« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Poll: If You Were Comcast Taking Over MSNBC

http://www.acepolls.com/polls/1189091-from-a-business-point-of-view-who-will-next-get-the-ax

^^Poll on who you think is most likely to next get the ax at MSNBC from a business point of view(not necessarily who you want gone the most).

Hey everybody, I have been following the Comcast takeover of NBC Universal(MSNBC) quite a bit lately. I personally am buying into two motivations the company has in handling MSNBC. The first being to obviously make it more profitable and the other is best put by Newsbusters.

Comcast is a far different company than General Electric. Because its exclusive business is media – Comcast is now the largest cable and home internet provider in the nation as well as a growing force in television broadcasting – it might be far more concerned about the political image of MSNBC than GE was.

With many cable and internet options available to consumers, does Comcast want to jeopardize its vast customer base with hyper-partisan rhetoric on its new news network?

Seems difficult to conclude the answer to be anything other than “No” given Friday’s surprise announcement, and if more changes are made to MSNBC’s prime time lineup in the coming months further diminishing the network’s hyper-partisanship, we may look upon January 21, 2011, as the beginning of the end of a totally disgraceful period in television journalism.

So I’m actually trying to figure out what Comcast intends to do with the network. Now as much as we would like to say that everybody is going to get canned and start from scratch, that isn’t really realistic. A move like that would scare the crap out of every single existing advertiser, and it would balloon the costs of the network as they were forced to make large payouts on contracts ended prematurely.

So, only a few things can be concluded as most likely.

A) If they intend to revamp the network it will be done piecemeal over a considerable amount of time.

B) Since Comcast is concerned about its other areas of business(like providing cable) they have an incentive to want to get rid of people that are at most risk of negatively impacting that business and want to avoid highly controversial people on the left and right when engaging in the hiring process.

C) Since they are concerned about profitability, those with higher ratings(now that the blowhard who was a serious liability to B is gone) are more likely to be around longer than those with lower ratings(ratings obviously means money).

There are a couple of theories as to what Comcast intends to do with MSNBC.

1) Turn the network into a multi viewpoint network of conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, and populists(think Lou Dobbs). This theory isn’t predicated on anything MSNBC has been signifying(except maybe the pick up of Uygur) during the merger talks and after, but is predicated on the idea that it could be a good business model.

2) Turn the network into an American version of the BBC predicated on an almost excessive pursuit of professionalism over controversy. This theory does have some signs of being a real possibility. The firing of Olbermann, the pick-up of Bashir, and the fact that this is the epitome of letter “B)” I listed above, points to this being really likely. I should say that the pick up of Uygur doesn’t seem to fit with this.

3) That they are crafting the network for a younger demographic. That would mean that they would try to set up the network on a more libertarian vs. progressive/socialist(yeah I know right) lines instead of the more traditional conservative vs. liberal lines. That would seem to be supported by the pick up of Uygur and the move of O’Donnell to the main 8pm et time slot. Look to the network picking up a high profile libertarian as a sign that this is where they are going.

4) Does nothing and leaves the network to much of the same forces that have ran MSNBC into the ground. That has traditionally been the result of previous take overs like Zeller’s acquisition of the Tribune company. I should say that changes are occurring fast at MSNBC right now, its hard to envision that Comcast isn’t involved at all in those changes, and two of the biggest Comcast heads aren’t your traditional semi-political executives(they count co-chair of the 2000 GOP convention and one of Bush’s biggest coveted bundler’s amongst their credentials).

But I would love to hear your thoughts on where you think they are heading. And from a realistic business point of view, what you would be doing transition the channel into something that is most profitable.

http://www.acepolls.com/polls/1189097-most-likely-to-be-picked-up-by-msnbc

^^A poll on who you think will most likely be picked up next by MSNBC. I left out big radio talk show hosts that are unlikely to want a spot at MSNBC even during a transition in programming, and individuals at places like FNC that have contracts, positions, and salaries that MSNBC is unlikely to be able to compete in offering.

COMMENTS

  • GregInFla

    I would make sure that my news stories do not favor Net Neutrality, and make sure everyone knows that Net Neutrality is not (neutral).

  • williamjameson

    and has no where to go but up though I do agree the change will occur over time. It appears the tone has lightened up a little but its too early to tell. Even the HuffBlo readers question if the company will purge the anchors and or become a corporate news outlet. They already are corporate but I get their meaning. They can’t lose even if they lose liberal viewers if they clean up the mess and produce content that is acceptable to independents and some conservatives. Regardless it will be a long time before anyone notices or cares to give them a chance.

    I chose Neil Boortz because he’s got class and style plus his take on current events is authoritative so he would add value to the company. Many poll choices were Fox employees, can’t see too many wanting to downgrade to MSNBC which is ranked 28.
    Chris Matthews should get the ax, his show is a calamity of non stop embarrassments. Cenk Uygur is annoying, boring and too progressive for television, better to fire him and leave him on the net. I’m not sure if Cenk is permanent or just filling the slot till Comcast finds a suitable anchor.

