The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

26 November 2008

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Takes New WABC/ NYC Radio Talk Show


Joe's Personal Economic Stimulus Plan Has Internal Critics





Ever since Rush Limbaugh's massive mega-contract renewal deal was announced earlier this year, envious cable talkers have wondered how they too could grab a piece of the radio pie.

And while they may be clueless about what it takes to succeed in this competitive medium, that hasn't stopped TV hosts from trying anyway. Worse, in order to pad their salaries, some are willing to sell out their beliefs to fit the other venue.

Topping that list is MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, who according to a source inside the NBC-owned network, will begin a new radio talk show on New York's WABC radio as soon as Monday.

Morning Joe will apparently get the 10am to noon slot to host a local program, but that will most likely later turn into a syndicated show heard from 9am to noon.

With a previous syndicated program, Scarborough has tried talk radio in the past, but failed miserably. Then, he played a conservative, but on MSNBC, he's steadily moved leftward.

This past Radio Equalizer post has a round-up of links to Scarborough's numerous past flaps, including the infamous Arnold hoax (which to this day remains one of this site's most popular posts of all time).

In July of this year, Joe did a series of late night, unannounced tryouts with liberal co-host Mika Brzezinski. Clearly, that was in preparation for this new program. A source indicates that Mika might be part of the new WABC show, or he could potentially be paired with someone else down the road.

But within MSNBC, there is said to be a great deal of concern with Scarborough's move. Why? According to a network source, NBC has spent a great deal of time and money shifting Scarborough leftward, but at WABC, it is recognized that his only real chance for success would be to follow the station's right-leaning philosophy.

So how could Scarborough play a liberal on TV and be conservative on the radio? Could he really show two political faces and maintain what little credibility he retains with the audience?

"The only way to get ratings is to move to the right on the radio, though it will be fun to watch him try to juggle the two positions, he just can't be himself," said one industry observer.

For WABC, it's even riskier: Scarborough is a proven failure at radio and now, making matters far worse, he has a solidly liberal reputation. With a conservative lineup, the station has generated huge ratings. If Joe chases away its mid-morning audience, the outlet could be badly damaged.

Given Citadel - ABC Radio's precarious financial situation (it may be close to bankruptcy and currently trades for 17 cents a share on the NYSE), they can't afford even the slightest misstep.

Beyond that, one wonders what Citadel would see in Scarborough, given his dodgy reputation and likely fatigue coming off of the TV show each morning.

In his quest to attain Limbaugh-like status, Joe Scarborough seems willing to do just about anything. But how can potential fans bond with someone who comes across as such a phony?

UPDATE: TVNewser now has its own version of the story, featuring Scarborough making some truly peculiar, if not downright inaccurate comments. There's no mention of Citadel's precarious financial situation, tensions behind the scenes at MSNBC over this move, or Scarborough's track record of failure in radio:

Scarborough says, "We've talked to Citadel [which owns WABC-AM], and several other networks."

But Scarborough is clear — WABC, is where he wants to be. "If we had our druthers we'd sign with Citadel, only because they launched Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, all the most successful talk shows in the country," he says. "As I explained to Mika, there are two types of radio shows, those that have clearance on WABC, and those that don't have clearance on WABC. It is just a radio station like the New York Times is just a newspaper," he says facetiously.

TVNewser says the Scarborough radio show would likely begin in January, but we're hearing the slot needs to be filled much sooner than that.

And why in the world is Joe claiming Citadel is responsible for launching Rush and Hannity?

FOR New England regional talk radio updates, see our other site.

Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations.

Your Honor System contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!

Technorati tags:


  • I don't understand what WABC/Citadel is thinking. The simplest move would be to just not hire naybody new. Put the tape-delayed Laura Ingraham on WABC to a live spot from 10am-noon. They could have just left Bob Grant on from 8-10 at night, saving them from hiring anybody new.

    I like Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC, but I watch it knowing that the guy is a complete phony. I think Joe is a conservative, but he has moved to the left for MSNBC. Now, there is no way he can change back to a conservative to have success on radio.

    Joe's radio show WILL fail. There is no way that the Curtis Sliwa audience will stick around in mid-mornings for this phony.

    Citadel has essentially ruined WABC. Although Imus has done well, Citadel has ruined WABC's local lineup. After the ending of Bob Grant's nightly program, WABC has less than 3 hours of local program on weekdays (including the fourth hour of Imus). Joe will not do a local show. He would not want to be on radio if he couldn't be national. So, essentially, there will be no local programming on WABC. If Citadel had chosen to go that route, they could have moved Ingraham to mid-mornings and extended Mark Levin's show to 9pm and started curtis Sliwa right after Mark. Then, at least the conservative audience of WABC wouldn't have been completely thrown under the bus. Now, Joe Scarborough (who is hated by fellow WABC-er Mark Levin), a phony conservative/leftist (we don't know what he is) will be on WABC.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 12:33  

  • ahhh just to remind cons of how smug and arrogant they were in 2004

    "2004 is the year we start thinking like a permanent majority: unified, aggressive, rightfully confident of victory."

    Tom Delay

    hahahahahahahaahaha, the empire is over and soon the sick talk radio Anti-American, Anti-middle Class, propaganda fountain is ending

    advertisers do not want to advertise for a radical, Anti-American, Anti-worker, Anti-family fringe group.

    slowly the con talk will disappear,
    and be replaced with objective talk, without a "fairness doctrine".... the advertisers don't want the conservative radio crowd, it lowers their profile. Erectile dysfunction products are the only thing that sells well on conservative radio. Seriously.

    the market is slowly taking care of conservative-propaganda. The people have a 9 million vote mandate against conservatism and advertisers know this. NO fairness doctrine necessary.

    you are the moonbats, America has moved past, angry, impotent, freaks selling failure on the radio

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 13:04  

  • Joe Scarborough may be the best thing to happen to WABC in a long time (apart from shoving out Ingraham, long their lineup's weakest link, talent-wise.)

    I wish him many luck and blessings, but I am concerned about the start time of the new radio show, versus his essential role on MSNBO's only remaining link to sanity, the "Morning Joe" program.

    Anonymous, who on earth CARES who Mark Levin hates, or doesn't hate? He's ONE host there, and not a particularly well-loved one, but, basically, still a "new kid on the block" who has yet to have proven himself to the team.

    Especially with management changes in process.

    So don't let your own self-contrived definition of what New York conservatives and others call a "real conservative" override the station's short-term objectives.

    I am a longtime listener of WABC, but the station does have a ridiculously old demographic, and that has to change, if they are to survive the challenges of our next national nightmare.

    And, Jared? Isn't there a jam band rehearsing in a leaky basement on Hillel Place that you can hang with, rather than regurgitating the SAME OLD pseudorevolutionary rhetoric, verbatim?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 16:12  

  • You are so right BluePills! We are soooo tired of Ed Schultz!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 16:48  

  • Joe Scarborough is more left than center or right. But not as bad as Olbermann. Take a peek at this one:

    Keith needs to go!

    By Blogger gloriasteinberg, at 26 November, 2008 17:16  

  • "If we had our druthers we'd sign with Citadel, only because they launched Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, all the most successful talk shows in the country," he says. "

    WABC did not launch these shows.. Great PD’s like Phil Boyce did.
    Sadly he is no longer there.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 18:01  

  • Wow Blue Pills, that's quite a bit of regurgitated bile there. First of all, conservative talk radio is quite the opposite of Anti-American. You must be thinking of Jeremiah Wright. I fixed that for you. Conservative talk radio has been anything but a failure. You must be thinking of Air America. Fixed that for you, too. Oh, and one last thing. I though liberals were all about free speech and stuff but your post made several statements quite the contrary. In fact, it pretty much showed you to be the intolerant face of liberalism as we have come to know it. Joe is a conservative and has actually shown that a time or two on his morning show. He couldn't survive on MSNBC if she said what he really thinks. See, that's how liberals are. They just can't tolerate differing opinons. It gives them a rash.

    By Blogger Glynn, at 26 November, 2008 18:54  

  • "First of all, conservative talk radio is quite the opposite of Anti-American...."

    Not always, Glynn. When it gets to the point where talk show hosts are exhorting their followers to jam election lines, manipulate primaries, and are part of an exclusive media cabal allowed unlimited access to the President himself, in private little "planning" meetings....the Republicans allowed paid propagandists to set the party's agenda for it, out of sheer laziness...

    You can't deny this aspect is just as threatening to our republic, and, in fact, set the precedent for our new sham "president" and his fawning, slobbering minions from the other extreme of the political spectrum.

    "Conservative talk radio has been anything but a failure."

    Uh, it's something far between the beacon of goodness and light you infer it to be, and the total irrelevancy that Jared repeatedly paints it as.

    The important thing to realize is that RADIO, not just conservative talk, is going through tremendous, convulsive "changes" that are industry-driven, and a product of the economic malfeasance that DECADES of both dying political ideologies have saddled us with.

    "I though liberals were all about free speech and stuff but your post made several statements quite the contrary."

    Whatever gave you that impression?

    Liberals, like conservatives, tend to be intolerant of viewpoints they disagree with, and what's wrong with that? That's human nature.

    The difference is that liberals, particularly the extremist far left, whose positions Jared and Obamabots have chosen to espouse, is that they'll kick you under the bus for ANY point of disagreement.

    Your basic mid-to-wingnut rightie generally is still capable to denounce you for an individual POSITION, rather than plot to destroy or even kill you, threaten you, or go to the extent of aligning with our nation's enemies.

    It's a matter of assessing the present risk to yourself, as an American, and America, as your nation, before you pick your poison, if you want to be true to the issues at hand.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 21:04  

  • "In fact, it pretty much showed you to be the intolerant face of liberalism as we have come to know it."

    I ran from liberalism because of the face Barky and extremists like Jared painted on to the face of the Democratic Party, like just so much foul graffiti.

    Who wants to be "tolerated", anyway?

    The so-called "rights" of these incoming savages do not outweigh my right as an American, to be free of the immediate danger they present to my nation. If you think Limbaugh, Ingraham, and their ilk have either the smarts or the stones to think their way out of the continued harassment and total moral bankruptcy of the "Critical Mass" losers and black supremacist mopes, you've got another think coming.

    "In fact, it pretty much showed you to be the intolerant face of liberalism as we have come to know it."

    Joe is a Republican with sanity.

    "He couldn't survive on MSNBC if she said what he really thinks."

    And MSNBC will not ultimately survive without Joe, or someone similar, in the morning.

    Hyper-liberal yammering and relentless talking points will not survive, as the individual hosts on AAR did not survive, because liberals do not respond in the same way to that type of programming, the way conservatives did. "Libs" tend to debate every point to death amongst themselves, while those on the right are very organizational but reach consensus according to different hierarchies of power.

    The only personalities to survive what is coming our way are the ones who remember how to think on their feet and out of the box, before they got paid to line up in the paddocks.

    Under Obama's rule, the authoritarian traits of the power structure will come to fruition.

    The pompous, overstuffed "talk titans" will be the first dragons they will slay. Do you have what it takes to move past such a scenario, and fight to wrest our nation back without the add-water-and stir directives that got us into this mess in the first place?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 21:31  

  • BTW, according to John Mainelli, Joe plans on bringing Mika with him, a fact I find fascinating, given the baggage of her unfortunate parentage and full-fledged Obamabot status.

    Guess Citadel has money to burn, with the other messiah, Phil Boyce, thankfully out the door.

    **insert Maloney-esque drama twirl**

    But....DO they????

    Happy Thanksgiving, and blessings to all.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 November, 2008 21:51  

  • Hash:And, Jared? Isn't there a jam band rehearsing in a leaky basement on Hillel Place that you can hang with

    hysterical. I'm not an Hillel-Street Jew, however I'm part-Jewish, that was hysterical, at least you read my blog! On a serious not, how is Obama different than Bush, Clinton or Reagan? I see no difference, all are profits first, people last economic thinkers. Lawrence Summers? Is that the change people voted for? Every conservative should be jumping for joy, Obama is not a "socialist" but another Republicrat. A Democrat in name only. Hannity,Limbaugh and the rest should be in LOVE. Obama takes the market first!!! As for me, I'm not fooled, I'm a true socialist, I value people first, Obama is not my kind of candidate, either was Clinton.

    Hash, what is your beef with Obama? Is it the same as mine? Or is this stupidity about him being a "black panther"? Hate on Obama, but hate on Obama for a REAL REASON. He is a Clintonite-Reaganite..

    The other poster said:
    though liberals were all about free speech and stuff but your post made several statements quite the contrary.

