Why I Find Big Ed's Demotion To Weekends Troubling

[stopbush]

At 59 years of age, Ed Schultz is about 9 months older than me.

I have been unemployed now for over two years. I have had numerous interviews for positions that I am well-qualified and over-qualified for. I have been through the process of doing 4 - 5 interviews for a job, including having lunch with the higher-ups later in that process as they're looking to close on their new hire. I am talking about jobs in my field and in my discipline that I have held over the past decade-plus, jobs where my record of success is sterling, and where I have not only been well-compensated in base pay but have earned bonus pay strictly on meeting or exceeding set performance targets.

And, I am not being hired.

Who is being hired? 30-somethings and occasionally, 40-somethings.

58-somethings? Not so much. 58-somethings with not much hair left, even more not so much.

Often, the interviewing process involves me meeting with the existing staff to see how I would "fit in." To a company, the only employees I meet who are over 50 are the ones who have been with the company for decades. All of the hires made in the past 5 years or so are 30 somethings. And I should mention that many of these jobs I'm talking about are in fund raising, where your job is to approach well-off senior citizens/retirees and ask them for sizable donations. One would think that maybe a person closer to the age of the donors being approached would be a better fit for the job. Apparently not.

So, I'm looking at MSNBCs line up and evolving line up of on-air host talent, and what do I see? I see a major shift to the young and - by definition - less-experienced. I see a bunch of kids being brought in at high TV salaries who haven't done much of anything in the way of paying their dues or working their way up the journalism ladder. Hell, most of them aren't even journalists in any sense of the word, including not even spending any time as "newsreaders."

Ed Schultz is a guy who spent a lot of years in the weeds, building an audience and building his brand. He worked out in Fargo and other places that most of us know only because Steve Buscemi filmed a movie there. He started in radio in 1992 as a conservative commentator. Ed's journey to liberalism began in 1998, when he visited a Salvation Army cafeteria and took his radio show on the roads of N.Dakota, gaining what he called "the on-the-job experience that...changed my thinking as to where we're going as a country."

When he arrived at MSNBC in 2009, I knew who he was. I knew he was a former Republican who turned into an extreme progressive. I knew that his life journey had made him who he was, and I believed and still believe that THAT is what makes him such a powerful advocate for liberal policies.

Now, he's been shoved to the weekend sidelines, where - let's face it - broadcasting careers are either started or ended. In his place comes a gaggle of wonkish youngsters with little or no life experience to speak of, and with a liberalism that we're supposed to believe is as real as is Ed's, even though most of these wonks have never attended a political march or rally in person, let alone got out there and LED such a rally, as has Ed. I may be totally out of line here, but I get the feeling with some of these new wonks that they could take either side of the political argument and argue it persuasively if asked to do so, and you would never know if they were at their core a liberal or a conservative.

And underneath it all comes the sneaking suspicion that ageism has as much to do with Ed's move to weekends as does his concern for his wife's health.

I had a strange feeling yesterday as I watched Ed's final 8 pm broadcast - the feeling that the old sages at MSNBC are being phased out. That feeling got stronger when Howard Fineman showed up as Ed's guest. My first thought was, how much longer will Howard be asked on as a guest on MSNBC?

So, yeah, it's troubling, because Ed's demotion is - to me - an example of what's happening across American society, where the highly experienced are being set out to pasture because they made the mistake of growing older.

Logan's Run.

[JDPriestly]

1. Thanks. I agree. It is troubling.

I like Ed Schultz. I like his energy. He speaks to an older generation, but do we not count at all?

I would like to see Ed Schultz take Chris Matthews or Scarborough's time.
Matthews and Scarborough are the weakest show hosts on MSNBC.

[woo me with science]

6. Please tell me if I'm wrong,

but hasn't Ed been more vocal about criticizing corporate legislation coming from Democrats than many of the other self-described "liberal" commentators, even on MSNBC?

This is what I've heard in snippets of conversation about his shows, but I haven't seen him in a long time and honestly don't know what he has been saying.

If they are shunting him off to weekends, that would be the aspect of it that I find most troubling, more than a generational aspect.

[NOVA_Dem]

28. Ed got the "Cenk Uygur" special from Phil Griffin. n/t

[woo me with science]

91. Thank you.

[brush]

81. I hope what Ed said about it is true but . . .

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . it's also true, maybe a dirty little, not-so-secret fact that it's becoming increasingly hard to actually reach retirement age on jobs anymore. It's not like it used to be when you could count on working until your Medicare and Social Security kicked in at 65 or 66 to combine with your savings or pension or 401k and you'd be okay financially. Now once you crack 50 you have to start looking over your shoulder because most corporations are looking for any chance to replace you whether it's at 50 or 55 or 58, don't even mention 61 or 62. And they don't care, hell, they even know that your chances of finding another job, even a much lower paying job, is almost nil. And believe me, that time between being fifty-something to early Social Security eligibility at 62 is a long, hard slog of not making any real money, an eternity really as you watch your savings dwindle down. And don't even think about reaching the full retirement age of 66 with full benefits. It just doesn't happen much anymore.

I've seen it happen to 3 men in my family and it took them by surprise. They weren't suspecting it at all.

[JDPriestly]

92. Right. That is another reason that I so strongly oppose the chained CPI.

The 50-somethings who are going to be forced into retirement in the next few years are having to spend their savings now. The future for them is quite bleak.

I am a War Baby generation -- WWII. I remember the early childhood years of the baby boomers who were just coming up behind me in grade school.

The older generation (that had so many kids after the War they didn't know what to do with them) did everything they could go give their own children in the generation that followed the war a bad reputation for being selfish and lazy, etc.

It's all false. The Baby Boomers have done so much good for the country including as a group on the whole desanctifying the whole war-is-good mentality of some earlier generations. The parents of the Baby Boomers never forgave those of the Boomers who screamed loudly and clearly "No more war."

That is why the Baby Boomers were viewed as selfish and shiftless. It was a lie from the beginning. The Baby Boomers supported Reagan. That was stupid and now they are paying for it. But I think we can gradually undo the harm Reagan did if we just cut back on free trade and raise tax rates on the rich, thus making it harder for them to invest their money overseas and hide the profits from Uncle Sam.

[Fawke Em]

94. Same is true of us 40-somethings

We're just now starting to earn any real money, but we're so much in debt from years of NOT earning any money, that all our money now goes to paying off that debt or to children in college or aging parents.

We don't have anything left over to save.

[catbyte]

2. I really hope Ed was telling the truth on Wednesday when he said it was his idea.

[stopbush]

7. I think Ed was just being a classy guy, covering for MSNBC and, yes,

trying to take the sting off his obvious demotion.

Who gives up THE prime time spot in a TV line up, 8-pm? Nobody, at least not willingly.

And Ed had the second-highest rated show on MSNBC after Rachel. Does anyone really believe he was champing at the bit to move to weekends?

[catbyte]

24. That's what I'm afraid of. Chris Hayes is good but I love Ed.

[markpkessinger]

33. MANY people would give up that prime time slot . . .

. . . If they had a spouse or family member battling cancer, either in order to be a greater support and help to that family member, and/or because they might be concerned that time might be running short. When you, or a family member, are dealing with something like that, your perspective on MANY things changes.

[stopbush]

67. My wife went through chemo and radiation for breast cancer back in 2004.

She's been in remission for over 5 years, so she's considered to be cured.