    Till MSNBC provides bipartisan debates they will never be respected as too many shows only provide one point of view and the guests tend to follow the leader………..such approach is used to convince viewers that the anchor has the right opinion. I have no respect for one sided points of view when I’m paying the cable bill.

    I read that Comcast’s CEO is a republican as is Stephen Burke the new president of NBCUniversal
    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/01/23/meet-comcasts-new-chief-executive-officer/

  • wonkish1

    Would make an excellent anchor. And he would contrast well against FNC in attempt for MSNBC to try to create its own market share instead of trying to compete with the more established and loyal viewership at FNC.

    I completely agree about FNC people not wanting to downgrade to MSNBC which is why I left off all current anchors. But that isn’t to say that a white house correspondent or reporter wouldn’t jump at the opportunity of an anchor job even if they had to move to a crappier network to get that spot.

    Gibson in particular might miss the good ole days when he was an anchor and already realize that FNC is likely not going to ever give him an anchor spot again(and I’ll say he wasn’t bad when he was anchor, and an FNC left over he is still better than practically every anchor at CNN and MSNBC).

    The only FNC employee I wasn’t sure of was Jim Angle because it appears he’s being groomed for an anchor spot and maybe would rather wait for anchor at FNC instead of taking one at MSNBC now.

    Ultimately though there is a lot of FNC and Talk show people listed in that poll because if you are trying to fill an anchor spot with someone that just isn’t liberal who do you have in the CNN, MSNBC, and network arena? I actually mean that seriously, is there anybody I’m leaving off? Because there is practically nobody at any of those networks that I would even describe as centrist. You can’t even say Lou Dobbs because he is starting in the next few months at FBN.

  • wonkish1

    I would fire Schultz tomorrow. His brash liberal attitude is the most closely akin to Olberman amongst the rest of the anchors, and its ratings are in the proverbial toilet. That means that he is going to be an ongoing embarrassment for Comcast and they aren’t even making any money off of that embarrassment.

    Once the firing is complete, immediately move to pick up Kathleen Parker and move her into his time slot up against Greta. Parker wouldn’t gain anything if it wasn’t for the fact that Greta runs a pretty court case centric show most days and Parker might get be able to pull some viewership amongst people that don’t like following court cases.

    Then I would move test the waters with Jim Angle and see if he would even be willing to take over Meet the Press if they offered him enough money and complete autonomy(rights to select is own producers and staff) because if anybody in all of news is the heir apparent to Russert(RIP) its Jim Angle.

    Then kick David Gregory over to pickup the Harball Re-run slot at 7pm et opposite Shepard Smith. Then I would move to pick up somebody like Boortz for the 6pm slot from Uygur opposite Bret Baier.

    Once all that is done I would just stop and take a breather knowing that many of MSNBC anchors are going to have ratings in the proverbial toilet, but the advertisers can probably only handle that much change occurring before they start getting antsy.

    Wait till after the 2012 elections and then start making changes again.

  • earlgrey

    keeping the young audience with a libertarian bent, improving the overall quality of journalism with more balanced reporting (good bye Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell). I think they could do well by going libertarian.

    Balanced reporting with a focus on the younger (under 40 demographics) could be really interesting.

    The blowhards have to go as they maike the network a laughing stock. Ed Schulz. Also Rachel Maddow has been making a lot of errors lately and needs to step up her game and improve the quality of her show.

  • wonkish1

    The most instantaneously profitable direction and the one that best positions them for the future. If it was only about the money the libertarian market is the most unrealized market share in cable news.

    Any serious libertarian pick up will come with an instantaneousness audience from a group of people that always “feel snubbed” by all news sources. Plus they could likely get built in contributors on the cheap from CATO, CEI, Mises Institute, etc. because no other network is grabbing them like they are the AEI, Heritage, Brookings, etc. people.

    I also wouldn’t be surprised to see Current continue to pick up MSNBC leftovers. Especially considering the fact that they are going through a re-org right now over the abject failure of Gore’s podcast business model(which had problems from the start). I would much rather have the network started by Al Gore be the loony network.

    And mark my words on this prediction. Olbermann will engage in an unrelenting assault on the market share of MSNBC from Current and start siphoning off serious liberal viewership from MSNBC. That will force MSNBC to reinvent its business model.

  • Common_Cents

    would be a great candidate for a libertarian bent show.

    He has filled in for Rush a few times and now is growing his own show nationally.

  • williamjameson

    of potential viewers by catering to liberals while acting as if the liberal view is the only norm for politics. The number of independent voters has grown while they ignore that market and libertarian as well. With new channels like Current TV, Oprah’s OWN and so on, MSNBC should cater to a broader audience and clean up the mess. .

    It won’t be long till internet technology allows real time broadcasting with few flaws so people can watch online as it appears on TV.. When that technology arrives every website with the funds will be able to broadcast and draw an audience. The networks will garner a large share but just like newspapers and magazines, the net will siphon off market share. That’s one of the reasons the HuffBlo was sold to AOL.

  • izoneguy

    They are scared to death the MSM will lose more & more power to send out the
    leftwing propaganda to the sheeple.

  • wonkish1

    The Best there is.

  • wonkish1