Did MSNBC’s President Phil Griffin Not Know What He Had Till Ed Schultz Was Gone?

[Tx4obama]

Did MSNBC’s President Phil Griffin Not Know What He Had Till Ed Schultz Was Gone?

A lot of attention has been paid to MSNBC’s apocalyptic post-election ratings dive, as media critics wonder aloud just what has gone wrong over at 30 Rock. Here at Mediaite, my colleague Noah Rothman wrote a provocative piece dissecting a major part of the network’s woes, the ratings challenged new prime time anchor Chris Hayes. Since taking over the coveted 8 pm slot in April, All In with Chris Hayes has driven a large portion of the audience out, with anemic ratings in April resulting in an 18% drop in total viewers compared to the same time the year before. May was even less kind to Hayes and MSNBC, resulting in the dubious distinction of the worst 8 pm ratings since 2006.

Whether or not a rocky two months is a long enough time to fairly assess Hayes, there is one personality who we’ve had a much longer period of time to judge, an MSNBC personality that might be keeping network President Phil Griffin up at night, sweating like a young romantic regretting a breakup while wondering if there just might be something to that whole not knowing what you got till it’s gone thing.

Ed Schultz.

Disregarding whether you love or hate “Big Eddie,” from a network ratings point of view, Schultz was delivering the goods while occupying the anchor chair for only a year and a half. For the third quarter of 2012, he fell slightly short of a million total viewers per night, and had even occasionally beat network superstar Rachel Maddow and the rest of his MSNBC colleagues in primetime.

Maybe more important than ratings, Schultz became a stabilizing figure for the vital 8 pm slot in the wake of network nightmare Keith Olbermann‘s sudden departure and the failed attempt to morph Lawrence O’Donnell into a bombastic bomb thrower. Sure, those fun Spike Lee “Lean Forward” commercials have helped MSNBC market its talent (and occasionally stir up controversy), but after a decade-long network identity crisis, Schultz’s fiery barn-burning style helped MSNBC find its brand as the cable voice for the progressive movement, more specifically as the champions for a middle class under attack. Just as important as his own show, Schultz was serving as a strong lead-in to the aforementioned Maddow, as she continued topping the ratings chart for MSNBC while also occasionally beating Fox News and CNN in the all important 25-54 demo.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-msnbcs-president-phil-griffin-not-know-what-he-had-till-ed-schultz-was-gone/

[Chipper Chat]

1. As a faithful M$NBC watcher for 11 years

I have just lost interest in the 7-11 time slot. After Big Ed was gone it just didn't have the punch it used to. Sometimes I just ramble over to Shep Smith or even the Wolfman. And the weather channel runs some good tornado stuff (Simon, Reed Timmer, Mike Bettis et al). I'm just one person but I'm sure there are more out there like me.

[MrSlayer]

2. Ed is a great champion of the working man.

And that's why he had to go.

Hayes is a smart guy but he's really boring and lacks the passion Schultz had. We need more of his ilk. We need passionate fighters for the working class and exposure of the corporate scum that are actively ruining this country.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I like Chris Hayes but he has basically the same wonky style as Maddow.

They should have kept Schultz in that spot because his style is "hot" rather than "cool" and offers a nice contrast to all that wonkiness, while at the same time having better manners and more sense than Chris Matthews.

[pacalo]

15. Both Chris & Rachel have the same rapid-fire delivery that's hard to take back to back.

Of course, between the two, I'd much rather listen to Rachel for her insight & content. She can be bold when interviewing, too.

Ed relates best to the common people's concerns, & he's passionate.

[BlueStreak]

4. They want the audience without the honesty

Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

They want "personalities" that will play everything safe and not cause any ripples, and at the same time they want the progressive-minded to pay attention.

You cannot put the most hard-hitting stuff off-limits and still expect people to tune in.

I realize Olbermann had an ego. So what? You think Scarborough or O'Reilly don't have egos?

If they really wanted to have a solid progressive audience, they would have found a way to keep Cenk, Olbermann, Shultz, and Maddow in the line-up together.

It can be done. I've managed difficult personalities all my life. It requires some give and take.

[Chipper Chat]

5. Amen

Amen!

[Lugnut]

6. And AMEN again! n/t

[Archaic]

7. They know Rachel's the most important person there. But they've done nothing to differentiate beyon

Hours and hours of different people talking about the same subjects the last host did, before they hand off to the next host.

