Said an unnamed former staffmember of "The View," quoted in "POLITICO Playbook: ‘The View’ struggles to find a Republican."
At the same time, the anti-Trump conservative can’t be seen as too chummy with the other co-hosts, as the network’s market-research shows that the audience wants to see the women spar. Sources said that this has hurt the chances of ANA NAVARRO.... It doesn’t help that there’s a perception that whoever sits in the conservative host slot is on borrowed time, with prominent Republican former co-hosts like NICOLLE WALLACE, ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, ABBY HUNTSMAN and [Meghan] McCain leaving the show with claims of being bullied by their co-hosts and ABC executives on-set and off, while veterans like [Whoopi] Goldberg and [Joy] Behar have thrived. Sources said that the show was eager to recruit young libertarian KAT TIMPF, but she turned them down because of the show’s reputation for treating conservatives poorly and her contract with Fox....
How is a libertarian right for the Republican Party position? I don't watch the show, but it seems to me that the problem is they've got a panel with 3 on one side and only 1 on the other. There should be 2 to oppose the 3 — at least. Or make it 2 to 2. Have a libertarian and a conservative Republican. Why wouldn't that make a better show (unless bullying the outsider really is the narrative)?
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
They should hire Joe Scarborough- he ticks all the boxes- former Republican, anti-Trump, and female.
Indeed, bullying is the point.
Because the progressives on the show are idiots, and having more conservatives would just emphasize that. As it is, they can just outshout the lone voice from the right
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
Maybe HANNITY can get colmes to come back.
When the View started, it was 5 different women of different ages and social status. It really was a way to hear from different generations. It has devolved into a Progressive bitch fest, where if you step off the Progressive plantation, the 4 who are Progressives gang up on the one "Conservative" (Elizabeth Hasselbeck was the only real one) Nicole Wallace is the FURTHEST thing from a Conservative. She claims to be a Republican, but she was the bitch who sold out Sarah Palin. She BELONGS on MSNBC where she is today. She fits right in. The show should be cancelled. It cracks me up that this show is considered a part of ABC's News division, when all it is, is a bunch of ignorant harpies who spout Progressive talking points and gang up on anybody who disagrees. It's a joke.
"They want someone who is going to fight — but not too hard, because they don’t want it to be ugly and bickering."
They want someone who will oppose Joy and Whoopi, but won't make them look like idiots. Joy and Whoopi already have that part covered.
I can't imagine any conservatives watch The View. The show's producers want a libertarian because a libertarian would support the left's social agenda. If they put a conservative on the panel that supported Trump or opposed abortion the liberal audience would simply stop watching because they would consider such a person to be "literally worse than Hitler." They simply aren't inclined to have their world view challenged. They want affirmation that they are the good, compassionate, moral people. To them politics isn't about negotiations between competing interests attempting to come to an equitable outcome that both sides can live with, its a moral crusade to bring about an earthly paradise by any means necessary.
One for the other side? Meghan McCain? more like 3 3/4's to 1/4.
They want the left to win. It's meant to be feel good entertainment for their viewers, or their loyal viewers would not return to watch again. The viewership skews to an older, female audience -- and women skew left in politics generally.
https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/RATINGS-THE-VIEW-Increases-Its-Total-Viewer-Audience-Year-to-Year-20190319
This follows Fox News in stacking the deck -- see early 2000s Hannity and Colmes -- they placed the telegenic and confident Sean Hannity (right) against a creepy, crawly, shaky and not attractive Alan Colmes (left). It was comically obvious for the first year or two, but then Colmes received adequate coaching and grew as a host. Then Hannity went solo (and both he and Fox went way down hill).
The most balanced was the old PBS McLaughlin Group before John McLaughlin died. He had 2 left, 2 right, and he was a moderator but on the right. Sometimes one side would win but neither had a debate advantage. That was when TV content received far more critical scrutiny than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McLaughlin_Group
Freder Frederson said...
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
Maybe HANNITY can get colmes to come back.
12/27/21, 12:28 PM
Maybe if you would turn on Fox once in a while you would see the truth...that there are a lot of Progressives there. Jessica Tarlov, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, Harold Ford Jr., Richard Fowler, Mara Liasson, and Judith Miller amongst others. Now do MSNBC or CNN. How many Conservative voices are there??....(NOT Republican elite who ARE progressives themselves!!)
Dana Loesch would be a fighting choice, but she wouldn't and they wouldn't do it.
Ha ha They need me! But I'm not famous, a primary requirement.
Agnes Skinner to the grocery bagging boy, "I want everything in one bag. But I don't want it to be heavy."
The obvious choice: Caitlin Jenner.
It is doubtful that Meghan McCain ever vote for a Republican who wasn't her dad or a family friend.
"Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem."
I don't consume either of those sources, but what a bad comparison!
"The View" presents itself as having a range of points of view, but it's radically unbalanced and they can't get a good conservative to stay in it.
There's no comparable problem on a show that just has one person as the commenter, who's owning the whole show as his platform. Hannity is comparable to Rachel Maddow — a 1-person show. Fox and MSNBC are what they are. I
I don't watch any of these shows. I consider all of them annoying and a waste of time. I don't write about them unless I see a print article on the subject, like this one i'm blogging today.
Jessica Tarlov, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, Harold Ford Jr., Richard Fowler, Mara Liasson, and Judith Miller
Well I guess we have a different definition of progressive.
As for me not having a problem with the WSJ, you say that as though I don't continually blog the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Really, your comment is really off.
Morgan Ortagus was one of the women they had try out, and SHE was great. She put Adam Schiff on the hot seat, and that isn't allowed, so she will never get the spot. They want somebody like Nicole Wallace, or Ana Navarro who agree with everything Whoopie and Joyless say. Funny, how their names don't fit the angry, hateful, divisive women who have them.
Why wouldn't that make a better show (unless bullying the outsider really is the narrative)?
1: Because one of the points of "women's media" is to continually push the story line that there's only one correct way to "be a woman".
If they had two wrong-thinkers, that line would be harder to push
2: Of COURSE "bullying the outsider" really is the narrative! Where have you been?
Freder Frederson said...
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
90% of the media provides only the Left. So Freder is really upset that it's not 100%
Chris Wallace was a Left voice on Fox. Why are you such an ignorant liar?
I don't watch the show, but it seems to me that the problem is they've got a panel with 3 on one side and only 1 on the other.
Stop being purposely obtuse.
The producers of "The View" and the owners of the Network are producing a propaganda presentation. Their goal is to mislead and lie to as many people as possible and still maintain enough credibility to keep the stupid people that watch the show believing the lies they tell.
They want controlled opposition.
The problem they have is that the people in the center and on the right are not as stupid and gullible as the average democrat.
"At the same time, the anti-Trump conservative "
There are no anti-Trump conservatives.
Every single anti-Trumper abandoned conservativism for his four years. Why?
Because none of them were actually conservative in the first place, Trump cost them their ability to grift from the right, so they switched to grifting from the lefty nd started showing their true left wing colors.
They were like people who claimed to be "really libertarian", because they were pro-drug legalization
Whoopi and Joy are windy, noisy bullies. Sunny Hostin wants everyone to know that all GOPers have Klan robes at home. I have to say, it sounds like unpleasant working conditions for the GOPer. Life is too short.
Take a look at old tapes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. That's how righties win debates.
I am reading Nicholas Wapshott's book, Keynes and Hayek. Keynes, a charming, clever fellow and a brilliant investor, was confident that Government could and should intervene in the market to make things better for the everyday man and woman--not that he knew any everyday men and women. Hayek was pretty sure that Government interventions would lead to distortions, capital misallocations, and cronyism.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn't it?
Freder Frederson said...
