Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz -- How MSNBC Became a Liberal Mecca

"I'm a liberal -- and I'm not running from that word!" exclaims Ed Schultz, the latest lefty star in the cable television news-and-opinion firmament. Schultz, America's top-rated progressive radio talk show host, has just finished his first month as host of the eponymous Ed Show on MSNBC, which is attempting to duplicate its earlier success in crossing over progressive radio talk show host Rachel Maddow.

Despite the startling success of Maddow and the recent addition of Schultz to an increasingly liberal lineup that also includes MSNBC's first breakout star Keith Olbermann, getting anyone other than on-air talent like Schultz and Maddow to admit the obvious -- that the rising cable net is in the process of re-branding itself as the left-winged equivalent of right-leaning industry leader Fox News -- can be difficult. For example, when asked if the decision to hire Schultz was part of a conscious strategy to "move left, MSNBC President Phil Griffin chooses his words carefully.

"The answer is complicated...but simple at same time," Griffin responds. "The network has evolved a lot in the past few years. We went from doing a little bit of everything to doing lots of politics under Keith from 2003-05. We first began to get traction after the Iraq war started, after 'Mission Accomplished.' Then, more and more, politics led the way. When we did well with it in the 2006 elections, we made a decision to become 'the place for politics,' as the late Tim Russert dubbed us - and all of a sudden began to take off a little."

Griffin says that both Olbermann and fellow MSNBC stalwart Chris Mathews "both had a strong point of view about the war -- but our strategy then was simply to hire smart people, allow them to have a point of view, and to be authentic. At the same time, we moved even further toward politics and away from trying to be 'all things to all people.'"

Yes but ... Fox News covers politics as well, albeit with a clearly conservative slant. Doesn't the hiring of Schultz -- and Maddow before him -- signal that MSNBC is positioning itself as the progressive alternative?

"Well, Rachel did so well as a guest analyst -- and was so smart, like Keith -- that we asked her to fill in when he went on vacation," Griffin recalls. "And she held his numbers, which is something that other talent we had on-air at the time, like Dan Abrams, didn't do. So that made the decision to give Rachel her own show after the conventions really easy ... September 8, 2008, was her first day, and almost immediately it was obvious to us that Keith's audience loved Rachel ... so we had flow. But it was more organic than a conscious strategy to go left," Griffin concludes. "A vision of smart progressives just began to emerge ... "

Whether it's the result of an organic vision or a conscious strategy, however, adding a proudly progressive "populist figure" like Schultz to its lineup means that MSNBC is now providing the largest toehold progressives have ever had on television. Even Griffin admits the cable net now has a "progressive flow," although he quickly adds, "That's a little different than saying we consciously chose such a strategy."

Taking a swipe at Fox, he points out, "We have no daily talking points; we also have [the more conservative-oriented] 'Morning Joe' program -- so it's clear we have no political 'line,' if you will -- but sure, we now have a progressive flow."

"Hey, I'm encouraged to have and state my opinions," says Ed Schultz. "I think what we're doing here is best described as 'independent/progressive.' I'm very proud to state that I'm a liberal -- but the independent part means we don't run from the facts, either."

Schultz also believes that his sizeable radio audience will, over time, follow him to television. "The cross-promotion is terrific, we're expanding the brand, my website traffic has already doubled," he notes. "But let's face it -- not everyone in the country knows Ed Schultz, so it will take some time to develop this. We look at this as a marathon, not a sprint."

Still, both Schultz and Maddow have already driven MSNBC's all-important ratings numbers up in the highly competitive cable news environment. In its first full month "The Ed Show" -- although trailing both Fox and CNN in the time period -- increased MSNBC's rating by 9% in total viewers from the prior month and a full 15% from a year ago. And although much was made of the fact that Maddow's show recently drew its smallest audience since she joined MSNBC -- some 763,000 total viewers -- she still regularly beats longtime CNN star Larry King. True, Maddow's ratings have cooled since her meteoric rise during last fall's political frenzy, but her overall ratings last month were still doubling those MSNBC saw a year earlier, when Dan Abrams averaged just 527,000 total viewers in the same time slot.

Does that mean the network's strategy... er, "vision" to move left is succeeding?

"How do you measure if we're succeeding?" Griffin asks rhetorically. "Well, ratings are a good start! We're beating CNN; and we're also doing great with the high end demographic groups, such as young people aged 18-34."