If they want to be the anti-Fox, fine.

But if they wanted to actually be a news channel, we'd get a news show, not an opinion show. Some actual, expensive, journalism. History, context, explanations and sources. Not 3 minute segments with guests that were already prepped and timed to say the right things to get the host's point across in the allotted time.

Imagine an Amy Goodman quality show available in prime time. One hour, one topic. Current issue, history and backstory provided, inconsistencies and misrepresentations destroyed.

I love Bill Moyers, but don't need the folksy setups. I want Amy, pissed off that nobody knows the history of the situation that everybody's surprised about now when she's been talking about it for years.

That's the only thing that would make MSNBC watchable in my opinion.

[BlueStreak]

12. I agree about the lack of differentiation

It is dreadful to have all these programs back-to-back, each covering exactly the same 4 issues, often with the same video clips, and sometimes even the same talking heads joining them.

BUT ...

(There is a big but here)

Chris Hayes is the exception to that rule and he's dying. Personally I stopped watching MSNBC much before they made that switch, and I just don't get around to turning it on, just for Hayes. My view is that his type of program was perfect for a quiet Saturday morning where you could sit down and think a little. I didn't watch it on teevee on Saturdays but I get it on Sirius radio, and it seemed just the right level of depth and the right pace for a weekend. That kind of treatment just doesn't work for me in the evening. At the end of the the day, I guess I'm not looking to be stimulated intellectually that much. I am more interested in the immediate facts of the day, and that isn't really what Chris does.

[ReRe]

8. Was Ed's move his choice...

... or Phil Griffin's choice? Ed's wife was sick and then he had those back problems. Both are better now, of course. If it was Griffin's choosing, then he really screwed up. Why fix something if it's not broken? I miss Ed so much in that 8PM slot. It did make me stick around for the other shows. Now? I go away to John Fugelsang (sp?) over on Current at 8PM and most times start surfing around an don't come back. If it was not Ed's choice, then I think they need to bring him back!

[We People]

10. If he doesn't come back to weeknights, then it probably wasn't Ed's choice

That's at least why I think he went to weekends, but we'll probably never know. As others have mentioned, Ed's a
"little guy" champion who's not afraid to discuss labor issues, so that's why I believe he was relegated to Sat/Sun. Just MHO, and would love to see him come back.

Actually, I also loved Chris Hayes on weekend mornings because his energetic style would wake me up!

[BlueStreak]

13. I'm almost positive it was NOT Ed's choice

To my knowledge he never said so, and never complained publicly. But there were a number of people on his radio show who made comments like "I'm sorry you won't be on in the evenings. That seems like a really crazy decision." And Ed was always careful to say nothing but "thank you".

If it were his choice he would have said so.

It was a giant blunder. Ed was getting good ratings for that hour. It is ridiculous to think that Hayes would come in and get better ratings. They took a situation that was working pretty well in the evenings and the weekends and screwed up both slots.

[MoonchildCA]

9. I really like Chris Hayes...

...but I don't find myself watching his show. After awhile, all the political opinion shows get really redundant. I didn't watch Ed either, although I recorded him. I think MSNBC would be well advised to put on a general newscast, covering all the top stories--political and non-political--from a non-partisan way, like old-fashioned journalism.

I love Rachel, and record her, but don't always watch her. I like Martin Bashir, and Alex Wagner's show is good, but I kind of reach a burn out point. I think a "headline news" type show would add a bit of variety, so to speak, to their line-up.

[BlueToTheBone]

11. Chris was great on weekends. I really looked forward

to his thoughtful conversation; but that doesn't work in the evenings because there's too much happening to pay attention.

[ReRe]

14. After reading this thread......

... it's apparent that "ratings" have nothing to do with the booting of Big Ed. Is this politics over profit? Looks like it, but not so fast. I say MSNBC is paid more from dumping Ed, than they were being paid for the high ratings with him. Remember,. MSNBC is the one who dumped the only liberal voice on any cable station, Phil Donnahue, back in the lead up to our 21st century nightmare: The GWB cabal wars and trashing of our country.

Lean Forward, my ass, MSNBC. Lean backwards and bring Ed and Donahue back. Brink Amy Goodman to TV. Bring Cenk back. Bring Jennifer Granholm in. You have so much choice at this point in the "game". The demographics are changing, and it's best to get a jump onto the wagon of the soon to be new majority. Wake up, MSNBC!