC. Ed Schultz can be blowhard. Chris Matthews is exactly the kind of self-satisfied Beltway media-type that spends more time talking about his man-crushes and horse races than discussing policy. O’Donnell is okay most of the time. The only one I really enjoy watching is Rachel Maddow.

  • caribbeanobserver

    Hey Bobby,friend or no friend, the guy did not come over well on tv.Yes, his firebagger fans loved him and he played hard to that base, but his tone was not endearing. His ego and arrogance took over the show. Let’s just wish him well at Current, where I am sure he will end up, and have a platform where he can ‘play himself’ and his fans can tune in.. And, in typical fashion he wasn’t at all gracious at the end. There he was blaming the Prez(does he even know who he is) and creating more angst with the same tone that made the audience turn off.
    On another note,Rev Al is da bomb!. I am enjoying him keeping it real.