Griffin perceives a "media revolution that's now happening, and we fit right into it. Our audience is web-centric, involved, highly informed, and looking for opinion and analysis." As a result of serving this new audience, he says, "our ratings are up from a year ago -- as well as from 3 months ago -- and we did well quite recently with the dueling Obama and Cheney speeches ... Meanwhile, CNN has no vision or strategy to speak of. It's a new world media order here -- and we embrace it, we fit right into it."

Still, the Fox News Channel recently ranked fourth overall in primetime cable ratings, averaging 1.89 million total viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. Fox News, which had regularly been placing second behind USA, has now ranked in the top five cable networks for 20 straight weeks, and its cable news competitors still trail by a wide margin -- MSNBC placed 24th in primetime with an average of 747,000 total viewers, while CNN placed 28th with an average of 651,000 total viewers Facing such figures, even Griffin acknowledges that FNC still looms as the 800 pound gorilla in the cable news and opinion space.

"Look, Fox created something unique," he allows. "It's an Outsider's Club for people who felt voiceless. And I tip my hat to Glenn Beck for coming in and just killing right away, as did Rachel. But Ed will need more time and more traditional development than Rachel. It will be a slower build, and we're still trying to figure it out.

"What happened with Rachel was very unusual," recalls Griffin. "She was golden, an unbelievable success, in part because there clearly was another audience that felt underserved -- left, webcentric, young -- and instantly committed to her. They were voiceless, and now there is a voice. She really embodies our strategy of 'personality, smarts, and politics,' and that's a combination will win for us."

Schultz agrees. "I'm proud to be on this network," he says. "And sure, there has to be a synergy in your programming, whether you're on television or radio. If you're a rock station, don't play country! If you do talk, don't play music... That's just common sense. So we'll be progressive by remaining true to the issues, and independent by not running from the facts. That means we won't be in lockstep with liberals, and we'll certainly criticize Obama where it's warranted. Viewers don't want you to walk the fence -- they do want a point of view -- and that's what we bring. So be true to the facts -- but take a stand!"

Despite the gains going left has won for MSNBC, however, Schultz' boss maintains he still won't rush into anything wont rush the transition. "The biggest mistake this network made in past was rushing in, and thinking any good idea would work," says Griffin. " We had lots of good talent in the past -- but what we needed was a sensibility."

Now that Schultz has been added to the lineup at 6 pm, Griffin's most immediate concern is what else to do in primetime, where the valuable ten o'clock slot following Maddow's program is now devoted to re-runs of Olbermann's earlier 8 pm cablecast. Can the MSNBC honcho offer any "vision" of what will "flow" out of Maddow?

"Is it necessary that the flow out of Rachel be progressive?" Griffin ponders. "I have a little different perspective. Honestly, don't know if it will be a progressive -- Rachel really came out of nowhere, and I don't necessarily think her follow-up host has to be limited to that pure sensibility. Clearly it should be someone who is both smart and funny like she is... But I will make one promise: we're not done yet! This is such a vibrant time in media, and I want to say to Rachel's audience -- and everywhere I go I get stopped, there's such a connection between her and her audience, she's helped open a new world of approaches for us -- that people who like Rachel will like our new 10 o'clock show host and what we are going to do there. No, I take that back," he concludes. "Rachel's audience will love it! I promise."

Comments

[StPeteDave]

I think Phil Donohue would be great for a one on one interview show at 10 and he'll talk to anyone.

[bobjmc13]

Not only is it a liberal mecca, it has become a lower and lower rated liberal mecca. I am gratified that "most" Americans are coming to their senses and turning off the bias and mean spiritedness to anyone that disagrees with late term abortion, Nancy Pelosi and her flunky in the White House. Rachel for one cannot stop picking at anything former president Bush says. He has been out of office for 6 months. Why not gain some balance and (gasp) criticize Obama? Soon, the ratings will be composed of only the most far left loons from California, Massachusetts and New York. I look forward to when they are canceled.

[madcat007]

Most Americans (like you apparently) are too ignorant to accept the truth from the MSNBC hosts. My guess is that you've never watched any of the MSNBC shows, just tuned into certain clips that newsbusters or Faux or another neo-con brainwashing site has shown you to scew the coverage. What lead me to realize that you've never watched them is that Rachel Maddow has been all over Obama for a few months now...she's not giving him a free ride. Balance? I truly hope you don't believe that the liars at Faux are balanced...that's too funny. This proud Massachusetts resident is so happy that we have intelligent hosts such as Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews and Schultz. Faux ratings will probably always be atop because of their core group of watchers...bigots looking for justification for their hatred. Viva MSNBC!

[laparejr]

My candidate for the 10:P.M. MSNBC time slot is Jack Cafferty! what a lineup, Keith Racheal and Jack!
I'd give up Law and Order for Jack!

[ACMallet]

MSNBC will go down in history for bringing LIberal Hate Speech to prime time. And that's fine, as long as nobody there pretends it's airing anything but that.

My only real criticism of the 3 shows mentioned is that I never see the hosts speaking with anyone who disagrees with their views. It's almost always, "I see Republicans as being responsible for 95% of the country's ills ... am I overstating that, or do you think the number is actually closer to 93%?

[fisher65]

well ACmallet, give me a break! dems are not about hate and you know it! we are not spewing it out every waking moment as fox does, they are a menace to our society, they are hate, grow up!

[incognito-ergo-sum]

Chris Matthews gets people who disagree with all thinking folks. Remember Michelle Bachmann (sp)?

Watch his show and see the conservatives melt on camera. Live and in color they implode like Michelle.

I see Ed, Rachel and Keith as counterpoints to what ever the right is claiming that day. They show videos, speeches and real live events to back them up. They have documents and experts, not just noise and personal opinions

Righteous anger on the left, with real targets and truth, fake anger on the right with selected bits of speech and parts of videos.

There is still lots for the folks, like me on the left, to get angry about.

[ACMallet]

Did I say anything about Matthews? No.

I was referring to the 3 shows/hosts mentioned in the headline.

[madcat007]

Rachel tries to get conservatives on all the time, but they won't accept. Apparently they don't like when an intelligent host won't let them spew their B.S. unchallenged. Why do you think the Cheney's won't go on Rachel's show? They have a standing invite. Off the top of my head, I remember David Frum, Nancy Photenhauer & Jonah Goldberg getting owned by Rachel when she had actual facts to dispute their idiocy. Keep it up Rachel & the rest of the MSNBC evening crew!

[cbendersf]

We don't have cable in our home and don't want it, but we do watch programs via podcasts.
We watch Rachel Maddow every day, but a day late. Are podcast downloads figured in her ratings?

[bugsbonzai]

The reason a huge ratings boon hasn't emerged is precisely because MSNBC hedges their transformation. It's being done quietly, almost reluctantly, so many progressives aren't even aware of it. Everybody knows Fox News has conservatives; I'd bet a much smaller percentage are aware of MSNBC's specific liberal on-air talent. Until MSNBC embraces their role wholeheartedly, they will be left waving in the wind by the very demographic that might make them a powerhouse.

[BBackSoon]

left waving. Is that a pun?

They are starting to embrace the progressive slant. I personally like that they seem to deal in truth and then present it with a slant. Not the other way around like Fix who seems to be Party Line, make the facts fit.

[ephoenix5]

Fox News is king only because conservatives who feel disinfranchised and who are otherwise seeing their "conservative world" collapse (of their own doing and because of their ideas) -- find refuge in clinging to every word of that terrorist outfit referred to as Fox News.

After liberals and progressives won, I think we have all relaxed and are out enjoying the fact that we feel the country is in bad shape, but at least we are finally moving in the right direction. We are not all huddled around the t.v. watching O'Reilly inciting more killings, or Glenn Beck shedding crocodile tears. That's probably the reason you see Fox with higher ratings at this time. That will slowly change as clear thinking begins to overtake and people begin to notice that we are finally reasoning and doing critical thinking as to the direction of the country and not just blindly following conservative "ideals" -- and it will specially change when something big is happening in politics, such as the elections.

[noudidnt]

Progressives read and blog more. When you can't read or write, you watch lots of TV. Hence, the success of Faux News.

[pons1595]

If you can read and think, watching Pox News is not in your DNA. Also, Joe in the AM is a disaster for MSNBC. Watched once...once was enough! Boycott Pox News!

[bluegigi]

"Look, Fox created something unique," he allows. "It's an Outsider's Club for people who felt voiceless. And I tip my hat to Glenn Beck for coming in and just killing right away, as did Rachel. But Ed will need more time and more traditional development than Rachel. It will be a slower build, and we're still trying to figure it out."
Hey Griffin, you couldn't give more time and traditional development to David Shuster??? What's up with that? Nothing against Ed Schultz, and I listen to him pretty often on the radio, but he's hard to look at for an hour. I know that's just 17 ways of wrong but it's how i feel.
Shuster should've been given the time to grow 1600, or better yet, his own format, once that suits not only him but his journalistic background. He's smart, well researched, and doesn't let anyone, from any side get away with nonsense.

