Al Sharpton is now hosting a show on MSNBC called Politics Nation. Sharpton's occupation of the premiere of the show isn't news because he's had a two month dress rehearsal since the cloudy departure of "The Young Turks" Cenk Uygur from the 6:00 pm slot. What seems to be news is that the slot has been filled by Reverend Sharpton. We know that none of the cable "news" shows have black folks in their line up during primetime and they still don't, 6:00 still is not primetime. From what I've read thus far, it appears that our folk or maybe this representation of our folk still isn't quite ready for primetime.
I've watched him in his previous role as sub and as official host for the first time last night and what I've seen is Rev being Rev. Sure he gets hung up on the teleprompter from time to time but his stumbles look just like Ed's and Rachel's when they first made the transition. Is MSNBC's choice of Al Sharpton being questioned because Sharpton is an agitator and a black one at that? Or is it because he is a radio host who seemingly appears to be taken a job away from a qualified journalist? Is it a trend as this writer puts it: " Sharpton's hire is the latest in a long-developing trend of putting cable news hosts in prime time mostly based on their ability to get viewers." What I found more interesting as an expansion on the theme from the St. Petersburg Times writer is this piece from Entertainment Weekly which says "The Rev. Al Sharpton premiered PoliticsNation on MSNBC Monday evening with an hour of booming bombast and near-obliviousness, as he steam-rolled over his guests, interrupting them to ask long, halting questions." Which sounds just a lot like the 5:00 pm host Chris Matthews to me and he's still on air. This piece further suggests that Melissa Harris Perry or Chris Hayes may be more suitable for a hosting position. My question is, why isn't their room for everyone at the table?
So what do you think? Is the hiring of the Reverend Al Sharpton a good move for MSNBC? What do you think inspired this choice? Finally and most importantly do you think it is a good move for the viewers?
Let me know in the comments.
1 comments:
Well this is an old post but I think this week's SNL send up of Sharpton's hosting skills may revitalize this topic. His presentation is obnoxious. He comes off as a total amateur which is disappointing considering the amount of experience he has had on television. There's a big difference when you work off the cuff as a guest vs. hosting a scripted show, but his total lack of confidence, charisma or even common courtesy makes him unwatchable despite my desire to see him do well. I can see MSNBC wants him to do well because they keep throwing him exclusives to boost viewership. I think MSNBC has a proven track record of embracing agitators.
Good question. Why are there so many established names with a TV show and a radio show? Why is there so little opportunity for a fresh voice?
As far as the suggestion that Perry or Hayes are more deserving let me sum up my feelings on that by saying that Rachel Maddow is my never miss show. I need it like oxygen. If either of them host I'll spend the week reading the Times and avoiding their mutilation of the Madddow staff's wit. Chris finally got his own show and he seems to be improving much more quickly than Al. I still have a ingrained dislike for the sound of his voice. His articulations are the melodic songs of angles compared to the Perry. Her poorly disguised speech impediment throws off the cadence of well crafted lines and dissolves any gravitas she may have possessed. Who can say for sure? She could be the Barbara Walters of the future, but for now I'll keep the mute button at the ready.
Post a Comment