Bruce Willis says the forbidden words

[Terry Mauro]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

*********************************************************

Besides the fact that CBS, is aka the C.i.a Broadcasting System, and NBC is owned by The General [G.E.] with people like John Train working behind the scenes to discredit, slander, and/or railroad anyone, who might happen to take a stance against the Conservative element, off to jail for a few years, for expressing an opinion other than that of Mockingbird's "status quo."

[Christopher Hall]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

At the time he was fired, Donahue's nightly viewership was 446,000, while O'Reilly's was 2,700,000 and Connie Chung's was 985,000.

[Pat Speer]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

At the time he was fired, Donahue's nightly viewership was 446,000, while O'Reilly's was 2,700,000 and Connie Chung's was 985,000.

Those numbers are meaningless, Christopher, without an exact comparison of time slot and overall viewership of the network. Do you have the numbers for whatever show replaced Donahue, and the relative costs? Those numbers would have more meaning.

That said, you could be right in your implication that Donahue was fired for legitimate reasons. I was basically repeating what Donahue told Moyers. He wouldn't be the first fired employee to think it was unfair.

[Christopher Hall]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

At the time he was fired, Donahue's nightly viewership was 446,000, while O'Reilly's was 2,700,000 and Connie Chung's was 985,000.

Those numbers are meaningless, Christopher, without an exact comparison of time slot and overall viewership of the network. Do you have the numbers for whatever show replaced Donahue, and the relative costs? Those numbers would have more meaning.

That said, you could be right in your implication that Donahue was fired for legitimate reasons. I was basically repeating what Donahue told Moyers. He wouldn't be the first fired employee to think it was unfair.

I don't think that MSNBC found Donohue's viewership numbers meaningless, and I respectfully disagree that viewership numbers are meaningless.

To the contrary, I think that they mean quite a lot to the networks.

MSNBC has historically, and I believe currently, lagged way behind Fox News and, to a lesser extent, CNN.

I think that MSNBC replaced Donohue with either Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman, both of whom continue to do poorly against the competition.

I obviously don't know MSNBC's production costs.

I remember some discussion floating around the blogosphere about a year ago relating to MSNBC's seriously considering going dark, which I hope doesn't happen.

[Peter McGuire]

I think we need to get this topic back on track:

How about Bruce's odd family situation?

Looks like he got the last laugh.

[Pat Speer]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

At the time he was fired, Donahue's nightly viewership was 446,000, while O'Reilly's was 2,700,000 and Connie Chung's was 985,000.

Those numbers are meaningless, Christopher, without an exact comparison of time slot and overall viewership of the network. Do you have the numbers for whatever show replaced Donahue, and the relative costs? Those numbers would have more meaning.

That said, you could be right in your implication that Donahue was fired for legitimate reasons. I was basically repeating what Donahue told Moyers. He wouldn't be the first fired employee to think it was unfair.

I don't think that MSNBC found Donohue's viewership numbers meaningless, and I respectfully disagree that viewership numbers are meaningless.

To the contrary, I think that they mean quite a lot to the networks.

MSNBC has historically, and I believe currently, lagged way behind Fox News and, to a lesser extent, CNN.

I think that MSNBC replaced Donohue with either Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman, both of whom continue to do poorly against the competition.

I obviously don't know MSNBC's production costs.

I remember some discussion floating around the blogosphere about a year ago relating to MSNBC's seriously considering going dark, which I hope doesn't happen.

What I was trying to say was that, in TV terms, raw numbers of viewers watching a program is a nearly meaningless statistic, when it comes to the decision-making progress. Say you have Cheers on at 8 and Seinfeld on at 9. The show between them will almost certainly win its time slot and have huge ratings. But will there be a drop-off? If so, how much of it is the show's fault and how much of it is from another network's having a good show for that slot? These considerations are the determining factors in the show's life span, not the ratings.

There have been shows with good ratings within their slot, that have been canceled anyhow, due to the demographics of their viewers. That's what killed the original Star Trek. There have been shows with good ratings within their slot, AND desirable demographics, that have been canceled anyhow, due to political reasons. That's what killed The Smothers Brothers Show. Donahue would like to add his show to that list.

Since MSNBC has trailed CNN and Fox News forever, saying that Donahue's show didn't stack up doesn't really tell us much. What does tell us something is that shortly after the war began, CNN felt its hold slipping over to Fox and became more pro-American and more like a tabloid, and that shortly after that MSNBC, via Olberman, began railing against the war, and that their viewership has since picked up tremendously, at the expense of both Fox and CNN (or so I've read). This gives one reason to suspect that Donahue's ratings would have picked up in time. He certainly seems to think so.

[Christopher Hall]

Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.

I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-04.htm

Donahue talked about this a few weeks back on Bill Moyers' program. He said that he was told by MSNBC that he could not have someone opposed to Bush' policies on his show unless he also had someone supporting Bush' policies. He was told as well that he COULD have someone on the program supporting Bush' policies without representing the other side. To their thinking, he (Donahue) counted as a liberal, and should not be allowed to stack the deck against the administration. They then canceled his show even though its ratings were good. A few weeks later, we invaded Iraq.

You are right about Olby.

He outpaced Paula Zahn on Monday by 30,000, which I find impressive, although O'Reilly still be him by a multiple of 3.5 to 4.

I actually tried to watch Donahue on several occasions a few years ago, but the show was already circling the drain.

I think that he had difficulty making the transition from daytime television, where he would, back in the 1980s, walk up and down the aisles with his mike getting people to stand up and talk with him, to a more serious news oriented framework.

I wish him well, whatever he is doing now.

At the time he was fired, Donahue's nightly viewership was 446,000, while O'Reilly's was 2,700,000 and Connie Chung's was 985,000.

Those numbers are meaningless, Christopher, without an exact comparison of time slot and overall viewership of the network. Do you have the numbers for whatever show replaced Donahue, and the relative costs? Those numbers would have more meaning.

That said, you could be right in your implication that Donahue was fired for legitimate reasons. I was basically repeating what Donahue told Moyers. He wouldn't be the first fired employee to think it was unfair.

I don't think that MSNBC found Donohue's viewership numbers meaningless, and I respectfully disagree that viewership numbers are meaningless.

To the contrary, I think that they mean quite a lot to the networks.

MSNBC has historically, and I believe currently, lagged way behind Fox News and, to a lesser extent, CNN.

I think that MSNBC replaced Donohue with either Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman, both of whom continue to do poorly against the competition.

I obviously don't know MSNBC's production costs.

I remember some discussion floating around the blogosphere about a year ago relating to MSNBC's seriously considering going dark, which I hope doesn't happen.

What I was trying to say was that, in TV terms, raw numbers of viewers watching a program is a nearly meaningless statistic, when it comes to the decision-making progress. Say you have Cheers on at 8 and Seinfeld on at 9. The show between them will almost certainly win its time slot and have huge ratings. But will there be a drop-off? If so, how much of it is the show's fault and how much of it is from another network's having a good show for that slot? These considerations are the determining factors in the show's life span, not the ratings.

There have been shows with good ratings within their slot, that have been canceled anyhow, due to the demographics of their viewers. That's what killed the original Star Trek. There have been shows with good ratings within their slot, AND desirable demographics, that have been canceled anyhow, due to political reasons. That's what killed The Smothers Brothers Show. Donahue would like to add his show to that list.

Since MSNBC has trailed CNN and Fox News forever, saying that Donahue's show didn't stack up doesn't really tell us much. What does tell us something is that shortly after the war began, CNN felt its hold slipping over to Fox and became more pro-American and more like a tabloid, and that shortly after that MSNBC, via Olberman, began railing against the war, and that their viewership has since picked up tremendously, at the expense of both Fox and CNN (or so I've read). This gives one reason to suspect that Donahue's ratings would have picked up in time. He certainly seems to think so.

I am sure that Donahue thinks his ratings would have improved, but I think that he is unduly charitable in his assessment.

I don't think that he transitioned from the theatrics which accompany daytime television (that he helped pioneer) to a more serious news oriented show.

I used to try to watch his show before it was pulled, and I found his antics (e.g. pacing around with his mike up and down the aisles) pretty annoying and Springer-esque.

In any event, I hope that he and Marlo Thomas are doing well.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Christopher Hall

[Myra Bronstein]

...

I am sure that Donahue thinks his ratings would have improved, but I think that he is unduly charitable in his assessment.

I don't think that he transitioned from the theatrics which accompany daytime television (that he helped pioneer) to a more serious news oriented show.

I used to try to watch his show before it was pulled, and I found his antics (e.g. pacing around with his mike up and down the aisles) pretty annoying and Springer-esque.

In any event, I hope that he and Marlo Thomas are doing well.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from Chris.

Nothing the least bit suspicious about the cancelation of the only talk show on TV that welcomed peacenick guest in the midst of the big propaganda wind up to the Iraq invasion.

...

(Mods, we can't swear but we can be very sarcastic, right?)

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Networks used to believe they played a zero sum game but these days, every time their ratings drop (and they drop every period) they realize that viewers are abandoning them for new media. And so they now play the frantic game that radio stations used to play - bring in high-priced talent, promote the show obscenely then launch during a sweeps period. If the numbers tank after that, nobody cares, cut 'em loose, onto the next high-priced failure.

Pat, I think you're right about how nets used to operate - CBS even killed its number one show, The Beverly Hillbillies, in the 60's because it skewed older in the demos. But nowadays, ratings are all they have. They are scrambling, in near-panic mode. Internet chat rooms kill shows before they have a chance to air a second episode.

Not only that, but networks don't really have an identity any more, and that's even more true with cable. It used to be you could identify a channel by the show it was playing. Now, it's impossible.

I know from personal experience that the cable outlets reexamine their profile every quarter. Imagine the havoc that plays with their schedule, their producers, their talent. This time last year, Lifetime TV was about "blended family." Next year it may be all about "finding one's mission in life" - I'm not kidding about this.

The uncertainty sends execs scrambling to find new programming, they toss it all onto the screen to see what sticks.

If Donahue's ratings told MSNBC that he was never going to grow a larger audience, regardless of his politics, he was a dead man walking. That's not to say they didn't cut him loose to score political points. They probably did.

And of course, "edgy" is better than middle-aged and crabby, no matter what the network is.