Rachel Maddow (NY Times)
Liberal? Progressive?
A NY Times offers a friendly piece on how the TV anchors that dominate MSNBC's prime-time lineup are keeping score and criticizing the president if he fails to fulfill the promises he made while on the stump.
Folks like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz emphasize that while their viewers might be overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the president, that doesn't mean their shows have to take on a cheerleading quality. They're using their nightly news-and-views-casts to measure what she calls "the distance between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions." The strategy seems to be working.
MSNBC is projected to take in $365 million in revenue this year, roughly the same amount as last year, when the presidential election bolstered its bottom line. Three years ago, before making a left turn, it had revenue of about $270 million a year. MSNBC's parent company, NBC Universal, is on the verge of being spun out of General Electric in a deal that would make Comcast its controlling entity.Gary Carr, the executive director of national broadcast for the media buying agency TargetCast, said the opinions matter less than the ratings they earn. With cable’s prime-time opinion shows, "you're reaching a lot of people," he said.
Conservatives love him (NY Times)
Anita Dunn, the departing White House communications director, calls the MSNBC anchors "progressive but not partisan," and in doing so, distinguishes them from Fox News, which she considers a political opponent.
Comments
That's very nice of The New York Times, to continue being perfectly oblivious. Unfortunately for MSNBC, their ratings are actually in the toilet. Can't say their strategy is working for them at the moment, unless their strategy is to go out of business. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, all noted cheerleaders for the current administration, might pretend that they are objective but that's just, you know, pretending. In addition, Olbermann managed to alientate a good portion of his own audience during the 2008 primaries. TVNewser lists the ratings each day, and it's far from pretty for MSNBC.
Annoyed says: "Unfortunately for MSNBC, their ratings are actually in the toilet..."
Fortunately for MSNBC, that doesn't matter since they're projected to make as much money this year as last, without the benefit of a presidential election, which is a cash cow for media outlets.
Think of it as a business that has fewer customers this year than last, but still makes the same amount of profit. Most business owners would be thoroughly happy with that reality, and they're not so immature as to try and interpret that through some partisan political prism, as some annoyed people tend to do.
Ratings don't matter; revenue and profit is what counts. Unless, of course, you're so insecure that you need to insist that you have the biggest penis on the block. Swing away.
Hey you know what's really dumb and immature? To say that ratings don't matter. Grow up. Obviously they matter. They specifically matter to a television network, and they must matter to you or you wouldn't be defending such a dismal performance from MSNBC with the usual partisan attacks. How much can be charged for advertising is based on ratings. That's just reality.
Where in your article does it say what the profit margin is for MSNBC? What are their operating costs versus revenue and how do you know they made the same profit without listing these figures?
Annoyed, I'm not defending anything. I don't watch cable news; it's idiotic. Everyone wants good ratings but if they're generating revenue, that's already an indicator that they're achieving satisfactory ratings. I posted this article purposely because I'm always amused by how partisans react when they feel they have to attack what they don't like or defend what they do. You've demonstrated that tendency on more than one occasion. There are lots of people in this country who do that. They're easy to bait, too. Just type the word "Obama" and watch how many lemmings crawl out of the woodwork using the word "socialist." It was the same when Bush was in power. Childish, but amusing, so thanks for the entertainment. I can always count on you. But if you can't see the positive for MSNBC generating as much revenue this year as last when they had the benefit of a presidential election, I can only say that it's probably a good thing you're not running a broadcast operation. Have a happy day!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!