• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

MSNBC CUTS TIES WITH PAT BUCHANAN

gregg75

gregg75

From the article linked at that Deadline website ...

In January MSNBC president Phil Griffin said the ideas expressed in Buchanan’s book put forth “aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” Buchanan wrote today in an essay on the website for The American Conservative magazine, which he co-founded: “In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract. Yet my four months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.”

"Aren't really appropriate for national dialogue"? An author questions the future of his country and his ideas "aren't really appropriate for national dialogue"? That's pretty gutsy for MSNBC's head honcho.

Then again, for a network that preaches progressivism, perhaps that's not a surprise.

I suspect Buchanan still will be seen and heard in all sorts of venues, including his syndicated column and his appearances on such programs as "The McLaughlin Group." It will be more of a loss to MSNBC than to Buchanan.
 
Of course, looking at the bigger picture, MSNBC also fired Keith Olbermann. So, it appears that they fired an extreme left-wing commentator and an extreme right-wing commentator. Seems even handed to me, if you actually take time to EXAMINE what has actually happened -- rather than simply reacting to one decision in isolation.
 
formeraa said:
Of course, looking at the bigger picture, MSNBC also fired Keith Olbermann. So, it appears that they fired an extreme left-wing commentator and an extreme right-wing commentator. Seems even handed to me, if you actually take time to EXAMINE what has actually happened -- rather than simply reacting to one decision in isolation.
Click to expand...

Different beasts: internal strife versus very white supremacist, out-of-date views.
 
Sounds to me like after they read his NEW book, they realized just what a nut case he was. :D
.........and that he was more of a liability than an asset.
 
gregg75 said:
Sounds to me like after they read his NEW book, they realized just what a nut case he was. :D
.........and that he was more of a liability than an asset.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm going to do this (I'm a moderate Democrat), but I'm going to defend Pat Buchanan. Yes - he's extreme, but he's highly intelligent and interesting. Even Fox News has some liberal pundits on from time to time, so I think MSNBC should make sure to keep some prominent conservative pundits on the payroll.

Besides, Buchanan is no more to the right than some other pundits. For example, Liz Trotta on Fox News (formerly of CBS) has weighed in on women in the military by basically stating that these women are in a man's world, and they have to expect to be sexually assaulted. During the 2008 campaign, she accidentally referred to "Osama" instead of "Obama." When corrected, she joked that it would be good to assassinate both of them.

Then there's Ann Coulter...
 
formeraa said:
Of course, looking at the bigger picture, MSNBC also fired Keith Olbermann. So, it appears that they fired an extreme left-wing commentator and an extreme right-wing commentator. Seems even handed to me, if you actually take time to EXAMINE what has actually happened -- rather than simply reacting to one decision in isolation.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that Olbermann had some problems with MSNBC management. His expulsion from MSNBC also was gutsy in a different way, as it took away both a lightning rod and what may have been that network's best-known personality.

You may call the network's action even-handed. I find it a case of apples and oranges. Two different circumstances.

As an aside, Olbermann and Current may or may not have been a marriage made in heaven, as few watched that channel beforehand and few do now. Is the jury still out on that?
 
KeyTimes950 said:
From the article linked at that Deadline website ...

In January MSNBC president Phil Griffin said the ideas expressed in Buchanan’s book put forth “aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” Buchanan wrote today in an essay on the website for The American Conservative magazine, which he co-founded: “In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract. Yet my four months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.”

"Aren't really appropriate for national dialogue"? An author questions the future of his country and his ideas "aren't really appropriate for national dialogue"? That's pretty gutsy for MSNBC's head honcho.

Then again, for a network that preaches progressivism, perhaps that's not a surprise.

I suspect Buchanan still will be seen and heard in all sorts of venues, including his syndicated column and his appearances on such programs as "The McLaughlin Group." It will be more of a loss to MSNBC than to Buchanan.
Click to expand...

Laugh-a-bull.

If you could be nudged into browsing the Media Matters site (for whatever price), you would find a laundry list instances where that group chides Pat Buchanan for something questionable--something misleading or false, racist or racially biased, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. To whatever extent MSNBC caters explicitly to left-of-center viewers, those viewers have been most confused by Buchanan's continued employment. Phil Griffin and other MSNBC heads before him have definitely heard complaints about 'Uncle Pat's' on-air contributions, and didn't respond with a suspension or firing then.

Let's call this for what it probably is: A contract that isn't being renewed.
 
Translation: His views are making him a hard sell to advertisers.

The thing that amazes me is we used to have a thing, in my day called tact.

When your in a position like Pat or Keith, to reach MILLIONS and influence them, you should use TACT.

You can put the same exact views forth, and use tact and ease them into the general population. And you'll actually carry others to your side.

Both Pat and Keith are egomaniacs. In all honesty, they care little about the views they hold and care greatly about their own self importance.
 
Mark said:
Translation: His views are making him a hard sell to advertisers.

The thing that amazes me is we used to have a thing, in my day called tact.

When your in a position like Pat or Keith, to reach MILLIONS and influence them, you should use TACT.

You can put the same exact views forth, and use tact and ease them into the general population. And you'll actually carry others to your side.

Both Pat and Keith are egomaniacs. In all honesty, they care little about the views they hold and care greatly about their own self importance.
Click to expand...

Very good analysis! Tact is sorely lacking these days.
 
I am surprised that Buchanan wasn't hired by the FOX network. Perhaps now he will be.

Personally I think there are more than enough "talking heads" on TV to begin with.
 
Silkie said:
When did MSNBC ever reach millions?
Click to expand...

According to tvbythenumbers.com, MSNBC reaches millions EVERY WEEKDAY! From "Morning Joe" until the first run of "Hardball" the network garners hundreds of thousands cumulatively; then the first and second run of "Hardball
have a cume of 1.5 million or so viewers. Ed and Rachel reach 1 million plus respectively undoubtedly with some spillover. (I watch Keith at 8:00 then Rachel at nine. I record the 1:00 am showing of Lawrence O'Donnell which I then watch the next morning.) The later reshowings of Ed, Rachel and Lawrence are closer to normal viewing times in the Mountain West and Pacific coast, but I don't see those numbers on tvbythenumbers.com. Two million would be millions plural, but the complete cume would be much higher. You're really running up against the total number of high-IQ viewers at that point, so MSNBC can't go much above that. Fox doesn't have that problem.
 
I checked the McLaughlin Group on PBS in Boston Friday night, and the identifier under Pat at the beginning of the show now says "Author, columnist"; it used to read "MSNBC".
 
even most of us on the right will admit that Pat's little choo-choo went around the bend
years ago.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
even most of us on the right will admit that Pat's little choo-choo went around the bend years ago.
Click to expand...

If you recall his mid-1970s column in TV Guide, after he left the Nixon administration, he was "out there" even in those days.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom