The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Phil Griffin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phil Griffin. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

CNN Hired Who?

Jeffrey Lord
We know MSNBC has folded its tent under the pressure of poor executive decisions. Phil Griffin came to MSNBC and placed a stamp on the network that totally flopped. His opinion news model replete with talking head panels plus the networks liberal "lean" failed. The network is retrenching comparable to the retreat of Iraqi soldiers under the pressure of General Schwarzkopf's flanking ground strategy

If you for one second thought "Well I will just run-over to CNN' for 24/7 news coverage," you now face Zucker's clone Fox New strategy without the ugly far-right edge. You have run right into the spider's web, as CNN is far from politically and socially neutral.  In fact, CNN one advertised its neutral zone status between Fox News and MSNBC. Have you notice the word neutral is no longer in the CNN broadcast vernacular?

Actually the network is moving much farther to the political and social Right.  If you need evidence, try this on for size.

"This is CNN"

CNN just hired a man who calls for Obama to be impeached, says the KKK is a "leftist group," warns marriage equality...Posted by Media Matters for America on Tuesday, August 11, 2015
If you need more evidence spend a day watching CNN and count the number of conservative guests.


Friday, May 15, 2015

MSNBC: A Dying News Network, And A Recent Breathe of Fresh Air

Phil Griffin, MSNBC president, ordered a cessation of the network's "left lean" in early 2015.  The MSNBC executive edict is wearing on the network as it is floundering around like a fish out of water seeking a water hose.  

The nascent news programming during the mid morning hours is a welcome change. Yet, the positives cease at that point. Outside on my personal appreciation for some degree of progressive programming to offset e shifty CNN and the outright right wing dogma at Fox, MSNBC is dying a slow death.  Or, the network is strategically moving to the Right, on a Just-in-Time basis as we move towards 2016.  If the latter is the case, it will be impossible to avoid contemplation of the prospect powerful oligarchs have called-in their marks on cohort network power brokers.  Why move away from the Left during such tumultuous political times? Even if the network consistently ranked third behind Fox and CNN, where is the network to go for a market niche. The current lean towards entrainment cable TV, is ludicrous and actually not very well done.

With all respect for their legacies, MSNBC continues to run host who have considerable issues reading the broadcast teleprompters (Andrea Mitchell and Al Sharpton cases in point). Love Al, but he has never mastered the art of reading his news or show lines. While Lawrence O'Donnell continues to flash progressive broadcast relevant and brilliance, his nascent reach to entertainment news is frankly, disturbing (eg. Justin Bieber, The Simpsons, etc.).  I plan to visit a The Last Word segment that offers this progressive a brief respite in a sea of the floundering network. 

On a day when multiple media reported record low unemployment claims for last week, Chris Hayes ALL In, broadcast a report, that truly astounded. The 19 minute segment left me with the impression someone in Hayes management chain, or Hayes himself felt the need to provide a broadcast rationale for the all too often police shootings. I doubt one viewer prior to the broadcast failed to recognize that police reaction to immediate situations. The need to have a cop reinforce firing until the threat is taken-out seemed a bit Fox Newish.  Additionally, we have seen enough evidence of cops shooting until the subject is taken out (exhibit one, exhibit two). Of course, Hayes wouldn't be party to such an in-your-face rationalization of cop murder, but I was left in wonderment about the motive, the point and effectiveness of the 19 minutes. Would it be a stretch to seek much deeper reasons for weapon firing via cops? Instead of the "danger of cops" segment, how about MSNBC exploring , hiring practices, social behavior modification, and community involvement programs?

I post such broadcast segments would garner few viewers and would certainly not appeal as up coming broadcast segment. Images and tape of Hayes in a situation simulator for most Americans is far more appealing to most than tape about police human factors.

Hayes ended his show with a less than three minute segment with actor and activists Danny Glover regarding the US Postal Service. Glover's parents were both employees of the Postal Service and the segment provided a snippet of interest, but think about the prospect of actually exploring why the GOP wants to privatize the Postal Service. What got us here vs. a flash of an actor to garner entertainment value and only for a matter of a few seconds.

Since the Simpsons is apparently the longest running comedy show on American television, I will defer the payment of such a long Last Word segment for another piece. I will retain my criticism of the fact no MSNBC host (and production team) touched upon the record low claims for unemployment payments (last week).

Fox News covering such news is a stretch, in fact unfathomable, and CNN is too busy chasing "camera excitement" stories. MSNBC's edict to lean away from the Left, is a new and disappointing reality. The dropping unemployment rate is news conservative power brokers and conservative media for some reason finds less than stellar. Where is media that actually avoids the politics and backroom power brokering, and actually reports news. The Simpsons may be a popular show for some (I wouldn't know, I have never even viewed the show), but it pales in relevance to real news that affects the nation.

Let's close with a piece broadcast last night on the The Last Word, before the extended Simpson's segment, that truly provides a glow of life to a network that is being forced to lean away from progressive America.

In fairness, there isn't much cable news better than Lawrence O'Donnell's "ReWrites."  Unless you consider The Daily Show Cable News.

UPDATE: You may notice Johnny Depp's dog's illegally transported to Australia has garnered coverage on the Last Word (May 14) and again this afternoon.

Seriously MSNBC?

Sunday, February 1, 2015

US Media's Complicity In Growing US Devolution To The Right

Andrew Rei, Friend of the TPI, non-affiliated voter (NAV), avowed anti-Fascist and political screed developer has keyboarded a piece that nails the growing move of MSNBC away and other television media from entities that report news to facilitators of Right-ring dogma. Why MSNBC? Because over the past decade the network stood as the sole purveyor of progressive news and current events coverage. As the nation has moved through six years of the Obama Administration, even MSNBC has moved to a business model that in many ways supports American conservatism. 

NBC's President, Phil Griffin, believes MSNBC offers an effective business model. We understand Phil Griffin's affinity for network's model. He has carefully developed a broadcast model with his former exclusive morning conservative fare opposite his former evening progressive broadcasts. Chuck Todd's promotion to Meet The Press seriously dampened the morning segments conservative lean and the conservative leaning Hardball has worked to dampen the progressive lean of the networks evening programming. Griffin support of Todd for the Meet The Press host also signaled a concerted effort to move Right, and will prove to be a short-lived decision. 

In January of 2014, Griffin responded to questions regarding an MSNBC "ideology" from The Daily Beast's, Lloyd Grove.

An ideology is a single thought across all programs,” he said. “We’ve never had that.” However, Griffin asserted, MSNBC instead has “a progressive sensibility,” which he claimed is not the same as an ideology. “Obviously, I hire people who fit the sensibility” because “we do stay true to facts. You have to build your argument. That's why I call it a sensibility.”
He continued by saying:
If you’re a Democrat in trouble, we’re not a place where we’re going to rehabilitate you. You’re not going to get a free ride if you did wrong.

I think [the people at Fox News] do have an ideology because every Republican who’s in trouble goes on that network to be taken care of.

Nevertheless, Griffin praised his network's competition by stating that it's “owned by News Corp., which is Rupert Murdoch. Roger Ailes runs it, and he comes out of the Republican Party.”

“That’s fine,” he continued. “They’ve done an incredible job over there. They’ve been very successful. They drive a lot of the conversation.”
Read more 

In October 2014, Griffin sat for an interview with the with Bill Carter of the New York Times. He responded to continued MSNBC ratings slippage (both liberal and conservative shows) while speaking in oral anticipation of moving away from a sole "Washington beat" network.

Griffin has most assuredly injected measures to slow the ratings bleeding, but I question measures that appeal to conservative viewers. Many of the networks liberal shows have become entertainment critique show with solely focused on entertainment segments. From critiquing movies, to New England Patriots "deflatgate" (and opening segment for Chris Hayes a week ago) to Maddow's sometimes inordinately long lead-ins to segments, and the obvious strategy of the Hardball crew to move at attracting more right-wig viewers. Why else would Chris Matthews and his New Years holiday segments book Michael Steele, former RNC Chair, and GOP shill, as guest host?

Andrew Rei's piece far exceeds concern for a changing MSNBC. The piece also doesn't reach the depths of personal criticism I have of Chris Matthews. The Hardball host has successfully evolve to a schmooze master for the periphery of the US political Right and periphery conservatives who retain a vestige of sanity. Rei's piece very effectively captures the essence of the diminution of American media; its focus and intent. 

Andrew Rei.....

Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSM, listen up!

As those who've watched MSNBC know, Chris Matthews hosts a show on the channel called "Hardball", which is an offshoot to his book of the same name.

Conservatives consider Matthews and his show a part of the "Mainstream Media" (MSM)....

Last year, during the first Hardball where Matthews answered tweets live on the air, I tweeted a question and the producer included it at the end of the segment....

Matthews prefaced my question with this statement, "this question packs quite a punch". My question regarded as to why don't we simply call the Republicans Fascists, as they adhere to each and every one of the 14 defining characteristics (now 15 as I added one last September) of it. 

Matthews' answer was very "unHardball-like". He employed two things that the MSM and GOP Progressives/Moderates do constantly. First, he mentioned that we could call the Democrats "Socialists", which is version of "false equivalency". And, besides, even if the Demos were Socialists, since when did Fascism become a better governmental system than Socialism?!? If you ask any Socialist if the Demos are Socialists, they'll laugh in your face. Democrats actually believe in a governmental system known as a "Social Democracy", which is half-Socialism, half-democracy. It's the only governmental system that's ever worked in this country. 

Next, Matthews admitted that he thinks that some of the GOP's policies are "Authoritarian", an argument which is a version of cognitive dissonance. As we know, cognitive dissonance is a situation where, if one is faced with the truth and it conflicts with their view, the person either "digs in deeper" and denies the truth or simply "shuts down". Republican politicians are's a fact. Were it not for the GOP continuing to act like Fascists at every turn, I'd not be able to correctly call them Fascists. 

In another note I wrote called, "Why are we letting a loud, wrong and INSANE minority control politics?", I detail how the FRWNJ (Fascist Reich-Wing Nut Job) "media" (Fox "News", Limbaugh, Beck, Michael Savage, The Daily Caller, The Drudge Report, Breitbart, etc.) actually cater to a very small number of people, in comparison to the country's population. For instance, Rush Limbaugh makes the dubious claim that he has 15 million "distinct" listeners per week. If you ask me, it's the same 3 million listeners five days a week (hence, the 15 million figure). Fox "News" averages 2.5 million viewers during "prime time" hours (8-11pm Eastern). The FRWNJ "media" are simply propaganda arms of the Fascist Republicans, so don't expect them to tell you the truth, ever. And, thanks to Conservative icon/hero Ronald Reagan, they don't HAVE to tell the truth. In 1987, Reagan obliterated the "Fairness Doctrine" by executive order. It required that all media give "equal time" to both sides of an issue, which usually meant that the media would "officiate" the issues by reporting the truth. Now, not so much. The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine is the reason we have FRWNJ media now. 

So, let's take Limbaugh at his word and say, for the sake of argument, that he does have 15 million distinct listeners. About 315 million people live in this country. That means, for every listener Limbaugh SAYS he has, there are 20 people who don't listen to him, meaning that he caters to less than 5% of the population. If you knock that down to 3 million listeners, that's one person in 105 that listen to the man. So, how do the Fascist and psychopathic Conservatives control the media (despite their bogus claim that Liberals do)? 

That's where the MSM come in. I'm talking about ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. They usually do one of two things that helps out the Republican Party in amassing and keeping the power they have. The first is the aforementioned false equivalency, which is also the favorite argument of the political "Kissin' Cousins" of the GOP, the Libertarians (I call them, "Firebaggers"). "Both parties [GOP and Demo] are the same"...blah, blah, blah...this Non-Affiliated voter has already debunked that BS so many times that I've lost count. Even worse, however, is the other thing the MSM do, which is inherently more dangerous to us and a severe breach of responsibility of the media: they simply ignore the Fascism, corruption, greed, bigotry, hypocrisy, elitism, arrogance, incompetence, insanity and unintentional comedy of the GOP. 

Because the MS p;do this, many people are not aware of the sad truth of the Republican and Libertarian Parties. The MSM caters to a majority of the voters in this country. But, since they don't do what they're supposed to be doing, getting at and exposing the truth, many GOP Progressives and Moderates think there's nothing wrong with their party and happily vote for Republicans when they should vote for Democrats, because, the Democrats truly represent them now. 

My message to Matthews and the rest of the MSM: DO YOUR JOBS!  Stop suborning the evil and Fascist Republican Party! We don't expect the FRWNJ media to do anything except spread propaganda, Fascist Republican your jobs and tell the truth, FFS! :( ssmdh

Update: since writing and releasing the note above, several of my FB friends have mentioned something else that makes the situation worse: the corporate executives, most of whom are greedy, Fascist and psychopathic Conservatives, hold the "purse strings" of the mainstream media through advertising dollars. That's why this is a "vicious cycle" or "Catch-22". Remember, back in the middle 90's, when CBS/60 Minutes started investigating Big Tobacco and then quickly shut down the investigation after the first few news reports/60 minutes segments? That was because Big Tobacco used their wealth and influence to get the bigwigs at the Eye Network to shut it down. So, lest you think corporations helping the Cons control  the media is a recent development....

Listen up, people, especially if you're one of those Cons: one of the major problems Fascist regimes like the GOP have regards the population of the country they rule...they can't have TOO many people because larger populations are harder to "control". Remember that about 315 million people live in this country. If enough of them discover what I and others have and start doing something about it, you Cons are going to be in trouble. Allow me to, again, point something out: before the French Revolution in the late 18th century (1789-1790, believe), the French monarchy and elites did EXACTLY what you're doing now: upwardly redistributing wealth and power....when those elite/monarchy types had upwardly redistributed nearly all of the wealth and power, the peasants/middle class were left with just one thing: REVOLUTION. 

Before you Cons get your panties in a bunch, I am NOT, repeat, NOT advocating for a violent revolution...far from it. What I am advocating is an "Icelandic" style revolution...about four years ago, the "monied interests" and corrupt politicians in Iceland were doing what you're doing now. There was a revolution whereby the wealthy and their political stooges were arrested and tried for crimes against the citizens of the country. The Icelandic Constitution was changed to bar the monied interests from ever having that much political power and barred politicians from taking campaign donations from said greedy and Fascist bastards. To date, everyone one of those who were arrested and have been found guilty and have begun serving very long prison sentences. it is that kind of revolution for which I'm advocating...there are already laws on the books to do the exact same thing to you greedy and Fascist bastards, but the USAG and Justice Department have no interest in holding you accountable for it. 

I'm afraid, however, that, if a revolution does occur, it's not going to be one that's similar to the one in Iceland...I will continue to advocate for the Icelandic-style revolt, but my suspicion is that I'll be in the minority of opinion and you'll be subject to something similar to what happened in France. So, you might want to start treading a lot more lightly. After all, wasn't the old saying, "keeping your head while others are losing theirs" begun during the French Revolution???!???  

Americans get the preponderance of their news via television.


Poll Position (2012)

Your source for political news?

There is good news for television, not so much for newspapers and a rising trend for the internet when it comes to where Americans get their political news. In a Poll Position national scientific telephone survey we asked where you get most of your political news, the internet, newspapers, television or somewhere else? Here are the results:
Television was the number one choice in all categories except one. The Internet was the choice for Americans in the 30-44 year old age group with 35% choosing the internet, 32% said television was their source for most political news, 18% said somewhere else and 14% picked newspapers. 
Poll Position’s scientific telephone survey of 1,113 registered voters nationwide was conducted January 24, 2012 and has a margin of error of ±3%. Poll results are weighted to be a representative sampling of all American adults.
Read more (linked above)

When television networks (national and cable) devolve to streaming media for US conservatism, the nation follows, is it any wonder the US has moved well right of center socially and politically?

Have you noticed internet based websites are the only media that reports on dark money contributions to US politicians (e.g. Open Secrets, GOV Track)? MSNBC, may on occasion foray into money driven politics, but even NBC's quasi progressive business unit avoids deep exploration of the US politics. Our legislators and legislatures state and federal are magnets for the nation's powerful and greedy. How would the networks report honestly? The networks are singularly focused on revenue garnering ratings based on viewers moved to the right by its own managers, producers, writers and hosts.

Some would refer to the symbiotic relationship as a "cluster ...." I will leave the state of US media as Andrew Rei's colloquial and effective screed: callous to the point of deleterious. 

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Abby Huntsman! MSNBC! What Are You Doing?

Today, The Cycle's Abby Huntsman showed her pathetic ignorance about the TRUTH about entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. This note clears up that confusion...

I've been writing and saying for a long time that Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with the deficit and debt. However, that's not completely true. It's half-true and I'm explaining why right now.

Over the past 2.5 years, I've written several posts and comments regarding the Fascist GOP talking point/propaganda about SS and Medicare adding to the deficit. Even Ronald Reagan famously said that they don't have anything to do with the deficit and debt. But, then, he went out and did something that did make them a part of the deficit and debt: he "borrowed" $500 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, from which SS and Medicare benefits are paid, to finance his deficit-spending. Reagan was the first of four US Presidents in a row that "raided" the SSTF to pay for deficit-spending. Sadly, President Clinton did, as well, but, he remains the only President to "pay it back" by raising the SS income tax "cap".

The biggest offender in raiding the fund was Bush 43. In early 2003, with one war and one coming plus tax breaks already in effect, Bush 43 and his party knew that they had to be financed somehow. At that time, there was more than $6 trillion in the SSTF. So, Bush 43 and his party raided the SSTF for $2.75 TRILLION to finance all of that deficit spending. In order to avoid being charged with grand larceny, Bush 43 and his Fascist acolytes left "Treasury Bonds" as "I.O.U.'s". To this day, those bonds are still drawing interest, which means that the SSTF is owed more than $3 TRILLION. It is that interest that's adding to the deficit.

But, here's how the statement at the top is half-true: we are not borrowing money to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. That's a pathetic Fascist GOP talking point and the GOP use it to justify their secret plan to abolish both programs, thereby leaving the money left over in the SSTF to be redistributed upwards to the wealthy and big corporate masters of the GOP in tax breaks.

So, yes, the SSTF is a CREDITOR of our national debt. But, there's something you must realize: only about 15% of the current $17 trillion debt is owned by "foreign interests", like China and foreign citizens, etc. Just 15%...the rest is "internal", owned by other governmental agencies who had their funds raided and American citizens. But, what do the Fascist GOP propagandists say, "we're borrowing money from China to pay our bills". That may be true for other programs, but, as for Medicare and Social Security, they are not being financed by debt. The SSTF is a CREDITOR and still has enough money in it to pay full benefits through 2037 and 75% afterwards.


I have to say, once again, how disappointed I am with Abby Huntsman... when GOP Con woman S.E. Cupp left MSNBC for CNN's Crossfire reboot, it was my hope that Abby would bring a Progressive or Moderate GOP voice to The Cycle. But, instead of showing us that she's actually informed about the truth of political matters, all we get from her is a parroting of Fascist GOP propaganda, talking points and BS. 


The Pardu
On March 15th, 2014, I published a piece with a focus on the Huntsman as a 27 year old daughter of a millionaire who was born to a billionaire and her comments of Food Stamp recipients.

I stand with Andrew Rei's comments about MSNBC management's decision to replace the "Unbrained" S.E. CUPP. Yet, the need to follow The Cycle business model with a woman conservative millennial (who happens to be perceived by some as "cute") seems to pose MSNBC management a staffing challenge.

Ultimately and existentially, Andrew Rei and I are wasting our critique. If MSNBC continues to staff the Cycle based on its current business model, management will not find any young (supposedly cute) conservative who will posit any differently than Cupp and Huntsman. They are of a paradigm mindset along this line: "We are concerned with what we give you." 

It doesn't matter that young Huntsman and young Cupp are of "ample" financial background. Huntsman is probably set for instant wealth upon the passing of certain family patriarchs. For anyone to believe any young conservative will offer intellectually based point-count-point is naive at best. Therefore, it seems we will continue to see The Cycle littered with mindless insensitive  conservative opine from a young (supposedly cute) millennial. 

To expect more from conservative America and young (supposedly cute) conservatives is simply "A Bridge Too Far."  MSNBC's continues to employee young women who are pure nefelibata without the remote prospect of reaching a viable path across that bridge (too far).

Monday, August 19, 2013

TVNEWSER Is Reporting MSNBC's Ed Schultz To Move Back To Weekdays!

When Ed Schultz announced a move form the prime-time weekday slot to a weekend slot, my heart dropped and my mind resigned to less Liberal "Umph" from MSNBC . After a few months, my cognitive reticence was completely validated and MSNBC's ratings slipped to below the charging (and increasingly conservative) CNN. 

Apparently, my consternation was felt by  many who appreciated Schultz's "umph"  and "hard charging"  commitment to liberalism. While the vast majority of MSNBC host provide the friendly aura of progressive liberalism, some excel while others thread cautiously.  We appreciate the deep analysis of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, we appreciate the news deliver (with commentary) of Tamron Hall and Thomas Roberts, Martin Bashir and Chris Matthews provide fire where fire is due, but few match the zeal and "umph of Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz.  The Cycle? Well, we will leave that one for now. Of course  we cannot pass opportunity to congratulate MSNBC management for ridding us of the inimitable SE CUPP.  CNN deserves her lame and very non-cerebral conservative analysis. Or wish list: a show for Joy Ann Reid and a show for Ari Melber. 

Yes, few can call-em-out like Ed Schultz.  Replacing the dual Hardball's with Schultz at 5;00PM is a great move.  we can only hope that Schultz agrees to an eventual move back to prime-time viewing with the at times over analytical Chris Hayes moved to 5:00PM.  Our affinity for Chris Hayes is strong and consistent, but I must admit to getting lost in his opine and analysis from time to time. 

Kudos to MSNBC management for the Schltz move.

Herewith is the full statement from NBCs Phil Griffin...

I wanted to share some exciting news with you. 
Starting Monday, August 26, “The Ed Show” is moving back to weeknights, now at 5 p.m. ET. “Hardball with Chris Matthews” will move to one, strong run at 7 p.m. ET. 
Chris and the “Hardball” team have been the cornerstone of our evening lineup, pulling double duty for us at both 5p and 7p for years. This move will help us enhance the flow of our weeknight programming and concentrate Chris’ audience to one key time period. And this allows us to bring Ed’s powerful voice back to the Monday-Friday schedule. Ed connects with our viewers and I’m happy to have him back five nights a week. I’ve been thinking about making this change for quite a while and I know now is the right time with the right shows. 
The full press release is below. My thanks to Chris, Ed, John Reiss, James Holm and the “Hardball” and “The Ed Show” teams.forward to this fall.