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
>>>>>>>>Fox has NOT lacked prog voices over the years. Chris Wallace could not be reached for comment. ditto Shep, Geraldo, Greta, Geraldo, or Leslie Marshall. Or Juan Williams. Donna Brazile, Mara Liasson, ....Marie Harf...Marc Lamont Hill..the list goes on. Dennis Kucinich, Evan Bayh, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, James Carville, Mara Liasson, Rick Klein, Julie Pace, Pat Caddell, Jeff Zeleny, Karen Timulty, Doug Shoen, Tamara Holder, Charles Lane...
>>>>>>>> Tucker, Hannity and Laura all have "progressive voices" on their shows, but I don't watch enough any more to ID them offhand. It's very telling that it's somehow newsworthy that ONE liberal show is looking for ONE semi-liberal.
>>>>>>>>Freder, would you like to name any conservatives who have their own shows on CNN, MSNBC or any of the "majors"?
Maybe HANNITY can get colmes to come back.
>>>>>>>>Alan Colmes also cannot be reached for comment...because he's dead.
The leftwing women of the View interviewed Rand Paul once.
OMG - watch it and your IQ will drop. The leftist femo-nazi of the View are intolerant vindictive yammering dummies. "Don't mansplain me"
Holy crap. If leftist women watch the show for low level confirmation bias - they are going to get it - good and hard.
Freder Frederson said...
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
Maybe HANNITY can get colmes to come back.
And Freder accidentally stumbles on the reason for the existence of Fox News and other NeverTrump GOPe productions.
I don't know anyone who likes Hannity. I don't know anyone who watches him. I can't switch radio stations fast enough to get him off. There are dozens of people you could put in that time slot that would draw a larger audience.
I haven't heard anyone anywhere ever say a good thing about that show. It has always been carried by the shows around it. Even then those shows are ridiculous and stupid.
Just like Chris Wallace who apparently decided to decamp for greener pastures.
Nobody likes Fox News. The only thing they have is they are the least reprehensible source in the media.
That isn't saying much and when the disconnect between the MSM and the people is laid bare it wont save them either.
Two on two, Althouse? Do you really think that they want a "fair fight"? They want only a single representative of the hated "other," and they want that one to play the Washington Generals to their Harlem Globetrotters. A real fighter would not be welcome at all, at all.
Hannity = blah, blah, blah, don't you love hearing me talk? Okay, lets have a guest on who can hear me talk, blah, blah, blah.
I too can't get rid of this guy fast enough.
I've never watched The View, but I used to know who was on it. They used to have an attractive blonde who was married to an NFL player. That should be the template. Hire at least one attractive blonde for the show and let her be a Republican. Nothing demonstrates more the vacuity and emptiness of the Republican positions than having an attractive blonde mouth them. Also it helps if you want to land guests like Jeffrey Toobin to sit in on the discussions.
"I don't know anyone who likes Hannity."
Back when we watched Fox, his name at our house was 'Dufus'.
the anti-Trump conservative ?
sounds like they should get that "life long republican" from michigan that used to crap here
i don't remember his name, but sounds like HE is want they want.
Someone that Hates Trump, and has Never Voted republican in their life
Also, they clearly don't want a man, so that michgan LLR would be perfect!
i mean, they're TRYING to get people to NOT watch their show, right?
effinayright said...
>>>>>>>>Alan Colmes also cannot be reached for comment...because he's dead.
Well, at least he Still gets to vote :)
Can't they get Ann Coulter? She badmouths every Republican presidential nominee right after hyping them up for months.
>> I don't watch the show, but it seems to me that the problem is they've got a panel with 3 on one side and only 1 on the other.
There can only be one Emmanuel Goldstein at a time...
(unless bullying the outsider really is the narrative)?
@Althouse, you broke the code!
"Can't they get Ann Coulter?"
Ok, I'll go there. "She's a man, baby!"
I agree having a balanced set of co-hosts would likely make for better television, but such shows would be less popular television. A majority of people just don’t like having their views challenged. So we have all left/liberal hosted shows, or one outnumbered conservative at the table shows, expect for Fox, where it’s the liberal who gets to be the minority of one, if he or she exists at all. I’m sure the networks are mostly glad of this reality, but is it the reality. They are just going along with it and not trying to fight it.
If any network wanted both balance and good ratings, perhaps it might try having have multiple shows, each show having a particular point of view. Why not have one show with left leaning hosts, and another one with right of center hosts on the same channel? I suppose Fox won’t do this because their whole brand is to be conservative, or at least non-left. I guess the other networks, who still pretend to be objective news sources and open sources for entertainment, won’t do it either because they are really committed to the (establishment) left. And if one of those networks ran viewpoint diverse shows, they might have the mortification of seeing a conservative show get better ratings than a leftist show. The conservative show might not even have to be good to do that. Look the Gutfeld show on Fox. I’ve read it sometimes gets better ratings than the late night shows on the broadcast networks, and I think it is a terrible show.
Kind of surprised the View can’t find a playing to lose republican. That was one community I thought we still had in abundance.
Meghan McCain worked because she was unapologetically prolife and that made up for being Anti Trump.
Most of the biggest fights on The View happen because of that conflict.
Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem.
Fox and WSJ versus every other media outlet shows just how fucking weak your argument is.
And while I don't read the WSJ, it seems every time I flip on FOX, there's some asshole leftist running his or her mouth.
If the show's producers really want to boost their ratings, they should definitely cast Ann Coulter. Of course, it wouldn't last more than a couple of weeks, as the Bambis all left the show to seek extended ego restoration therapy.
I hate to admit it, but I enjoy this blog as much as I do because the commenters are predominantly right of center and, despite rampant heterodoxy, provide a welcome pat on the back for my belief system.
I feel I deserve it because the MSM, the entertainment industry, the Fortune 500, the educational system etc. etc. are all lined up against my opinions. Reading this blog is thus a respite from the Monoparty message machine.
With The View, Joy and Whoopi are part of the Monoparty messaging system. It's interesting that the producers and the network believe that Monoparty adherents need such constant reinforcement.
I think the view has one more hard and fast recruiting requirement.
Unsaid.
The "conservative" newbie can NOT be any of Minority, Lesbian, Immigrant, non-Christian.
No one who would challenge the demographic assumptions of the Party.
thus no
Candice Owens,
Michelle Malkin,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
etc
Why does it have to be a woman?
Having watched portions of the View at various times, the panel does not need a conservative voice. Ignorance can be cured, but the positions of the Monoparty females on "The View" are forever--as is stupidity. But then I repeat myself.
Mean Girls.
"the problem is they've got a panel with 3 on one side and only 1 on the other. "
The problem is the God-damned 19th Amendment.
Fox News had Donna Brazile until recently. James Carville was a pundit on there for a while before the runup to the 2016 election. I'm not sure if you could get much more mainstream liberal than those two.
I think Fox wants to have liberals on that can hold their own in a conversation without falling into the standard tropes and insults.
---
On Topic, Coulter would be awful for The View. I think they really need to go with a complete Anarcho-Commie Populist with ConservaDaddy-Issues, shoeOnhead.
“They want someone who is going to fight — but not too hard, because they don’t want it to be ugly and bickering.”
They could easily solve this problem by having the liberals who make up the entirety of the permanent panel treat the opposing viewpoint-holder with respect. They are looking to the wrong chair(s) to solve this problem.
The reason the 3 liberals vs 2 conservatives thing wouldn't work is because, if one of the liberals is sick, it would be *GASP* an even playing field and The View can't have that.
There used to be a popular 1 on 1 show. It was called Crossfire and the left wing media hated it and destroyed it in the Bush era.
Kat Timpf: hot AND pro-freedom. Yummy. The Anti-Behar.
Clyde gets it.
"...and they want that one to play the Washington Generals to their Harlem Globetrotters."
Bingo! That's it. They are trying to find a Louis "Red" Klotz to use for a punching bag.
Bring back Nicole Wallace. It would be fun to see her get slapped around. No one takes her seriously, anyway.
Of course, the GOPer job candidate could insist that she receive the same pay as the higher of Whoopi or Joy plus $5,000--or maybe an amount equal to Whoopi and Joy combined. The argument is that she would have the toughest job. Liberals in show biz are a dime a dozen.
I've seen pay differentials like that wreck professional organizations.
When Condoleezza Rice was on The View, the women were quite respectful, and she didn't pull any punches. But she can handle herself very well in uncomfortable situations.
Anyone to the right of Lenin is right-wing to Freder.
Not Kat! She's much too cute and intelligent for those retarded ladies on The Pyuu. It's disappointing of course that retarded ladies have such a large and loyal audience.
As lame as Gutfeld is, it's head and shoulders above the late night competition.
Since dropping to a lower cable tier I have missed the Beeb. It's not that they were more truthful, but that they covered things not even FOX will bother with--like the fate of the unaccompanied kids in their tens of thousands, who have disappeared from view.
Maybe the retarded ladies could look into that.
I used to run into Behar on cable at night, surfing. She had a show of her own. She struck me as a dumb bimbo and I haven't had reason to modify my opinion since.
Why does it have to be a woman?
I assume that is because the audience is primarily women working in doctors offices and housewives. A man might violate that safe space even more than a real conservative.
Shorter article: Can't the View find someone from the Right to bash Trump along with everyone else?
The whole point is to make Trump unpalatable to the electorate because they're scared he might run again.
And if he wins again, they are seriously thinking about moving to Canada this time.
Why not Ann?
Let me rephrase that. Is it legal to consider only female applicants when filling a job opening?
I see no BFOQ that limits the job to female only.
Rules is rules.
Why not Meade?
"There used to be a popular 1 on 1 show. It was called Crossfire and the left wing media hated it and destroyed it in the Bush era."
They pulled it off the air after they had Jon "clown nose on, clown nose off" Stewart on. He spent the whole time telling them how they were responsible for the hideous culture and division of America. So the suits listened to the guy who makes fun of real news for a living, about proper political discourse. You can't make this stuff up.
Ann Althouse said...
I don't consume either of those sources, but what a bad comparison!
My immediate thought when I saw the comment, trolls have been phoning it in for a long time now. That was truly pathetic. Kind of like a discussion about school crossing guards, and someone has throw in a smear against President Trump. They know nothing, except for what they are supposed to hate.
As many have informed the troll, it's not about balancing the political stance of the show. It's about the show meeting its own defined charter. Topical discussion of current events from 4 different cultural view points.
The show can do that or not, I used to record it when it was first on the air, I didn't agree with most of the commentary, kind of fun, but it devolved into moral superiority and nagging.
It's obvious the gov from FL is going to be the next President.
Situation wanted:
Female "conservative" TV co-host for AM show. Must have a loud mouth, small brain, and be willing to take abuse, be outnumbered 3-1. While "Conservative" applicant must respect all liberal peities, and say "you're absolutly right" when they are uttered. Trump supporters need not apply.
If they really wanted talent and ratings they'd hire Anne Coulter. But they'd rather lose viewers and have a dumber but more leftwing show.
Trump supporters and people of color need not apply.
FIFY
Clyde said...
Two on two, Althouse? Do you really think that they want a "fair fight"? They want only a single representative of the hated "other," and they want that one to play the Washington Generals to their Harlem Globetrotters. A real fighter would not be welcome at all, at all
I’d like to believe Ann is trolling the conservatives here but her track record isn’t good and I suspect she still believes MSM news isn’t full bore propaganda…
Really, what else is Joy Behar suited for? The Borscht belt era is over. Whoopie = couch. I get that. Shrieking harpie. Check. Other than Haddelbeck all the others are Democrat approved Republicans. Dems even embrace George W Bush.
