I'm especially happy for what Big Eddie's signing says about MSNBC.

[Berry Cool]

It says they've realized that their white-collar liberals, Keith and Rachel, were the right way for them to go in primetime, and now they're going to add to the lineup a blue-collar liberal. To prove that the term is not, and never should have become, an oxymoron.

It also speaks volumes about the viability of the network, period.

Think back to what things were like only a few years ago, 2005. Rumors flew all around that MSNBC was losing money, that it had no real identity or reason for existence, that it had lost its unique selling proposition as a marriage of network news with Internet technology, that it was getting clobbered in the ratings by the well-established conservative identity and programming of Fox Noise, and by CNN, the veteran of the cable news field. Its programming was a hodgepodge of shows, none of which seemed to fit with each other at all, jumping from hourly news coverage to politics to true crime back to news and over to cheesy tabloid journalism, and few of the shows lasted very long anyway. Its morning hours were occupied mostly by a simulcast of a radio show. Whenever a new show was added, the hosts either were conservative (Tucker) or sleazy-cheesy-tabloidy (Rita Cosby, Maury Povich, Connie Chung). The only show with any longevity was Hardball. The only host who ever said anything that didn't toe the Bush Administration line (after Donahue got canceled, anyway) was Keith. But he wasn't known for it, except here, to some extent. For the most part, he was just a host of a low-rated news show with a part-serious, part-silly attitude that still seemed to be searching for its own identity in hopes it wouldn't be canceled like all the rest.

Wingnuts who didn't like what Keith said comforted themselves with the notion that his show would be canceled soon anyway--either that, or MSNBC would fold altogether. After all, Microsoft was reducing its investment and the network was laying off people and consolidating operations. Rumors said that NBC was just going to move Tweety and Keith, its only even slightly viable news anchors, over to CNBC and shut down MSNBC entirely.

Then came Katrina. And then, Keith gave his first Special Comment. Even if he didn't call it that.

And everything began to change. The country began to wake up. It began to get angry. And it began listening more and more to people like Keith who said the Bush presidency was not all it was cracked up to be. And his ratings started to rise.

And a year later, Keith realized the reason his ratings were starting to rise was that he was saying powerful things to people ready to hear them, and that maybe he should start doing it more often. Like, whenever the spirit moved him. And label it and advertise it as such.

And his ratings got even higher.

And before long, Keith--in part, because he was finally being handled by management that valued what it had in him--had become the singlehanded savior of the network.

Bringing Rachel on board to help was his idea. And I don't doubt he played a big role in making management bold enough to go back to the progressive talk radio well to see what other kinds of voices were there. Enter Big Eddie.

We may not like everything about MSNBC--I know I don't. I still don't get why anyone watches Morning Joe or why they keep it on. I am deeply disappointed at how David Gregory, once one of the few White House press corps members who could be counted on to challenge Bushco, instead eventually decided to buddy up to the politicians he should have retained as his adversaries. I think he fell victim to Beltway Myopia--he forgot that there is a life and there are real people beyond the Washington cocktail circuit and it's those people he's supposed to serve. And I could easily do without ever seeing another weekend or holiday full of true-crime documentaries and prison shows and "Headliners & Legends."

But damn, they sure did something right, Dan Abrams and Phil Griffin, both of them, each in his own way. They were smart enough to trust that if they kept Keith around long enough, he would not only find a unique way to sell himself, but a way to sell his whole network along with him, and to build on what he began and help show them how to do it. To the point where we don't even HAVE "Crime Time in Prime Time" anymore on the weeknights! They figured out how to sell us NEWS and get us to watch, instead of throwing us yet another rerun of "Lockup: San Quentin"!

And by doing so, they stuck a finger in the eye of every wingnut who ever thought that Keith, and MSNBC, must go down and must go down hard.

I guess this is my way of saying: Happy sixth anniversary Keith, and good luck Eddie.

[ginnyinWI]

1. besides the different focuses of each show, they are varying the age of the host.

Eddie is an older boomer with 30 years in broadcasting. Keith is a little younger and appeals to both younger and older, and Rachael a gen-Xer.

[Berry Cool]

2. That too. I think Eddie will find a niche with older people

who think Bill O'Reilly is a nutjob and like some of what Lou Dobbs says but are sick of his rants about immigration as if it were the biggest problem America has right now. I think he's going to be more like the Jack Cafferty of MSNBC--their version of the "crusty old coot," as Steph likes to call him. He will also be easier for some people to relate to because he's a little less urban and sophisticated and a little more down-home and earthy than Keith and Rachel. That will buy him a lot of credibility with your classic small-town hard-working person who for years bought the Republican bushwa hook, line and sinker...until he realized the "trickle down" wasn't trickling down to him and his family.

Ed is the exact opposite of the latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing liberal stereotype. He even has some socially conservative viewpoints, as Keith does...he knows what it's like to live in the country far away from a major media center, he knows guns, he loves his football...to him the plight of the factory worker and the waitress and the small family farmer are not just abstracts he shouts about while marching around on a college campus with a protest sign. He understands how they live. And he knows the Republicans have absolutely NO intention of making their lives any easier or better. And in that sense, I think having him as yet another voice out there, showing them you don't have to be a dope-smoking gay hippie pinko in order to see the value of progressive government over The Government of No, can only help.

It's a great thing that times have changed, the man in charge has changed, and our TV has changed. It's as if, after 30 years of nightmares, our values are finally being validated.

[ailsagirl]

3. Ed appeals to a certain demographic which may not otherwise

listen to us Dems. Good job, Ed. :hi: