Planting Liberally

Earlier this week, the NYT noted that MSNBC is becoming a hub for left-wing talk on cable TV. The article's assertion that Chris Matthews counts as a liberal, or Joe Scarborough as a moderate, is a pretty big stretch. And the network's decision to replace Don Imus's racist and sexist morning talk show with Joe Scarborough several months ago hardly counts as a progressive programming decision. Nevertheless, Keith Olbermann calls MSNBC his home; Tucker Carlson's show is on the ropes; and until Wednesday, network executives were considering adding a talk show with Rosie O'Donnell to the mix. (The O'Donnell deal fell apart, apparently, because MSNBC wanted a longer commitment than O'Donnell was willing to make.) If Carlson does get the boot, and a new liberal talk show host akin to O'Donnell joins the MSNBC lineup, then the network will easily count as the most progressive of the three major cable news channels. The cable news industry - indeed, the entire cable TV industry - is in a very interesting position these days. Poor service and high prices have led to widespread dissatisfaction with cable carriers, especially Comcast. There's significant buyer dissatisfaction with the overall cable-purchasing model as well, as most cable subscribers clamor for a la carte channels. At the same time, there are signs that the FCC will almost certainly begin regulating the industry more heavily. The new FCC regulations, which appear to be focused on expanding access to cable news channels by liberalizing leased access rules, open up some interesting opportunities for bringing more progressive voices to cable news. For example, an entrepreneur could undertake an experiment to lease cable access in order to air a progressive talk show, like the Stephanie Miller show, at a time that competes with MSNBC's Scarborough morning show. (When MSNBC fired Don Imus a few months ago, Miller auditioned for the morning time slot; despite several well-received Miller shows and a spirited petition effort on the part of progressives, Scarborough got the slot.) If the entrepreneur coupled that move with a concerted strategy to market Miller's show to progressives - incorporating YouTube excerpts, blog and social network marketing, etc. - then Miller's show might gain audience share against Scarborough. If the experiment could be conducted in enough major markets to put a dent in Scarborough's ratings, MSNBC might eventually be persuaded to replace Scarborough with Miller. This kind of experiment would be novel. Most leased access shows are localized, and rely on local or regional advertising for revenue. Moreover, leased access is obtained through local cable providers, not on a national level, so it would be very difficult to string together leased access in enough markets to make a significant dent in the ratings of a national show. (For a good background piece on leased access, check out this Videomaker piece.) On the other hand, a liberal entrepreneur willing to try this out could crowdsource the process of obtaining leased access, by enlisting progressive netroots activists in the time-consuming effort of contacting and cajoling local cable offices. Moreover, because progressives are emphatically ignored on cable and broadcast TV, there's a large, untapped potential for capturing advertising dollars for products that are best marketed on TV and have a natural liberal audience - for example, progressive movies and documentaries. In other words, this kind of experiment would be massive and novel, but potentially very profitable. Ultimately, the viability of this kind of experiment depends on the FCC's new regulations. Hopefully, we will soon have many more opportunities to challenge cable carriers to carry more progressive networks, and to challenge existing cable news networks to carry more progressive programming. Liberal entrepreneurs interested in cable should stay on their toes for a potential opportunity to make money while making way for progressive voices on cable news.