After a brief 6 month stint, MSNBC today reports it has cancelled the "Donahue" show. Truly a sad day for liberals, and a sad day for Democrats.
Ratings for Phils show never picked up over the course of his run.

We probably should have expected this, and should not have hoped that a 70's talk show icon could have put up a fight to the constant drumbeat and near religious fervor of the radical right.

Why did this happen?? Number one on my list would be apathy, from Democrats and liberals in general. We at this time in my view are not united, we don't speak with one loud clear, concise message, and haven't for some time. We are scattered all over the place, I am sad to say. And until we are all on page one, like our opposition, I don't see much hope for countering the minion like banter one comes to expect from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and so on, and so forth!

Even respected journalist Helen Thomas when asked about Shrubs' policies, policy makers,and cabinet, spoke on Donahue last week, that "everybody is on page one. Its almost robotic". I couldn't agree more. Further she said Shrub was "too secretive". Again, I couldn't agree more. No one devaites from the prime directed per Karl Rove, its Iraq and nothing else! Never mind the economy is in the toilet and countless millions of Americans are hurting and hurting bad, our health care system is in shambles, corporate greed is still rampant, keep the focus on Iraq, and its working quite well, isn't it??? Never mind about Osama Bin laden or Kim-Li.

You know who I would like to see get a show? Molly Ivins. This woman knows Texas politics, she knows Shrub, and I think she is fresh, something we liberals, and Democrats need, and need now. WE must also get up off our lazy butts, and let our Congressmen, and women know where we stand, and where we lie. We cannot afford to be apathetic at this major juncture in our countrys' history! I know I have been very involved lately in contacting my own Representatives and letting them know where I stand with war with Iraq, and in trying to do something about our health care mess....
Until then, maybe we will get lucky and somebody bright in the Demos camp will give Molly a chance. One can hope. Now I will step aside from my soap box for the day. wink

I'm not surprised at all and am glad he got cancelled.

No.1 reason for the cancellation? Not because he was a liberal or whatnot. But because he was an out of touch blowhard who instead of letting his guests state their opinions, would instead give sermons instead.

I agree, in esence, with Ung. I don't think the problemis having a liberal, I think the problem is that liberal being Donahue. I can be pretty liberal and even when I agree with him, I feel he's too preachy.

Respectfully disagree ung. Like his conservative guests who he had on constantly I might add, didn't do the exact same thing???? I felt he let them talk far more than they should have had, but thats just my opinion. wink

The only show of his I saw was the one about gay athletes, featuring Esera Tuaolo and Dan Woog, among others. I thought from that piece that he was a bad moderator of the discussion, seemingly yelling several times at the one person who represented the opposition. Don't know what his other shows were like - but, from that one, I wasn't interested in finding out.

that is typical Donahue fashion. his modus operandi if you will. His show in the 80s was like that and he hasn't changed.

MSNBC is stupid. Donahue has not changed from his heyday in the 80s and 70s. But his audience has. If we want a sermon, we go to church.

Donahue had a show again?

O'Reilly has killed every show thats gone up against him.

One only has to look at some of the recent hires at MSNBC--Dick Armey, Mike Savage--to see the network (and I use that term loosely) wants to be more conservative. They're going to wind up looking just like Fox News Channel but won't garner the ratings for the simple reason that FNC got there first.

~Adam

There was an interesting article published about this today. MSNBC recently had a management consulting firm do an analysis of its operations and programming. "America's News Network" cannot catch up to its competition, and wanted to know why.

In the report, it stated very clearly that the Donahue show was a liability to MSNBC because "its consistently liberal leanings make it an easy target for the conservative viewers who do not believe anyone should question the White House or its policies". The report stated that while the show was one of few to offer a balancing perspective in the overall news categories, it was not able to withstand the general tide of news agencies refusing to challenge the current administration or its views.

Of interest, the report pointed out that the shows ratings have been steadily increasing over the past few weeks, and that more people were wanting to hear the views put forth by guests of the show. The report also stated that it would not be a wise decision to cancel the show and to go with the flow in the media of blocking attempts to put alternative views on the air. It recommended that MSNBC not take an approach of fighting FOX News by becoming like FOX News (considered to be the most conservative of the news stations).

MSNBC, however, disagreed and extinguished the show. It also incorporated other recommendations, such as no longer using the "America's News Network" slogan and such.

I dont think most liberals like to watch news shows.. where-as most conservative will sit down and watch. Donahue V O'Rielly was a bad match, when when connie beats you in ratings... you have a problem.

Liberals not watching news programs, that's a funny one. Aren't most conservatives convinced that liberals run the media?

There are news shows that moderates, liberals and progressives watch, like "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." About two weeks ago, that show featured one of the BEST discussions I have ever seen on TV, but it was too brief. In it, Gwen Ifill introduced the two figures, Jessica Tuchman Matthews, a liberal and head of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, and Richard Perle, an arch-conservative and the architect of the Iraq War. Each was allowed to say her/his piece, and then they got into what turned out to be a sometimes heated, but always informed discussion. Matthews and Perle both are VERY smart and knew their stuff, and Matthews, as the liberal, did not fold and try to be accommodating as liberals often do. At one point she directly challenged one of Perle's assertions, and he changed the subject. It lacked the usual namecalling, unvarnished bias and pseudo-arguments that are so common on Fox, and might provide a template for how a more liberal-focused show might function. Still, it did allow the conservative lots of time to talk and state his case.

As for Donahue, I think he wasn't give enough time to let his audience develop and gel, but also, why can't MSNBC or any of these stations find younger, more energetic, interesting, and DIVERSE liberal interlocutors? Why do they keep going to the dinosaurs? There ARE people under 45 who are brilliant, funny and happen to have progressive views. I would love to see Molly Ivins on TV, and I've liked Bill Press, and the others--including my favorite, the leather-skinned old growling lizard Tom Braden, who used to go up against Pat Buchanan, but let's also bring some younger folks into the mix. And it should be like selecting colors from a Crayon box; get people who are sharp and can think and speak quickly!