    Where did I not advocate free speech? I stated conservative radio will fade-away all by itself. The over 55+ demo lends total credibility to my point. Radio buyers want younger audiences, hence my "little blue pill" (viagra) reference. Conservative talk radio, has a tiny audience in the key demos, this is not an OPINION, this is a FACT. Cold, hard, fact. For example WABC in NY, 75% of their audience is over 55, out of the key demo. It does not exactly make a ton of money.
    WABC's cume for the week is under 1.5 million a week, that is not all impressive in the least.
    So much for conservative talk radio being "king".. All a sales pitch and far removed from the actual data.

    I'm all for conservative talk radio existing.... It is horrible, it is a joke and it shows the entire world how intellectually dishonest the radical right is. I'm against the fairness doctrine for talk radio, as talk radio is COMEDY and ENTERTAINMENT, NOT NEWS. The fairness doctrine has validity in NEWS, not TALK RADIO. TALK RADIO is OPINON, COMEDY, SARCASM, RNC PROPAGANDA, DNC PROPAGANDA, NOT NEWS

    someone else mentioned Ed Schultz, I can not stand him, worst host on the radio.... PERIOD.

    I don't listen to Air America for the most part. The only hosts I can tolerate is Tom Hartman and Ron Kuby. The rest are democratic kool-aide drinkers. However, if you actually look at ratings, in many markets, talk stations playing Air America hosts and other liberal hosts are making good progress in the key demos. Again, not opinion, FACT. Tom Hartman is crushing Limbaugh in several key markets

    Conservatism in general makes the average American sick. You blame workers and unions for the demise of the American auto industry, not the $25 million a year empty suits. You blame home owners for the mortgage crisis, not the crooked lending institutions. Conservatives side with the opulent, the minority and spit on the commons, the MAJORITY. This is why Americans have abandoned conservatism, you blame WE THE PEOPLE and find excuses for the wealthy and people with the actual power.

    Grasp the key reason why America is done with conservatism and you will be far better off.

    Keep blaming the people for everything, you will be irrelevant for a long time. conservative talk show hosts are nothing but shoe-shiners for the rich and their ONLY job is to turn you against workers, unions, common folk and the poor

    This is why I hate conservatives
    They blame me and the other 99% of Americans who work for a living for EVERYTHING. The more they speak the more people reject them.

    Why would I want to get rid of talk show hosts? They are helping my cause. My cause is people first, workers first, families first, the Middle Class and poor first.

    I suppose I'm a radical because I blame greed and the greedy scumbags who are destroying America. I suppose I guess
    I'M supposed to blame the common man.

    I'm not the radical Hash. I'm a patriot, the ones who blame the common powerless worker are the radicals. Use your head

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 27 November, 2008 13:57  

  • To display further why conservative talk radio is irrelevant. Every last conservative claimed Obama was a Marxist..... yet he appointed Reagan approved, free market economists. Lawrence Summers is a Marxist. R. Rubin was a Marxist? The head of Citi-bank is a Marxist??

    IF this does not prove talk show hosts are irrelevant idiots, nothing will prove it to you people. You have to be mentally retarded to believe Obama is a Marxist.

    Why would someone such as myself with an IQ of 145 (higher than Obama and Bush) worry about a couple of idiots on the radio who used to spin records, until they became political gurus?

    They are a joke. I'm not intimidated by retarded folk with a microphone. They are either retarded or they intentionally LIED and showed contempt to the listener.

    Why would you listen to people who showed you complete CONTEMPT. Limbaugh told you MARXISM is coming if you elect Obama. He lied, or he is retarded.

    So why do you embrace a LIAR?

    Can anyone answer the question

    Can anyone explain how a free market man like Obama is a Marxist-socialist such as myself?

    Guess what the pig-man lied to you again. Limbaugh should be on his knees for Obama, he is another leader for the rich

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 27 November, 2008 14:08  

  • Hash

    I do not represent the Democratic party. I voted for Democrats twice my entire life, I'm an actual socialist, I reject laissez faire capitalism, and if you listen to my show, my co-host and I have been killing each other over Obama. I do not support Obama, he is Centrist Bill Clinton all over again, my co-host is giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I have been arguing against Ralph's view for months on end. You are correct when you state
    "Libs tend to debate every point to death amongst themselves".... and what is wrong with that?

