Firing Of Ed Schultz Signals The End Of msnbc That Started With The Exit Of Keith Olbermann

We live in a time when much of the corporate media regards politics as a baseball game or a soap opera. Ed Schultz has treated the American people with respect by focusing on the most important issues impacting their lives. He has talked about income and wealth inequality, high unemployment, low wages, our disastrous trade policies and racism in America. I am very disappointed that Comcast chose to remove Ed Schultz from its lineup ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) the longest-serving independent in US congressional history and a self-described democratic socialist. Sanders is currently running for the 2016 POTUS nomination as a Democrat [1].

What follows is an excerpt from the 7/24/2015 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses the idiotic decision by MSNBC to cancel Ed Schultz and give his job to that tool Chuck Todd.

Thom: Bernie Sanders has blasted MSNBC and Comcast for cancelling Ed Schult's show. I wanted to talk a little bit about that. In my opinion, Ed is the last true voice for American working people on MSNBC. He is the only guy on MSNBC willing to talk about our trade policies and how stupid they are. He's literally the only guy. He's the only one who is willing to bring labor on regularly and talk about labor issues. He's the only one who's willing to talk about net neutrality.

These are subjects that, just from watching a lot of MSNBC, I have to conclude that the other hosts are not allowed to talk about these issues, and now they're going to fire Ed. Or lay him off, or he's leaving... whatever. I don't want to represent this. I haven't have any conversation with Ed about this.

I think Roger Ailes is a programming genius and the people at MSNBC are programming idiots. In Washington DC it doesn't matter if you're Left or Right, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. The thing that matters, THE thing that is consequential, the thing that determines whether or not you get invited to the White House, whether you get invited to THE cocktail parties, whether you get covered in the press, whether your name shows up, whether you appear on television regularly is... are you an Insider, or are you an Outsider?

Bernie Sanders is an Outsider. Ed Schultz is an Outsider. Schultz wasn't towing the line regarding the Insider's conventional wisdom. The Insider's wisdom is that trade deals are wonderful, corporations should run the world, net neutrality is a silly idea... and I think he's getting bumped for that.

The Insider media, the New York Times - there's a great piece over at Alternet about why is the New York Times ignoring the Sanders surge - it's because the New York Times is the ultimate Insider publication. Sanders is the Outsider.

Roger Ailes made this brilliant programming decision to program as an Outsider to Outsiders. MSNBC is moving in the direction of programming more and more with Insiders (Chuck Todd, Brian Williams) to insiders.

Andy Lack [the new Chairman of NBC News Group] used to be a vice president with NBC and now he's coming in [and trying to fix the problem of] their ratings [being] in the toilet.

I think their rating are in the toilet because they are basically an Insider network. The Progressive base is not interested in the Insider prospective. The Progressive base would like the Outsider perspective... which I think is Ed Schultz.

So they got to get rid of him. What they're going to do is go up against the other Insider network, CNN. They going to go more, quote, "hard news" [Andy Lack sez the new strategy is to focus on breaking news and de-emphasize left-leaning opinion programming].

[End 7/24/2015 Thom Hartmann Rant]

Thom adds that he the thinks "the net neutrality riffs by Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes were by way of noting the news, not by way of generating activist behavior. At least in my opinion. Ed Schultz has never backed away from encouraging people to be activists".

IMO Thom is absolutely right. Concerning why Ed is getting the boot, as well as msnbc being an Insider media outlet. Regarding Maddow and Hayes not covering net neutrality, I'll take Thom's word for it. I have basically stopped watching msnbc and switched over to Free Speech TV - which Thom's radio program airs on (as a TV program).

As a member of "the Progressive base" I am not interested in the Insider perspective and want the Outsider perspective, which Free Speech TV offers (The network, which operates as a 501c3 non-profit tax-exempt organization, brands itself as "the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments and corporations").

msnbc's ratings ARE in the toilet because of their drift away from Progressivism and toward what Thom calls the "Insider perspective". The beginning of the end for msnbc (IMO) was the exit of Keith Olbermann on 1/21/2011.