Gnats have a longer memory.
For the right amount of money they can find one so-called Republican to be the punching bag. If the first number is a higher than a one followed by seven zeros and with great perks they should have no problem. If they are cheap, then they may have a problem.
Whatever Nicolle Wallace or Ana Navarro complained about, it probably wasn't that they were mistreated because of their politics.
And if FNC went with Combes to make Hannity look good that could be interpreted as an indication that they didn't think Sean could do it on his own.
Of course, FNC won't put an exceptionally formidable progressive and CNN won't put a powerfully convincing conservative on their panels, but compare that to MSNBC personalities publicly boasting that nobody on the other side even gets on their shows. Actually, CNN isn't any better, but they don't openly boast about being biased (unless they're caught on a hidden camera).
Freder Frederson said: "Funny, you don't seem to think the lack of progressive voices on Fox or the WSJ editorial pages are a problem."
Right....
Juan Williams is such a right wing Fox shill.
Jason Riley is such a WSJ capitalist running dog.
As my 8th grade social studies teacher used to remind us, "Get your facts straight before you open your mouth."
I had a discussion with a liberal friend (who thinks of himself as "moderate" because he occasionally disagrees with the NYT editorial page) about media bias, which he says doesn't exist, and the media like all other corporate entities is just seeking to maximize profit by giving their customers the content they want.
I said that it appears to me that the media is instead more interested in either ideology or maximizing power. I told him that one thing that has always puzzled me is that, unlike almost all other corporate entities, the media seems to have no inclination to diversify to grab market share. Why haven't ABC, CBS, and NBC put out off-brand cable networks which cater to conservatives? There's a huge market share which is completely owned by one network which does a relatively lousy job, and the rest of the big media corporations just let it go. You'll never catch the big automakers or liquor corporations leaving all that cash out there.
He fell back into claiming that Fox caters only to a relatively small share of the overall media market. He simply couldn't believe that Fox has about 50% of the cable news market.
There really isn't a good explanation, other than that it is worth more to the networks in terms of political power to propagandize rather than sell what people want.
I see a lot of people claiming "Crossfire" got pulled off the air. Maybe the original "Crossfire" is gone, but look at all news shows now.
They're all "Crossfire."
News is no longer an anchorperson introducing stories and throwing to a reporter who's on the scene with a camera. (CNN's Headline News comes to mind.) No, they're essentially all talk shows now. A bunch of split-screens with a few people arguing with each other, trying to bust out their talking points.
You nailed it Althouse. Bullying is required so they are looking for a Republican who can make them look good while bullying her. They cannot accept any smart, witty ones that will sass back and look good doing it so no Katie Pavlich or Lisa Booth or Candace Owens. Owens is their nightmare. But even the middle-aged pros like Michelle Malkin or Tammy Bruce are far too cool to act as foil to the dumb duo running The View. Lara Trump is almost polite enough and a clear thinker but for some reason they are insisting on selecting from the shallow end of the Republican pool where the pedophiles from the Bulwark hang out. Same place they found Navarro.
Michelle Malkin would be a great choice.
I think Althouse nailed it when she said accepting bullying and losing every battle is now the requirement for the diversity pick for The View. But will a dominatrix show be good TV? Like most of mainstream cable, The View's ratings are way down and they're trying to raise them. Is this the way?
One reason I don't watch Fox News is that too much is argument. For example, why is Juan Williams there but to argue? Football is all I watch on TV but I do watch Tucker Carlson's interviews on FoxNation. Not the show, though. Her is a great interviewer.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Anyone to the right of Lenin is right-wing to Freder.
No, that's Cook. Anyone to the right of Cook is right wing to the Field Marshall.
"unless bullying the outsider really is the narrative"
BINGO!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा