MSNBC Might Already Have Their Man

The New York Times is reporting that MSNBC might be headed in a more progressive direction. It's about damn time. Sixty percent of the country has been waiting for this for about ten years. Thank God, Olbermann snuck past the old guard and helped to change the face of television.

The next issue is who do they hire? Press reports say it might be Rosie O'Donnell. To say that I am equivocal about that is a significant understatement. Rosie was great in challenging conventional wisdom on the war and many other issues when she was on "The View." So, God bless her for that.

But, on the other hand, I'm not sure she is really the spokesperson for the level-headed, ultra-knowledgeable, progressive voice in the country. There is the 9/11 conspiracy stuff that no mainstream progressive believes in. And her style is not exactly cool-headed. Do we really want Rosie representing our point of view?

I feel really bad in even bringing any of this up because she has at times fought the good fight when almost no one else on television would. It's not that I don't appreciate her contribution to the conversation; it's that the next progressive host on cable news has to be good -- really, really good.

We need someone who is going to be smart, on top of the news and beyond reproach. And someone who we know can handle the position - and bring in good ratings in this format.

I would love to say that the right person for the job is one of the progressives I know either at Air America or in the liberal blogosphere. And all of these people are incredibly capable and would do a terrific job if given the opportunity (Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder, Thom Hartmann, among many others, come to mind (maybe even a non-hosts like Josh Marshall or Jane Hamsher)).

I'm also tempted to nominate Jack Cafferty as a possibility, even though he is not a progressive, because he has so clearly taken on the Bush administration in a sane and rational way for the last couple of years.

But ultimately, I think MSNBC already has their man. MSNBC correspondent, David Shuster. He is obviously bright, completely versed on the facts, up on the news and capable of bringing a centrist, sensible point of view to MSNBC.

He has been terrific the few times he has filled in for other hosts. He's already in house. I would imagine he'll cost a lot less than a big name host like Rosie O'Donnell. It's my belief that he would be a voice of sanity on air and a good fit for the network.

In the interest of full disclosure, I moderated a panel that Shuster was on earlier this year, but I don't know him personally at all and I'm not sure that we talked more than a minute outside of that panel.

I have no vested interest in him getting the job. In fact, I hope my agent is busy lobbying for me instead. But this moment is much larger than any one person. After so many years of a conservative monopoly on the television airwaves, the next non-conservative chosen for a host position on cable news is up for a tremendously important position.

If there are two successful non-conservatives on the airwaves, there will likely be ten more. We need this to be a trend, and not a temporary effort that is thwarted by an unwise or unrepresentative choice.

There is no way I can be sure that Shuster is absolutely the right person for the job or even shares most of my views. I am judging him just on the few appearances I have seen. But based on how he has performed as a host and correspondent before, I have hope that he could be the person that can do the job -- and do it right.

The Young Turks

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[raker]

Rosie would have been perfect. Of course the neocons were in on the planning of the Saudi Arabian attacks on New York and Washington. She'd have been fabulous; every night a title bout.

I nominate Sam Seder. I love Hartmann's wonkiness, but Seder has humor too. He'd be great. We need someone who hasn't drunk the GE/NBC kool-aid.

[Sorti]

The Political Punch with Shuster & Maddow

[Jjc2006]

Have to disagree, Cent.
For a few reasons. One, I think MSNBC is in serious need of diversity. I prefer a woman, and not one of their cutesy news readers. I would love to see a Randi (Rhodes) and Rachel (Maddow) show.
While I have liked David on most stuff I have also seen him play the role of shill for the corporations. All those boys defender their grand poopah Russert. So not thanks.

[engineer68]

Regarding Chris Matthews, Does anyone know why he gets all "Giddy" when he says the name John McCain? His face lights up like a child on Christmas morning. He cannot even sit still in his chair when he mentions McCain. I can't stand watching him. Please post a comment if you have any ideas.