When Keith left msnbc Countdown was the network's top-rated program with 1.1 million viewers. In regards to a (pre departure) suspension of Keith, Russell Simmons said "without Olbermann, msnbc can't survive – and the voice of progress will fall to the dark ages, when one unholy church dictated a fictional version of the truth" [2].

And that is exactly what is happening. Although I don't think Simmons was any kind of oracle, he was simply stating the obvious. Keith Olbermann MADE msnbc and the death of the network started the day he left.

Today msnbc, with the firing of Mr. Schultz, is announcing that they have failed as a Leftwing alternative to Fox Nooz.

MSNBC had decided months ago that they would be dumping their liberal hosts in favor of people like Chuck Todd. MSNBC leadership completely mistreated their liberal audience, and when the audience walked away, the network used the declining ratings as an excuse to blame liberals. ... Ed Schultz was a much needed liberal voice in a sea of cable news conservatives. ... MSNBC is making an ideological statement that liberals are out, and pandering to Republicans with Beltway conventional wisdom is in. (MSNBC Is Canceling Ed Schultz And Giving His Show To Chuck Todd by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015).

In total msnbc is cancelling 3 of it's programs.

Hour-long programs hosted by Ed Schultz at 5 pm Eastern and Alex Wagner at 4pm were both axed, as was The Cycle, a roundtable that aired at 3pm with hosts Ari Melber, Toure, Abby Huntsman and Krystal Ball. (Struggling MSNBC cancels 3 daytime shows with liberal slant. AP Story from 7/30/2015).

Other changes announced...

Andrew Lack told staffers of both NBC News and MSNBC that he plans to rebuild MSNBC to focus on breaking news coverage and to be less of a left-leaning talk outlet. Lack also plans a name change for the network since Microsoft hasn't been involved with the cable channel in years. (Talker's Magazine Odds & Sods, 7/27/2015).

I say screw msnbc, or whatever the hell they end up calling themselves. They will limp along for awhile longer, but they're done. Or not. Whatever happens they are never going to be more than a MINOR network. As they move away from catering to their liberal audience their liberal audience will depart. And there is no need for yet another "Insider" network.

As for Keith Olbermann being "fired" from his latest gig as ESPN2, the sports talk show Olbermann, says they "declined to renew his expiring contract [and that] the move was to cut costs related to Olbermann's salary and the use of the space at Times Square Studios". (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Not being a fan of any televised sport, and having never once watched Keith's sports talk show, I would be completely unaware that "Olbermann" was ending... if not for the Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford who came to my blog to gloat.

According to the comment Rusty left, Olbermann was "fired" and "his next show could be a podcast from his basement". In response I told Rusty "if Olbermann does a podcast from his basement I will seek it out and subscribe". I forgot to add that I'd only do this if the podcast were political in nature. If he were to do a podcast that was sport-centered I would not be interested.

I am not upset about Olbermann's contract not being extended. Which is what happened. He wasn't fired. Anyway, I watched him on msnbc and Current, but never on ESPN. I don't like sports and I don't care about him getting "fired" or deciding not to move his ESPN program knowing his contract not being extended could be a result.

People like Rusty might call Olbermann a "loser" (or other names), but Keith got 14 Million to leave msnbc and 5 Million to leave the no-longer-existing Current TV. This is money Keith got which he did no work to receive... doesn't sound like a loser to me [3].

As for Ed Schultz, I have to admit I did not watch his program. Mostly because it was on too early. When I watched I tuned in for Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. Although I switched to Current TV (and watching their primetime lineup when Keith Olbermann was associated with the now defunct network).

I did switch back when (the global climate change awareness champion) Al Gore sold out and cashed out in exchange for in 70 million (his share of the 500 million price) in House of Thani oil money. Which might have been either hypocritical or wise... given the fact that "Current failed to make much of an impact at all".

Maybe Current failed (was failing) because they fired Keith? Or it might just have been because people were simply unaware that it existed. While msnbc's market share is much less than that of Fox, they still are viable. Although (to me) it looks like this Andy Lack fellow is working hard to deep six the network.

