Category: CNN

MSNBC: How Long Until Phil Griffin Offers Keith Olbermann Fellatio?

Posted on Comments

As much as we hated the King of Bombastic Liberal Self-Righteousness, it cannot be denied that MSNBC’s rating have spiraled downward since the network let Keith Olbermann walk out in 2011.

Hate him as much as you want — and I certainly do hate him — Olbermann was a franchise personality, and none of MSNBC’s moves since his departure have compensated for the loss of that evil bastard. Now we learn that a bloodbath is looming:

When President Obama was reelected in 2012, MSNBC was “leaning forward” and smiling wide as Obama 2.0 propelled it to record ratings and a firm grasp on the No. 2 spot in cable news.
Over two years later, the network has fallen backwards. January ratings revealed double-digit declines compared with January, 2014 in all ratings measurements. During the day, MSNBC was down 20 percent in viewers and 37 percent in the advertising-coveted 25-54 demo. In primetime, it fell 23 percent in viewers and 39 percent in demo. . . .
In January, [Chris Hayes] finished third behind Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” and CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360? in both total viewers and the demo. Among MSNBC shows, he finished third, behind Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. But Hayes’ struggles haven’t only impacted the 8 p.m. timeslot. Maddow’s 9 p.m. program has also slumped partly due to its weaker lead-in. In January, “The Rachel Maddow Show” was down 50 percent in the demo year over year. . . .
Ronan [Farrow] and Joy [Reid] — something has to change there,” another insider told TheWrap, adding that many within MSNBC believe one of the two — Farrow at 1 p.m. Reid at 2 p.m. — will see their shows canceled soon. The duo, who debuted on Feb. 24, 2014, have been major contributors to MSNBC’s daytime woes.
Last week, Farrow, 27, attracted just 26,000 viewers in the demo on Wednesday — finishing fourth behind HLN, CNN and Fox News. Reid’s program . . . has also struggled, partly because of the Farrow lead-in. On Thursday, it attracted just 36,000 demo viewers.

John Nolte at Breitbart comments:

Griffin is hoping to stop the bleeding when the dying patient is really MSNBC itself. The format of left-wing talk radio with pictures mixed with confirmation bias is tired and boring.
Morning Joe is in big ratings trouble. Ed Schultz is imploding. Since losing Chuck Todd to “Meet The Press” and replacing him with Jose Diaz-Balart, the impact of the “The Daily Rundown” on the day’s news cycle has vanished completely.
MSNBC is also dealing with CNN president Jeff Zucker’s decision to steal MSNBC viewers by turning his failing network even further to the political left than MSNBC.

Actually, I disagree with Nolte’s analysis of CNN. Most days recently, I’ve had my home office TV tuned to CNN and what they’re doing — very clever, actually — is picking one story (usually non-political) and hyping it hour after hour. Although wall-to-wall coverage of plane crashes and murders may seem dull to us political junkies, it has a wider appeal than the kind of fanatical partisanship that passes for “news” on MSNBC.

Grant that CNN is still a liberal operation, but they’re beating MSNBC with news, not politics. Or, to put it another way, MSNBC is losing with politics, not news. MSNBC has never been a news network. It’s a politics network and, six years into the Obama Age, the appetite for angry progressivism has been sufficiently sated that shuffling around personnel in the talking-head lineup isn’t going to fix what’s wrong.

What can Phil Griffin do, short of offering oral sex to Keith Olbermann in a desperate bid to bring back the old MSNBC magic?

