If I were an historian looking back at the US in the first decade of the 21st century, I’d note the fact that today is the debut of a ‘progressive talk radio’ talk show host on a national media network. Because it’s one more sign, like Olbermann, and like Maddow, that the Internet drives media, rather than follows it.
The debut of "The Ed Show" on MSNBC suggests that deep below the surface of the front page news items, somewhere amid the hum of political blogs, something new has taken shape. Clearly, every media organization has tried to analyze and capture it; very few have succeeded.
Clearly, MSNBC, using the web stats and metrics that the Internet enables, has been analyzing the web hits for episodes of Countdown, Hardball, Maddow, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and has concluded that there’s a potential audience for Ed Schultz on television. That’s a significant social shift from 30 months ago, when Olbermann began to build an audience beyond any expectations or historical precedent on an American television network. Arguably, Olbermann translated the muttered wrath on the blogs into ‘telespeak’, and along with David Shuster’s reporting of the Plame outing, invented a new type of news reporting and commentary that synthesized topics, questions, and opened the acceptable range of television ‘experts’ to something wider than it has ever been.
If I were an historian, I would note that MSNBC is taking a chance on a new host who is probably unknown to most Americans. The new program, heavily promoted on MSNBC’s other outlets, offers itself up as ‘a show aimed at the middle class, and middle class issues’.
Before the Internet, I doubt that a major US television network would have gambled on a ‘progressive teevee news show’.
Judging from the fact that ‘The Ed Show’ begins tonight, it’s a safe bet that those of us on the political left did not realize as we hit the keyboards and clicked on videos that our activities were being statistically analyzed in ways that might drive — rather than simply respond to — programming provided by a major American media network.
In many respects, MSNBC has an advantage in developing new content because — like CNN — it was foresighted enough to buy up a cable channel and thereby get a jump on ‘multipurposing’ content — generating dual revenue streams; one online, one on the television. We’re watching media merge and morph here, and the emergence of a narrative aimed at progressive politics is not something that I heard back in the mid-1990s when I heard multimedia producers predict what was to come. To my knowledge, nothing like Olbermann, Maddow, nor Ed Schultz were predicted.
I suspect that the audience was always there, but it took Kos and Firedoglake and Unclaimed Territory — and the open-minded, tolerant policies those blog founders established, to reveal the deep desire for better information.
Whether Ed Schultz can help meet that need remains to be seen, and personally, I have no idea how the show will do financially or critically. But I’m convinced that we’re seeing television programming respond to blogs, rather than the other way around.
And just for this evening, I’m going to savor that small miracle.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart to Jane, to Christy, to Emptywheel, and to all the smart, witty FDLers who, IMHO, had a key role in driving media to realize that many of us are looking for more than Bill Moyers once a week; that there IS not simply a passive audience, but a co-creating, collaborative, participatory movement among people who desire better information than we’ve had most of the past 28 years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30076513#30076513
Tags: blogs, Ed Shultz, Media, MSNBC, News, television programming



7 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
oh reader, a very good read here – thanks.
rec.
random notes -
my thoughts on it pretty much track yours – although curious as to just who is it that is betting on a progressive block
tonight caught only his nice little smackdown of Coach K – loved it !
have asked some apolitical co workers to give him a look and get back to me with their impressions – suspect his down home folksy thing may work for them – it’ll be interesting to hear
well i thought his show was kind of boring.
He was probably an evangelical preacher in another life.
If he’s going to push single payer health care, then he’s a winner.
On MSNBC, I feel like Maddow is doing some shilling with some of her comments on “Big Scary Russsia”, the Iranian drones, and the supposed Terrorist phone call threats to MSNBC. Are any of you picking up on this?
It’ll be interesting to see whether he ‘pushes’ any specific plan, but his stated focus on specific issues like health care, and union (or ‘middle class’) issues is something that I don’t recall seeing anywhere previously. There are many outlets and many programs, but I think it is safe to say that Pat Robertson never put ‘health care’ as a central focus of his programming decisions, or used it as a criteria for inviting guests.
If nothing else, perhaps a focus on health care on a show — providing a range of discussion — will create a better conversation on that topic. Ditto the auto bailouts; I still recall the shock of seeing a UAW official invited onto Olbermann’s program last fall, because I don’t recall hearing union members interviewed. In the past, the ‘experts’ were always the auto company execs, but it only makes sense that if you are trying to reach an audience, there are millions more people who earn paychecks than earn bonuses.
As for Maddow, IMHO she’s enormously gifted, humble, a very good listener, and extremely smart. I think that what you call ’shilling’ is a style and tone typical of her age group, and because much of what she discusses is seriously scary in order to maintain people’s attention and help her audience feel that it is possible to solve problems (as opposed to giving in to hopelessness), she often communicates things in a jaunty, mocking tone that is typical of her age group — but it’s a new style for major news programs.
I think it’s an interesting, and hopeful, sign of the times.
And cbl2, like you I’ll be interested to see how people who are ‘apolitical’ perceive Ed Shultz. Some will like him; some won’t. But like you I suspect that the ‘apolitical but possibly interested’ audience will determine the outcome.
well put about rachel.
sorry, but
i am not an ‘ed’ fan. i think he does more to hurt dem/progressive concerns than helping.
in other words, he’s an ass. i quit listening to his show a long time ago. wrote him letters during the progressively downward turn he was taking.
anyone supporting him i guess didn’t listen to him on a regular basis last year. i did. he did his best to keep anyone from unifying.
he and ‘donna brassiere’ i can do without. two-faced twits.
he’s the last one standing, that explains his standing. it doesn’t mean he’s good at it or worthy of my time.
and he may bloviate on health care and touch on other issues he can use to incite divisions but that is only to blow his own horn and put forward his own agenda. bet on it.
he gets guests because he’s the only national radio dem game in town.
kiss ass bugger-picker. i won’t be watching. in fact, saw him on my tv the other night and went ‘yuuuck, not in my living room!!!’ and turned the channel. seriously, i would watch hannity before i would watch schultz. at least hannity believes what he is saying so you know where he is coming from. schultz, i can’t say the same. one of the few people i truly dislike.
Once a Rhodes Scholar, always a Rhodes Scholar? Rachel tends to go along with the old Rhodes idea of an Anglo-American empire continuing forever. She was trained in this mindset. Whereas, she isn’t Glenn Beck or even David Gregory, she does fall under that “liberals are smug and sarcastic pointy headed intellectuals” portrait that gets us into trouble.
And Schultz is a self-promoter like Rush. I listened to him when he first was on Sirius, but found nothing informative or entertaining (how many fish stories can you listen too?) and found his voice irritating. So quit listening over a year ago.
Did we the bloggers have an influence? I voted for Sam Seder. Somebody young and quirky was what I was after. With Schultz we just get the center version of Beck.
I agree with Professor Sheldon Wolin that we are living in “inverted totalitarianism” and all our news is “managed”. They give us just enough change to keep us from dumping the whole system. That’s what Schultz is there for. Not transformation or any real change.
Move along. Nothing to see here.