MSNBC just went after donahue because he was a big name, and the big name would be able to compete with O'Rielly. MSNBC have never really competed in the new market, the last ratings i saw on drudge... hardball and donahue were the lowest watched up all them. Maybe Donahue can go to cnn and they can dump chung, that has to be the most boring show i've ever seen.

Ted Turner supposedly loathes Chung's show and think she's an idiot. He's pushing to get her off TV. I think she's one of the worst journalists on TV.

I watched her show once, and i can tell you this, that was the best night of sleep i've ever had...

I always liked the original Donohue show, after all he created the talk show format, and the few times that I saw his MSNBC show, it was pretty good - the ones I saw included the homophobia in sports show, and his last one, with Rosie O'Donnell (BTW, she was wonderfully eloquent and bi-partisan while at the same time arguing against the war with Iraq).

My problem was, I forgot it was on. If MSNBC wanted to program a show that was the antithesis of O'Reilly and company, they did a horrible job promoting it. They also had Donohue at 8 pm paired with Chris Matthews at 9pm, which seemed like bad programming.

Also too civil to "sell" today. Most so-called news/talk/interview shows these days are screamfests where opinionated pundits with bugs up their butts try to shout each other down ... or else the host does. It's as if they took Donahue's most annoying characteristic and made it the whole show. Matthews et al. are "Rollerball" masquerading as conversation.

"Lehrer" gets to be civil because it's on PBS ... but then so is -- "so tell me, Mr., uh" -- Charlie -- "what do you, uh, you" -- Rose -- "mean by that? And another thing ..."

Donahue got canceled because his viewpoints are completely out of step with the country. His views were mainstream twenty years ago; today he's an anachronism who never saw a better path, but his onetime viewers did.

Yeah & the liberals are now complaining that the media (especially radio) is slanted toward the conservatives. Who's right?

You're entitled to your opinion, MunsonMan, but please don't try to imply that you speak for EVERYONE because there are MANY Americans who agree with Donahue on a high percentage of his beliefs (although not 100% of them, of course), most notably his longstanding strong and courageous support on behalf of the GLBT community....his consistent support for gays and human rights (long before it became as "commonplace" as it is now, albeit recognizing that we still have a long way to go in this area) is a stand that few if any of his "competitors" have been willing to take and Phil should be commended for his unequivocally vocal support, particularly during the recent December show when he devoted the full hour to the topic of gays in sports (how many others have done the same?).

One point that Donahue raised which I don't think anyone can dispute is that six months is far too short of a period of time to give any show in this medium if you ultimately believe in its content and are willing to help it succeed....if they expect it to make inroads in the ratings (particularly on a "lesser" cable network like MSNBC) and develop a loyal audience, the network brass surely cannot expect that to occur overnight....as Phil also mentioned in this mornings AP story, it took Fox News Channel over two years to begin making significant strides to be competitive with and ultimately overtake CNN in several key time slots.

As with any business, however, if "senior management" is not willing to support you (which was clearly the case here) then you are doomed -- and the brass at NBC clearly do not have the cajones to stand behind their hiring decision and give the show time to flourish, and of even greater consequence, they buckled under the anticipated pressure from right-wing conservatives who they felt would take exception with Donahue's liberal viewpoints if and when the war in Iraq escalates....I only hope that other "major" networks are willing to provide a national forum for commentators, talk show hosts, etc. who speak out on behalf of the gay community as strongly and consistently as Donahue has done over the years.

[ February 27, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Relax, Gamecock. It's an OPINION BOARD - therefore, by definition, every single one of is simply posting our own opinion. I'm not foolish enough to think that anyone here is implying that they speak for everyone, nor do I think that anyone else is foolish enough to think that I would imply that I speak for everyone. If either were the case there'd be no need to have these forums.

[ February 27, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

I realize this is a discussion board, MunsonMan, and I am always open to hearing differing opinions but your statements that "his viewpoints are completely out of step with the country" and "he's an anachronism that never saw a better path" came across to me as being a little too harsh and not expressed as merely one members opinion.

In either event, there are plenty of issues that I disagree with Donahue and many other liberals about -- my primary point was referring to MSNBC's lack of support for Donahue, as evidenced by the VERY short time they gave him to develop an audience and increase his ratings, and of greater importance the REAL underlying reasons behind the show's cancellation (i.e., the network's fear of controversy during an anticipated time of war).

[ February 27, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Munson Man:
Donahue got canceled because his viewpoints are completely out of step with the country. His views were mainstream twenty years ago; today he's an anachronism who never saw a better path, but his onetime viewers did. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Game cock -You're entitled to your opinion, MunsonMan, but please don't try to imply that you speak for EVERYONE because there are MANY Americans who agree with Donahue on a high percentage of his beliefs------- --From Copman--Well SOME Americans agree with him but obviously not enough to keep his show on the air for very long.

Donahue - a perfect example of liberal white guilt.

Perhaps they should call him "Dona-saur?"

That's fine, I completely understand that it "came across" that way. But "came across" is essentially your subjective interpretation - which you're completely entitled to and we all have - that's very different from saying that I "implied" any such thing. Hope that clarifies things and we can move on.

MSNBC cancels Donahue but gives Michael Savage his own show.

They're fishing for the conservative viewers.

GLAAD has contacted MSNBC and asked them to recind the offer.

Read the press release that they put out. It shows what kind of person that he is.

http://www.glaad.org/media/newspops_detail...f58a71bebc19c7e