  • Give Rachel Maddow the 8 p.m. ET slot. I profoundly despise Maddow, yet my abiding hatred for her doesn’t prevent me from recognizing her unique market value as The Second-Most Famous Lesbian on TV (obviously, Ellen Degeneres is first). Make her the “face” of MSNBC the way Olbermann was back in the day. This would be a high-risk move, but when your ratings are as bad as MSNBC’s, risk is necessary.
  • Make better use of NBC’s reporting assets. Instead of having your anchors do issues analysis and commentary with a bunch a pundits, start tapping into the local news-gathering mechanisms of NBC affiliates across the country. Look for stories out there in “flyover country” — Albuquerque, Akron, Allentown — that you can “nationalize” and rely on news reporting by NBC affiliates as a cheap and ready resource. Instead of having your anchors interviewing writers for Mother Jones or the Nation, have them doing live exchanges with an on-the-scene reporter in Wherever, USA, about an actual news story. Of course, your audience would prefer stories with a political angle, but the market for pure politics is finite.
  • Expand your travel budget. Wherever else you have to cut corners to do it, you’ve got to start sending your marquee talent out on the road more often. Not just for the quadrennial political conventions and other “event” situations, but also to interact with your audience where they live. Find an excuse, a pretext, to have Maddow spend a week broadcasting from San Francisco or Seattle or Miami. Send Chris Matthews to Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia. Employ online social media to gather live audiences for these broadcasts, and make autograph-signing sessions part of the schedule before and after the broadcasts. A small network can benefit by these exercises in building ‘brand loyalty” among core viewers.
  • Fire Ed Schultz. The World’s Angriest White Man has never been a real asset to MSNBC. He is a turn-off for your core audience of vegetarian bisexual anarchists with purple hair.

That’s my advice, Mr. Griffin. You’re welcome. Good luck.

The only alternative is to do whatever it takes to bring back Keith Olbermann, and I’m pretty sure that would involve you serving him breakfast in bed after he’s had his way with you.

“Affirmative consent,” the feminists call it.

 

A Call For A Statute Of Limitations On Cheap Equivalences

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

I’ve had about a belly full of this noise, emphasis mine:

it’s plain that some branches or interpretations of the faith view any depictions of the Prophet Mohammed as blasphemy. That doesn’t mean that all Muslims who see such depictions as blasphemy think the appropriate response is violence; far from it. But a radical few do, and, as Middle East commentator Juan Cole has argued, they exploit such defamations against the prophet to try to radicalize others in the faith.
Unfortunately, there are some in the West who think all of Islam is tainted, and who — despite there being plenty of violence and intolerance in the texts and histories of Judaism and Christianity — believe Islam is somehow uniquely violent and intolerant. But when we mistakenly believe that a narrow and violent interpretation of Islam is the only true version, we play right into the hands of the radical zealots who want the world, including all Muslims, to believe precisely that.

So, are you saying that Bibi Netanyahu and modern Israel bear some responsibility for The Exodus and the Book of Judges? That modern Roman Catholics bear some responsibility for the Crusades? It’s hard to tell in what way contemporary people of faith are being equated with barbaric murderers here.

Perhaps Kohn could offer a  URL to a more full treatment of the subject, so that the reader can determine to what degree she’s carrying water for the anti-Enlightenment force known as  Progress.

The irony of “we play right into the hands of the radical zealots” is that this is precisely what Kohn and ilk are doing. Not that I wish violence on Sally: No, I wish consciousness.

(via Hot Air)

 

CNN Reporter: Israelis ‘Scum’

Posted on Comments

Media bias? What media bias?

CNN has removed correspondent Diana Magnay from covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after she tweeted that Israelis who were cheering the bombing of Gaza, and who had allegedly threatened her, were “scum.”
After being threatened and harassed before and during a liveshot, Diana reacted angrily on Twitter,” a CNN spokeswoman said in a statement to The Huffington Post.
“She deeply regrets the language used, which was aimed directly at those who had been targeting our crew,” the spokeswoman continued. “She certainly meant no offense to anyone beyond that group, and she and CNN apologize for any offense that may have been taken.”
The spokeswoman said Magnay has been assigned to Moscow.

Here’s how the liberal mind works: The only thing they need to know is, “Who’s the victim of oppression?” Once the liberal media decides Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors, it doesn’t matter what actually happens — Hamas suicide bombers blowing up busloads of innocent Israelis, launching missiles at Tel Aviv, whatever — the victim/oppressor dynamic controls the narrative.

Civilization teeters on the brink of extinction, because liberals believe civilized people are oppressors and savages are victims.

Never forget Shiri Negari.

Never forget. Never. Never. Never.

 

CNN: The Homophobia Network?

Posted on Comments

Layers and layers of irony here:

A former CNN employee claims he was fired because he’s gay and wore bright colors and mariachi outfits to work that were deemed “too flamboyant,” according to a $60 million discrimination lawsuit.
William Kane, who started working at CNN in 2002, claims nobody at the news network ever informed him of a dress code or complained about the hot pink designer shirt he wore in his employee ID photo. Nor did he get any guff for the bright red track jacket, neon green soccer jersey or yellow track suit, with matching shoes and hat, that he wore at other times.
“It really saddens me,” the 33-year-old Kane said of losing his job as a microphone tech.

(Via Memeorandum.) In their defense, we can expect CNN to assert that they have never discriminated against sissies, fairies, queens, limp-wristed swishes or mincing nellies. Exhibit A, Anderson Cooper.

Case dismissed!

 

Like Fish Don’t Notice Water

Posted on Comments

CNN President Jeff Zucker declares his network won’t “be shamed into” covering a congressional investigation of the Benghazi scandal, as he claims the pressure to cover Benghazi comes from “others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums.”

Mocking CNN’s bizarre and monomaniacal devotion to the story of a disappeared jet, Grover Norquist wondered what would happen if the Malaysian plane were to land in Benghazi. OK, so . . . forget about politics. What does Zucker’s bias mean for CNN’s ratings?

First Night of CNN Primetime Changes
Land Network in Third Place
CNN took third place among cable news networks [Monday] night after making significant primetime changes, including the removal of live programming at 9PM. The new lineup lost to both FOX News Channel and MSNBC during the 8PM, 9PM and 10PM hours.

Here are the numbers:

8 p.m. ET
Fox: The O’Reilly Factor ….. 2,019,000
MSNBC: Chris Hayes ………… 639,000
CNN: AC360 …………………… 274,000

9 p.m. ET
Fox: The Kelly File ………….. 1,787,000
MSNBC: Rachel Maddow …….. 720,000
CNN: Parts Unknown …………. 281,000

10 p.m. ET
Fox: Hannity ………………….. 1,383,000
MSNBC: The Last Word ……… 531,000
CNN: Tonight …………………… 304,000

Averaged over prime time (8-11 p.m.), the three major cable news networks had a combined audience Monday of 2.7 million viewers, and here are the percentage shares:

Fox ……………… 65%
MSNBC …………. 24%
CNN …………….. 11%

Now, let us stipulate that politics is not the only factor that influences cable TV news ratings. However, the news junkie — the kind of person who prefers cable news as a prime-time viewing habit — is also usually a political junkie. Because of a general perception that most news media have a liberal bias, Fox News dominates cable news ratings by delivering news and commentary from a standpoint that is decidedly not liberal. In a distant second place, MSNBC caters to an audience of left-wing news junkies whose political appetites are not satisfied by a half-hour of biased news nightly on the Big Three broadcast networks. And CNN . . .

Jeff Zucker’s network is a fucking asterisk, is what they are — an irrelevant afterthought in the TV new business, of interest only as an example of how not to operate a cable news franchise.

The most obvious play for CNN would be to try to peel off some of the conservative viewers — two-thirds of the cable-news audience — who are now regularly watching Fox. One can easily imagine how this could be done. If Zucker can’t imagine it, he should drop me an e-mail and I’d offer a few suggestions, but of course that’s not going to happen because, as Zucker’s Benghazi comments show, he thinks he’s such a goddamned Harvard-educated genius that nobody can tell him anything.

Therefore, CNN continues failing.

Everyone in the organization, from Zucker on down the line, should feel a profound sense of shame for how they’ve squandered CNN’s advantage as the pioneer in the industry, failing to adapt to changing circumstances as they’ve drifted down to the ratings cellar, where they sit day after day, hoping for the Big Event — the breaking-news story that will make people switch over for continuous coverage. It’s a pathetic waste of resources, a disgrace and a failure for which no excuses should be accepted.

Many years ago, not long after I became an ex-Democrat, I explained the problem simply: Most people in the news media don’t notice liberal bias for the same reason fish don’t notice water — it’s everywhere all around them and it’s all they’ve ever known.

Insofar as CNN is failing because of its liberal bias, Jeff Zucker isn’t the solution to the problem, he’s part of the problem.

 

Heh: @DaveWeigel Dismantles @PiersMorgan, But Good

Posted on Comments

 Deft, but also delightfully brutal:

Sunday night, after David Carr broke the news that Piers Morgan would be ending his CNN show, I searched Twitter to find how his fans were taking it. This was a mistake. Really, who was a Piers Morgan fan? Have you ever met one? No, reaction to CNN’s scheduling news ran the gamut from suppressed glee to running-naked-through-the-streets glee, from gun lovers declaring victory over the “Brit” to nonpartisan journalists reminiscing about Morgan’s finest ethical lapses. . . .
The live broadcast of Morgan’s show drew around half the viewers that MSNBC did, and a fifth as many as Fox News. Morgan welcomed Fox’s Megyn Kelly to 9 p.m. by telling her (on Twitter) to “bring it on.” She did.
In fact, Morgan’s humiliation was so total that he’s at risk of becoming a martyr for True Journalism. . . . Were we wrong about the guy?
We were not. Morgan was the beneficiary of a curious American habit. We assign 20 extra IQ points to anyone who speaks with a British accent, redistributing them from the people who speak with Southern accents. . . .

It goes on from there. Having known Weigel since 2006, when he worked at the libertarian magazine Reason, I understand that conservatives hate Weigel for his relentless sarcasm, which is usually aimed at Republicans. His sarcasm is much more enjoyable when aimed at somebody you hate, and everybody hates Piers Morgan.

 

Good-Bye, and Good Riddance: @PiersMorgan Canned at CNN

Posted on Comments

First smart move that network has made in years:

CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.
Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.
“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined.”
Morgan told The New York Times on Sunday that the show had “run its course” and that he and Zucker “have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.” Sources who spoke to POLITICO said the decision to end the show was Zucker’s.

Here’s your chicken-and-egg paragraph:

Despite low ratings, Morgan drew national attention for his aggressive pro-gun-control campaign in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Morgan addressed the issue nightly for several weeks in late 2012 and early 2013 and hosted fiery, combative interviews with pro-gun adovcates like Alex Jones, a conservative conspiracy theorist.

Do think maybe the “low ratings” and the “aggressive pro-gun-control campaign” had something to do with each other? And do you think that maybe booking a dangerous kook like Alex Jones was related to both the low ratings and the anti-gun agenda?

By the way, I resent Politico applying the “conservative” label to Alex Jones. “Lunatic” is not a political ideology.

 

Category: CNN

And I’m a Russian Wolfhound

Posted on Comments

Just call me Borzoi. And I know what you’re thinking: “Borzoi? But you don’t look anything like a Russian wolfhound! As a matter of fact, on closer inspection, you seem to be a golden retriever.”

Haters.

Yes, I am aware that those documents from the American Kennel Club — a notorious group of hatemongering breedists —  identify me as a so-called “pure bred” golden retriever, but in my heart, ever since I was a little puppy, I always knew I was different.

Finally, after years of struggle against oppression, I found the courage to be the dog I really was, and “came out” as a Russian wolfhound.

My brave struggle has continued and, while I know how much you admire my courageous trans-breed activism, it’s important that you not offend me like Piers Morgan offended Janet Mock:

There were several problems with the language Morgan used. For starters, he repeatedly asserted that Mock had formerly been a boy. He also said that Mock had surgery to become a woman. Mock was a woman long before she had the surgery she felt she needed to reflect that. Part of the fight for transgender rights and justice is a fight for self-determination: to be able to proclaim who you are without anyone else adding caveats.

Sure, I know what you’re thinking: “What’s wrong with stating a simple fact? Janet Mock was, indeed, born as a boy named Charles with XY chromosomes and Charles did, in fact, undergo surgery to remove his testicles and rearrange his genitalia to create a simulacrum of a vagina. Actually, the whole point of Janet Mock’s celebrity activism — the book contract, the TV interviews — is the experience of having undergone this transition process. Why, then, is Piers Morgan a transphobic bigot for making reference to these facts?”

You don’t understand. You’ll never understand our struggle for acceptance, our fight against discrimination and bigotry. While you can’t possibly understand, you are permitted to admire us for our heroic courage — but only in language we approve.

Janet Mock is a woman. And I’m a Russian wolfhound.

Get over it, haters.