MSNBC Almost Brought Back Olbermann to Replace Maddow

[demmiblue]

This exclusive reporting appears as one of several scoops featured in this week’s edition of Source Material, the media newsletter that pulls back the curtain to reveal what’s really going on inside the world’s most powerful navel-gazing industry. Subscribe here and send your questions, tips, and complaints here.

—

To fill its upcoming Rachel Maddow void, MSNBC almost took a time machine back to the good old days of 2011.

Keith Olbermann, who shaped the network’s liberal voice before being canned more than a decade ago, was in lengthy discussions with NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell and news boss Cesar Conde to return to MSNBC and take over the key 9 p.m. time slot, the former Countdown host told Source Material.

But any dream of an Olbermann reunion was squashed when Maddow—who recently signed a massive $30 million deal to work less and transition out of her nightly broadcast—stepped in to personally veto him as her successor.

“I offered to have her production company ‘produce’ the show. Would give her some proxy control and a fuckton of money but she and [former MSNBC chief-turned-consultant to Maddow’s production company] Phil Griffin refused,” Olbermann told Source Material, claiming that the network also offered him a show in 2016.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/msnbc-almost-brought-back-keith-olbermann-to-replace-rachel-maddow

[FreepFryer]

1. Good move, Rachel. We so don't need that kind of baggage. Let Olbermann be olbermann...

...far away.

[Demsrule86]

62. No, I love Olberman and he gave Rachel her start...we could expect the truth from him and

she is stepping away. I will never watch anything she does again. Not ever.

[FreepFryer]

63. Enjoy. (Nt)

[PatSeg]

74. I've hardly watched her this past year anyway

For me, she was getting harder and harder to watch with the constant repetition and long drawn out stories. I started using the fast-forward button a lot, then decided it just wasn't worth it. I wasn't unhappy when I heard she wouldn't be doing her 9:00 pm show every night. I loved her in her early years, but more recently, it became a chore to watch her show.

Olbermann breathed new life into MSNBC and was responsible for a lot of its success over the years. He also helped launch both Maddow and Haye's careers. I would go out of my way to watch him on television again.

[Samrob]

69. MSNBC does not deserve Keith Olbermann. He's better than that. IMHO. nt

[Rebl2]

2. I wish

she had stayed where she was or just left completely.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. I'm not unhappy

Olbermann 2011 is not Olbermann 2022. He would be compared to his old self and he's changed.

2016? He would have sparked the case against TDFG. His "Closer" Youtube series was wasted space. It would have been tamed and more relevant with a TV show and a producer.

As for Rachel's veto - who knows. Keith is more edgy with less background research in my opinion. Or he could be seen as a bit more ideological. But I'm glad it's not happening.

[Hortensis]

94. Umhm. Griffin didn't want him and he'd have been wrong for Rachel's audience.

I'm willing to believe MSNBC at least considered going an "Olbermann" direction with a major shakeup of the evening lineup. Before passing.

Imo, never was going to happen. For the kind of things you refer to.

[targetpractice]

4. I vote Alex Wagner n/t

[Bev54]

26. I agree, seems nice enough but boring. I would love to see Jen Psaki take over.

I cannot think of anyone else who could do it and keep the viewers.

[targetpractice]

35. Alex has a Nicole Wallace vibe...

She's quick, funny, and can can interview extemporaneously.

Rachel's schtick is to pontificate on a subject at length, introduce the guest, and ask "Tell me what I got wrong."... She talks for 2/3rds of the interview. She didn't always do it that way, but the last few years she's just been phoning it in.

[onetexan]

54. Beg to differ. Maddow is way better than Dubya-defending Wallace

[PatSeg]

83. Yes, you described it perfectly

What was refreshing in the beginning, just started to sound canned and perfunctory. Then 99% of the time the guest would say, "Oh no, you got it perfectly". The few times a guest would correct her, it seemed to throw her off. It all started to feel like a routine after awhile, little came across as genuine.

[MoonlitKnight]

44. Agree

She is great- seems to work well with the staff and format.

[JoanofArgh]

77. Alex Wagner is a cure for insomnia. Whoever they pick should be riveting and

able to hold people's attention.

[Hortensis]

97. :) Whatever Rachel has she has in spades. Most of those who subbed

for her couldn't match it, and it was actually common for them to open by regretting Rachel's absense with them and promising she'd be back soon. Of course, she built trust over time.

[AZProgressive]

5. That is too bad

I’d watch MSNBC if Olbermann was hosting.

[Bev54]

28. I don't think he fits in that time slot for Rachel but I could listen to him in

a different time slot. I thought the 11th hour would have been good for him.

[JoanofArgh]

81. Agree.

[Hortensis]

101. I could see 11th Hour.

[JPK]

116. My exact thought

Steph is just not right for the slot. She was great at 9am.

[Hortensis]

120. I could see it for him. Could be she was thought better for

Brian Williams' audience that comes with the slot, that she'd hold onto more of them and draw others with her economics news/explanation orientation that no one else offers. Agree she was great at 9 a.m.

Of course focus on (seriously needed) education about the real down-to-earth reasons economic events are playing out as they are is very different from ideological criticism of existing economic systems and their inequities.

It'd be strange if that wasn't a factor. MSNBC-NBCUniversal much prefers to feed its audiences' liberal appetites with socially liberal issues, such things as race and gender, while avoiding attention to economically liberal issues.

[Buckeyeblue]

6. What about someone a lot younger?

I know what KO thinks about most things. Yes, he is sarcastic and witty but I would like to see someone in their late 20/30's bring that view point.

[JI7]

11. Alex Wagner

[targetpractice]

33. Love Rachel, but she is sonic ambien...

I listen to the show by podcast in bed, and I'm asleep in 10 minutes. She stretches 15 minutes of material in to a full hour by repeating herself over and over and over. I hope the new host (whoever they are) will not follow the same format.

[USALiberal]

46. Lol, I guess you really don't know how popular her show is! Nt

[targetpractice]

61. Of course I do...

I've watched her since her first show. But, she is irreplaceable. Nobody can duplicate her secret sauce. I just think trying to do so, would not work.

[PatSeg]

84. Yes, over and over and over again

Sometimes I'd fast-forward and she was saying the same thing again! She wasn't always like that. At one time, I really loved her show, but the past two or three years, it became harder and harder to watch.

[USALiberal]

98. Apparently fine for everyone else because of her ratings!!

[PatSeg]

105. Yes, she has great ratings,

but I know I am not the only once loyal viewer who grew tired of her show. I have encountered quite a few right here at DU who quit watching her show for the same reasons I did. What was once refreshing and cutting edge became tedious and redundant for a fair number of viewers.

[Cheezoholic]

16. Michael Che

Hey, he's experienced and in house. Im serious

[MOMFUDSKI]

24. Someone in their 20s/30s hasn't

built up a big enough head of steam or had long enough to be SO PISSED OFF to do any justice to today's politics.

[Sparkly]

50. If we're doing demographics, I'd like to see a feisty old woman.

One who's lived through what we talk about, and now lives through what we haven't even started talking about!

[Hortensis]

102. Wow, yes. As you say. Like no one we've ever had, but should.

[Paladin]

8. Let Olbermann replace either Ari Melber or Chuck Todd.

Keep Rachel where she is.

[JI7]

13. Rachel doesn't want to do daily show.

[Volaris]

40. They SHOULD put her on MtP and fire useless chuck todd.

[PatSeg]

85. It is Rachel who doesn't want to stay where she is

[MOMFUDSKI]

9. I would have welcomed Keith back

as I really enjoyed his ranting. Rachel shouldn't have that much power now that she is pretty much off the air. Would be nice for MSNBC to decide exactly who they are these days. I find myself turning it off more than I ever have.

[PatSeg]

86. Same here

I was watching Brian Williams nightly and hoping he would get an earlier time slot, but once he left, I didn't watch anything on MSNBC regularly. I do enjoy Chris Hayes, but I don't watch him every night.

[Tetrachloride]

10. I would watch Keith . He's a lot more concise. Why not both ?

Keith paved the way for a great many of the current generation.

[rickford66]

12. Keith had Rachel on his show and gave her lots of exposure early on.

That's where most of us first saw her.

[madinmaryland]

15. She was on Air America around 2005 when I first heard of her and made a point

Of listening to her in the morning. Very informative!

[MOMFUDSKI]

20. Keith went out of his way to expose Rachel

which led to her getting her own show. Some pay back. I think a lot less of her now.

[Raine]

29. I guess "no good deed goes unpunished."🙄 nt

[PatSeg]

87. He did the same thing for Chris Hayes

Both Hayes and Maddow often filled in for Olbermann when he wasn't there and they gained valuable exposure and experience. In the beginning, Maddow's show was like a breath of fresh air, but the past few years, it has become increasingly hard to watch, at least for me. I finally quit.

[Demsrule86]

64. I find her behavior disgraceful...there is no one like Keith. Maybe she worried he would steal

her thunder by getting higher ratings which likely would have happened. I have often opined. that I admire loyalty...Olberman gave her the job she has now basically...done with her.

[Hortensis]

70. Including her. What they offer is very different. Even if loyalty were owed

(assuming she'd not been a good friend over the years, a questionable assumption), would she owe more loyalty to him than she owed to the audience who'd been loyal to her and made her show tops over all those years?

[Cheezoholic]

14. Put KO in the 11th hour slot

Similar wit as Brian and late enough not ruffle the feathers of more sensitive liberals

[MOMFUDSKI]

22. That is why MSNBC must decide

who they are these crazy days. If you want to play it safe then people like me, a raving liberal lunatic, will just tune out. If I want calm I will read poetry. The Tampa Bay Bucs had coach Tony Dungy years back who was B O R I N G. I would tell my husband "Give me a Ditka". And then Chucky showed up. Wild man on the sidelines and I loved it. Plus Keith is quick and smart and funny as hell. What a shame.

[PatSeg]

89. Also Olbermann is a professional

broadcaster. His delivery is almost always flawless and he never misses a beat. The same with Brian Williams. Their years of experience really shows on air. They know how to interview people and really appear engaged, never cutting off the guest.

[PatSeg]

103. I love Al Franken as a comedian, a writer, and a senator,

but I never cared much for his radio show years ago. At the time, it was the only liberal station available, but his style didn't translate well to radio. He might be better on television though. I wonder if he is interested in a television career.

[meadowlander]

113. That would be great

but it seems like trend for wealthier, well-established people to prefer a one-show a week format to nightly (e.g. Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Sam Bee, and Rachel herself).

I can't see Al Franken at 70 deciding that a nightly news broadcast is what he wants to be doing with his retirement.

They need young blood.

[JPK]

117. YES!!! nt

[empedocles]

17. Wonder if Rachel's shift in her own plans from leaving her show; were influenced

by Olbermans' possible 'shadow' rumors, etc., ?

[Torchlight]

18. I'd get cable or streaming or whatever the Newest & Shiniest Media is these days just for his show.

He's a one-in-a-million orator, weaving words the way Gershwin wove notes. He comes across as really damned smart to me, and he knows his subjects well.



(just in case any for-profit media suit is reading...)

[MOMFUDSKI]

21. I am right there

with you Torch.

[MyOwnPeace]

32. GREAT way to describe his work......

'weaving words' - and knowing exactly what he means!

I LIKE the idea of him at the 11PM spot replacing Brian.....

[ecstatic]

43. That's a good idea. nt

[PatSeg]

91. Yes, you said it so well

He is really good at what he does and his way with words is amazing. I love listening to him talk, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. He has a rare talent.

[dsp3000]

19. Can someone educate me on their beef? I liked Olbermann alot back in the day

[meadowlander]

57. I liked some of his early anti-Bush rants

but then I tuned in a few years later and he was still doing rants at the same pitch and volume against much less serious issues and it dawned on me that's he a bit of a rage-aholic who rants for ratings whether the subject really deserves it or not.

In the Trump age, it would have been fine, but now he'd be scraping for material by complaining about Biden leaving Afghanistan and not intervening in Ukraine.

Apparently, he has a huge ego and is a pain in the ass to work with too which is why he's been fired from multiple jobs

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0404/Keith-Olbermann-the-cautionary-tale-of-why-he-was-fired-again

Lawrence O'Donnell is already the network-friendlier version of Keith Olbermann. I watch him sometimes when I'm in the mood for naked partisanship. When I'm in mood for facts, I watch Rachel.

I think Olbermann and O'Donnell back to back are too much of the same thing - commentary, not news.

[Hortensis]

71. THIS. Olbermann does a lot of rant-style opinion, Rachel fact- and context-based

informative segments about topics.

I wasn't thinking of O'Donnell, but yes, they'd make a poor coupling. I value O'Donnell for his understanding of congress and there's no other show that offers his insights into what's happening there.

[meadowlander]

112. I like O'Donnell too

but I usually only watch him on big news nights because of limited time. I really like the dynamic he has with Rachel where she covers the headlines, deep dive into the context on the issue of the day, and the night's big interview and then hands off to Lawrence to body slam whoever deserves it that night often building on clips from her interview. Then Lawrence picks up the next tier of stories that should get attention but are at risk of being buried by the big news of the day. Sometimes it feels like one two hour show.

I don't see that happening with Olbermann.

I'd give Chris Hayes Rachel's slot and let him grow into it and give Chris's slot to an up and comer.

[Hekate]

23. Interesting. I was a fan of his during BushCheney, but after he left I did some reading ....

… about the overall trajectory of his career. He apparently has an unfortunate habit of torching all his bridges. Makes it hard to welcome him back.

As for Rachel, I already miss her badly, and she is going to be dreadfully hard to replace as an anchor. The assault on Ukraine is ripping my heart out, but it is not the only thing going on. The far right wing of America is conducting an all-out assault in legislatures across the nation on everyone who is not a straight white Evangelical male — and somehow I think Rachel would have been finding space in her nightly hour to keep us up to speed on that.

[relayerbob]

25. He irritates me, so no loss IMO

I can understand why she wouldn't want to be involved

[Baked Potato]

27. Olbermann was a good, loud voice for Democrats during Dubya's reign. Nt

[Me.]

37. Cold

considering he was/is responsible for her being hired at MSNBC in the first . But Griffin always hated KO. Personally I'd take him over other current hosts hands down/

[DURHAM D]

38. No thanks re: Olbermann.

He is a sexist jerk.

Alex is the right choice.

[Hugin]

56. They lost me at either-or.

When right-wing (and as it turns out Putinlings) fail their way into cable on a daily basis.

[Demsrule86]

65. No he was not sexist and he gave Rachel her chance...he is 1000 times better than she is...he

opened free clinics for the uninsured while he was on the air...I am sorry but I will never watch her again.

[USALiberal]

99. Lol, link to your proof!!!!

[DURHAM D]

106. lol -

You want a link to my head watching him on MSNBC when he repeatedly trashed Hillary and other women.

poor thing

[USALiberal]

110. Ok, nothing then, thanks!

[DURHAM D]

111. You don't know from nothin'.

Were you watching Fox in 2008?

[UTUSN]

39. NOooo he doesn't help. Neither does Chris HAYES.

Too predictably, kneejerk ideological.
We stand for OPENness (of mind).

[Hortensis]

76. Agree more open-minded truth needed. Kneejerk tribalism kills brain cells.

[iemanja]

115. Plus he bugs the hell out of me.

[lindysalsagal]

41. I enjoyed KO during bush2.0, but he's no Rachel.

I doubt anyone could be half as good as Rachel.

[Demsrule86]

66. I have to say. I stopped watching Rachel a while back... I find her show boring personally. I like

Olberman better, but she is leaving anyway so who cares...why would she veto the guy that helped her get her start?

[ecstatic]

42. Yikes, but it wasn't a good fit.

Their styles are way too different. Honestly, I don't know of anyone who can pull off what Rachel has while still being entertaining enough to watch.

[question everything]

45. It was Olbermann who first brought Maddow as a guest of his show

but, who needs to be grateful when you are getting $30 million?

We often here talk about CEOs who take home multi million compensations but at least they produce something.

Why does one person need so much money?

Does not matter. I never watch her. Last time I did, some years ago in Los Angeles time, she would say two sentences and break into a commercial. So no loss

[Raine]

55. Totally agree. nt

[PatSeg]

90. Then she went in the opposite direction

She'd repeat the same two or three sentences over and over again for 25 minutes until I'd start to long for a commercial break. She had more time in one segment, but she wasn't actually filling it with more, she was recycling five minutes of material ad nauseam, for almost half an hour.

[BlueIdaho]

51. It's obvious it's a NO on Olbermann

The real question is - who else are they in discussions with?

[BlueIdaho]

73. Not at NBC HQ

And that is the only place that matters.

[BlueIdaho]

78. Ahhhhh...

Not had my coffee yet this am. Thanks for the help.

[BlueIdaho]

82. I'd love to see that!

Don’t know he’d want the pressure of a daily show - but as a big fan I’d love it!

[budkin]

53. Keith literally made Maddow

This makes me unhappy.

[pressbox69]

58. How about a show

With KO and RM co hosting....okay, okay, I kid.

[Emile]

60. Sounds like she was threatened to have Keith presence on MSNBC in her time slot.

[Demsrule86]

67. She knows, he would get better ratings...loss of power for her I expect.

[JPK]

118. Professional jealousy?

Maybe she has gotten an ego as big as his. Love to see him back at maybe 11th Hour.

[Demsrule86]

68. I just 'unfollowed' Rachel/MSNBC. Trashed the podcast too...I am done. I have been unhappy with

MSNBC for quite a while and rarely watched...the only one I like is Lawrence O'Donnell.

[USALiberal]

100. I'll alert the media!!! Nt

[JoanofArgh]

72. It was a bad idea for MSNBC

to have Maddow involved in picking her successor. She might not pick anybody who she thinks will outshine her legacy. We'll end up with Alex Wagner who'll put everybody to sleep within 10 minutes.

[Hortensis]

88. Remember, Maddow's runaway success also helped Olbermann's show.

She doubled her segment's audience almost immediately and drew a lot of new viewers to MSNBC. It was a very good placement that benefited the entire evening lineup, including his.

Olbermann does mostly opinion, discussion and ranting versions, and that's just not the right replacement for the audience who've tuned in to The Maddow Show all these years. Rachel provides informative context for understanding events. Olbermann provides reaction. I'm 100% sure she was thinking of what she owes her audience and that she believes in what she does.

I like Olbermann and watched his show before he oriented so heavily to opinionated reaction. Which is how I can just imagine what would happen if he asked the same kind of guests if his lead-ins were 100% accurate and if anything needed to be corrected.

[Sgent]

92. Unleash

Don Lenon on that timeslot if you want someone who is known. Or maybe go out of the box and go for Samantha Bee.

[themaguffin]

93. Keith was great, especially early on, BUT

there two issues that are problematic with him...

one is departure and reputation at networks... We have to be honest, he clearly has issues working with others and always has going back to his first tenure at ESPN.

Two, as terrible as the GOP is and many issues are, his constant elevated state makes everything noise and substance gets lost in that.

[Happy Hoosier]

104. Id enjoy that, But KO is a bit of a loose cannon.

Not sure he would last terribly long. The dude is passionate and does not play office politics particularly well.

[Tree Lady]

107. I agree

My first thought was why would she do that as he got her the job and helped her, but second thought was what you said.

She probably is thinking if he blew up again it would affect her reputation.

It got leaked because he was hurt and angry I bet.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

119. The fact that he went to the press to whine about it says a lot about him

[AngryOldDem]

109. It's why he keeps getting canned.

See ESPN.

[AngryOldDem]

108. Good on Rachel.

I like Keith well enough, but replacing her with him would have been taking a zillion giant steps backward. She’s set the bar so high that he and his bombast could never reach it.

Glad she couldn’t be bought. That’s ethics and integrity.