MSNBC Host's Strange Approach To Guests

WHAT DO YOU KNOW, JOE?

Scarborough Takes It Easy On Springer, Franken







If given the chance to interview Jerry Springer and Al Franken, what would you ask the Air America Radio hosts? Larry King-style softball questions, or would you insist on accountability for past actions and positions?

Here at the Radio Equalizer, it's been some time since we last picked on MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. In fact, we forgot all about him. Two recent segments featuring Springer and Franken as guests, however, have the former Florida Republican congressman back in "the hot seat", one of his own making.

Apparently, viewers have also forgotten about ol' Joe, as his 10pm program ranks fourth out of the five primary cable news programs in the time period, with about 350,000 viewers on one recent weeknight. Only CNBC's Donny Deutsch has a smaller audience during the hour.

For MSNBC, does Scarborough serve as the resident non-threatening conservative? Perhaps, but he's not alone, given Tucker Carlson's even more ratings-challenged "Situation" following at 11pm.

Joe's even kind enough to extend his token role to the otherwise-leftist Huffington Post, believe it or not.


For a segment on (get this) Dr. Phil's personal problems, I'd be downright embarrassed to interview the likes of Jerry Springer. Even the trashmeister himself probably wondered what he was doing there:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, so, Jerry, tell me, what's going on with Dr. Phil? You have been around syndicated TV. You know these guys. how can you explain a guy that moved from self-help for families into Aruban investigations and diet pills?

JERRY SPRINGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first of all, I should say, I have never met Dr. Phil, so I don't know him personally, and I am not one to judge him.

But I do think what happens with talk shows is, as long as they stay in the entertainment area, that's fine, and that's good. They invariably get in trouble when all of a sudden they cross into the line of trying to be involved in news and make news. And there's a danger there, because you have two gods.

You have the gods of ratings to give you a hot show that people are going to watch, entertainment, and then you have the other god of news, which it's supposed to be -- there's a very strict standard about reporting and making sure that what you are talking about, you really know something about, making sure that the evidence that you present to the public is, in fact, valid.

And I think that's where perhaps that they are in trouble. They got into this criminal case, and I am not sure that's a real subject for a talk show.

SCARBOROUGH: And if you get into this sort of dead zone between entertainment and news, like Dr. Phil appears to be in, is it like, let's say, Hollywood stars that decide they want to talk about nuclear proliferation or global warming, where they get out of their comfort zone, and they have this need, I guess because of ego or whatever it is, to try to save the world?

SPRINGER: Well, that's different. The reason that situation is different, they are citizens. And every citizen, regardless of their job or their position, is entitled in a democracy to have a point of view, to express that point of view, to try to influence other people to that point of view. That's all great.

But when you are talking about a talk show, you are talking about something that itself is an entertainment business, and when it steps into the area of news, I think that's when trouble comes. If it would just stay in the area of entertainment, I think that's great.

SCARBOROUGH: All of a sudden, he seems to be getting out of his wheelhouse and looking kind of goofy. That's what Dr. Phil would say about himself, if he were taking himself on the couch, saying he is being goofy here. At what point does he start endangering this empire?

SPRINGER: Well, obviously, if there's a successful lawsuit against him and his credibility is then questioned, his empire is in danger then.

Here's the problem. This is what's different between talk show hosts and, let's say, actors. Actors play a role, whether it's in television or in movies. They are playing somebody else. And then if they want to give their opinion, that's separate, but they are playing someone else.

The problem with talk show hosts is, they are the empire of their talk show. It's the "Dr. Phil' show. It's the "Jerry Springer Show." It's "The Oprah Winfrey Show." So, therefore, we are not playing anybody else. We are ourselves. So what we say matters.

Aside from how simply asinine the topic and guest selection is here, trying to make some sense of Springer's train of thought took several transcript re-readings.

First, it's incredible to think Jerry Springer believes what he says actually matters to anyone.

In addition, is he arguing shows like Dr. Phil's have no business tackling current events because they're crossing an ethical line, or due to the probability they'll get in over their heads?

On the latter possibility, he'd have a valid point, depending on the show (his, for example).

Why not, however, ask Springer the real question: why should you have any credibility in discussing political issues on the radio, given what happens on your disgusting television show? Didn't Jerry leave himself wide open for that one?


Next, Scarborough viewers were treated to an amazingly generous (for the guest) book-plugging interview yesterday with Al Franken. While Joe did confront him on some political stances (at times strongly), there was no attempt to ask tough questions about his recent behavior issues, antics, or Air America sleaze.

Because Scarborough actually comes out looking okay in the first part of this excerpted transcript, look for more on my beef, below it:

He's a best-selling author, a talk radio pioneer, and now possible candidate for the United States Senate in the state of Minnesota.

He is Al Franken, host of "The Al Franken Show" on Air America Radio and now the Armed Forces Network. He's also the author most recently of a new book, "The Truth With Jokes."

JOE SCARBOROUGH: ... Let's talk about Howard Dean. You know -- and I am sure you have been talking about on your radio show the past couple days -- Howard Dean was on the radio on Monday, talking about the war in Iraq, a lot of people talking about it.

(audio clip of) HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN: The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, as you know, Al, right-wingers like me jumped on this immediately.

FRANKEN: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: Said that this showed that he was still caught in the Vietnam syndrome. I thought it was interesting, though. 'The Washington Post' (on Wednesday) wrote a column saying that Democratic leaders are very concerned that this type of talk and Nancy Pelosi's type of talk actually is going to hurt the party next year. What is your take on that?

FRANKEN: Well, I think he was at least telling, you know, what he thought was true. And I think it depends what you mean by winning the war. Are we going to do what we said we were going to do when we first went there, and set up a Jeffersonian democracy? No. That's just not going to happen. When the president said nothing short of complete victory, I am not sure what that means.

Howard Dean actually kind of was right. He was against our going in. I think it was a mistake. I was wrong. At the time, I believed Colin Powell. I believed that the presumption that the president is telling you the truth, so I thought I guess we have to go to war. It turns out that we were misled into the war, and not only that, but that, since then, the war has been badly bungled because of hubris, unwillingness to admit mistakes.

And we find ourselves in a situation where many, many smart people believe that our very presence there makes things worse. I don't -- and I think it's very hard to trust this administration in anything they say about the war.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, we could talk about that and debate the war. I would rather not do that, looking back. But I do want to talk...

FRANKEN: Well, I can understand why you wouldn't, because you are in such a weak position.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. Well, there you go. Now you have lured me into the debate. I always try to, you know, treat people when they come on my show like they are a guest in my home, but now you have pulled the switch. And I got to go after you.

FRANKEN: You don't have rude guests in your home ever?

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Well, I do, but I wait until they are rude to me before I start fighting back. I mean, you say the president lied about the war, but you know Ted Kennedy said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; Al Gore said it; Bill Clinton said it; John Kerry said it; John Edwards said it, said it was an imminent threat.

FRANKEN: Well, at what time?

SCARBOROUGH: Even Saddam Hussein said in 1998, I have got weapons of mass destruction. So...

FRANKEN: And, in 1998, he did have weapons of mass destruction. And after we bombed them, they didn't.

SCARBOROUGH: Where did they go? Where did they go?

FRANKEN: They were destroyed by President Clinton.

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, good God. You don't believe that one missile strike at a camel and a tent destroyed Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

FRANKEN: That's wasn't what they did. As you know, it wasn't one missile strike at a camel and a tent. I don't know why you feel the need to mischaracterize...

SCARBOROUGH: Al, are you really suggesting -- listen, no serious person could step forward and say...

FRANKEN: No-the Duelfer report said that very thing.

SCARBOROUGH: ... Bill Clinton's missile strikes got rid of those weapons of mass destruction. Oh, come on. So, you are telling America tonight that the president's weapons of mass destruction, that the president's attack in '98 destroyed all of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

FRANKEN: Remaining weapons of mass destruction. That's exactly what the Duelfer report said. That's what the president's own weapons inspectors said, that those destroyed the remainder of...

(trimmed here)

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks so much for being with us. Greatly appreciate it. The book is "The Truth With Jokes." Thanks so much, Al, for being with us.

Instead of gaining offensive control over the interview from the start, Scarborough fell into every debate trap set by Franken, which is inexcusable. If he's at all following Franken's recent antics, there should be plenty of ammo, even if he doesn't want to delve into the Air America scandal.

What about Franken's recent on-air "jokes" about executing Bush Administration officials? Or his ill-fated encounter with Justice Scalia? By going soft upfront, Al was in the driver's seat, even if Joe was correct on all of the points.

In the Radio Equalizer's view, there are guests with which one can cut slack upfront, but Franken isn't among them. Instead, the only reasonable approach is to have both guns drawn from the start, while maintaining a reasonably civil appearance.


Your Amazon orders that originate with clicks here, regardless of your final selections, help to support this work. Thanks again for your vital assistance!

Scarborough, Dr. Phil photos: MSNBC, Lunatic by David A Lunde