I didn't have Ed's financial resources at the time to take more time off from work than I could possibly spare. And I certainly didn't have the resources to opt for cutting back on work to spend more time with my wife.

No, I had to go the opposite way, making sure that she or I had a job where she could be on insurance just in case the cancer returned. It meant finding ways to bring in more income during those periods where we had to go on an expensive COBRA. We went through the scary times where businesses I was working for closed up shop, and you couldn't be sure that you'd be able to even afford the COBRA.

The one thing I wished for during those years was a steady job that I could count on.

Ed's situation is different, of course. He has an MSNBC contract and a radio show, so he doesn't have the same kind of worries. I'm just saying that people don't always have the option to chuck their day job because a spouse is sick. I'd have to think that even a well-compensated star like Ed needs to run the numbers and see if he can or can't make a move like going to weekends on MSNBC. Such a move could hurt his brand and hurt his prospects for long-term financial health.

Changing jobs or responsibilities is tough enough. It's worse when you're dealing with a family illness. if anything, you don't need that kind of change in your life when you're already dealing with the changes brought on by illness.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

17. His wife has been seriouslly ill with cancer

Which is why he missed a lot of time late last year. I guess the OP didn't bother to consider that fact in his rush to call it a demotion.

[stopbush]

58. I did consider it. Ed has said his wife is doing remarkably well with her treatments.

Maybe he's been lying about that.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

93. Your theory doesn't add up

Tweety, Sharpton and L-O'Donnell are all pushing or over 60. Hell, even Smirkonish, a top fill-in host is in his 50s. I'm not sure why you are so desperate to smear Big Ed, but I'll take him at his word. You might try it sometime.

[Samantha]

78. On the other hand, he announced on the air his wife had been cured

I don't think ANYONE who had a spouse or a child with a major illness would risk losing their health care coverage, despite the hours or his or her salary. I think when one has been cured of cancer, they need to remain cancer-free for something like 5 years before they are truly considered cured.

Sam

[forestpath]

3. I feel exactly the same way.

[MADem]

4. It's not a "demotion." Didn't you hear him?

He's doing almost the same number of hours--he's just doing them all at once over a two day period. Instead of having to come in five days a week, he comes in two days and does a show that runs for a couple of hours instead of one hour.

MSNBC never had a viable weekend presence--he's on the cutting edge of actually having "news" on the weekend.

You do know his wife was ill. I wouldn't be surprised if he asked to be the canary in the Weekend News Product coal mine in order to develop a more thoughtful show (he has more time at each sitting) AND to spend more time with his wife.


Look what I just found--this does seem to be the case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/phil-griffin-ed-schultz-weekend-came-to-me_n_2885599.html

Griffin told the Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove that Shultz first approached him. He said:

This began with Ed coming to me ... And I will tell you that Ed has an incredible following in the network ... Ed and I were talking about his contract, and Ed is a very sharp guy. He said he wanted to be here long term ... He wanted to spend more time in Minnesota. I said, ‘Well, Ed, I am extending the weekend. I need someone for 5 to 7. It’s critical. It’s going to be as important as 8 to 10 [on weeknights].’ And he came back to me and said, ‘I want to do that long term.’

[Dawson Leery]

8. +1

[stopbush]

9. Sorry, but that all sounds like the typical cover story one puts out when they get shafted.

It's just another version of quitting to spend more time with your family. It's the same thing as when you get fired from a job and your employer offers you a decent severance package IF you agree to say that you left the company as a "mutual separation," ie: that you wanted to leave as much as the company wanted you fired.

I was let go from a non-profit once when one of their major donors reneged on their promise of a large, salary-supporting donation for the third year in a row. That blew a huge hole in their budget. The company's solution to get back on budget was to can 4 of us that were being paid the most, offering all of us modest severance packages if we would agree to keep silent about the real reason we were let go, and to stay silent for a three-year period.

It's all BS to cover over what actually happened.

[MADem]

34. Gee, it doesn't seem that way to me at all. He makes the same money, he works one hour less.

He does his work in two days instead of five.

He gets to see his family--and his wife, recovering from ovarian cancer--more often.

He can spend more time in his home state.

He also sees his new show as the one that will get "the first whack" at the Sunday talkers--and he has a point, there. He will aggregate all the crap FOR us; his staff will watch so we don't have to--that alone will provide a lot of value-added to his Sunday program.

I think you're mistaken, but, as always, time will tell. I do tend to look askance anytime POLITICO is behind the bashing and negativity, as they have been on this story--something Ed himself pointed out. POLITICO is owned by the far right wing Albritton crew; they play a "non-partisan" game but they subtly advance a right wing agenda--this "Mean Liberal Network Screwing Hard Working Old Union Man" story is a "classic" demoralizer right out of their playbook. Divide and conquer!


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ed-schultz-insists-he-isnt-headed-to-no-mans-land-praises-replacement-hayes-in-final-primetime-farewell/

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz used the final moments of his final weekday primetime show to address his move to weekend afternoons and welcome his replacement Chris Hayes with open arms.

Schultz’s farewell message was mostly positive, though he did work in an ornery dig at POLITICO writer Dylan Byers, who wrote that Schultz’s new time slot was “a relative no-man’s land for cable news programming.”

“Really?” Schultz asked. “Well, I guess I wouldn’t want it any other way because we’re going to build those hours to the best hours in cable.” He vowed to stay loyal to the subjects he’s always covered on The Ed Show: “The people on the road, the stories, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the middle class Americans who are fighting for a fair share.”

After thanking his wife Wendy, who recently struggled through a difficult bout with ovarian cancer, Schultz reminded viewers that on Sunday afternoons “the biggest brand in liberal talk” will be getting “the first whack” at the Sunday shows.

I can tell you it is MORE likely that I will watch Ed now, because his weekday show time was incompatible with my viewing habits, and the weekends (on Sunday, after the noon hour) are a wasteland--but with him on the schedule, they won't be anymore. MSNBC would not be paying for four hours of televised coverage of a real human being, with producers, staff, cameramen, lighting people, makeup, wardrobe, etc., unless they wanted to make something happen. It would be cheaper to pay him and show LOCKUP. The fact that they are making an investment in this weekend show suggests they are pursuing a different paradigm for their weekends. Good thing. Long overdue, too.

[CreekDog]

46. that you call him a liar is *really* *really* low.

especially given that 1) these issues were stated by Ed more than a year ago and 2) it's not news to us, but you, the person lecturing us and calling Ed a liar, does this because you don't even know the story you just heard about has been going on for over a year.

[DuckBurp]

10. I frequently wondered if he was overloaded ...

Doing a radio show plus his MSNBC show every day.

[snappyturtle]

39. I wondered the same but how does one hour less air time + traveling

that he implied would be involved (talking with the American people) and still keeping his radio show be that much less to justify such a switch? I think it's a demotion....he'll be up against CBS 60 Minutes on Sundays...I don't think this is good.

[Rex]

5. I thought MSNBC suspended him.

nt.

[stopbush]

12. They did a while back. This is something else.

[MADem]

43. He suspended himself--he called Laura Ingraham a bad word and he apologized and asked to

be suspended for a week w/o pay.
He didn't even make the comment on MSNBC--he made it on his radio show, but he was catching some justified heat for the remark.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/MSNBC_suspends_Schultz_for_calling_Ingraham_a_slut.html

[Enrique]

11. Chris's show doesn't depend on whether you believe in his liberalism

it reminds me of Rachel's show, and Amy Goodman's. They are obviously all quite liberal, but none of them does a lot of opinionating. They present information, and they do it in a way that makes me think they put a lot more work into their shows than the opinion people. And Amy is probably older than Ed (apologies if she's not), and I think she belongs in the category of Rachel and Chris, so I don't think it's about age.

[stopbush]

64. Amy Goodman isn't on MSNBC, so I don't see that she's relevant to this topic.

As far as the way Rachel and Chris Hayes "present information," that's one of the things that bothers me about both of them. They feel the need to give these extended intros to their topics, going on and on and over and over the same intro from different angles (Rachel is especially bad about this).

With Ed, you know he's a liberal. You know he's for the working man. He doesn't need to waste time with some long-winded intro that says, "hey, I've considered this issue from 20 different angles, and guess what? I think the liberal angle is the best."

I have to say that I'm at the point where I just can't watch Rachel anymore. I'm tired of the long-windedness, which comes off as being more formulaic than the opinion guys. It's like she''s vamping for the first 4 minutes leading into a story, rather than just getting to the story. Presenting an introductory exegesis to a story might be necessary in a college classroom, but this is TV, where you've got lights, cameras, graphics and all kinds of other shiny things about to make your presentation. So use the medium you're working in, and skip the college professor intro.

BTW - why apologize for opining that Amy is older than Ed? See, that's the problem I'm talking about, that age is an issue in this country because we all KNOW that being younger is better than being older. Innocently imagining that someone is older than someone else is an insult, and cause for a mea culpa if you're wrong. WTF?

What's next? "Oh, sorry. I just assumed you were gay?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I think he was being honest, but that is just me

[KharmaTrain]

14. His Schedule Was A Backbreaker...

I firmly believe Ed is the one who initiated the changes for several reasons.

For the past 3 plus years Ed has commuted every week from his home in Fargo to Minneapolis the onto New York to do his show 4 or 5 nights a week. In addition he still does his daily radio show that runs live from Noon-3pm EST...meaning his work days generally started at 10 or so in the morning and probably didn't wrap up until 10 at night. That's a schedule that would be grueling for someone half his age...and it was starting to take a toll on him.

The big change came last year when Ed's wife was diagnosed with cancer and Ed was away from home a lot of the time while she was undergoing chemo. He took some time off and I've noticed he was doing more and more shows from Minneapolis...he was being torn in too many directions.

Lastly Ed has said he wants to travel and meet the people...he can do this a lot easier with just his radio show and the weekend TV gig. Taking a teevee show on location involves a lot more moving parts than doing radio and will allow him to work on segments for the two TV shows rather than constantly having to prepare for five a week.

As an old broken-down mediatype, I can attest to a lot of age discrimination in the broadcast world...and it's a major reason the industry has gone into the shitter. Many experienced and creative souls were replaced by brown-nosers and bean counters...or kids who'd do three jobs for the price of one.

I wish both Ed and Chris the best...I see this as a positive move for all involved...

[House of Roberts]

40. I think you're likely to be right.

Mike Papantonio has been on for Ed a lot lately. He said he had been doing 13 hour days for a while. He can't do town halls much with a weeknight show. Ed's town halls are quite stirring, based on the ones I've heard replayed on his radio show. I think he just needs to slow down a bit, in order to keep his radio show full time. He can do taped shows during the week, when he needs a weekend off.

[Samantha]

63. So why didn't they move Lawrence O'Donnell up to the 8:00 prime time slot?

Or they could have given Rachel the 8:00 and Lawrence the 9:00. Remember when Ed was on at 10:00 and was really happy to be moved up? Why didn't they give Martin Bashir a slot in prime time?

It didn't help at all that they opened the promotion of Chris Hayes (who I do listen to religiously on Saturdays and sometimes Sundays) with the fact he is the youngest commentator to host a prime time show. I think Chris is 32.

But NBC itself has a pattern of catering to its advertisers who want high numbers in a targeted age group. Ed's numbers in that specific bracket were very low, although he had about one million viewers altogether.

Ed said his wife had been cured of cancer. He made that big announcement on the air, so I can imagine he's happy to spend more time with her, but if he were going to change his schedule because of her health, he would have done so long before now.

NBC canceled "Harry's Law", the second most viewed show last year after SMASH. That show was excellent -- great scripts, wonderful cast, but the two leads were older. No explanation given.

Sam

[KharmaTrain]

74. Sorry...No Grand Conspriacy Here...

If they wanted Ed gone, they wouldn't be putting him on the weekends...they'd do like they did with Olbermann and eat the contract and keep him on the "shelf" so no other network could or would hire him.

They had O'Donnell on at 8 after Olbermann was fired and his ratings were horrible...he and the format of his show has done far better at 10...thus if it an't broke, don't fix it. MSNBC is definitely "catering" to their advertisers...it's how they make the money to pay Rachel, Chris and the hundreds of other salaries of those who put the network on. Running a news operation is very people intensive and the more revenue your network can earn the more it will grow. I see the fact they're putting Ed on over the weekends as a positive sign that the network is looking to jetison the prison shows and focus further on developing programming and new talent.

Hayes is very good at 7am on Saturday morning, but there's no bet he'll connect at 7pm. I like Chris and wish him well but from all I've read and heard from my media publications and contacts this was Ed's decision and Chris was plugged in as a quick replacement. While he wife may be have beaten her battle with cancer, you never fully recover. My other half went through a similar situation last year and, fortunately, she's doing well, but there's a mental as well as a physical healing that is ongoing...I applaud Ed for truly putting family ahead of career and knew that he had to be feeling real low when he was thousands of miles away when his other half had to go for another treatment or check up. You may not have noticed but he was doing many of his programs from Minneapolis in recent weeks rather than heading to New York. The travel and hours were taking a toll.

No question MSNBC wants a younger audience...and I hope they do. I'd prefer them watching Rachel than any of the airheads on Chicken Noodle Nuze or the morons at Faux. Change in the media is ongoing...and the pace and pressures are intense. Phil Griffin has done a masterful job of building MSNBC into a strong alternative to the other networks and I see nothing but positives here...Chris' weekend spot will probably give an opportunity to a new talent to be developed...

[Samantha]

76. Olbermann's lawyer negotiated with MSNBC for months - he wanted out

So I don't think there is any grand conspiracy involved. Olbermann did say later that he thought after the merger with Comcast, they would try to muzzle him. I believe he was correct about that prediction. Comcast is a big Republican donor.

I think there is definitely a pattern involved in NBC's moves. Do you think Jay Leno is leaving because he wants to retire? Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but unfortunately, younger people are not watching his show....

Sam

[KharmaTrain]

77. They Also Make Sure Olbermann Was On The Shelf...

...the bottom line was MSNBC controlled Olbermann's contract so that he had to sit out for 6 months. While I admire what Olbermann did to help put MSNBC on the map, his departure was of his own making...as it was at Current. As one who spent too many years working with the egos in the media, I've seen many a highly talented person who ends up being their own worst career counselor.

So far Comcast has owned MSNBC for close to a year, including a major election, and I haven't seen them muzzle anyone. They surely didn't when David Corn and Jimmy Carter III came to the network with the 47% tape...they ran with it big time. The charm of MSNBC from a sales perspective...and one Olbermann and others would rave about...is their reach to a more affluent audience. Smaller, yet better educated and a more desireable advertising group. Look at the commercials on MSNBC vs. faux...one has new cars and Iphones, the other has reserve mortgages, cash for Gold and boner pills. Guess whose making out better...

Regarding Leno...that's NBC Entertainment...a division totally removed from NBC News by 3,000 miles. Leno's ratings have sucked since he forced Conan out and my bets are there are a lot of regrets. Yep, they are forcing him out cause they think Fallon will bring a younger "more hip" audience to 11:30. They said the same thing about Conan and got cold feet when the ratings weren't what they were hoping for. Leno's problem isn't only that younger people aren't watching his show...almost everyone else isn't either.

Cheers...

[Samantha]

88. Cheers back at you, but here's this: Olbermann decided he wanted to leave before the

merger because he did not want to be muzzled by Comcast. So yes, it was of his own making, but had he not done so, he probably would be working the 2 to 4 time frame at MSNBC on Saturday afternoon's right before Ed's show. No matter how one cuts it, he would not have remained at that 8 prime time slot. Many Republicans were complaining about the content and volume of his broadcasts.

I have worked with some incredible egos for years as well in the legal arena. Some do self-destruct, but incredibly many do rise to the top of their fields. I think in any field of high stress, one has to have a pretty healthy ego to start with to walk through the door. The more success they achieve, the more larger the ego becomes.

I do not agree with you that his departure at Current was of his own making. Current failed to live up to its contractual obligations, and I do not see that as something one can lay at Olbermann's feet. I read Olbermann's complaint in its totality, and I also read Current's response. I thought from the beginning of the case, Olbermann would win. Many people have quietly commented he pocketed a sizable sum in the recent settlement, and if the arbitrator had not found Current largely at fault, that would not have happened. He hired an excellent, high-profile attorney, and she would not have taken the case if the odds of winning were had been on Current's end.

I don't watch Leno much myself but regardless of the distance between the two entities, savings on subsidiary's budgets still are reported on the master NBC/Comcast partnership profits.

As far as guessing who is making out better, take a look at the reporting on that:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-13/disney-s-abc-said-to-finish-ad-sales-ahead-of-tv-season.html

"ABC collected about $2.4 billion in orders and Fox booked $1.95 billion, both little changed from a year ago, while NBC received $100 million more than last season’s $1.7 billion, said the people, who weren’t authorized to talk publicly.

Fox Leads

For the eighth straight time, Fox finished last season as the most watched among 18- to 49-year-old viewers, a group targeted by advertisers. Fox plans to add five new shows next season, including “The Mindy Project” and “Ben and Kate.” Last month, Fox said it plans to retool the “Idol” singing competition to reverse ratings declines."

These numbers are for 2012-2013.

Quality of content no longer matters -- only the dollars.

[Mike Nelson]

15. I am so looking forward to...

...seeing Ed every weekend! Tired of the prison shows and NBC's stupid computer sex stories. Never though of Ed's age at all... ever. Hope he does real well!

[TransitJohn]

16. I think he's a blowhad and won't miss him. He's the O'Rielly of MSNBC.

I far, far prefer nuanced and erudite discussion of policy and issues a la Rachel and Chris Hayes. Your mileage may vary.

[MH1]

86. I wouldn't be as harsh on Ed, but basically I agree with you.

I am only concerned that the 1 hour weekday format may not work as well for Chris. If we get a weekday evening show that's as great as UP has been, it's a WIN. But if they meddle with the format, dumb it down or otherwise lessen the show, I'll be sad.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

18. Sort of an absurd premise

When you consider that Tweety is in his mid to late 60s, Sharpton is pushing 60 and Lawrence O'Donnell is no spring chicken either at 61.

[MADem]

36. Those guys don't have to change planes to get to work, either. Ed did. NT

[HipChick]

19. His wife has been near death...its not all about making the money

I would scale back and spend more time with the family too

[KatyMan]

20. I believe that he wanted to spend more

time in Minnesota. He sounded very sincere on his radio show yesterday. If I had his money-- why would I come in 5 days when I can do it in 2? I don't think this is a demotion at all. I believe that he has priorities.

[olddots]

21. Ed has an opinion

I get the feeling that Ed Shultz gives a shit about this country and would do and say what he does even if he had to pay to do it and he may be paying for what he feels by being "moved to another time slot" .

[DevonRex]

22. Completely wrong way to look at this. MSNBC is getting weekend programming.

Programming that stands in stark contrast to the other stuff on network TV like 60 Minutes which has gotten kind of tired and doesn't dig deep anymore. More of an MSM mouthpiece than the hard-hitting show it used to be.

Ed is blue collar, love him or not. That's what he stands for. He's not always right bit he does say what he thinks, as opposed to the others who say whatever the network wants. I think it's a good move. He will have the opportunity to distinguish himself. He will have the opportunity to speak for ordinary people to a new audience, people who've been too busy during the week to sit down and watch before. Now they can.

And Ed can have a bit more time to spend with Wendy and Wendy can have more time with Ed. She loved helping him research before. She was instrumental to his becoming a Democrat and radio talk show host. They're a team. I'm glad they'll be a team again.

So, think positively. Talk the show up. I'm excited about it. I think it'll be fresh programming.

[grantcart]

23. Why I find OPs like this a "rush to outrage" so troubling.

Why not wait for some facts?

Well here is what we know to be true.

Ed's wife is battling a terminal disease and he has said that his show is not longer his top priority.

‘Doing a radio and a TV show isn't exactly what I'm thinking about right now,’ the 58-year-old talk show host said. ‘I'm going to be with my wife through all of this.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179618/MSNBC-host-Ed-Schultz-reveals-wife-mother-children-battling-ovarian-cancer.html#ixzz2NZ4uUg10
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So where is the factual basis to your claim that this is a demotion?

How do you know that this isn't a kind accomodation to his wishes?

So many here are in a rush to get outraged about something.

And that is very troubling.

[NOVA_Dem]

26. That was July 2012 how did he sound in Nov 2012?

Sucks I have to link to "News"-busters but does this sound like a guy that was trying to leave to spend more time with his wife?

Ed Schultz on Leaving 8PM Slot

Yeah...sounds like he wanted to leave that time slot

[MADem]

45. If it doesn't (continue on)...life is good. My contract is just fine.

He doesn't sound miserable either way. He notes that his numbers are good and getting better--which could be why he's being moved...to bring people who are already "The Faithful" to MSNBC church on the weekends.

I don't recall MSNBC even talking about opening up the weekends back in November. Their ad revenues must be way up.++

The fact that we're going to see real live people on MSNBC on the weekends IS a game changer. He didn't sound like he was throwing in the towel on his last show either--he sounded like he was getting ready to fire up a two hour in-depth program that, among other things, will be parsing the Sunday Talking Head shows for us ahead of any other commentator.

[NOVA_Dem]

50. You forgot "We just had the best 4 months and I think it's going to continue on."

I've never seen TV work the way you've suggested. You have great ratings so let's move you to a time slot where few people watch altogether (including CNN and Fox).

I don't see Anderson Cooper being put on the weekends? Is Wolfe Blitzer on the weekends too? What about O'Reily?

I think the way it works is:
1. You get great ratings
2. They move you to were MORE people can see you
3. They charge more for advertising during your show.

If what you're saying is true why don't they leave Chris Hayes on the weekends? They can get the youth demo by keeping Ed on at 7pm and moving Chris to 8pm or vice versa.

[stopbush]

61. Remember how excited DU was when KO left MSNBC? Now, he was going to be able to say

what he really REALLY thought about everybody. He was made head of the Current news department, given a stake in the company and promised millions.

How long did he last on Current?

I'm just saying that the spin about Ed willingly moving to weekends feels an awful lot like events of recent history with KO, where what was presented as a bright new beginning ended up being the last stop on the train to broadcaster Palookaville.

[Samantha]

75. Well, specifically, when Keith Olbermann left MSNBC, meaning literally that Friday night

People were upset. There had been no forewarning, so no one had time to prepare. There was no five minutes even set aside to say, "Thanks for the memories." And the rumors and accusations did fly (they still do). But once I learned Keith had chosen to leave, I was happy he was going to Current. I really thought they were going to build a great network. Despite all the rumors MSNBC had fired him, he later said Current had been in talks with him for months, and it took a long time for his lawyer to reach an agreement with MSNBC's legal team. The last "i" was dotted while he was on the air that Friday night, but he was given no opportunity to say goodby.

I think if Ed were going to leave because of his wife's illness, he would have done so when her life was at risk. I think someone at MSNBC, or NBC itself, did take advantage of his earlier request for flexibility during his wife's illness, they dragged it back onto the table, and asked him to do the weekend show.

He had to spout the Company line if he wanted to continue to work for MSNBC on the weekends. In these situations, one has to be diplomatic despite disappointment if one still wants ANY place at the table. And I think Ed did.

So of course, this is just my opinion, but towards the end of this thread, a lightening bolt hit me. Two words: Jay Leno. (see below)

I think there is a pattern in play here.

Sam

[stopbush]

79. I have also thought that maybe Ed wanted to renegotiate his contract

or make a few changes and got sideswiped by MSNBC.

They could have taken it as a opportunity to move him out. Hypothetical:

Ed goes in to ask if he can scale back to M-Th, ie: the schedule he had before. His reasons are to get home for the weekends and be with Wendy.

MSNBC says no, we need you 5 days a week. Not only that, we're looking to expand your footprint because your ratings are so good.

Ed sees he's being boxed in to a corner.

MSNBC pulls out their "weekend plan" and offers it as the one and only alternative they'll accept if he wants to be in studio fewer days.

Done deal.

[Samantha]

87. I think where we differ is that I tend to cut MSNBC less slack than you

because I am much more cynical about these matters! I see MSNBC as much more cutthroat. "Nothing personal, it is just business."

I have worked for a number of attorneys in DC, some of whom were prominent labor lawyers. I have also done some HR work, and I am well aware of the mentality that has set in since Elaine Chau was Bush's Labor Secretary. Her whole focus was carving into labor protections which cost employers more money. She promoted the idea of hiring more part-time people than full-time employees, saving the cost of benefits, costs of sick leave and vacation pay, etc., and hiring contract workers, as opposed to permanent employees. "Do more with less."

I do think there was a time during Ed's wife's illness he needed some flexibility in his schedule. But now that he has said she has been cured, I think his focus practically speaking would be remaining employed full-time protecting his health insurance protection for his family.

So I can't shake loose of the belief this was not his choice at this time. And MSNBC was holding that previous schedule-flexibility request card under the table. I believe they played that card to manipulate the situation in the best interests of their advertisers and the cutting of the cost of their overhead. Ed had to be gracious in his announcement if he wanted to hold on to a place at the table, but I am thinking he will never again have the exposure he has had holding that prime time slot. If that is true, that will be a shame.

It has been a healthy thing discussing this with you.

Sam

[MADem]

66. Yes--but he was saying that five months ago--before there was any discussion of going to

"real people" on the weekends. The paradigm has since shifted.

It's fresh territory. Once upon a time, there was no MSNBC--now it's "must see TV" for a huge demographic. That didn't happen in a day--and the network was constrained during all those Bush years, too, by people at the top of the GE food chain (Jack The Asshole Welch, specifically).

Ed isn't "Anderson Cooper" .... but Wolf Blitzer does work on Saturdays at CNN, doing a Situation Room, and Candy Crowley works on Sundays. To say nothing of Piers Morgan and Fareed Zakaria--none of whom are "second stringers." Don Lemon and Frederica Whitfield work the weekends, too. These are all first tier 'known quantities' and anchors who get paid an awful lot...and they attract an audience.

Young people just don't sit around watching TV on the weekend. Older people do, though. You don't put out a tray of cookies if no one's there to eat them--trying to appeal to the youth demographic on the weekends is a fool's errand. They're out at the movies, having fun with friends, not glued to the tube. Further, half the time, if they want to watch TV, they'll pick up their laptop or some other device and watch that way. But there is room and opportunity to grab the older audience share at that time, the older farts who sit there holding the remote, and I think MSNBC is being smart in FINALLY going after it, particularly as people are falling away from Faux in droves.

This is an opportunity to grab and keep new viewers (plenty of those people turning off Faux find many aspects of Ed's message appealing--particularly the "hard working everyman" thing, and the "Fight the power" vibe), and MSNBC is taking it.

They're using Ed, with his robust partisanship and exhortative manner, as the tip of the spear. If he does "out and about" pieces where he's away from the anchor desk and on location interacting with regular people on occasion, it is very likely he could have a real winner on his hands. It's worth a shot, certainly.

Ed is worth many millions--he won't starve, but more importantly, he's an asset. I think he's finally being used in a way where more people will see him.

[grantcart]

47. my computer didn't play the recording

My objection to the OP still stands.

The trend at OP is to go to the maximum outrage with the minimum facts, like its a drag race to get to "the most outraged status".

They didn't fire Ed, they moved him.

It may have been because of his ratings or it may be because as he says, his family is his number #1 priority and I don't think that there is anything in your clip that disputes that.

In either case the OP makes a big leap and goes to maximum outrage with minimal actual facts.

It is a common trend here, and your input which atleast refers to some factual input by Ed, doesn't really change my point.

[NOVA_Dem]

48. Well come back when you can hear the recording.

My guess is that you won't change your mind.

[grantcart]

53. your missing the point

My point isn't that I know what Ed is or isn't thinking.

My point is that the OP doesn't know but goes to maximum outrage at a "demotion".

There is no evidence of a demotion.

In the event that it turns out that it is a demotion my objection would still be the same, namely that the OP was written without citing any facts to support the extreme reaction.

It is very common here.

I have googled the subject and I haven't found anything in writing that supports the idea that this is a major demotion.

Now if it is a demotion made completely against Ed's wishes then it still doesn't warrant outrage, IMO, because his replacement is as liberal as he is.

Here is Ed saying that he wanted the change.

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/13/msnbcs-ed-schultz-moving-to-coveted-saturday-afternoon-time-slot/

[NOVA_Dem]

57. So nothing anyone posts would change your mind even Big Ed himself n/t.

[grantcart]

60. Still missing my point

The OP is outraged that a demotion has taken place.

The OP offers no evidence of a demotion.

Reasonable searches provide no evidence of a demotion, but evidence that Ed himself was going through an intense personal tragedy and in his own words was putting his family ahead of the show.

My point, then, is rather than rushing to maximum outrage why not wait for the facts, and then if the facts support your suspicion then fine, be outraged.

If your interpretation of events is correct, and it may be, it was unsupported in the OP and that is my criticism.

As for "even Big Ed himself" it seems that you are the one that won't let his words change your mind.

A year ago he said that the show was, for personal reasons, no longer his number one priority.

Nothing has changed about that in the meantime.

As for the change in time here is his statement

"I’m very proud of the work our team has done here at 8 PM, but sitting behind this desk five nights a week doesn’t cut it for me," he said. "I want to get out with the people and tell their stories. This show has been a show that has been a voice for the voiceless. That really was my mission when I came here and it remains

Now he will be moving from 5 hours a week of broadcasting to 4 and while I don't know what his new salary is, it may be something less than the 8 figures that he currently earns but since he is estimated to be worth $ 50 million I don't see that as a big factor.

He is still going to have major access on a major channel and, by all reports continues to have complete editorial control. His employers have not tried to embarass him or marginalize him and he has made it appear that he embraces the move so it can hardly be considered, even if it wasn't his first concern, a major demotion and the outrage completely misplaced.

[MADem]

68. It wasn't "evidence" of anything save a snapshot in time last November.

Before there was any HINT of MSNBC changing their weekend line up and putting real humans in front of the cameras for a change.

I didn't find it as proof of anything.

And when you're dealing with Newsbusters, you know they'll try to edit for maximum effect. When their "maximum effect" is a clunker, well....tempest in a teapot, and all that.

Notice how the "Sky is falling" meme is being shopped by outlets like Newsbusters and Politico--all to the right of Attila the Hun. That in itself suggests to me that they're afraid Ed will resonate on the weekend, and steal a big chunk of the beer-and-barcolounger audience from Faux.

[snappyturtle]

41. Maybe I'm wrong grantcart but I seem to remember Ed with complete relief in his

voice annouoncing Wendy had a great prognosis. Of course, a battle with cancer can surely re-set one's priorities and rightfully so.

[NOVA_Dem]

25. Ed didn't want to go anywhere.

When that NY Times article came out a couple of months ago that said he was being pushed out of the 8PM slot Ed BLASTED the writer! He talked about how great his ratings were on MSNBC.

Ed got bounced b/c he told the truth about Obama and Corporate Dems:

*Harry Reid botching filibuster reform on purpose
*Obama willingness to cut the Big 3
*Obama executing US citizens overseas without charges or a trial

Yeah this sounds like a guy who wanted to give up the 8PM slot on MSNBC:
Ed Schultz: Reports I May Be Replaced Are 'Media Garbage'

edited: didn't

[onpatrol98]

32. Agreed...

Not a lot of people are looking for news at the time slot he's heading too. That's why they had all those prison shows in the first place. No news outfit has worth of much on at that time. Why? Very few people are looking for it. Ed had the sweetest spot imaginable for MSNBC. He was sitting in front of Rachel Maddow. Their big money performer. Rachel was a protegee for Keith. I think Chris Hayes is for Rachel. He's their new rising star. And, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't hand picked by Rachel.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/chris-hayes-to-take-over-8-p-m-show-on-msnbc/http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/chris-hayes-to-take-over-8-p-m-show-on-msnbc/
]

MSNBC is actively seeking to pick up a younger demographic. The same demographic that advertisers are looking to pay for. This is about the financials. I don't think its personal. It's about profit. Chris is young and full of energy. And, more importantly...he's 32. He's in the 25 to 35 bracket that MSNBC wants to improve with its numbers.

[MADem]

37. No--the prison shows are CHEAP and they got HUGE ratings. I remember reading about this

back when they spent a fortune on getting IMUS to their studios. They went through a huge reorganization--they were ready to chuck the network entirely at one point because they had no money. Those prison shows were beating Faux, and all they required was a single guy to come in and roll the tape and punch buttons. The production costs--even accounting for crews that go out and grab a ton of B roll at this prison or that--were the essence of frugality. Lots of bang for VERY little buck--half of that prison stuff is repackaged, too. Some bozo already on payroll is forced to come in and loop the narration and do the intro/signoff, so no extra money spent there, either.

The fact that they are going towards more "live" TV with actual people sitting at desks who can cover breaking news and turn on a dime is a great step forward.

I'm sure they are also looking for a younger demo, and what's wrong with that? What I do think, though, is that they are walking and chewing gum at the same time. Good enough for me...

[NOVA_Dem]

42. I love Chris Hayes. Give him 8PM and Ed 7PM...

but don't put him in no-man's land. Chris Matthews doesn't need 2 hours. Plus, I think without someone standing up for workers' rights (they way Ed did) I think Dems stand to lose some support and unions will be further imperiled.

[bathroommonkey76]

29. What I like about Ed...

Ed seems like a passionate and genuine person who believes what he says. It's sad to seem him be pushed aside.

Personally, I have never liked Chris Hayes. Hayes for me seems like one of those trust fund baby liberals that never had an honest days wages in his life. Ed on the other hand is sincere and REAL! Real liberals like Ed are no longer out there. This is a loss for rural Democrats from NC to Cali who do not know how to relate to the intellectuals like Hayes.

I admire that you took out the time to write this piece for us. Ageism is a real thing here in America. I have relatives that have been unemployed the same amount of time that you have been. Today they are still pounding the pavement and filling out applications on a weekly basis. I hope that work comes your way in the future.

David

[Raine]

30. Chris Matthews will be 68 this year though and doesn't seem to be any

danger of losing any of his shows. So I don't know if it's age I think it's more due to being outspoken.

[stopbush]

69. Who are the people over 50 who are being given new shows on MSNBC of late?

Lawrence O'Donnell is 63. "The Last Word" debuted in Sept, 2010, when he was 60.

Al Sharpton is 58. "Politics Nation" first aired in August 2011.

Those were the last two older guys to get shows on MSNBC.

Martin Bashir is 50, and had a long and impressive career as a TV journalist with ABC and the BBC before coming over to MSNBC in 2010. He was given a show when Dylan Ratigan jumped ship.

Since then, every new show on MSNBC has gone to relatively unknown youngsters who have almost zero experience in TV journalism. Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, the quartet on The Cycle, Alex Wagner. All of them barely pushing 40. All of them get a try out period as a guest and then a guest host on MSNBC before they get their own show.

What you don't see is MSNBC casting about for liberal journalists with any depth to their bona fides, looking about to snare them for the next new show, as they did with Martin Bashir. You know, someone over 50. The trend is to give the non-journalist young person the new show.

I find that to be a disturbing trend.

At least they're giving women a few of these shows.

[meadowlark5]

31. I believe he was being honest.

His wife just beat cancer, but there is no guarantee it won't come back. I could totally see him wanting more time with his family than spending this time left with his wife on tv, radio and all of the other stuff he does.

I hope his weekend gig works and MSNBC can expand their coverage and get rid of that ignorant crap they televise on the weekends. What absolute trash that stuff is, being broadcast on what is supposed to be a news station.

Unless Ed was making waves on par with what Olbermann did, I can't see any execs kicking Ed out. If his ratings were high, they wouldn't cut their nose off to spite their face - unless Ed did something pretty egregious. And nothing I've read or head makes me think that's what happened. We always knew when Olbermann was called on the carpet, I can't imagine we wouldn't have heard something if Ed was.

[99Forever]

35. If you are over 55...

... quite frankly, you might as well be invisible. That is reality to every one I have spoken to in our age bracket. We just don't matter to anyone that is in a position to be of help.