[dlkincaid]

If David Schuster doesn't get this job - MSNBC is worst than I think. This man is intelligent and doesn't cow tow to anyone, not even the spitter. I love him and Olbermann - what a pair. Maybe, just maybe the pendelum is swinging back.

[nancytheragingliberal]

What is taking MSNBC so long to make a decision? The answer to clear, they can be the alternate to Faux "news". Only liberal/progressive shows 24/7. Oh, the money they will make. They don't care who is on their shows as long as they hear "Ka-ching."

[nikto]

RACHEL MADDOW wins my vote, hands down.

This nation does not need any more "centrist" or rightist news commentators.

What we need is a whole slew of LIBERAL (that's
"lee-ba-ral") and Progressive news commentators.

Lots and lots of 'em!!

[novowel4me]

Rachel Maddow gets my vote. If there is anyone who is the antithesis of Anne Coulter, Rachel Maddow is. Talk about contrast, thoughtful intelligent political discussion delivered by a person you could turn your back on or leave your puppy with.

[equipoise]

I agree with wordweaver - Rachel Maddow and Alison Stewart would be an outstanding duo because it's high time MSNBC gave women a prime time chance. Rachel has gravitas and Alison has that female KO quality. And Cenk, I wouldn't disagree with you as a possibility either.

Nix on Randi Rhodes - she's too often unwilling to allow guests to get a word in.

[LiberalLo]

Rosie got dumped before she started with MSNBC and as much as I admire her, I am glad. She is a comedian and should stick to what she does best. Yes, she was outspoken on the View because someone had to stand up to that pious freak, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. But, no, Rosie acted some days as if she was part of the lunatic fringe. Someone intellectually stimulating is needed. David Shuster or Rachel Maddox would be fine with me, too.

[realitybase]

Sorry, Phil or Charles will not be coming back. Rosie would become a laughing stock of the left in the eyes of the country. Randi would implode inside of a week.

Shuster is dry, mostly a reporter, doesn't appear to interact well, even if facts are on his side. People LIKE to watch people they like. My vote is for Rachel Maddow, smart, knowledgable great TV presence...Ed Schultz could do it, even though sometimes he's a bit bombastic (ala pigman Rush) but they could do a national call in show in the right time slot...but how many freepers and trolls do you think would siderail any discussion? Just remember MSNBC are owned by GE and MSoft not real progressive companies, remember it's all about the bottom line and NOT putting their dirty laundry out...

[realitybase]

No, MSNBC will NOT bring back Phil or Charles and Bill Moyers has his chops back at PBS. Rachel Maddow is the very best choice; Randi would explode in one week; Ed Schultz would do a good job -- they can have a call in show - have you ever seen "Mad Money" on CNBC? Remember ownership of the station is GENERAL ELECTRIC and MICROSOFT - no bastions of "liberal" views.. Olbermann does his thing because he is unique and is pulling in new viewers, but GE won't go leftie anytime soon, crank up those "clean" nukes!! Who care if there's no solution to the waste...

[Zella]

I vote for Rachel Maddow. I like David Shuster, but I'm fed up with the all white male bullies on MSNBC, except Keith.

[mrsbigg]

Alison Stewart is very capable. I like her attitude and energy. Rachel Maddow is a great choice, I love her intelleual whipping of the bad boy conservatives. Look out Bill-o.

[Balzac]

Cenk, I agree completely. I admire Rosie for her candor, for her guts and liberal take on things.

The problem is, she's too reactive and easily ruffled. Also, she's not well-enough informed about certain things.

Actually, NOBODY is paranoid enough about the psyops campaigns perpetrated against the American public.

99.99% of 9/11 "Truthers" are just distracting from the truth.

WTC 1 & WTC 2 were absolutely not demolished by controlled demolition. Anyone who says they were cannot represent me.

I do think it was an inside job and that national security was deliberately suppressed, but the 9/11 "Truth" movement is doing very little to advance the truth, unfortunately.

No to Rosie because she'll probably just melt down again.