Back to normal at MSNBC, which is to say, dysfunctional

While some are asking what "The Daily Show" will do now that we have entered the post-Bush era, the folks over at NBC News have already got their game plan mapped out: They're going to keep kneecapping each other.

This morning, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews had their first post-election exchange on "Morning Joe," and it kinda reminded me of some of the tension-filled ones that became such popular web clips during the campaign. That, combined with a new insider quote comparing Rachel Maddow to Ashleigh Banfield -- no, really -- suggests that NBC will be supplying some of the drama in a No-Drama Administration.

Clip's below.

Things got off to a bad start as Scarborough rolled over Matthews' first attempt to answer a question. When Joe asked what Rep. Rahm Emanuel's motives might be in not immediately accepting the job offer of chief of staff, Chris blurted out, "I don't question motive ... it's the worst thing you can do in journalism." I'm not sure even Chris buys that -- I would think reporting nonexistent WMD in Iraq might be a bigger sin -- but Joe let it go, kind of, until Matthews followed that up with an even bigger whopper that reminded me of Dan Rather's "just tell me where" declaration during his post-9/11 appearance on David Letterman's show.

CHRIS: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.

JOE: (incredulous) Your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work.

CHRIS: And to make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now. ...

MIKA: Uhhh, well, I'm a little confused what the job is here, because we all want to make things work, but I'm not sure it's our job ...

CHRIS: How can you not root for the success of a new president?

MIKA: Um, you know what? I just think it's going to be important to ask questions. (CHRIS smiles, suggesting he might be pulling everyone's leg here, but you never know)

JOE: As Americans, Chris Matthews, we're all rooting for the success of Barack Obama. America's at a perilous time. But you just talked about being a journalist and your job as a journalist is not to question motives and then two seconds later you said your job was to make this presidency a success.

CHRIS: Yeah.

JOE: I think that's curious. ... We just don't think it's our job to make this any more than it was our job than to ensure the Iraq War has a successful launch.

Yow. The clip cuts off before Chuck's Todd's priceless reaction that said: Leave me out of this!

Of course, Chuck Todd is going to be in the middle of an internal s---storm right away himself. Already, the bored Washington press corps is playing that parlor game of who will succeed Tim Russert as host of "Meet the Press." (Tom Brokaw said he would take Russert's job only through the election.) Chuck Todd has already been the source of one unflattering comment by an NBC insider who told a reporter -- anonymously, of course -- that he didn't "break through the glass" enough for his liking.

The reality is that you gotta think a little outside the box to name Chuck Todd the guy in charge of "Meet the Press." I think it would be a pretty bold move by NBC and the right one, if Beltway chat shows are to have a future. Chuck Todd would be the first moderator of such a program from my post-boom generation. His style is generationally different from the solid old warhorses currently running Sunday morning newsmaker shows. He may be perceived as not bare-knuckles enough, the way George Stephanopoulos was at first. As I say, I think it'd be the right move, but there always seems to be somebody inside NBC who's unhappy with any move the news division makes.

And then there's Rachel Maddow. Now, before I quote this, let me just say consider the source: a little-known journalist writing for PageSix Magazine, owned by the corporate sister of the Fox News Channel. It's a gossipy little piece that mostly retreads the famous on-air blowups during DNC week at MSNBC. But deep inside it there's this:

Some compare the network's love of Maddow to the flurry of excitement over Ashleigh Banfield, who was given the ax in '04 after bashing the network's coverage of the war in Iraq. "They constantly try to create another media darling," says an insider. (via TVNewser)

Nice. Not misogynist at all. Because as we all know, Rachel Maddow and Ashleigh Banfield are exactly alike. They both have had shows on MSNBC. And they both have vajayjays.

Look, Banfield seems smart enough, but on-air stardom was forced upon her and she had little support from MSNBC in tailoring a show to her talents. Maddow, on the other hand, started as a guest on Tucker Carlson's show, became a reliable talking head for Keith Olbermann, increased her air time at MSNBC gradually, added David Gregory's panel show to her list -- meanwhile she was holding down a national daily radio program, always good prep for a nightly TV show -- filled in for Olbermann (as KO has attested, no substitute ever worked as hard to get it right) and then, and only then, did she get the job. Her show is getting impressive cable numbers in the 25-54 demo, and no wonder: It fits her talents (geeky, plays well with guests), she has a great lead-in and lead-out and she's very, very watchable.

Which is why she is a rising star on cable ... and whoever gave that quote to the competition isn't.

Comments

[csh]

Matthew's former job was to make sure that Hillary Clinton was not the nominee by unfairly questioning her EVERY notive.

MSNBC is a three ring circus and Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow are nothing but clowns.

[Roxanne]

"CHRIS: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work."

I was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw this as I watched this morning. I still can't believe he actually said it and I heard it with my own ears.

Stunning.

[SMGalbraith]

I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.

But what is the standard or measure for a successful presidency? Isn't it whether the policies are good for the country? Not whether the president is effective in getting those policies enacted.

Unless one supports those policies as Matthews does.

Sorry, Mr. Matthews, the job of a journalist is to report, critically but accurately and fairly, on the policies of a President and not just whether he is getting them enacted.

Whether those policies work or fail, are good or bad, or successful or not, will be determined by the public.

Not MSNBC journalists.

[Stephan Beatty]

Matthews is obviously laying the groundwork to run for the Senate from Pennsylvania in 2010. He'll probably quit after the inauguration to kick off his campaign.
MSNBC knows this; everybody knows this is what's going on with him. Anyone pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.

[RM Leach]

Chrissy's job has always been first and foremost to cover for his party. That he can parade as a journalist while doing so without being called on it by his peers only exposes the corrupt ethics of America's media ...

[Uh, let me just stop you there. You did read the post, right? You do know that within five seconds of saying this latest statement, all of his peers appearing on national TV with him at the same time called him on it, right? I don't mind dissenting opinions here. I do mind idiotic assertions that would result in corrections being printed the next day if they were written by actual journalists.--AB]

[R:ealist]

come on guys. dig deeper. Maddow has some of Olbermans viewers and a large contingent of the gay and lesbian viewership in America. They did not have an outwardly gay news anchor until now and they support their own. Put a heterosexual American hating, Liberal woman in there and they would not get the same support. you're analysis amuses me. don't be scared of the truth, report it

[Ron Ozer]

Chris has always been in the Obama camp. I say better that he be honest about it. None of the news people are objective, and I find it more interesting when they are themselves. FOX can do their crap and so can MSNBC. Give me MSNBC any day over the boredom of CNN and the evil of FOX.

[Roby]

The only show on MSNBC I watch is Morning Joe. I use to be a big fan until the station went into the tank for Obama. As a Hillary supporter I switched to FOX, which I never watched before. Hopefully the station will be sold because of extremly poor ratings and get a team of real journalist in there.

[Suzanne]

Funny, Chris Matthews didn't feel that it was his job to make Bush's presidency successful - in fact, did everything he could to destroy Bush.

[Don]

March on the Media! Pay a visit to your local NBC tv station and give em hell! Television is the medium through with the unions (AFTRA) and Socialist Dems are implementing the liberal agenda in America.

[Peggy]

Chris has selective opinions. How about this new chief of staff, who made alot of money during this financial/wallstreet mess. Whose in the top 10% of incomes earnersand was on the board of Fannie May. A 'Change'(the chant shouted) with a broader definition, would be if Chris suggested to these big winners to show their 'patriotism' and compassion to the public, by offering their need roles andservices free. Since they already reaped the rewards.

[Laura(southernxyl)]

"This country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now."

Why now, as opposed to the last 8 years? You did do everything you could, Chris, to make sure Bush had a successful presidency, right? What, the country didn't need it then but it does now? Please.

[Vivi]

Chris Matthews should join the Obama team since he feels his job is to promote Obama. He was one of the main ones that sought to to get rid of Hillary. MSNBC should show him the door.

[weirdone]

MSNBC, the American Pravda.

[Joyful Alternative]

Matthews plans to run for office in Pennsylvania shortly, as a Democrat. (His brother ran for lieutenant governor last time around as a Republican and lost.)

I'd love to see Banfield with her own MSNBC show again. I became fascinated with her foreign reporting, and heaven only knows, we could use someone who can actually go out in the field and report.

[Katt]

Chris Matthews is the sole reason for me removing MSNBC from my list of favorite channels. Some where between the whole "chills up my leg" to "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work" he forgot he was a journalist.

[Corey H.]

I like watching Hardball and have done so almost every night for at least a year. And I like Matthews' style most of the time, though I think if I ever met him in real life I'd probably think he's a jerk.

Having said that, I think he clearly let his unbridled love of Obama (almost as as much as mine) spill into dangerous territory. Or maybe not. We're assuming he WANTS to be a responsible nonpartisan journalist. His statement about "that's what a journalist does" a minute before may have been the real gaffe. In a post conservative movement world, won't the "liberal movement", if that's what's happening, need their Hannity's and Limbaugh's? Won't some network recognize the money to be made now pandering to the left, or the center-left? And won't they need personalities to fill those airwaves? Matthews is never going to be a Russert, or a Brokaw. But he might be a damn good Centrist Limbaugh, working to "make this presidency work."

[Andy]

From what I saw of his anchoring during the daytime lead-up to election night, Chuck Todd is not just an unsparkling personality... he's flat-out awkward when hosting a show. A nice guy who's just not meant to be an anchor.

Also, I may just be fooling myself, but the Ashleigh Banfield comparison didn't strike me as sexist when I read it. They both were "forced" into stardom after their coverage of what was basically a single event in history.

For Banfield, it was 9/11 and the worldwide aftermath. For Maddow, it was this election. Banfield actually had several years of experience at MSNBC (and had also received some attention during the 2000 recount) before being supposedly thrust into the spotlight. The difference is that Banfield was a gamble that never paid off. For now, their gamble on Maddow appears to be successful.

[kb]

And there are still those that say NBC wasn't "in the tank" for Obama. This network has absolutely no credibility.
With those comments Matthews made himself absolutely, 100% irrelevant as a journalist.
Maybe he can start a Jerry Springer spin-off, something suitable more in line with his "talent".

[al collins]

MSNBC as a whole has been behind Obama from the get go. if they are trying to convince the public they are not just for the obama crowd they are mistaken. as long as they have Chris"I was in the peace corp" not vietnam MATTHEWS, OLBERMANN AND MADDOW MSNBC will be the same.

[Ed Dravecky]

Just where the heck is Ashleigh Banfield these days? She was an excellent reporter for FOX4 here in Dallas and it was a thrill to see her hit the big time for a while, even if she had to wear a Tina Fey costume (shorter dark hair, those glasses) to do it.

Will Maddow's ratings go down, now that the '08 elections are mostly over? To quote a certain famous governor, you betcha. But so will the ratings of every other show on every cable news outlet. It's one thing to tune in every night with vast campaigns slugging it out for the control of the free world and quite another to tune in when the top stories include exactly what breed of puppy the Obama girls will get.

[Thomas Heald]

Ashleigh Banfield did one of those 50 states 50 days things that ABC is so fond of "On Location: Across America."

On the day she came to South Dakota for the always irrelevant standup at Mt. Rushmore ... it was on a day that the mountain could not be seen. The Black Hills was in the midst of wildfires. Not only was it hard to breathe, it was also hard to see Mt. Rushmore.

[TomA]

MSNBC news seems to blatantly relish in presenting a nightly ration of tasteless entertainment they call news. Matthews, Obermann and Maddow all display a egocentric, smirky, flip and glib attitude that reeks of journalist unprofessionalism.

As for going in the tank, I think they went directly in the toilet...where each await a royal flush.

[Corey H.]

There's a bit of disingenuousness in some of these comments. This is a post-CNN world where cable networks need to compete during prime time. There's a necessary entertainment quality that creeps in when you're competing with "The Office", and re-airings of "The Daily Show" each night.

As for MSNBC(excuse me, NOT NBC) being "in the tank" for Obama, it's also a post-FOX world, and it would only be fair for one other cable news channel to lean left because FOX's very existence is to inform from a Republican perspective and reenforce conservative values to their viewers. It WOULD be only fair, except that even on MSNBC's most partisan night, they still don't swim in the deep end. The depth of FOX's tanking is another story.

And if you want to take it further, at least Obama enjoys a 70% approval rating with the public. Bush is at 24%. Maybe it's just that good ole free-market capitalism capitalizing on the demand. If you accept that networks are private businesses, if you accept that the precedent for biased reporting is a fox long since released from the bag, if you accept that entertainment is an integral part of prime time ratings, then Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow are the inevitable result. From there it's only about viewer taste. We've lived through a LONG period of right-tinged biased reporting with the justification that it's an attempt to counter the so-labeled "Liberal Media". Well, the can of worms was opened by the Right, and TRULY Liberal opinion journalism is the counter-result.