THEY DON'T CARE. AT ALL.

[lunatica]

38. The funny thing is that Ed Schultz will always draw more people

Chris Hayes is an intellectual and brainy. He'll always have a faithful following, but most people won't understand him or get him. I don't think Chris Hayes will be wildly popular. He'll have people who follow him but they won't be fans in the general sense of that word.

Ed Schultz really is a man of the people. He has fans.

[snappyturtle]

44. Yep...what you said+. nt

[onpatrol98]

49. hmm...

Interesting point. I like Chris Hayes. But, I'm not a fan. That would be true. I don't particularly think he
"gets" the middle class or the plight of the poor. I just think he's really smart and interesting. He may get it. I just never think of him in that way. Then again, I never think about that with Rachel, either. Again, I just think she's really smart and knows what she's talking about most of the time. Of course, Rachel has die hard fans, though.

The question is...will enough of Ed Shultz's fans follow him to the weekend in order to sustain him there. Keith Olbermann had millions of fans. But, not all of them followed him to Current. I realize Current isn't MSNBC. But, it's an interesting thought. I wonder how much money MSNBC lost when Keith left. They certainly lost in terms of viewing population. But, I wonder if their bottom line suffered.

[lunatica]

52. It'll be interesting to watch Chris, Rachel and Lawrence all in a row

They don't necessarily talk only about the news of that day. They pick their own topics which I find refreshing. And, of course, I like their in-depth thoughtful shows and the fact that they assume their audience is as smart as they are.

Chris's show now is too early for me here on the West Coast on weekends. I'll be able to catch his show on MSNBC at 5 pm.

But I like Ed Schultz' passion and his dedication to unions and the blue collar workers. I really like it. I straddle both worlds which is why I love my job at UC Berkeley.

[Samantha]

80. A lot of Keith's viewers did follow him to Current - they bragged about his numbers

but a lot of us left when Current fired him. Then rumors eventually started that different providers were thinking of dropping Current because it had so few viewers. Current, of course, denied it, but those rumors were persistent.

Targeted age groups mean a lot to advertisers, but numbers of viewers are significant to carriers.

Sam

[SoCalDem]

51. Whatever the real story is, we will never truly know

BUT, this happens all the time, always has and always will..

We are on a conveyor from the moment we enter the workforce, and older ones always move aside for younger ones.

It probably didn't matter that much once upon a time.. People were eligible for their pensions after 25 years of service, so lots of people welcomed that "early out". Many took on part time jobs to supplement their incomes until SS kicked in. People paid off houses too, so by the time a person was 50-something, they often had NO HOUSE PAYMENT.

It's a fairly recent phenomenon where so many people are squeezed so hard that they never accumulate anything in their whole lives, and must remain at the job forever.

Parents of Boomers mostly did NOT work 'til they dropped at their jobs.

The very poor probably did, but I'm talking "middle" (which is all but gone now).

Boomers were the last generation who got to go to college free-affordably, so parents of Boomers with a home paid for and no car payments or credit card debt COULD retire early ..

50-somethings today are often babysitting grandkids, taking care of an elderly parent, raising teenagers who will need help for college..they often are loaded with debt, have a highly leveraged-underwater mortgage, shitty health care that costs too much,,.or none.,.,and they can NEVER afford to retire..

[stopbush]

59. Larry King was on CNN in prime time until he was 77, or roughly 20 years older than Ed is today.

If you've got a real brand, you're not usually one of "the older ones (who) always move aside fore the younger ones." If you're the second-top-rated show on a network as is Ed, you don't usually get pushed out of the spot that's generating tons of ad dollars for the network.

[bvar22]

54. DURec! Well Written, well supported opinion.

I disagree with a few snippets.
You claim that Big Eddie morphed into an "extreme progressive".
Ed Shultz evolved into a Pro-Working Class Democrat,
which IS mainstream "Centrist", or should be.
When I joined the Democratic Party 46 years ago, supporting Organized LABOR WAS Middle-of-the-Road.
Sadly, this is no longer true, but just because the Democratic party has moved so FAR to the Right, THAT doesn't make Ed Schultz an "extreme progressive".

I was lucky enough to discover Ed Schutz while he was still broadcasting out of Fargo.
His "Red Meat Eating, Two Fisted, Hard Working, Gun Toting, DEMOCRAT" approach appealed to a large Mid-Western demographic, and he gave MORE people permission to vote FOR the Democrats than any other Talking Head I can think of.
The Right Wing had been very successful with their propaganda campaign to stereotype Liberals and Democrats as "Latte Drinking, urban, intellectual, limo riding, wimpy, Alan Colmes Elites".
Ed did much to combat this stereotype.

MSNBC is making a huge marketing mistake.
Rachel and O'Donnell already have the intellectual, policy wonk viewers.
Adding Chris Hayes won't bring anything to the already saturated market that comes to hear Rachel and O'Donnell.
But many tune in to hear Ed Schultz' "Two Fisted, Gun Toting, Red Meat Eating , Big D Democrat" approach.
THOSE people WILL eventually leave.

DURec for your post!

[stopbush]

62. Thanks. My first D vote was in 1972 for George McGovern, so I've been a D for 40 years as well.

When I say Ed is an "extreme progressive," I am talking in today's terms, because we have to deal with today. Agreed that in the past, he would have been considered more of a centrist.

Thanks for the DuRec.

[WCGreen]

55. Big Ed is a populist in the best way...

He speaks his mind and he doesn't mince words.

I really do think it is about his wife. There is a creeping sense of mortality that hits most of us when we get of this age. Maybe he is having regrets about all the time he gave to the cause.

The good news in all this is he will still be on the weekends where MSNBC really doesn't have a strong line-up. Big Ed would be a great start to week end stuff. They know most of the younger eyeballs will be out and about on Saturday and Sunday nights.

As far as the wonkiness of the younger people on MSNBC, they are all liberal and all have put in extensive time for publications such as Mother Jones and The Nation. Some of them are just broadcast journalists, if there is such a thing. But they are trying to reach out to those people who are progressive and entering their prime. It's a good strategy for MSNBC.

Big Ed, I didn't like some of the stuff he did, too much from the radio. Still, he helped get Obama reelected and put himself into the Wisconsin falderall helping to showcase a progressive grass roots movement that is far superior an organized than the stuff on the right that passes off as a citizen happening.

[Zen Democrat]

56. I believe Ed spoke from his heart.

I don't believe ambition is his priority now.

I believe he was telling the truth when he called garbage to the NYTimes story about MSNBC looking for his replacement.

Ed gets to break new ground, which has the potential to be wildly popular given additional time to explain and expound on the topics of the day and week. There was a time when nothing happened on the weekends, but that time is receding in the rear view mirror. Ever check out the news on cable from 5-7 weekends? It's pitiful.

[Samantha]

65. I was coming to this site this evening to post about discrimination in broadcasting due to age

and I found your thread, which comports with exactly what I have been thinking all day. It really bothers me. I do think this is everywhere, the tendency to hire younger people as opposed to the best qualified person, and frankly, I see it as self-defeating.

Viewers who have the option to go to other sources will just start doing so when they find the overall content lacking. (I am not talking about Chris Hayes, who is excellent, but I might mention S.E. Cupp who totally is out of her element in that domain and gets a lot of exposure. I will just outright say it -- that woman is simply dumb. I would prefer to listen to my dog Cheyenne discuss politics than S.E. Cupp, yet there she is. She has zero depth.)

With the ever-increasing ability to pay for what one wants to see, as opposed to paying a huge cable bill that includes a content of material 98 percent of which I would never watch, I see myself exiting the cable venue when my contract expires in a year. I believe others will do the same, and this is why policies such as letting advertisers determine the age group of target audiences and networks catering to their wishes will over the long haul self-destruct.

So I think your thread is 100% on "target"; I think you have been getting interviewed so the HR records can document the fact these companies considered candidates of all ages. I am not trying to be insulting, I have been there myself and I know the drill. I am now self-employed, and I am the best boss I have ever had!

Sam

[stopbush]

72. Thanks for your post.

Yes, I get that many of these interviews I take are for the benefit of the HR department, not me.

The worst are when you fly across the country for an interview (which always costs significant money out of your own pocket, even when they pay for the flight, hotel, etc), the interview goes great...and then you see that they've simply promoted from within, giving the job to some young person who was introduced to you as being part of "your support staff." In such cases, you're footing the "we looked everywhere, but surprise, surprise, the solution was right in front of us all the time" bill.

Starting my own business? Well, I just helped my wife move out of a corporate situation to start her own business, and it hasn't gotten to the point where she's making enough to think it was the right move. Her old job wants her back, but she doesn't really want to go back. We can't really afford the expense it would take for me to start my own biz right now. Our "new venture" funds are tied up with her effort.

[Samantha]

73. Do you know what I just thought about?

All those rumors afloat that Jay Leno might be leaving.

So check out this link:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/03/jay-lenos-days-behind-desk-are-numbered/62693/

"So, why is the network making the switch? The youngs, apparently. Kids aren't watching Leno anymore. They prefer the funny jokes of former Man Show host Jimmy Kimmel over on ABC. Well, no, that's a bit glib. Leno is consistently beating Kimmel in the coveted 18-34 demographics, but Kimmel is competitive, and that scares NBC. They need some pep. A youthful rejuvenation, if you will, in the form of the real-life leprechaun Fallon."

So what do you make of that, stopbush? Looks like a pattern to me.

Sam

[stopbush]

82. I always find it suspicious when someone is getting great ratings and they get pushed out

or get moved to a poor time slot.

I don't know if it's a pattern. That might be stretching things.

[Samantha]

85. Here are the lowest common denominators in these situations

- NBC

- focus on the 18-32 target audience prominently mentioned in quoted paragraph

- Salary -- dollars to donuts Fallon does not command the same salary as Leno

- Current host is successful in achieving respectable numbers, has a number of years of experience in his field, is rumored to be leaving to be replaced by a younger replacement not quite as seasoned but who is expected to attract more of the 18-32 year old viewers

I think it is starting to show a pattern in the preferences NBC seems to gravitate toward, but I am sure everyone sees these things differently. But remember Current Television replaced Olbermann with Spitzer, and I am sure they cut their overhead costs significantly with that move. Comcast is a shareholder in Current and has also partnered with NBC.

Sam

[Jennicut]

70. I love Big Ed but at 37 I just relate better to Chris Hayes.

And Rachel, Alex Wagner, Ari Melber, Krystal Ball, Steve Kornacki, etc. I don't see them as "kids". We are all in our thirties. At 30, I already had a house and two kids and had worked multiple jobs. Gen X (and even Gen Y, which is Ezra Klein at 28) is growing up. We don't mean to misplace people. But we are not kids anymore. Not at nearly 40, I hope I am not. Big Ed is great but it's kind of like getting the news from your father. He is almost the same age as my parents. That is what I have been seeing on tv as far as pundits go for a long time.

[alp227]

71. As much as i sympathize with the POV you put forth,

I think that MSNBC at least will occupy a niche of programming for those who would rather not watch Fox non-News, the recycled prison shows/"To Catch a Predator" shows from 2004, 05, 06 whenever, reality show marathons on MTV/all the other channels that weren't supposed to have reality TV, etc. Plus from what I'm reading, Ed's new weekend show is going to have a longform journalism format, kind of a 60 Minutes for working Americans, rather than the generic news/commentary/interview format of Ed's old show/the other MSNBC primetime shows.

But in this era I do observe that corporate media wants to de-geriafy (can't come up with a real word, just made that up on the spot) the primetime. The 45 and under demographic brings in the most ad revenue. Thus that's why so much of the media you might notice is aimed towards 45-and-unders like me (I'm 22). I've noticed that ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. always have younger-looking folks hosting the news shows...contrast that from the Jennings/Rather/Brokaw days of 10 years ago, it's like gray hair gets one purged from major hosting gigs, save for Charlie Rose on the revived CBS This Morning.

[MADem]

84. Diane Sawyer (though she looks great) is no spring chicken--she used to work for NIXON!

She's 67. Scott Pelley (age 55) has grey hair. Both do the nightly news on ABC and CBS respectively. Brian Williams on NBC is only 53--the "kid" of the Big Three.

On the cable news shows, there are plenty of ancient mariners--Tweety (67), O'Reilly (63), O'Donnell (57), Candy Crowley (64)--there comes a point in time, certainly, where new blood needs to be brought in and groomed for bigger things. That's what MSNBC is trying to do with that CYCLE show (which is unwatchable--not because of the youth of the commentators, but because of the stupid things so many of them say--it's just tripe, that show).

Ed? He's 59. He looks every minute of it, but he's not the oldest horse on the track by a long shot. I think he's been given an opportunity, here--60 Minutes has lost its spark since Mike Wallace left...no one can sneer and accuse like that man could; his style of inquisition would leave one almost feeling sorry for the sweating criminal he was berating!

If Ed can find a hook that motivates people to turn away from the ticking stopwatch--and he'll have TWO hours, so he can grab them and keep them with good material--he just might be on to something. He needs good staff and a motivated production team--if he has that he has the opportunity to do great things.

[ArizonaLib]

83. Ed's reaction to being left out of a promo series

A couple of years ago it was reported that Ed got extremely upset with MSNBC management about being left out of a round of promos, wherein after his objections, he reportedly promised not to react like that again. I have always gotten the impression that Ed knows how to be a team player, and the closeness he has with Rachel cannot be faked. Rachel yields a lot of power at MSNBC, and I don't think there would be a bigger shake up than just his time slot moving to weekends. With his ratings, he could go to Headline News, or CNN, who would love his ratings. They could successfully replace Ed's weekday time, but it needs to be something where the viewer can feel like they are part of change when they watch it. Having Ezra Klein or M.E. Dyson read a teleprompter between Hardball and Rachel or between Lawrence and Rachel is going to kill ratings momentum. It would be like David Gregory taking over for Tim Russert. I would like to see what Dyson could do with the slot. I don't want to see what MSNBC could get Dyson to do, I think it is possible Dyson could really come up with something good if left to his own. Chances are though, it would be good for die hard libs like myself, and not get Ed's ratings soon enough before it gets canned.

[Coyotl]

89. Ed said he doesn't want to work 7 days a week any more. Good for him!

Glad he can do what he wants still, with a better "plan" for him personally. He's not only going to be happier, but he will do better programming, I'm sure, and gain a new, wider audience too. That's great by me.

[jeff47]

90. Yeah, it had absolutely nothing to do with working two full-time jobs

and having a wife who's battling cancer.

Nope, it's all ageism.