I agree - Shuster!!! Shuster!!! Shuster!!!

[cdub1991]

I've noticed that MSNBC commentators seem to be referencing HuffPo more frequently. Is there some sort of special relationship between the two organizations or is it just the growing recognition of this site as an actual source for information, instead of just an aggregator?

[noudidnt]

Does Fox have a "special" relationship with Drudge, WND, and Littledumb­footballs?

[bugsbonzai]

It's a one stop for news of the day, as well as a resource where renowned commentators with credentials post editorials.

[WinterParkMom]

10pm Please give it to David Shuster and give him his way with his format. He's smart and dogged and calls out b/s when it's being handed to him.


Shuster, Shuster, Shuster, Shuster!!!!!

[JanSP1971]

I love Ed, Rachael, Keith, and most times Chris. I would love to be able to watch MSNBC in the morning but I can not and will not watch Morning Joe. If I was interested in hearing this type of hate, fear and lies spewed I'd turn over to Fixed. So please MSNBC find a new morning host to start our day off with. Mika has to go away with Joe too, she is not a liberal no matter how many times Joe tells us she is. She does not speak for liberals, the democratic party or women.

[JakeMontero]

Right. Only get your news from folks who tell you what to think! you are a ditto head -- just like the foo ls who only listen to limbaugh

[BBackSoon]

I don’t see that as being a dittohead. I see it as being opposed to lies. The thing I most enjoy about the MSNBC evening lineup is the stories are based on facts. Sure they lean left and promote a more liberal point of view but they do not make up ‘Facts’ to support that point of view. If the real facts show Dems in a bad light they say so, if they make a mistake, they make a correction, and they are not in lock step with Pres Obama and company.

The reason I cannot stand to watch FIX or CNN or even Morning Joe, is the propagation of Right Wing talking points, especially the points that have been proven to be made up or taken completely out of context. I am all for hearing both sides of an issue but when one side is only interested in knee capping the other then it is not really a debate or even a discussion.

[JanSP1971]

Did I say MSN was the ONLY news I watched or that I didn't read any anything or listen to radio news programs?
So I'm the ditto head?

[rwext]

and yet one Oreilly hour beats olbermaddo­wsergeants­chultz combined

[BBackSoon]

But the MSNBC shows are gaining.

[kissy kai]

fox gets the numbers because thye are on basic cable MSNBC evening lineup is not on basic cable,If MSNBC was on basic cable they would kick there butts,If you look at msm media doing the day, look to ED , KEITH and RACHEL to give it to you with facts no bs.

[madcat007]

You're absolutely correct. I have MSNBC as part of my expanded basic cable. Besides that, many of MSNBC's fans watch via iPod or internet and those numbers are not counted. The MSNBC team is doing fine. I'm not worried about Faux evening ratings vs. MSNBC. Look at who is advertising during Rachel & Keith's shows. I've even seen Faux Fiends in there. Threatened much neo-cons? Now that the weather's nice, I don't have time to watch Ed and Chris except on occasion, but I enjoy them, just not as much as Rachel & Keith who I never miss. Rachel conducts her show with wit and charm while Keith just tells it like it is. They're awesome. And to the righties that don't like their sarcasm...tough!!!

[FGDinVA]

There is a larger audience for what my grandfather used to call "gross and violent stimulus". As long as there are people who will watch tractor pulls and championship wrestling, there will be an audiance for Fox News.

Even people who watch MSNBC would enjoy a good verbal smackdown between Liz Cheney and Lawerance O'Donnell. Be honest.

[Gitmo]

Faux is always going to win the ratings game. They're not a real news outlet.

[FGDinVA]

I mosied on over there one day, to see what it was like. The FIRST thing I see is a commercial with G. Gordon Liddey hawking gold. I knew immediately that I had entered foreign territory. Does Ann Coulter sell fallout shelters?

[noaxe397]

I think MSNBC has more conservative leaning on air people than just Scarborough. Norah O'donnell and Andrea Mitchell are not exactly flaming liberals.

I'm not convinced Matthews skews totally to the left, either.

Maddow is a very good interviewer. In one-on-ones she lets the guest do most of the talking, doesn't interrupt and, when challenging the guest's POV always does so in a respectful manner. There is none of the Fox verbosity or towel snapping going on. I've been impressed by the quality and caliber of some of the people she has had on.

[FGDinVA]

I agree about Rachel. America needs more people like her! I just read where she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a doctorate in political science.