Not that the ratings were great, but that was because they were a Democrat Insider network (Keith and Ed being their most Progressive voices). The Insider perspective/sucking up to and carrying water for Insider Dems isn't what most Democratic voters are interested in. Now they're going to go even more Insider. I do not predict success.

Footnotes
[1] The quote from the top of this blog post is from the article Bernie Sanders Blasts MSNBC and Comcast For Canceling Ed Schultz by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015.
[2] Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC (excerpt from a 1/21/2011 story from RawStory) Countdown, the network's top-rated program, attracted 1.1 million viewers, according to Nielsen. (end excerpt). The Russell Simmons quote is from this article.
[3] According to a 4/20/2012 Dennis Marks comment (this is before Keith was awarded $5 million in binding arbitration re his lawsuit against Al Gore's Current) "Keith's frivolous lawsuit [will get] laughed out of court". Oops, looks like Dennis was wrong... as usual.

Video1: Ed Schultz blasts Clinton for refusing to take a position on Keystone and the TPP (Published on 7/29/2015). According to some website called Canonclast "town crier Ed Schultz receiving the ax with many speculating that it is because he turned on Hillary Clinton. You can watch video of that memorable moment below". Well, of course msnbc is in the bag for Clinton. Is this is what got him fired? Could be (3:04).

Video2: Ed addresses being fired. 7/31/2015 (3:03).

SWTD #305, KO #5.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why Government Investment In New Technologies Is So Important

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need ~ Barack Obama (dob 8/4/1961) 44th POTUS (1/20/2009 to 1/20/2017). Excerpt from his 1/25/2011 State of Union Address.

Back during the 2012 primary season, a 1/23/2012 GOP NBC debate featured a Newt Gingrich moment that had him proposing the construction of a permanent base on the Moon. Newt said that by 2020 (the last year of his *snicker* administration provided he *snicker* served two terms), private sector businesses spurred on by government-provided prize money would accomplish the task.

At the time I wrote a short commentary of a humorous nature on Newt's proposal titled "A Winning Strategy: President Newt". (Follow the link to read my side-splittingly hilarious laugh-a-palooza from 4/3/2012).

Following this unlikely proposal by Newt (unlikely that we'd build a Moon colony and unlikely that we would have elected Newt preznit), astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on MSNBC with Martin Bashir to discuss how probable the building of a base on the moon by 2020 might be.

During the 1/26/2012 airing of Bashir's eponymous MSNBC program, Mr. Tyson pointed out that, aside from the technical and scientific hurdles that would have to be overcome, the political climate would have to change. Simply put, the political climate makes this proposal very improbable - or it would have been improbable if Newt had improbably been elected and we had actually pursued it.

Mr. Tyson went on to explain why government investment in new technologies is so important (something those on the Right who believe the "market" should decide don't cotton to).

NDT: There is rampant delusion out there about what the future will hold for us. One of the problems is, the expectation is that the private sector will just advance the space frontier. No, they're not going to advance the space frontier. Because the frontier of space is expensive, dangerous, with unknown risks and unknown costs. That is not ripe for capital markets to value, OK. The history of human exploration is one where governments take the first step. They pay for the first patents, they draw the maps. Government paid for Columbus' voyage. Magellan's voyage. Louis and Clark. That's who figures out what's going on out there. Then private enterprise comes in afterward. ...we are receding while the rest of the world is advancing. Because they realize the value of such investments. (MSNBC's Martin Bashir 1/26/2012: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the Newt Gingrich vision for space is too grand of an idea).

Conservatives HATE this idea, even though it is the model that has worked time and time again, as Mr. Tyson points out. Conservatives and Libertarians say this is government "picking winners and losers" and they strongly oppose it.

They object despite the fact that, without this model (where government leads the way when it comes to new technologies), the Internet would have never been invented (for example). The internet began with a government investment when "the US Department of Defense awarded contracts". Later, legislation championed by future president Al Gore led to the development of the interwebs as we know the series of tubes today (for which I thank him).

When I pointed out how crucial government investment is when it comes to new technologies (in the context of the green economy and the government loan program to support companies who invest in green energies such as solar), a whiny Conservative complained about "taxpayer funded gifts to wealthy investors and corporations".

But the evidence shows that when We The People intervene to "advance the frontier" (when the private sector is too timid to take the risk), the American people choose themselves as winners. When we fail to do this we chose to be losers (which is what the whiny guy I mentioned earlier would have us do).

The trick, of course, is to not let the corporations corrupt the system by bribing our elected officials in order to select them (the plutocrat business owners) as the winners. This crony capitalism problem is what greatly concerns Libertarians.

The solution, however, is NOT to do as Libertarians wish and give up because the wealthy special interests will always corrupt the system (that's what they say, at least). But it does not have to be this way! What we should do is reform the system (by getting rid of Citizens United and publicly financing elections, for example) and get down to picking the winners that will benefit We the People.

Unfortunately there is more and more of this defeatist Libertarian loser attitude going around today, and this is why other countries are surpassing us in the areas of green energy and high speed rail, for example [1+2].

Newt's campaign might have been a joke, but at least he was concerned about us losing our status as the cool country (despite being an uber-nerd), which we might have been able to recapture if gwb had not said NO to human-animal hybrids. If not for that bush decree we might have been on our way to a real Planet of The Apes! How cool would that have been? (Are "Humanzees" Possible?).

On second thought, high speed rail would definitely be a lot more gnarly, and more practical than a base on the moon (not that we couldn't do both). But Republicans hate high speed rail. Why? Because rugged individuals drive gas guzzling SUVs, that's why. Or coal rollers, which "are diesel trucks modified with chimneys and equipment that can force extra fuel into the engine causing dark black smoke to pour out of the chimney stacks... as a form of protest against environmentalists and Obama administration emissions regulations".

BTW, in regards to Gingrich being an "uber-nerd", how could he not be with a name like "Newton Leroy"? He also has several degrees in History and was previously employed as an assistant History professor before being elected to Congress.

Although he has had 3 wives, the 1st 2 of which *HE* dumped for a newer model. But that comes with the territory of being rich and powerful. You can be a nerd and get hot women. Not that I'm saying Callista is hot, only that she is surely hot when compared to Newton.

Footnotes
[1] China's Renewable Energy Revolution: What Is Driving It? (article excerpt) China is building a renewables energy system that is now the largest in the world. ... In terms of generating capacity, by 2013 China's WWS sources (water, wind and solar) accounted for... close to 20% of energy generated... China now has the largest electric power system in the world, rated at 1.25 trillion watts (TW), exceeding the US power system's capacity at 1.16 TW (and German at 175 GW). China added more capacity in 2013 sourced from WWS than from fossil fuels and nuclear sources combined. ...our conclusion is that in 2013, China's leading edge of change in its electric power system is moving in a green direction, away from fossil fuels dependence. (Article by John A. Mathews and Hao Tan. GlobalResearch 11/17/2014).
[2] China has the world's longest HSR network with over 16,000 km (9,900 mi) of track in service as of December 2014 which is more than the rest of the world's high speed rail tracks combined. Since high-speed rail service in China was introduced on April 18, 2007, daily ridership has grown from 237,000 in 2007 to 2.49 million in 2014, making the Chinese HSR network the most heavily used in the world. Cumulative ridership had reached 2.9 billion by October 2014. (Wikipedia/High-speed rail in China).

Video1: Martin Bashir and Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson discuss Newt Gingrich's intentions to colonize the moon by 2020, and to the funding of space exploration in general on MSNBC. Video posted to YouTube on 1/27/2012 (6:47).

Video2: With planet Earth in turmoil, Newt Gingrich leads a GOP-filled colony on the Moon. SNL 2/4/2012 (Season 37-Episode 13, Hosted by Channing Tatum).

SWTD #298

Severe Conservative Delusions: Al Gore & The Invention of the Internet Edition

The day I made that statement, about the inventing the internet, I was tired because I'd been up all night inventing the Camcorder ~ Al Gore (dob 3/31/1948) an American politician, advocate and philanthropist, who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001), under President Bill Clinton... joking about the deluded liars who think he claims to have invented the internet.

Al Gore, the only person ever elected to the presidency who did not serve, also happens to be the victim of an (old) lie about him having claimed to be the inventor of the internet. Actually, this "lie" is more of a joke... because we all know he didn't say it. That Al Gore claims to have invented the internet has been debunked by Snopes. Follow the link and you will see that the judgment of this well-known resource for validating and debunking "urban legends, Internet rumors, email forwards, and other stories" (Snopes) is that the meme is false.

Yet, this does not stop Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) from lying and stating that, no, he truly believes that Gore said he invented the internet...

Dennis Marks: Al Gore did not use the word invent, but he did use the word create, and said that he created the Internet. Yes are no: are you aware of the existence of synonyms? And if you are, how can you argue that invent does not mean create? Face it: Gore claimed to have invented it (correct paraphrase), which is untrue since he never did. (4/18/2012 AT 5:49am).

So, Dennis has to resort to synonyms to "prove" Mr. Gore "lied"? How pathetic. At best it could be argued that Mr. Gore misspoke. He surely did not lie, as we know Mr. Gore was referring to legislation he sponsored during his time in Congress. The Wikipedia page "Al Gore and information technology" notes that "in the 1980s and 1990s, [Gore] promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet".

What follows is the statement by Gore; from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 3/9/1999...

Al Gore: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Gore directly references the legislation he sponsored after CORRECTLY pointing out that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". While it is true that "create" and "invent" are synonyms, Dictionary.com defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the [English] language". In the context of Al Gore's quote, the meaning is NOT the same, as Snopes points out...

Snopes: Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions... (excerpt from the Snopes article Internet of Lies).

In the context of Mr. Gore's quote an honest person can NOT use the "synonym argument" and thus conclude Gore was claiming to have invented the internet, as a synonym can mean a word that has NEARLY the same meaning and not EXACTLY the same meaning. A honest person would look at the CONTEXT of the word being used and conclude - as Snopes did - that those who claim Gore invented the internet are full of bullplop. But Dennis is not an honest person. Also, he most certainly is full of poop.

Proof that Dennis dissembles is that when I said "he [Gore] was CLEARLY referring to the legislation he sponsored", Dennis remarked...

Dennis Marks: Now that is a flat out lie. You are defending Gore on what you think he said, not what he actually said. He CLEARLY took credit for bringing the Internet into being. Which in fact he never did: it existed before the point in time in which he claimed to have invented it (exact word "Created"). (3/28/2012 at 8:46am). [Note: Dennis deleted this comment, but I quoted him in my response immediately following the deleted comment].

No, Dennis, you delusional lying sack of excrement, Al Gore actually said "I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives..." and he was referring to the legislation he sponsored. The only one thinking (or imagining) Al Gore said something that he did not is YOU. Mr. Gore did NOT "clearly" take credit for bringing the Internet into being.

Conclusion? We should all thank Gore for helping set up the environment that lead to the internet as we now know it. Without the foresight and genius of the ex-Vice President, I would not be online blogging today. If only Mr. Gore had invented a method of ensuring the integrity of elections, then perhaps George bush would not have stolen the presidency from him. It is a shame, as with a President Gore, we may have stopped the terrorists and prevented the tragedy of 9-11. At least we have the internet, I guess... and for that I say... THANK YOU, Mr. Gore... the only man ever elected president who never served. The world owes you a debt of gratitude.

As for Mr. Marks, I think we (all of us in the reality based community) can conclude he is a delusional nutter who will now - if he reads this commentary - start claiming Gore lied about inventing the camcorder.

Video: Al Gore tells the truth about how he took the initiative in creating the internet.

Update 10/6/2014: In regards to the comment by Dennis that he deleted above, according to him he did it "for the amusement factor".

SWTD #236, dDel #18. See also TADM #15.