    Hash. You're paranoid to even think Obama is "authoritarian". As much as I dislike Obama, I do not see this trait in the man. He is an aisle-crossing moderate. Have you been paying attention? I do not think being an aisle-crosser is the worst thing about Obama, what bothers me with Obama is how he filled his cabinet up with Clintonites, hands-off capitalists.

    Hash, you are starting to come across as a moderate. In that case, Obama is your president. Obama is a moderate. I don't see anything radical about him. You obviously buy the William Ayers/Rev. Wright RNC talking points. The whole thing is stupid. You are not black, obviously you can not understand why Rev. Wright, might appeal to older black people, who lived through discrimination. If a White Democrat was attacked with similiar talking points, you would laugh at them. Your inborn, institutionalized racism is strong. You actually believe every RNC talking point about Obama, where you dismissed the RNC talking points against Kerry..... You have attacked Obama, not on reasonable points (such as myself) but rather on RNC lies. Stop and reflect on this, your institutionalized racism is shining in this case. YOU may not see it, I do. The only reason you attack Obama is because he is a scary black guy, hence you joined the freaks who were foaming at the mouth at Palin rally's screaming "kill the nigger". Deny it all you want, a moderate would never support a race-baiting yahoo such as Palin. You did, face it Hash, you are a racist, you can not help it. You were brought up in Brooklyn,NY, it is a trait of many whites in a city like Brooklyn. Outgrow it.

    However, Obama is clearly not a black-radical. This is absurd, he is part white, and surrounds himself with Jewish people, if you know anything about Obama, most of his associated and friends have been Jewish and white.

    Hash, If I remember correctly you supported John Kerry.. fascinating. Kerry was far more "liberal" than Obama. You really do not make sense any longer. If you are a moderate, you would connect more with Obama than Kerry. Kerry is a traditional liberal, Obama is an aisle-crossing Clintonite.

    Do not ever lump me in as a voice of Democrats. I do not fit in with Democratic thinkers at all. I'm pro-life and support restrictions on abortion for one. I'm not "radical" either.

    My main issues and passion are as followed.
    A. Strong supporter of unions and labor rights. Unions are the only entity that keep the majority from becoming servants to the ultra-rich.
    B. Supporter of Eisenhower era and Nixon era taxation. Essentially what Nixon and Eisenhower did was cap the amount of wealth one can earn. With a 91% income tax on the rich. Remember they were REPUBLICANS. I supported their taxation plans. Why should one be able to have a net worth of $100 million, while another lives in a slum? See I'm an actual MORALIST, and the Clinton-Reagan way is social-darwinism. Nobody on the right will dare mention the Eisenhower and Nixon tax structure. It would confuse the base. Republicans taxing the rich in a socialist style income cap? I can see the wing nuts, scratching their heads.

    C. and end to imperialism, an end to wars against government who do not wish to be trade friendly with America. What we did in South America in the 80''s was disgusting. America tends to squash any form of moral-socialist government. The Sandinista were not "radical". They simply saw the majority of their country at the will of 1% of the population who controlled everything (Nicaragua) Sandinista leaders were actually very religious(pro-life) and pro-people, as opposed to profits I'm against squashing governments such as the Sandinista, who only wanted to govern for the commons.

    There is nothing radical about any of my beliefs. I belief people should come first, not one's individual wealth and not a small sect of the population's concentrated wealth. What is radical is the kind of world most people support, a dog-eat-dog social Darwinist system.

    I do not represent the Democratic party. I do not support the Democratic party. I laid out for you exactly where I stand.
    The Democratic party does not represent a moral-socialist, such as myself

    I have a clear definition of my political ideals. You obviously do not. You rallied behind the lowest element of America, the garbage that attended Palin Klan rallies.
    Disgusting. I wish to bring people together as working Americans, you cling to RNC lies and probably laughed with glee as the toothless Pain supporters screamed "N*gger" at her rallies.

    I proudly attack Obama, over common sense reasons. You are still deluded into thinking Obama is a radical black-panther, who wants to kill cops, like Angela Davis. Get over it man, the 60's are OVER

    and never associate a rational, free-thinking humanist such as myself with a Anti-people party such as the Democratic party

    My motto: people over profits. Woooo how radical. I would say I
    m more moral than anyone ion either political party.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 28 November, 2008 11:09  

  • Interesting how a discussion about RADIO always degenerates into..
    “Your political party is more hateful than mine”

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 28 November, 2008 18:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger