Considering Maddow, Schultz, O'Donnell and now Uygur are all on MSNBC I can't fathom. . .

[wndycty]

. . .a progressive boycott of the channel.

I still encourage folks to avoid MSNBC's State of the Union coverage on Tuesday night by watching C-SPAN's coverage, including the pre and post speech analysis. This is an excellent opportunity to stand with Keith Olbermann. But we need to support Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell and Cenk Uygur. We should not be biting our nose off to spite our face. There are too few progressive voices on the airwaves, MSNBC gives them a platform and we need to support them.

I love Keith and will support his next endeavor, but let me remind everyone what he said about President Obama on December 7th 2010:

"It is not disloyalty to remind him that we are not bound to an individual. We are bound to principles. If the individual changes, or fails often and needlessly, then we get a new man. Or woman. None of that is disloyalty. It is self-defense."

Progressive media is bigger than Keith, supporting MSNBC's primetime line-up is not betrayal of him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40557029/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

If you piece together the reports/speculation of what lead to his exit from MSNBC it would appear that according to some Keith wanted out, he wanted his freedom. That is an important point to consider when we evaluate our anger at MSNBC, WHICH STILL HAS A PROGRESSIVE PRIME TIME BLOCK!

Also, lets be honest while many respect Keith, it is obvious that Keith was not popular with his colleagues. That is something he needs to work on. It is not grounds for firing but it is something management has to consider when it comes to attracting/retaining talent for the other shows/day parts.

I don't raise this point to call out Keith, quite the opposite, I want him to be successful and to the extent his temperament/personality impacts his career he would be well served to do something about it.

Keith is a smart man who has constantly shown on air humility by acknowledging his on air mistakes. I hope that as he embarks on his next step he considers any off air mistakes he might have made and corrects them.

I am not happy Keith is off of MSNBC, but there are some great people still there who do not need to be punished as a result of it.

Cross posted at: http://blog.windycitywatch.com/2011/01/considering-maddow-shultz-odonnell-and.html

[KamaAina]

1. Oh, you mean Uygur

I thought for a second Felix Unger from the Odd Couple was doing progressive talk. :-)

[wndycty]

2. Editing now

:kick:

[EFerrari]

3. What makes you think Keith wasn't liked by his colleagues?

[wndycty]

4. That has been something he is known for going back to his ESPN days. . .

. . .its not surprising nor is it a fatal flaw. Many successful folks are unpopular within the organizations they work for.

[EFerrari]

5. So are you saying he isn't liked by his colleagues or by management?

Because his differences with management have been obvious. He seems well liked by the people he works with if their tweets to him on Friday night are any indication.

[wndycty]

6. Both. . .

. . .understand I am not saying he doesn't have allies. Rachel and Chris Hayes are two folks who had Keith's back at MSNBC but he had more than his share of detractors and I think just dismissing them as jealous would be wrong.

I don't know what the status of his relationship with Lawrence O'Donnell is but you read about how Keith got pissed about a tweet he sent and refused to do his show didn't you?

-snip-
"At the same time, stories about Mr. Olbermann’s thin skin circulated widely in the newsroom. One such story, which was recalled independently by two hosts, dates to early December, when Mr. O’Donnell, then carving out some success as the 10 p.m. host on MSNBC, collegially proposed via e-mail that Mr. Olbermann come on his show to talk about President Obama’s tax-cut compromise.

Mr. O’Donnell had written this post on Twitter: “Liberal critics of the Obama deal say exactly what Pat Buchanan said of George H. W. Bush: he’s weak.” The message speculated that Mr. Obama’s critics would do to him what Mr. Buchanan “did to H.W. Bush: destroy him and help elect a president from the other party.”

Mr. Olbermann apparently interpreted the message as a personal attack; he declined to appear on Mr. O’Donnell’s show. “I saw what you wrote on Twitter,” he snapped at Mr. O’Donnell."
-snip-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24olbermann.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
:kick:

[EFerrari]

7. He got tweets from all kinds of people on Friday night

even this one lady who said she remembered how kind he was to her when she was a brand new editor at ESPN (?) and didn't know from sports at all.

[glinda]

9. It was some of management. Basically very good reviews with staff. Larry was

"climbing" and to me there was no doubt he was put there to eventually fill in. So if there was tension it was most likely from "game playing" and KO would have had a right to be cautious.

[grasswire]

11. the media elite have settled on the narrative that KO is an angry man

.....despite his extremely charitable nature and stunningly good manners.

It's pretty clear to see those who are threatened by Keith -- he doesn't play well with bullies or fools. Nor do I.

[tavalon]

28. I see nothing wrong with him being a man who doesn't tolerate fools

and his boss was a fool. I would love to have the clout to give the middle finger to a few of the bosses at my job.

[robinlynne]

12. This is about your stance on Obama. It has nothing at all to do with Keith.

Most of us here at DU are "liberal critics of the Obama deal". That is not a bad thing. The deal sucked.

[wndycty]

14. Huh, what?

This is about my stance on Obama? Wow!

[Poboy]

13. Yes, I guess it turns out Joe Scarborough was one of the reasonable, considered ones.

:sarcasm:

[spooky3]

18. According to David Schuster (speaking on CNN) Keith is great to work with.

Who knows, unless you've worked with him and others?

[Poboy]

19. Well not according to Tucker Carlson, and that is who the OP would rather believe.

[wndycty]

20. You really do not have any idea what I, the writer of the OP, believes. . .

. . .I am a loyal Keith Olbermann fan. Of all the progressive hosts on the channel he is the only one that I make a point of watching EVERYDAY! I DVR and download the podcast for both he and Rachel. I don't miss an episode.

So I have no idea where you get the idea that I would rather believe Tucker Carlson. It might make sense not to make up shit.

[2Design]

8. I don't like odonnel - he was not with us on a number of issues

major issues he was with insurance companies and corporations

only one on there still is rachel

Keith was willing to fight for us like Dean does and Michael moore - the rest do when it is convenient

[glinda]

10. Lawrence is like Tweety with a bigger brain.

[NOVA_Dem]

24. and a nastier mean streak. nt

[valerief]

15. I'd love to see KO run for the Senate!!!! nt

[wndycty]

16. Which state?

:kick:

[valerief]

17. I dunno. He'll pick it and move there. Massachusetts. Brown's seat. nt

[checks-n-balances]

21. Disagree & Agree, and let's get back to the point

Almost this entire thread got off track a little because of what you said about Keith, a little less than flattering. Others were correct, I think, in speaking of how the "KO was hard to work with" narrative is what the MSM is going with.

Your much better point well taken is that we shouldn't be punishing the progressive broadcasters who remain because we're upset about what happened to Keith. If the others get low ratings and are forced off, then where are we?

This is what I've been saying.

Seems there are two ideas going: boycott MSNBC & boycott Comcast.

Cancel or Boycott Comcast.

Boycotting MSNBC (on weekday evenings) would be counterproductive at this time.

[truedelphi]

43. If a person "boycotts" Comcast, they will perhaps not

Have any way of watching anyone on MSNBC.

Some people may have the option of switching to satellite, but some don't.

And if you cannot watch a program because you no longer get cable, then you will end up boycotting the other progressives on the network.

[pacalo]

22. MSNBC forbids Keith to stay off the air for 6-9 months. Further, they badmouth Keith while they

forbid Keith from telling his side of the story.

Then Mr. Griffin gives these comments to the NYTimes:

As for MSNBC, Mr. Griffin expressed confidence in the network’s new lineup: Mr. O’Donnell at 8, Ms. Maddow at 9 and Ed Schultz at 10. It was not clear exactly how long that plan had been in place, however. The anchors did not find out that their shows were shifting until the public announcement on Friday night.

Mr. Griffin said: “I believe the changes that have been made fit who we are. We’re going to be as creative as ever. We’ll be there.”

"YEARS OF TENSION!" says the headline...

I don't have the stomach to watch MSNBC/Comcast. These propaganda tactics are the very reason why we watched Keith; because this is the kind of ridiculous, slanted story Keith would enthusiastically plow through to get to the truth. They don't get it & never will.

[wndycty]

31. So are you up for throwing Rachel, Ed, Lawrence and Cenk under the boss because you are mad?

Are you?

[pacalo]

41. Frankly, it's a Catch-22 situation for Keith's viewers. It's too soon for me to

help prove Phil Griffin's comment that his line-up will be "just fine" is true. If his decision to get rid of Keith "defines who MSNBC is", I'm not going to be counted as a viewer who accepts the new flavor. Not for awhile, anyway.

[KansasVoter]

23. -1 for believing their bullshit

[wndycty]

32. So you don't believe their bullshit, will you at least support the progressives still there?

:kick:

[DonCoquixote]

25. First they came for Keith

and then they will come for Rachel, though not morning Joe.

What we need to do is hammer msnbc and let them know that A) we are angry, but B) the line is in the sand..if they get rid of rachel or even cenk, they are dead to us.

[wndycty]

30. So are you going to allow them to come for Rachel by boycotting MSNBC?

You can hammer MSNBC all you want but if you don't watch the progressives who are left they will definitely come for them.

[grasswire]

38. they already came for Rachel

Have we not learned the lesson?

The higher ratings a liberal gets on TV, the more likely they are to be fired or silenced.

The more people believe him/her, the more likely the host will be targeted.

[DonCoquixote]

42. note what I said

I said we let them know if they come for rachel..I wish people would read before they mouth off

[global1]

26. Schultz Is Next.....

His new time slot will be the death of him. Next to Keith - Ed was probably the most vocal critic of the Repugs and corp America and the biggest advocate for the working joe. MSNBC will want to muzzle him to tone down or they want him to fail so they can get rid of him. He was good at his after work time slot - but his new prime time slot as a result of the juggling at the network - puts him out of range of the working joe - who by the time Ed will be coming on is settling in after dinner and either getting ready to go to bed because they have to be up and at'm very early the next morning or watching CSI, Law & Order or the Good Wife.

[Raine]

27. That's what I'm afraid of, I really really like Ed

this makes me sick. :-(

[wndycty]

29. Well so are you going to support Ed or hurt him by boycotting MSNBC?

:kick:

[Skidmore]

33. I don't like Uygur, and I don't consider him to be anything more

than a Ratigan clone, and Ratigan is no reformer. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, and when it comes down to it, loves lots of money.

Uygur lost me in one of the first few times I watched him when he made the comment that he would be right there with the Teabaggers because he agreed with them but for the racist garbage they put out. Need we say more

[wndycty]

34. I agree with you about Uygur, but he is to the left of Olbermann so I don't buy the whole. . .

. . .they are silencing progressive voices argument that some are using against MSNBC.

[Skidmore]

35. I don't think Uygur is to the left. He and Ratigan both

just use the jargon to make it appear as if they could potentially be on the left, otherwise they are libertarians who would perhaps tolerate a small level of regulation. Keith, on the other hand, repeatedly demonstrated, both verbally and in action, a solid understanding of the philosophical positions of the left and their application.

[wndycty]

36. OK so Uygur is not your cup of tea, he isn't mine either, but what about Rachel, Ed and O'Donnell?

:kick:

[jtown1123]

44. Uygur is certianly not a libertarian. He is a staunch supporter of SS Medicare etc.

[Enthusiast]

37. My personal choice is

to boycott MSNBC.

[justiceischeap]

39. I will continue to support the progressive hosts on M$NBC

I can just see the management @ M$NBC sitting around the table. This is the conversation I imagine:

"When we kicked Keith off the air for campaign contributions, it really riled up his fans. He's got a lot of fans."
Anonymous fat cat, white guy agrees, "He does."
Slimy corporate type continues, "I bet if we get rid of KO, people will boycott us and we can get rid of all those damn liberals."
Anonymous fat cat, white guy thinks about this for a moment, a slow smile spreading across his face, "Then we can fire them and not have to pay out their contracts. We can claim their ratings are slipping and they can't maintain their audience. It'll be like Air America, all over again. I like it. Keep pushing that Keith was a bad guy."

Yeah, I know, poorly written fiction but not out of the realm of possibility either. I can imagine their heads of the station are just hoping all the remaining progressives numbers will fall and they can fire the lot of them.

[wndycty]

40. They need our support. . .

:kick:

[jtown1123]

45. Has anyone considered that Keith got a better offer? Stern, Limbaugh

and other radio personalities make tens of millions on the radio. Olbermann made 7 million. Maybe he got a kick ass radio deal.