It is that penchant for unvarnished spleen that has earned Uygur the following he has, but has also led to some backlash among liberals. He doesn’t apologize for it, and frequently warns viewers that they’re going to get that unfiltered view, no matter the subject. For what it’s worth, I’d rather know what someone honestly thinks than not, but in this case, Cenk is jumping the gun a little bit, and goes too far, and in the wrong direction, in his criticism of the President.

Cenk cites polling data that shows overwhelming (58%) support for the Preventive Services Mandate among Catholics, with 52% supporting its application to religious employers like hospitals and schools. Another survey shows that 99% of reproductive-age women have used contraception, and 89% of fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant are currently practicing it. His conclusion is that this is an “enormously winning issue,” so “why on God’s green Earth” would the administration compromise?

Uygur played a clip from Tuesday’s Morning Joe, in which senior Obama adviser David Axelrod talks about such a compromise, and he’s right on target throughout 99% of the segment, concentrating on the need to extend the protections of the Preventive Services Mandate to all women, while respecting the “concerns” and “prerogatives” of religious organizations. The competing interests here are equal protection for millions of women, versus religious accommodation, not religious liberty. The First Amendment does not grant churches the right to impose their beliefs on employees who serve the general public.

Where Axelrod slips up is in saying that “we certainly don’t want to infringe on religious liberty,” which tacitly validates that disastrous, fallacious frame. There’s nothing wrong with accommodating the wishes of these organizations, as long as the rights of women aren’t also compromised. Conceding this “religious liberty” argument is the problem. It is this argument that makes this a losing issue for the President, and it is the administration’s failure to seize the framing of this issue as an equal protection argument from the outset that has led to this controversy.

Even greater than the administration’s failure, though, is the mainstream media’s, in the same regard. Even when they’re pushing back against it, the “religious liberty” frame is still the dominant reference point in this discussion, because squeaky religious wheels are getting all of the ink. If every mainstream newscast explained the mandate the way Cenk did at the beginning of this segment, and if the cable networks sought guests who are among the women being denied these services (surely, they exist), this thing would be playing out quite differently. Right now, it’s a reverse witch hunt, with religious leaders (and lots of their left-leaning followers) tying themselves to stakes of their own making.

The fact is, aside from Axelrod’s slip-up, the White House has consistently, if not aggressively, responded to this controversy with the appropriate set of priorities. As long as any eventual compromise recognizes those priorities, there’s nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, there’s no compromise that will turn this into a win (the mainstream media has turned this into Obama vs. Church, rather than Church vs. Women), but if one can be reached, it’s the generous thing to do.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

Uygur took particular exception to the assertion embedded in Burnett’s question to Sen. Whitehouse, “Would you let corporations not pay taxes on the dividends, then? And I ask because it’s important. It’s not just wealthy people that get dividends. It’s retired Americans who get a lot of their income from dividends and capital gains, who also will be hurt by capital gains rates going up as they do under the president’s plan.”

Cenk points out that for people making $100,000 a year or less, capital gains make up only 1.4% of their income, and 54% of capital gains income is made by households that make a million or more a year. His point is that 1.4% hardly qualifies as “a lot of their income,” and while Burnett didn’t say which retired Americans she was talking about, the implication was that ordinary retirees would be hit hard by a capital gains tax hike.

Those numbers are probably even starker today, since Cenk’s figures are taken from 2003 IRS figures, before the financial crisis wiped out so may ordinary Americans’ retirements. Here’s a chart showing the percentage of capital gains income for different income levels:

w

This isn’t the first time that Burnett has been the object of her time slot competitor’s ire, but Cenk’s criticism of Burnett far predates their alignment on the cable news schedule. Burnett first hit my radar in 2007 when The Young Turks featured a clip of her jaw-dropping comments about poisonous toys from China. Late last year, Uygur also ripped Burnett for her coverage of Occupy Wall Street.

As a parent, the China comments really stuck with me, but after I saw the Occupy segment in October, I wondered if I was giving Erin Burnett a fair shake. I watched OutFront for a few days, and for the most part, it was a straight broadcast with an appealing host, and in that time, Burnett did some good reporting on things like the intense backlash against Bank Of America’s new ATM fee.

More recently, Burnett did a tough, informative segment about Mitt Romney’s tax windfall from carried interest, which belies the notion that she’s a right-wing shill. That impression probably arises, though, from the fact that there’s an awful lot of overlap between Republican talking points and business talking points. Business reporting, like sports, has evolved into an insular beat, wherein the concerns of the world outside that microcosm are ignored, or marginalized. If a company records a huge profit, that’s “good news,” even if they did it by laying people off or breaking a union.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

The Young Turks, Countdown, and The War Room will all feature live Florida primary returns, with reporter David Shuster providing on-the-ground coverage for all three, and there’s a strong possibility that Cenk Uygur’s The Young Turks will go live again at 10pm.

Monday night also saw the debut of former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm‘s new show, The War Room, which is the next step in fulfilling Current’s promise to feature a 24 hour slate of news and commentary. At a press conference to roll out Gov. Granholm’s show a few months ago, I pressed Current TV executives to reveal who else might join Granholm, Olbermann, and Cenk Uygur‘s Young Turks in the network’s lineup. For some reason, they decided they’d rather unveil their programming on their own timetable. Spoilsports, I say.

Still, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Bill Press, a TV veteran as well as a popular syndicated radio host, is a natural fit for Current. His appearance in the Countdown anchor chair could be an indication that a Bill Press hour on Current is in the offing. With Bill’s radio show starting at 6am, he would probably be a better fit for an earlier timeslot, perhaps 6pm.

Eliot Spitzer, who’s still looking for a cable news home since the cancellation of his CNN show last year, would also be a great addition to the Current slate, and his style and skill set match up well with Gov. Granholm. A Spitzer show at 10pm looks like a good bet.

Since Countdown‘s debut on Current TV last year, the network has been building on the audience bump they got from Keith Olbermann’s hour, and have been working on signing more cable systems to allow them to reach more households. Current is now available in 60 million US households, and as they build their brand, they expect that total to increase, and with it, their programming’s ratings.

While the CIA’s coordination with the NYPD has been big news, Bratton’s bombshell has proven a silent but deadly, barely registering with the news media.

The Central Intelligence Agency’s role in advising the New York City Police Department following the attacks of 9/11 has been making news lately, most recently with the revelation that the Agency’s general counsel did not approve the assignment. An Associated Press investigation revealed that the CIA helped the NYPD target innocent Muslims for surveillance:

In a series of investigative reports since August, the AP has revealed that, with the CIA’s help, the NYPD developed spying programs that monitored every aspect of Muslim life and built databases on where innocent Muslims eat, shop, work and pray. Plainclothes officers monitored conversations in Muslim neighborhoods and wrote daily reports about what they heard.

(Raymond) Kelly, the police commissioner, has vigorously defended the NYPD’s relationship with the CIA. Testifying before the City Council in October, Kelly said the collaboration was authorized under the 1981 presidential order, known as No. 12333.

On Tuesday night’s TYT, host Cenk Uygur asked Bratton, who is also a former NYPD police chief, if the CIA had overstepped its bounds in its coordination with the NYPD. Mr. Bratton explained, “In dealing with information intelligence as it relates to terrorism, the CIA has a lot of information that is appropriate for use by American police forces,” within the law, and pointed out the intelligence firewalls that contributed to the 9/11 attacks.

Uygur then asked Bratton  ”So, did you guys work with the CIA in Los Angeles when you were the police chief?”

Chief Bratton replied, “We had interactions with the CIA in the sense of meeting from them from time to time, certainly, just in order to make them aware of our capabilities and our needs. There is nothing that precludes that, and nothing wrong with that.”

He went on to compare the police-CIA pairing to a surgical team. “It’s like going into a surgery and the doctor that’s going to perform the surgery is not going to talk with the anesthesiologist?” said Bratton. “I don’t know that I’d want to be in that operating room.”

That’s a fair point, but I also don’t want my appendix to be taken out by a guy who lists “Wetwork” in the “skills” section of his resume´.

Unlike some liberals, I’m something of a realist (rather than an alarmist) when it comes to national security, particularly as it relates to intelligence. While Bratton’s argument has its appeal, such coordination between police and the CIA carries with it the inherent difficulty in maintaining oversight. Keeping track of what CIA agents are doing is a bit like judging a Ninja Beauty Contest: if they’re doing their job, you won’t see them.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV’s The Young Turks:

Last week, we told you about some very important, highly exclusive intel Manning had obtained about Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney‘s black ancestors. They were porters, Pastor Manning informed us, who worked on trains and made love to bored, lonely white ladies in secret.

RELATED: Fun Fact Friday: Birther Pastor ‘Proves’ That Mitt Romney And Newt Gingrich Are Black

The Young Turks happened to be one of countless media outlets that ran the story, but got on Manning’s bad side when one of their contributors, Ana Kasparian, called him “ignorant.”

An incensed Manning criticized The Young Turks, saying that no one watches Current TV. Not even spotted owls, who much prefer The Manning Report. Possible Arab Cenk Uygur really must have some cojones, Manning assessed, to go on TV and call him “Uncle Ruckus.”

He also addressed Kasparian specifically, calling her a “little twit” and making note of her “boobs.”

Now, my absolute favorite part of the segment below, other than the fact that Manning is always correct, is how he interrupted the clip he showed by visually swooping over it. If a high school Power Point presentation made love to a unicorn inside George Washington’s wig, the majestic offspring they’d create would be Pastor Manning’s show. Take a look:

One of the things that makes Ed Schultz somewhat unique in the world of political commentary is his status as a former conservative turned liberal convert (Cenk Uygur, Arianna Huffington, and Media Matters founder David Brock are other notable examples; people like Dennis Miller and Dana Loesch went the other way). Some have questioned Ed’s conversion, casting it as a matter of commercial opportunism, but anyone who has watched or listened to Ed (the guy puts out 20 hours of programming per week) would be hard-pressed to come away believing that he’s living a lie. That would be a Meryl Streep-worthy performance.

Part of the problem is that some people have a very narrow definition of liberalism; that your personal beliefs must check all of the right boxes in order for you to qualify. In my view, liberalism isn’t about changing your personal beliefs, it’s about not imposing them on others, and about being willing to take in new information.

“I don’t think you wake up one day and roll out of the side of the bed and say ‘hey this is how i feel about issues.’” Ed told me. “I think for me, back in the mid-90s, I was going through a series of grassroots events that took a hold of me in my career that had me view things differently.”

Schultz cites things like the farm crisis, health care, education, and veterans issues as contributors to his gradual conversion. “One of the things that got me,” Ed said, “in 1998 when we went and did some radio work in SW North Dakota we had a town hall because the price crisis was going on, and the suicide rate was really high in that portion of NW South Dakota/SW North Dakota. It was really sad, ranchers and farmers that were 4th generation were losing everything they had because they couldn’t keep up. It made me rethink a value system — this is wrong, America was better than this.”

“Then I was connected to Senator Wellstone’s Rally for rural America in March of 2000, there was a 2 or 3 year period there that I had actually gone from somewhat of a conservative, to almost an independent, to one day when I came back and realized I’m a Democrat. The Democrats are more correct on the issues at this point in time than what I had known in the past. It’s not something you say all of a sudden — you don’t flip a light switch on — gosh I’m thinking differently on things now.”

As someone who once held some relatively conservative views (compared to those I hold now), the one problem I always had with Republican politics, the one bridge too far, was the party’s long history of divisive racial politics. I’ve often wondered how former conservatives like Schultz reconciled that.

“With my background,” Ed told me, “I’ve never had a problem with race, I went to a black high school, I’ve been intertwined with black culture since junior high school, going through forced busing for racial equality back in the late ’60s. Race really didn’t have any impact on me on how I felt with the ideological shift.”

He added that “The South has come a long way, even in the last 20 years, who would have ever thought a black man would win Virginia, would win North Carolina…That really didn’t have any impact on how I felt being conservative at the time, to where I am politically right now.”

While we were discussing the range of political attitudes that Ed has experienced, and where his needle falls on the ideological gauge these days, he articulated a wise approach to political commentary. “I don’t sit around thinking about what I’m liberal on or what I’m conservative on,” he said. “I think I take a pretty common sense approach on what is fair. What is fair to people.”

In this next portion of our exclusive interview, I asked Ed for his current views on the topics of marriage equality, abortion rights, and gun control, and even found out how many firearms the host owns. Coming soon: Ed talks about his place in the cable news landscape.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

“I am pleased that I’ll be running the election coverage on Current, following this Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary,” said Olbermann in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday. “However, I don’t think those participating in the New Hampshire primary will share my satisfaction.”

A spokesperson for Current confirmed that progress between the two parties was made over the weekend and that they expect Olbermann to participate in election coverage going forward.

…Olbermann will have complete creative and editorial control. But it’s unclear exactly what that coverage will look like; whether Olbermann will do a special edition of Countdown with his own panel of guests or lead the network’s Politically Direct election specials, which have featured Cenk Uygur, Jennifer Granholm and network co-founder Al Gore.

The whole thing began when The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter reported on possible tensions between Olbermann and Current TV, as manifested by his scheduled (as in, ahead of time) absence from Current’s Iowa Caucus coverage. That made it all the more strange when, several days later, Olbermann tweeted his followers that he was “headed into the office now” for Countdown‘s return from holiday hiatus, followed by a more dramatic tweet that advised viewers “So as not to mislead: I am informed Countdown will not be on tonight. I must defer on all questions to @JoelHyatt@AlGore and@Current.”

But according to the network, Olbermann was more than “informed” about his absence from the schedule Tuesday night; he was responsible for it. A Current source confirmed to Mediaite that Olbermann was kept appraised of the Iowa Caucus plans at every turn, and acknowledged as much, in at least four or five emails dating back to mid-November. In those emails, Current executives tried to secure Olbermann’s participation in the program, as they have previously stated, but he refused.

Then, Wednesday night, The Hollywood Reporter broke news that the whole thing had gone to the lawyers, but a source at the network told Mediaite, Thursday, that, while Olbermann’s representatives are frequently in contact with Current as a routine matter of course, they have not been contacted about this matter. The source also said that the network had invited Olbermann to anchor Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary coverage, but had not gotten a response.

Olbermann also pushed back hard at reporting by The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter, accusing him of “threatening” Olbermann in order to get him to go on the record. Now, as suddenly as it started, the whole mess appears to be over.

Whatever touched off this spat, it’s a safe bet it runs deeper than some equipment malfunction. Olbermann and Current have smoked the peace pipe for now, but as THR notes, he’s got four years left on his contract with the network, and it looks like those years just got a lot longer.

While Gore’s diatribe won’t likely lose Current many viewers, it will likely earn him some hate mail from the Paul faithful.

Speaking of Paul’s electoral support, Gore laughingly said “He has a ceiling except in fantasyland.”

Describing voter frustration with the economy and congressional inaction, Gore said GOP voters are saying “Let’s play 52-card pickup, upend things, and do something radically different. And I think he does culturally, psychologically tap into that.”

Gore also pointed out the extension of Paul’s resonant anti-war message, that all US troops be brought home, is “silly,” and Cenk Uygur added that Paul appeals to voters who “want to hit the reset button,” but that Paul’s reset button is “a nuclear option.”

Uygur’s assessment is actually not far from what Ron Paul is campaigning on. One of Paul’s first ads in Iowa featured Paul literally blowing up government agencies.

Paul’s ascendance looked a lot more threatening before the Rick Santorum surge, but his close third place finish in Iowa is probably enough for the media to go back to ignoring him, despite the fact that Paul has the money and the organization to hang in there for a long time to come.

Here’s the clip from Current TV:

(h/t The Daily Caller)

RELATED: Exclusive: Why Countdown With Keith Olbermann Has Been Broadcasting From A Dark Place

Stelter reports that Olbermann “is not scheduled to anchor Current’s coverage of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary in January;” the network has placed anchors Cenk Uygur and Jennifer Granholm in that position, along with the head of the network, Al Gore. And despite having been hired to be a part of special reports, as well, Olbermann has not been around. What’s more, Olbermann’s program will actually not run on Monday, January 2 and in its stead will be a two-hour Iowa caucus preview hosted by Uygur.

Stelter does not provide concrete answers, but did find some rumblings of discomfort with Olbermann among the staff:

In the television industry, Mr. Olbermann is well known for fights with his bosses; stories abound about his refusal to speak to managers and executives. At Current, this behavior has continued, according to four people with knowledge of the situation, one of whom described Mr. Olbermann as “disgruntled.”

Current’s chief executive, David Bohrman, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday, on what is traditionally a holiday week. Mr. Olbermann did not respond to an e-mail.

Stelter also notes that Olbermann himself has not made any indication that the absences from other program are unusual, adding that his final live program of the way only made note that he would be back to anchor on Tuesday, January 3.

Are these the tiny squeals of discontent that preempt the involuntary opening of the proverbial floodgates? It’s too early to tell, but there is certainly something unusual about his absences from major programming, as well as the silence surrounding the story.

UPDATE: Stelter reports that it appears Olbermann himself was not in on the plan to have him absent from the programming:

On Thursday afternoon Mr. Olbermann suggested that Current’s published plans might not be accurate. When a reporter asked him via email why he was not participating in the Iowa caucus coverage, he answered, “That’s not my understanding. We’ve already prepared a ‘Best Of Countdown’ for Monday, and are planning a live Countdown on Tuesday.”

Longtime TYT viewers have probably already seen many of the vintage clips that were featured on Friday’s episode, but it was great for new fans, and who could ever get tired of watching Cenk Uygur hawk tires for Tire Heaven, wolfing down a bacon cheeseburger, or seeing him get body-checked out of an interview with Kevin Spacey? Unfortunately, Current doesn’t yet post entire episodes worth of clips, so if you missed it, you’ll have to settle for this brief walk down memory lane, from CurrentTV:

With friends like Ben Mankiewicz, who needs enemies?

In a few short weeks, the Current TV iteration of TYT has managed to strike the right balance between its gritty, underground visual style and the right level of production polish. It’s a big change from the web series, which always punched above its weight class in production values, but that signature look is important to conveying the show’s ethos to those who haven’t been with Cenk and the gang for years.

It was a lack of identity, in my view, that severely hampered the show that MSNBC threw together for Cenk. They never bothered to give it a name, or a look of its own, and it was missing the most important ingredients to The Young Turks’ success: the rest of the Young Turks. The Current TV show hit the ground running with the entire group, so Friday’s show was a chance for the audience to get to know Ben, Jayar Jackson, Ana Kasparian, and Dave Koller. The success of the new show rests largely on their work, and chemistry, with Cenk. Translating their years of working together is a challenge in a one-hour format, but the show is quickly finding its footing.

RELATED: Cenk Uygur On Similarities Between Occupy Wall Street And Tea Party Movements

“We don’t have the benefits of capitalism any more because we don’t have capitalism,” Schiff told Uygur. “We have a centrally planned socialist economy, and that is why the average American is getting poorer.”

“Alright, I’m done with that load of crap,” Uygur snapped, cutting off Schiff’s audio.

“He wants to blame the government for the problems, but he knows it’s his banker friends who have given those donations, who buy their senators, who buy their staff members, so they can get more money,” Cenk fumed. “He doesn’t want you to pay attention to that, because that’s how they rob you. And he comes on here and goes, ‘Oh, no no, it’s socialism.’ Socialism, my ass!”

Watch Uygur’s heated interview with Schiff below via Current TV:

(h/t Raw Story)

RELATED: BS Alert: Mickey Mouse And Adolf Hitler Have Not Joined Scott Walker Recall Effort

The speech itself was an effort to raise awareness of attempts to limit voting rights through gerrymandering, fraudulent propaganda campaigns, and stricter voter identification laws. On that last topic, Uygur took issue with this section of Savage’s report:

This year, more than a dozen states enacted new voting restrictions. For example, eight — Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin — imposed new laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification cards. Previously voters were able to use other forms of identification, like bank statements, utility bills and Social Security cards.

Proponents of such restrictions — mostly Republicans — say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud that could cancel out the choices of legitimate participants. Opponents — mostly Democrats — say there is no evidence of meaningful levels of fraud and contend that the measures are a veiled effort to suppress participation by hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who lack a driver’s license.

Cenk’s issue is with the fact that Savage presents these claims as equal, and offers no factual analysis to evaluate their merits. This is a classic mainstream media dodge, one which many media critics have pointed out. In this case, it is even more egregious than usual because the facts are so lopsided in one direction.

Voter fraud, the kind where someone actually casts a vote when they shouldn’t have, is extremely rare, whereas voter ID laws will impact millions of voters, mostly from traditionally Democratic constituencies, and disproportionately among minorities, particularly black Americans. You can debate whether the intent of voter ID laws is racist, but the effect definitely is. I would argue that support for these measures is the result of privileged ignorance. Showing a photo ID is “no big deal” to someone who already has one.

If Savage wanted to avoid making an editorial judgment, he could have covered himself by directly quoting Holder, who was, if anything, understated on the subject:

Let me be clear: voter fraud is not acceptable – and will not be tolerated by this Justice Department.  But as I learned early in my career – as a prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, where I actually investigated and prosecuted voting-fraud cases – making voter registration easier is simply not likely, by itself, to make our elections more susceptible to fraud.  Indeed, those on all sides of this debate have acknowledged that in-person voting fraud is uncommon.  We must be honest about this.

Honesty is in short supply on the conservative side of this debate. Ask one of them to show you widespread voter fraud, and they’ll either change the subject, accuse you of being racist for not believing minorities are “capable” of getting ID (an identical argument could have been applied to poll taxes and exams. “Oh, are you saying Negroes aren’t ‘capable’ of passing a literacy test, you racist?”), or give you examples of voter registration fraud, which has nothing to do with casting fictitious votes. Actual voter fraud, as Uygur points out, isn’t just “uncommon,” it’s lightning-strike-twice rare. I guarantee at least six idiots will not even bother reading this whole article, and will make these exact arguments in our comments section.

But, in Savage’s defense, he does offer some evidence one way or the other. Later in the article, he talks to a woman who organized a combination Fast and Furious/Voter ID protest outside the speech:(emphasis mine)

Catherine Engelbrecht, who said she organized the rally, faulted Mr. Holder for taking what she called divisive tactics of suggesting that “photo voter ID” laws are an effort to “suppress” eligible voters. She said such laws are necessary to guard against “real problems with the integrity of the elections process.”

Such problems, Ms. Engelbrecht said, included people showing up at polls without any identification, or showing up with multiple voter registration cards in different names, and being allowed to vote; she said she had not witnessed such irregularities during her own service as a volunteer at polling places, but had heard about them happening from other poll watchers.

Wow, this isn’t even “He said/She Said,” it’s “He said/She said/Somebody told her some shit.”

I said that Cenk was 99.64% right because I sort of disagree that this is “conservative bias,” although that could be part of it. Years of conservatives “working the ref” by crying “liberal bias” has resulted in a combination of laziness and cowardice that makes the mainstream media not want to deal with the headache of telling the truth. I understand the impulse. There are times when I have trouble writing something because I just dread the combination of stupidity and dishonesty I know I’ll have to face (like with this piece) when I’m done. If you can’t fight through that impulse, you ought to try another line of work.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

Current TV announced on Thursday that The Young Turks With Cenk Uygur, their new show starring former MSNBC anchor Cenk Uygur, now has an official start date: Dec. 5. The show, according to a release from Current, will air at 7 p.m., acting as the lead-in for Keith Olbermann.

Uygur left MSNBC this summer on somewhat bitter terms. He had been hosting at 6 p.m., the slot that now belongs to Al Sharpton. MSNBC offered Uygur a lower-profile weekend slot, but he rejected it, opting to instead return to his popular Internet show. In July, Uygur gave a three-video explanation of why he left MSNBC. The juicy part of his side of the story was that MSNBC president Phil Griffin had called him into his office in April and told him he had been talking to people in Washington and that they did not like Uygur’s tone. MSNBC quickly denied Uygur’s claims to Mediaite. Regardless, Uygur went back to his Internet show, which has pulled in over 500,000,000 viewers over its entire run.

RELATED: Cenk Uygur On Similarities Between Occupy Wall Street And Tea Party Movements

Uygur’s show on Current was announced in September, and his Internet show is expected to continue as a wholly separate entity from the Current one, meaning more Cenk for everyone.

Below, enjoy video of Uygur’s detialed reasoning behind his departure from MSNBC, courtesy of The Young Turks:

In our brief interview, Uygur discussed the media portrayal of Occupy Wall Street (it’s getting better), how anger towards corporations isn’t the thing (its corporate cronyism), and how the OWS movement is very similar in spirit to that of the Tea Party movement. He also revealed that his new show should be launching on Current in about a month, and that while he and Keith Olbermann clearly share a similar political point of view, there will be differences in their two shows. In particular, Uygur is looking to have more dissenting opinions on his program, and is actively hoping for more conservative guests with which he can engage in a serious discourse.

Working in television for a number of years engenders a certain cynical approach, to both fellow media peers and viewers. On-air personalities are often the most jaded of the sort, who often bring a strange mix of egomania alongside an over-reliance on a writer/producer to help him or her look good. Uygur was quite the opposite, however. Perhaps his humble start as a YouTube star, or his somewhat unceremonious departure from MSNBC, combined to make Uygur a remarkably down-to-earth and likable guy.

Of course it helps that he was surrounded by (mostly) like-minded people at Zuccotti Park, though there was one rabble rousing Wall Street protester, “Kenny,” who considered Uygur’s taping of material for his new show to be “pornography,” and did everything in his power to disrupt the taping. No worries for Uygur, he didn’t complain and just went about his business.

Current’s press release described the show this way:

From the caucuses to the campaign trails to Capitol Hill, the hour-long program will shed light on the news of the day and will feature in-studio commentary by political insiders, campaign veterans, opinion leaders and newsmakers whose unique perspective will both inform and inspire.

According to Current, The War Room “will cap off a nightly roster of thought-provoking content beginning at 7:00 pm ET/PT with Cenk Uygur’s The Young Turks (launching November 2011) to be followed at 8:00 pm ET/PT by Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Gore was effusive in his praise of Granholm, saying in a press release, ““Jennifer Granholm is a supremely talented and dedicated public servant whose deep understanding of the issues makes her one of the most relevant voices in politics today. She would be an asset to any news organization, and I am delighted that she has chosen Current TV as her new home. I have no doubt that her ability to illuminate and provide context to the issues of the 2012 election will prove to be of inestimable value to Current’s audience as well as to the public policy discussion surrounding the election.”

In a conference call with reporters, Gore went quite a bit further. Echoing comments he made to the former governor over dinner last night, Gore said, “I sincerely believe that if (Jennifer Granholm) had not been born in Canada, she would have been a leading candidate for President of the United States, and would have been, very possibly, the first woman President of the United States.”

He went on to say that she has “a combination of insight, intelligence, and personality that…is really going to be fantastic on television. I’m very excited about it.”

I asked the former Vice President if he would share his wish list for the rest of Current’s lineup, and he jokingly declined, but also declined to give specifics on the network’s inroads into being available in more households, saying that “the ratings have been good,” and that he was in “many different conversations, and we’re very optimistic” about distribution. Gov. Granholm did reveal that comedian Brett Ehrlich, who formerly hosted infoMania on Current, will be a contributor to her show.

I also asked Gov. Granholm if she could gauge the political temperature of her show, relative to Keith Olbermann on the “hot” end of the spectrum, and Rachel Maddow on the “cool” side.

“I think we’re gonna be a hot show,” she said, with a laugh. “It’s going to be hot in the sense that people will want to watch it, we want it to be fast-moving, and we want it to be entertaining, yes, but we also want it to be very thoughtful.”

“Yes, I’m progressive,” Granholm continued, “I’m on the left end of the spectrum, but I’ve also had to be a pragmatic governor, and can explain what that’s like, dealing with a Republican legislature, and how important compromise is. It will be a blend of temperatures, but hopefully, the show itself will be a hot show.”

It’s probably not what she meant by a “hot show,” but earlier in the call, asked if the Detroit Tigers should start Justin Verlander in Game 4 or save him for game 5, replied with an earthy turn of phrase, saying, “I say shoot the wad tonight, you gotta take it every game at a time.”

Young Turks

Uygur tore into Burnett over her Occupy Wall Street segment, in which she uses her finely-honed financial acumen to completely pwn some unemployed loser by pointing out that “taxpayers actually made money on the wall street bailout.”

Cenk points out that Burnett is not only missing the point of the Occupy Wall Street protest (there’s nothing in here about a failure to pay back almost-free loans), but that her facts are, at best, incomplete, and her dismissive attitude is symptomatic of an incestuous business reporting culture:

The fact is, as Uygur points out, taxpayers actually didn’t “make money on the Wall Street bailout,” because the government overpaid these banks by $30 billion for garbage AIG securities in the “Backdoor Bailout” he describes. Well, at least the banks paid back the taxpayers for the TARP bailouts…by borrowing money from the taxpayers.

In the meantime, as the Declaration of Occupation points out, they used our money to make billions, pay themselves huge bonuses, and continue to influence elections and policy, and heap extra fees on those same taxpayers. A cynical person might call that some kind of warfare. In fairness to Burnett, though, she has come a long way from urging consumers to be careful about wishing for non-poisonous toys, and from what I’m told, has done some tough interviews with Tim Geithner, Leon Panetta, and Jon Huntsman this week.

I asked Cenk what he thought of how the Occupy Wall Street protests are being covered by the rest of the media. He called Fox News’ coverage “ comically bad,” and “the usual propaganda nonsense they spew forth on a regular basis.”

“No one leaps to the defense of the big banks like Fox News,” Cenk told me, adding, “The really funny part is when they pretend to be populist, when in reality they are the biggest elitist protector of the rich and powerful. That whole network is one giant joke.”

Fox News has even come under fire for coverage that it didn’t air, such as this interview with a protester that didn’t make it onto On The Record (along with over an hour of other footage that didn’t make the two minute segment). “Fox News covered up reasonable points that didn’t suit the interests of the Republican Party and the super rich?” Cenk said. “Shocking! Shocking!”

As for the rest of the media, the protests are starting to catch on. Cenk had praise for some more progressive-leaning journalists. “I think it’s getting more coverage now, so that’s positive. I think Keith Olbermann has led that effort and has done a fantastic job of covering the protests. Dylan Ratigan went down there a couple of times and he went early on, that’s positive.” (MSNBC’s Ed Schultz also did an entire live show from the protests earlier this week.)

Many mainstream newsers, according to Uygur, just aren’t getting it, though. “For a great majority of the time, the media coverage was abhorrent,” he says. “The disdain drips off the lips of the millionaire news anchors. Why won’t the protesters just east cake?!”

Uygur, like several leading progressive figures, has a unique perspective, because he used to be a conservative. However, he doesn’t see OWS through that lens. “This is not a liberal or conservative issue,” he says. “All of the American people have been ripped off by Wall Street and the politicians they have bought. Conservatives should be the most mad at the government interfering with the free market to give the big banks enormous, artificial advantages. I thought the Tea Party was against the bailouts. Where are their protests on Wall Street? Curious how they haven’t had any, right?”

I asked Cenk why he thought this movement was being covered so dismissively, while the Tea Party has been consistently legitimized by the media. “So far, unfortunately, the Tea party has not been a real threat to the establishment,” he replied. “They are in a contest with mainstream Republicans as to who can cut the taxes of the very rich even more. Wow, the establishment must be shaking in their boots.”

“Occupy Wall Street is a real threat. These are people who are not going to easily get misdirected into helping the banks. They’re here to assert the voice of the majority of the people and there is nothing a corrupt establishment hates more than that.”

Cenk Uygur with fans in Asbury Park, NJ

On the heels of CurrentTV’s announcement that The Young Turks will join Keith Olbermann at the network as Countdown‘s lead-in, host Cenk Uygur and Current president Al Gore held a tele-press conference Tuesday afternoon. Gore talked about expanding Current’s lineup even more, and Uygur assured current Young Turks fans that he would be bringing the whole TYT crew, and the show’s magic, to the hour leading in to Countdown. Although Olbermann has the higher profile, The Young Turks has an arguably larger, more loyal audience to bring to Current.

Gore and CurrentTV CEO and Co-Founder Joel Hyatt revealed that the addition of TYT is the first step toward a full lineup of news and commentary. I asked Al Gore if he had anyone specific in mind, like top-rated progressive radio host Bill Press, or Thom Hartmann, who already produces a TV show in addition to his syndicated radio broadcast.

“Well, without getting into specific names, the answer to your question are we looking at someone else to add to the lineup, yes, we are,” Gore replied. “Stay tuned, you won’t have to wait that long.”

Current president David Bohrman added, “I’ll just tell you. We are going to have an entire broadcast day full of people. We had a beachhead with Countdown with Keith, now Cenk will lead into that, we’re working on the program afterwards and hopefully we’ll be able to talk about and crystallize and the rest of the day will follow. This is going to be a – you know, we are going to transform the network into political news commentary and analysis and you’re seeing it start.”

Although he declined to be specific, it sounds as though Gore and Current Chief News Officer Keith Olbermann already have someone in mind for the 9pm hour. Asked why TYT was being scheduled as Countdown‘s lead-in, rather than its lead-out, Hyatt replied that he hoped Cenk would bring new viewers to Countdown, and added, “We have a plan for that larger audience being handed off by Keith at nine, as well.”

While Gore joked that he expected TYT to continue its 300% annual audience growth rate (“I was going to say a billion,” Uygur cracked), he and Hyatt said they don’t have a number in mind for the show’s audience size. The Young Turks has the potential to bring a significant built-in audience to Current. Their daily Youtube audience of over a million is roughly equivalent to what Countdown was pulling in at MSNBC before the move, but The Young Turks has the added advantage of coming from a more interactive medium. A more invested fan base could result in a surprisingly large debut audience.

Uygur’s MSNBC show didn’t include any of the elements that have made The Young Turks popular, and was hampered by a lack of identity, generic graphics, and sub-par production values. Cenk assures viewers that the CurrentTV incarnation of TYT will bring the show’s familiar vibe along for the ride.

“Ana (Kasparian), Jayar (Jackson), Jesus (Godoy) will appear on air, as they normally do on TYT from time to time,” Uygur told me. “…We’ll also be having the same crew of guest hosts, co-hosts, etc, Wes Clark, Jr., Michael Shure, Richard Eskow, Jimmy Dore, Brian Unger. All these guys have been great to us throughout TYT history, Ben Mankiewicz.”

“We’ll also bring all the other progressives you’ve seen on my shows, as guests,” he continued, “and you know who they are. We are going to be a gathering place for progressives.”

He also assured fans of the online show that they’ll still be getting the content they’re used to. “Wee’re going to continue to do the two hours that we’re doing now,” Uygur said. “We’re going to do the hour of Current television, then we will do the two hours of The Young Turks online. And we will provide Members Only content as much as we can.”

Although the online show is free, TYT has about 3,500 viewers who pay $10 a month to access “Members Only” content, sort of like DVD extras for the hardcore fans.

Here’s a transcript of the call:(via email from CurrentTV)

Jeanne Meyer: Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us on such short notice. We had some exciting news today at Current and assembled on this call are Current’s Chairman and Former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, also Co-Founder of Current; also, Joel Hyatt who is Chief Executive officer and Co-Founder of Current; David Bohrman, who is our rather new President of Current TV; and Cenk Uygur who is our newest edition to the family as the new Host and Exec Producer of The Young Turks on Current TV.

I’d like to introduce everyone – or I’d like to turn it over to Mr. Gore, who will start things off today.

Thank you.

Al Gore: Well, thank you, Jeannie, and hi everyone. As many of you have probably heard, Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks are coming to Current TV. Joel Hyatt and I are extremely excited about this development. If you look up the term Young Turks in the dictionary, it will say something like, young, progressive, or insurgent member of an institution movement or political party.

And although the Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t add this, you might as well say, an alternative definition is Cenk Uygur, because Cenk and The Young Turks on YouTube and soon Current TV, are a group of progressive outspoken journalists and commentators who have build an incredibly fast-growing loyal network. Cenk and his collaborators and the army of followers that they’ve built really does live up to that definition of Young Turks.

Speaking personally, I’ve admired Cenk because he speaks truth to power without fear or favor. He gets that what audiences want today is context and insight about what’s going on in the world. They don’t want yelling, they want a smart take on the days’ news and the complex issues that affect their lives. They don’t want commentary that’s watered down by corporate or special interest influences. I liked how Cenk and his team boil it down for his viewers.

The Young Turks also understand that we live in a multi-screen world and they speak to an audience that wants to hear the truth, so Cenk, welcome to Current. I am so excited. And now I want to turn it over to my partner and Co-Founder, Joel Hyatt, who is our CEO.

Joel, take it away.

Joel Hyatt: Thanks, Al, I appreciate it. A few months ago, after we landed Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you know, Current changed its programming direction to become entirely focused on building a news analysis and political commentary network, one with a progressive voice and one that offers an alternative to what’s been in the marketplace.

We’re creating a new news network for a new kind of news viewer. People consume news in different ways today, on television, online, on mobile, and as Al said what they’re looking for is insight, context, and the truth. Cenk and The Young Turks is a great addition to our network. I share Al’s enthusiasm and excitement. This is just a wonderful development Current.

You’ve seen the stats. The Young Turks channel on YouTube gets about 30 million views a month, Cenk has 300,000 subscribers, and The Young Turks channel has racked up 1/2 billion video views. As we head into the election year people are eager to hear voices like Cenk’s, which can only be heard on an open independent platform like Current.

So, I want to add my welcome to that of Al’s to Cenk and his posse, and now let me turn it over to you, Cenk.

Cenk Uygur: All right, thank you both so much and I am incredibly excited to come to Current. As both the Vice President and Joel were just saying, it is a true home for independent television and for progressives all across the country. And I can’t wait to do a show there that is open, honest, aggressive, and also fun.

We’re in the fun business and we’re going to do it with a smile on our face, and we’re going to bring all the different strong progressives throughout the country to this show. It’s going to be a gathering place for progressives to meet and discuss the issues of the day, and I think it’s going to be a really exciting show and I couldn’t be more excited to do it with this great group of people.

I mean, for a progressive to have Joel Hyatt and Al Gore as your bosses and to have Keith Olbermann as your colleague, it doesn’t get any better than that.

Joel Hyatt: David?

David Bohrman: Well, we – we’re – we’ve already started. I mean, I was on already, must have sent 20 emails this morning already about the environment for The Young Turks and about how we’re going to produce the show, and what it may look and feel like.

And, you know, I will tell you that, you know, our goal is to come up with something refreshing, difference, the – to try to capture the excitement and magic and dynamic that The Young Turks brought to the Internet, we’re going to, in our own way, turn that it into what I think is going to be a really fun, interesting, compelling, and passionate television program.

They bring their community of loyal viewers with them and, you know, Cenk and I we had an immediate meeting of the minds on the program and what it was going to feel like, and we are – we’re – I mean, we’re ready to go and we’ve already begun. So, we’re really looking forward to it and I think it’s going to be a great blast for us to do.

Cenk Uygur: Hey, let me add one other thing. You know, the – this is Cenk again, when you look at what David Bohrman’s done in his career, whether it’s World News Now and that kind of different irreverent, you know, more conversational shows, whether it was the site, whether it was what he’s did online, it – he was our President waiting to happen, in terms of the person that we would love to produce a show with.

So, I think it’s just the right combination and really excited about it.

Al Gore: We’re happy to take any questions. Jeannie, are you going to moderate it?

Jeanne Meyer: Yeah, I was just going to suggest that if you want to ask a question, to get in the queue. (Audrey) will tell folks how to do that, and I think we have a question from Tommy from Mediaite. Would you please…

Tommy Christopher: Hey…

Jeanne Meyer: …say your name and outlet? Thanks.

Tommy Christopher: Sure, I’m Tommy Christopher from Mediate. I actually – well, first of all, congratulations, Cenk.

Cenk Uygur: Thank you, Tommy.

Tommy Christopher: It’s great news. I have three questions if that’s okay, but one of them is really quick. First of all, Cenk, I wanted to know if – when MSNBC first started giving you static a few months back, did Keith ever tell you, you know, “Don’t worry about it. If doesn’t work out there, you know, we’ve got a spot for you?”

Cenk Uygur: No, no. I had no communication with Keith at time.

Tommy Christopher: All right, and now my second question for you was could you maybe ballpark us your total daily audience now, including the Internet stream, your YouTube views, and how many premium members do you have?

Cenk Uygur: Sure. You know, we use the number of one million from YouTube simply because YouTube dwarfs everything else, so when you put it all together it’s still in that ballpark. So, I think it’s just fair to say a million views a day, even though it’s probably a little over that we’re a little (queue) on it.

Tommy Christopher: What…

Cenk Uygur: But, and then…

Tommy Christopher: …do you get from the stream?

Cenk Uygur: What was it? Oh, our paid viewers are in the ballpark of 3500. That’s people who pay $10 for our podcasts; $10 a pod…

Tommy Christopher: All right and my last question’s for Mr. Gore, are you currently looking at any other progressive media talent? You’ve got Thom Hartmann doing a TV show, you’ve (Phil Press) out there, anybody else you want to add in the lineup?

Al Gore: Yes, stay tuned.

Tommy Christopher: Is said do you have anybody else that you’re thinking about adding to the lineup? You’ve got a lot of fresh…

Al Gore: Yes, I…

Tommy Christopher: …talent out there, Thom Hartmann.

Al Gore: Well, without getting into specific names, the answer to your question are we looking at someone else to add to the lineup, yes, we are. Stay tuned, you won’t have to wait that long.

Tommy Christopher: All right, you can’t see who, huh?

David Bohrman: This is…

Al Gore: Nope.

David Bohrman: …David, I’ll just tell you. We are going to have an entire broadcast day full of people. We had a beachhead with Countdown with Keith, now Cenk will lead into that, we’re working on the program afterwards and hopefully we’ll be able to talk about and crystallize and the rest of the day will follow. This is going to be a – you know, we are going to transform the network into political news commentary and analysis and you’re seeing it start.

Tommy Christopher: So, you’re going to be creating a lot of jobs liberals.

David Bohrman: (Yes), (unintelligible)…

Al Gore: We’re going to be creating a lot of jobs for people who are not afraid to speak truths to power without fear or favor.

Tommy Christopher: All right, sir. Thank you very much.

Coordinator: As a reminder, please press star 1 if you would like ask a question. And the next question comes from Sam Thielman. Your line is open.

Sam Thielman: Hi, guys, Sam Thielman from Daily Variety.

First of all, Cenk, congratulations and can you guys – can you tell me if you are looking at doing more programs like Cenk’s and Keith’s that are stripped five nights a week, or are you looking at doing – at like focusing in on a particular evening with more – with your other primetime programming.

David Bohrman: I think you’ll find more of the first.

Sam Thielman: Okay.

David Bohrman: I think you’ll find that we will do a 9:00 pm program. We’ll fill out the day. By and large, it’ll be things that are on every day. Weekends are an interesting question. There may be some things that we decide to make more episodic. But, I think fundamentally as we begin you should think that we’re going to be adding programs across the week uniformly.

Sam Thielman: Cool. Thank you.

Jeanne Meyer: Do we have any other questions? Yes, we do. I think we have David Levine from Adweek.

David Levine: Yeah, hi. I’m just curious whether we can expect this to be the template, meaning folks who have large online followings already, folks who have followings outside of the sort of linear TV medium, is that who you’re looking at moving forward to fill out your sort of personality slate?

Joel Hyatt: David, it’s Joel, I would say there’s going to be on template. I think we’re going to do a lot of things. We, of course, love the fact that Cenk has this huge online following. And keep in mind that the DNA, the original roots of what Al and I started here at Current was to be a multi-platform network, one in which we could explore and bring innovation to the synergies between the platforms so that they could be additive to each other and not just duplicative of each other, and this is a great opportunity with The Young Turks to do just that.

And again, yes, you know, Keith Olbermann was a rating superstar, no question about that. He had a loyal following. Cenk has a loyal following. Do we like that as we launch those TV shows knowing they’re going to get off to a good start, absolutely. And so, there’s certainly something very appealing about that template, but we’re going to develop different kinds of shows and as Al said, you’re going to need to stay tuned.

I’d like to think though that the only template theme that we want to have is that each and every one of them be – build large followings for insightful, intelligent, courageous analysis from people whose opinions you’ll want to hear. That’s the template we’re looking at.

Man: (Unintelligible)…

Al Gore: And this is Al Gore, if I could briefly add to that. I endorse everything Joel just said, but Cenk is one of a kind. He has the most successful news and political commentary channel on YouTube and he has a record of experience and great success already in the television medium, so he is kind of one of a kind.

Cenk Uygur: And I just want to add, look, given that The Young Turks is the longest running live daily Web TV show, given that Current has, you know, web presence in television in its DNA, this was just a partnership waiting to happen. It makes all the sense in the world and I really appreciate what the Vice President and Joel just said as well.

David Levine: Can I ask, I’m sorry, a very quick follow-up? Do you have an expectation for how many viewers you think might, you know, make it over from YouTube to Current? Do you have a figure in mind for what you’re hoping for?

Cenk Uygur: Who was that directed to?

Joel Hyatt: We don’t have – any preconceived notion about that. We’re – we believe that Cenk is going to have a television show that’s going to enormously attracted to its existing following, and of course the TV platform adds the opportunity to bring many new viewers. So, we’re excited about the potential success of the program, but we don’t have any preconceived data points to provide to you.

Al Gore: He promised us that he would continue his annual 300% audience growth rate.

Cenk Uygur: I was going to go with a billion, but okay.

Coordinator: Please press star 1 if you would like to ask a question.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we have a question from Frazier Moore from the AP. Frazier?

Frazier Moore: I was just wondering why you chose to put the new show on at 7:00 instead of 9:00 after Keith Olbermann to let him lead into it? What’s the strategy there for programming the two shows?

Joel Hyatt: Well, again, as to what we’re doing at 9:00 you’ll have to stay tuned and there – this is more art than science. We’re very excited about what we’ve are already achieving as younger audience for news analysis and commentary than the other networks in our competitive set.

We believe that trend’s going to continue launching – with the launching of Cenk and The Young Turks, and we’re excited about that. We think the consequence of that is that Cenk’s going to bring a new audience leading into Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which you know again, is a big and important development for us, and I think that you know, look, Keith Olbermann’s going to keep that audience.

So, the audience that The Young Turks delivers to Keith we hope will be additive to the loyal following that Keith already has and will grow Keith’s audience, and is – you know, as we’ve alluded to we have a plan for that larger audience being handed off by Keith at 9 o’clock as well.

Frazier Moore: Thank you.

Cenk Uygur: And for my part, I love 7:00 pm because I’ll be the only progressive on television at that time slot.

Frazier Moore: Understood. Thanks.

Jeanne Meyer: We have a question from Matthew Flamm from Crain’s New York Business. Matthew?

Matthew Flamm: Hi, I just – I got on the call late, so I apologize if you’ve been asked this already, but do you expect to see this help you, you know, expand your distribution?

Joel Hyatt: Yes. Good question. Yes, we do. Again, as we build out a – what – we will in January have a full primetime lineup for a Presidential Election year. We will be the only independent news analysis network and we believe that that will serve as a very compelling case for additional distribution for Current.

We are today carried into about 60 million U.S. households, which is a great accomplishment for a small independent network; very few others have been able to do that in the years in which we’ve built that distribution platform.

That said, a primetime lineup with hit shows, which is what we’re going to have in place for the beginning of the Presidential Election year, we believe will result in increased distribution.

Matthew Flamm: And any timetable for that where you think you might start adding?

Joel Hyatt: No, none that we’re going to be predicting, no.

Matthew Flamm: Okay.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we have time for just a couple more questions. We have – Tommy Christopher, did you have another question you wanted to ask?

Tommy Christopher: Yeah, I had – well, there weren’t so many people raising their hand, so I do have a couple. As a original Young Turks Premium Member, I’m kind of curious if you’re going to – when you say The Young Turks are going to Current are you bringing the whole gang with you; J.R. and Dave and Ana, and will you be moving to the East Coast or staying on the West Coast?

Cenk Uygur: That’s a great question, Tommy. Yes, Ana, J.R., Jesus, will appear on air as they normally do on The Young Turks from time to time. You know, how I talk to my producers from time to time, Ana does, you know, some political and some pop culture stories for us. We’ll also be having the same crew of guest hosts, co-hosts, et cetera, that you normally see on The Young Turks; Wes Clark, Jr., Michael Shure, Richard Eskow, Jimmy Dore, Brian Unger.

All these guys have been great to us throughout The Young Turk’s history; Ben Mankiewicz. And we’ll also bring all the other progressives you’ve seen on my shows as guests, and they’re a great lineup and you know who they are. We are going to be a gathering place for progressives.

Tommy Christopher: And you’re staying on the West Coast?

David Bohrman: David, let me – Tommy, let me add in. One of the reasons Cenk’s going to be able to do that, and we didn’t mention it, the program will originate from Los Angeles. It’s where the home of The Turks is and it will be there – we do the program from L.A. live every day, so all of The Turk’s regulars will be there and at home and we won’t have to latch them all up electronically everyday to create the right environment and the right dynamic for The Turks.

Tommy Christopher: All right, and one more quick one, you currently do what, three or four hours of programming a day, are you going to continue to do that also, the (full size) Turks at night or is this going to be (edited) to one hour?

Cenk Uygur: No, we’re going to continue to do the two hours that we’re doing now online, so we will do the hour current television and then we will do the two hours of The Young Turks online.

Tommy Christopher: All right, thanks.

Cenk Uygur: And then, we will provide…

Joel Hyatt: And the…

Cenk Uygur: …members-only content, you know, as much as we can, which is how we do it today.

Tommy Christopher: Thank you.

Joel Hyatt: And the television broadcast will be live daily 7 o’clock Eastern and it will be rebroadcast at 10 o’clock Eastern.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we are a wrap, folks. Thank you so much joining us. If you have any questions I think you know who to reach out to.

Thank you for your time today.

Al Gore: Thanks, everyone.

Cenk Uygur: Thank you.

David Bohrman: Thanks.

Current TV co-founder Al Gore has said that Uygur and his collaborators “have exploded in popularity because of ‘The Young Turks” authentic and passionate voice.” Uygur himself adds that he’s excited to join the network, calling it “the perfect home” for his show and… What’s this? A subtle dig at a certain cable news network, perhaps?

We wanted to be in a place that is both independent and truly progressive, not owned and encumbered by a media conglomerate. Does it get any better for a progressive than working where Al Gore and Joel Hyatt are your bosses, and Keith Olbermann is your colleague? It’s an honor to be the lead-in program for Keith Olbermann. Add to that we will work with David Bohrman, who has been creating unique and great television programming for decades. His vision for Current is exactly in line with ours. When you bring all of these people together with ‘The Young Turks,’ watch out — we’re coming!

Uygur, you’ll recall, ruffled more than a few feathers over the summer when, after losing his spot on MSNBC’s evening lineup, he suggested to Olbermann that the network “trades honesty for access.”

His new show will be produced at a Los Angeles-based studio and is set to launch later this year.

Sources have told The Daily that MSNBC head Phil Griffin is stalling on giving Sharpton a temporary position at the network, where he’s been filling in for the recently ousted Cenk Uygur at the 6 p.m. slot. Uygur has been accusing his former bosses of trading “honesty for access” and of letting him go because they were afraid he’d alienate big names in Washington. Griffin is, supposedly, waiting for the controversy surrounding Uygur to die down before formally inviting Sharpton on board.

Things are look pretty good for Sharpton though and, as it turns out, he and Griffin go way back:

Sharpton and Griffin go way back. In 2007, after Don Imus called the Rutger’s women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos,” Sharpton had a secret sitdown with Griffin at Manhattan burger mecca P.J. Clarke’s. A few days later, Imus made a groveling appearance on Sharpton’s radio show. Imus was soon unemployed.

h/t The Daily

And Cenk Uygur said MSNBC wanted things “toned down.” Not hardly–at least not on Dylan Ratigan‘s show of late. As we’ve reported, MSNBC political commentator Jimmy Williams argued on Ratigan’s show this week that “anybody that thinks the Tea Party exists is smoking crack cocaine in America.” Well, turns out that wasn’t the only gem Williams had to offer, saying on the program that “one person is controlling the agenda of the United States of America right now, and his name is Grover Norquist.”

Not the most outrageous of statements, one might argue. But wait. We forgot the rest of it: “Grover Norquist was Newt Gingrich‘s butt buddy.” Williams also described Norquist as a “petty criminal.”

The term–which is urban slang–has reminded some of the recent incident involving Mark Halperin, suspended from the network for using tasteless slang in reference to the President.

Watch it here, from MSNBC:

(h/t Breitbart TV via @Suthernboy100)

Uygur stated the conversation that soured his relationship with MSNBC was when he was told “people in Washington have a concern with my tone.” While MSNBC executives allege such “people” were merely MSNBC bookers and producers, Uygur was “incredulous” of that claim, and instead interpreted “people” to mean members of government. Uygur argued, “our media is obsessed with access, it’s not just MSNBC” and that journalists should be challenging politicians and not worried about trying to get them to appear as guests. Kurtz took exception to such criticism:

“I see people who I agree with and disagree with on Fox, on MSNBC, on CNN, challenging the government every night. So it does kind of come back to your tone, I’ve watched you, you’re a passionate guy. You can be pretty strident at times. Don’t your employers, if you’re going to work for an MSNBC, have every right to say your style needs some adjustment. Why does that tick you off so much?”

However, Uygur insisted his removal from the show was not about his style, and after watching a recent 60 Minutes piece on Al Sharpton, Uygur may have figured out what it was truly about:

“So the guy [Uygur] who was criticizing the President is out, even though he had really good ratings, and the guy [Sharpton] who has decided not to criticize the President about anything is in [in an interview, Sharpton told 60 Minutes that he will not criticize Obama]. That’s interesting.”

Just as Uygur began to claim no one in the media is saying what he says, that both Democrats and Republicans are screwing Americans, Kurtz ran out of time. Yet just like Keith Olbermann offered, Kurtz too suggested that Uygur might be back since he’s now “liberated.”

Watch the clip from CNN below:

MSNBC’s leftward turn may have started out organically thanks to Keith Olbermann but it was a business decision to expand upon that and build out early prime and primetime based on what Olbermann had done. MSNBC didn’t start out at launch looking to address a perceived need as FNC did. No, it spent years fumbling about trying various identities and looking for a winning formula. Consequently, while FNC viewers have never to any great extent seriously doubted that network’s commitment to its mission, MSNBC viewers in general and progressives in particular tend to look at what the network has done going left as a business decision.

Why does this matter? Because by being viewed as a business decision what the network does is viewed more skeptically by the true believer crowd it’s trying to cater to. The thinking would be something along the lines of “Yes, MSNBC is now trying to talk to us but it didn’t used to and it may not do so in the future”. MSNBC isn’t viewed as “one of us” by progressives the way FNC is viewed as “one of us” by conservatives. It’s viewed as “someone who is trying to cater to us”. That’s not an insignificant distinction and it goes a long way to underscore the reaction taking place on the internet to Uygur’s departure. While a few souls have characterized the fall of Uygur as something of his own creation, others have taken a different tack…

Democratic Underground’s message board is very unhappy…

The Huffington Post’s Chez Pazienza…

Since making a conscious decision to lean to the left, MSNBC has been precariously walking a fine line between giving its progressive voices the freedom they need to be effective as hosts and understanding that that freedom will often have them saying and doing things that will make the network’s corporate overlords want to drop a hundred-thousand-pound anvil on the whole place. Again, MS is the establishment — which means that while guys like Phil Griffin want their anchors, reporters and contributors to work outside the box, they need to make sure they work inside a slightly larger box.

Firedoglake’s Jane Hamisher…

My experiences on MSNBC have always been positive, even when I have disagreed with the host. But there will be an enormous amount of money coming down the political pipeline in the next year and a half, controlled by the DNC. Moreover, they control access to the guests and the scoops that the cable network needs to do business. That puts a lot of pressure on management to cater to their messaging interests, whether they respond to them or not.

Crooks and Liars’ Heather…

Personally, I’m sad to see Cenk leave MSNBC because I like him and have actually talked to him a few times when Video Cafe was first being added to the site here at C&L about featuring some of his Young Turks segments. He’s a friend of John’s and a very nice person and I’m sorry he’s going to be losing that spotlight on MSNBC just as I would be about any liberal or progressive voice we’ve got out there in the corporate media whether I agree with everything that they say or not. We don’t have nearly enough of them to counter all of the wingnut b.s. that makes up the majority of our “news” coverage.

Note Heather’s “corporate media” pigeonholing of MSNBC. As I noted earlier, MSNBC isn’t viewed as “one of us” by progressives the way FNC is viewed as “one of us” by conservatives.

And this encapsulates the problem MSNBC has faced this year and will continue to face going forward. Whether Phil Griffin really told Cenk Uygur “We’re insiders” or not is irrelevant. What matters is how the network is viewed by a majority of the audience it’s trying to reach. And as “insiders” the rules are different. You can name only one talent in the near 15 history of FNC that pushed the boundaries of what it was willing to tolerate to the breaking point; Glenn Beck. And even then Beck’s departure from that network never caused conservatives to pause and think, “Is this network no longer my network?”. MSNBC has had two in the past eight months; Keith Olbermann and Cenk Uygur…three in a year if you charitably want to include David Shuster who was dropped for entirely different reasons but was someone who was something of a progressive darling. Certainly in Olbermann’s case there was far more to his departure and MSNBC’s willingness to let him go than just “Keith couldn’t be Keith” as was the case with Cenk…or to be more accurate as Cenk felt was the case. But for progressives, Olbermann’s sharp elbows and penchant for self-destruction came in a very distant second for compared to the fact that “he was one of us” which is also how Uygur was viewed. That, in turn feeds back into MSNBC’s perception problem by progressives that the network’s still trying to straddle the line between being a “progressive voice” and being “a corporate entity”.

You can question’s Olbermann’s spinning of his story – though most progressives won’t because they consider him “one of us” – but his departure does mirror Uygur’s in some ways and I wondered Wednesday night who would be the first person to write about that. Business Insider’s Glynnis MacNicol appears to be the winner…

Here is Uygur on last night’s Young Turks show explaining that even though his ratings were reasonably good MSNBC had asked him to “tone it down” saying “people in Washington were concerned about his tone” and then offered him another role for more money. Uygur turned it down saying he didn’t want to work for a network that didn’t “challenge power.”

Sound familiar? Uygur’s complaints skew nicely with Olbermann’s complaints about MSNBC.

What MSNBC has to worry about is progressives drawing the same conclusion. All true believers want “the real deal”. They don’t want to feel played or manipulated. They don’t want to have to think about the motivation behind what they’re getting from their news network. With FNC conservatives don’t worry about whether they get that. With MSNBC progressives may now worry that they don’t.

The point of this entry is not to argue about whether MSNBC is really delivering the goods for progressives or not. I already feel that cable news primetime is too much a partisan wasteland and would prefer to see less ideology, not more. No, the point of this entry is to explain the extremely delicate high wire act MSNBC is undertaking by trying to cater to an audience that wants more than the network, with its various interests, is apparently willing to give and how that could ultimately alienate the very people they are trying to reach.

Note – this post first appeared on Inside Cable News and appears here with consent.

When rumors surfaced this week that Sharpton was under consideration for the MSNBC job, one NABJ member told colleagues without challenge, “This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.”

Prince also noted that the hiring of Sharpton would serve to quell criticism of the news media’s lack of diversity.

From Current TV:

Prince’s criticisms are valid, of course. The news media landscape is littered with hosts who have little or no background in journalism, and the fact that hosting slots for black newsmen are so scarce makes this doubly grating. There’s also a fair case to be made in Sharpton’s favor, at least from a business perspective. He certainly knows his way around a TV camera, and is a sharp debater who, as Prince notes, has managed to mellow his way back into the political mainstream.

Olbermann’s amplification of this critique, however, seems opportunistic, aimed more at settling a score with his old employer than pointing out an injustice. When he was still at MSNBC, Olbermann vigorously defended the network’s diversity, even lambasting Mediaite in a mini-Special Comment for daring to report on it. For him to exploit the issue now that he’s on the outs with MSNBC borders on the offensive.

The suggestion that MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s “Keepers of the Dream” award played a part in the decision to hire Sharpton is laughable enough that Olbermann fell short of connecting those dots with a bright line, but again, the idea seems to be that Sharpton is less than deserving, and that the award was given to Griffin to butter him up. As inducements go, that’s some pretty weak sauce, and it flies in the face of Olbermann’s previous defense of the network.

There will be some who will even point out that Olbermann’s own Current contributors list is just this side of a Hoth chameleon, whiteness-wise, but that’s not really the point. Diversity is a problem throughout the mainstream media, and it deserves attention. It also deserves to get that attention because it is a serious issue, and not just to score cheap points against your old boss.

We contacted NAN and MSNBC for this story. MSNBC declined to comment, and NAN has yet to respond.

There is a lot to unpack in the following clip, but the core of it centers around the notion of established, mainstream media, and whether or not Uygur was somehow a victim of being “too honest” in his critiques of those with whom he disagreed politically. This is how he has explained it in his own YoungTurks YouTube video, alleging that MSNBC president Phil Griffin relayed to him that people in Washington “did not like his tone,” which led to absurd allegations that somehow the White House was giving programming notes to MSNBC. Both the White House and MSNBC have pushed back rather aggressively on this version of events.

But the most telling part of the interview came at the end of the segment, when Olbermann asked Uygur how he wants his loyal fan base to react to this. Uygur referred to himself in the third person and said:

Look I think the most important message out of all of this isn’t about Cenk Uygur, isn’t about MSNBC, its about the media and the press in general. And, are we going to be honest with our audience, are we going to trade in honesty and truth and information that we are supposed to gather for access.

I couldn’t stand that about the mainstream media before I went there, when I used to tell the Young Turks audience about this was a huge problem. And now that I’ve been inside that machine it turns out that I was totally right our outside perception of it. The problem is they are obsessed with access and we cannot have it. If you say ‘hey listen, I need to have the Democrats on my show going into the election … its not right.

At this point, Olbermann cut off Uygur to end his program on time, perhaps also saving Uygur from saying anything too critical of Olbermann’s former employers that might fall beyond a likely non-disclosure agreement between the Countdown host and MSNBC.

Yes, Uygur prefaced his comments by saying that this “isn’t about MSNBC” but the rest of his comments seems to suggest a pretty indicting (petty?) stance on MSNBC management. Let’s face it, the introductory phrase is pretty damning unto itself. No earnest praise ever came after the opening phrase “I’m not saying that you are ____”; or as many psychology professors will tell you, when someone says “I’m not saying X,” what they are really saying is “X.”

In fairness, Uygur makes a decent point about access, though anyone who works in any media will tell you that there is a fine balance between reporting and access; it is a nuanced economy of coverage that allows other TV anchors to flourish. But to lay the blame of his departure from MSNBC on his “honesty” is self-serving and belies a much bigger fact: his ratings were not strong.

Couple of other small items worth noting: Uygur’s loyal fanbase will likely be delighted to hear Olbermann’s throwaway salutation at the end “we’ll be in touch,” which could indicate that Uygur’s next home is on Current (which makes a ton of sense for both Olbermann, Uygur and Current). Alas for the Young Turk, being on Current means that video of your broadcast product will be very difficult to find on the Internet, as evidenced by this post.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Current:

Back in February, our own Colby Hall reported that Uygur had directly targeted That Which is Fair and Balanced, telling AlterNet that he planned to “beat them in the ratings and make them fear me”… all before he had even secured the 6 p.m. slot on MSNBC:

In many ways, the story of Cenk Uygur’s rise to cable news prominence is a fairy tale come true. The Turkish born progressive commentator founded the liberal Internet radio show The Young Turks in 2002, and just nine years later he seems to be on his way for his own 6pm show on MSNBC. It was this news that lead Uygur to brazenly lob a verbal shot at cable news titan Fox News that his ultimate goal was to “destroy” them. Brave words to be sure, but perhaps he ought to start with defeating Wolf Blitzer first? Or maybe even, getting MSNBC to announce that the 6pm show will definitely be his.

In some circles, that’s called “cockiness.” And, in others, we call that “having cojones.” Both terms are totally patriarchal (had to), but are nonetheless pretty good attributes to have when hosting a prime time, politically-charged opinion news program. At the time Uygur made his now notorious promise to “make them fear me,” a Fox News spokesperson responded with a simple “What’s a Cenk Uygur?” Because, you know. There aren’t too many ways to respond to threats made by someone on behalf of a network that hasn’t hired him yet.

Earlier this week, we told you about the rumblings that Uygur was on his way out at MSNBC, with Al Sharpton‘s name being thrown around as a possible replacement. And, because we’re a helpful sort of media site, our post included background on how Uygur got to be on MSNBC — as an interim host on a trial basis — in the first place:

When the 10 PM time slot on MSNBC was up for grabs in early 2009, Uygur wrote a piece on The Huffington Post “announcing his candidacy” for the position, and encouraged activists to petition MSNBC for the position. He even posted a YouTube video on The Young Turks channel telling viewers how to contact MSNBC and demand TYT get a show on the network.

Last October, Uygur’s persistence appeared to pay off, as he was given the interim host position at 6 PM, and MSNBC President Phil Griffin was giving him some high praise. “Cenk’s fresh perspective and his passion for politics make him a great addition to the MSNBC team. He’s developed a big following on MSNBC and we welcome him to this new role.”

Before getting the interim host position, Uygur was a frequent guest host for Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan, and got his own “Daily Rant” segment on the latter’s show.

So: He got the show by having chutzpah. The very same chutzpah that can cause one’s critics to laugh and say “I told you so” when MSNBC decides to let you go. And, as it turns out, the very same chutzpah that keeps Uygur talking big even now, claiming the powers that be at the network let him go after he refused to “tow the line” and because he has tiger’s blood and Adonis DNA. His former bosses, for the record, are calling Uygur’s take on how thing went down “completely baseless.”

Our own Tommy Christopher weighed in on what he believes ultimately played a major factor in Uygur’s exit from MSNBC:

MSNBC’s mistake was that they never leveraged Cenk’s brand. They didn’t give his show a name, or much in the way of an identity, production-wise. But worst of all. asking him to “tone it down” is like asking Cecil Fielder to concentrate on base-running drills. What’s the point?

Still, I think cable TV is worse off without Cenk, and I wish he had taken their offer. Maybe he’ll turn up on Current.

And while Uygur might, in retrospect, have more in common with a different mythological figure, further evidence of this man’s stupefyingly humongous pair of… lungs can be found in his choice of baby name. In the following video, uploaded by The Young Turks, Uygur explains why he wanted to name his progeny “Prometheus:”

Prescient. In any case, here’s hoping that Uygur doesn’t lose his signature (Why not, right?) bravado as he moves on to his next gig, whatever that may be.

The story caught the attention of conservative website The Blaze, which asks “Is the White House Programming a News Channel?”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tells Mediaite, exclusively, that they, alas, are not involved in leaning the network forward, or in any other direction.

Perhaps The Blaze should have asked, “Is Another White House Programming Another News Network,” but aside from that, the notion has superficial appeal. Uygur’s account of his conversation with (presumably) Phil Griffin no doubt brings to mind the recent “Dick-gate” dustup. Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, at the time, that he had called MSNBC’s executives to express his displeasure at Mark Halperin’s penile presidential appellation. But Carney also said he was silent on what type of penalty, if any, ought to have been levied against his former colleague.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with this White House knows, though, that this is nothing special. Carney, and Robert Gibbs before him, have never been shy about making their feelings known to reporters (myself included), but by and large, they do so directly, to the reporters themselves.

By contrast, hardly a week goes by when some press flack doesn’t contact my editors to complain about something I’ve written. It’s their job, of course, and not unique to me. Many of my colleagues have the same experience. It comes with the territory, I suppose, but the point is, it’s a big town. Any number of folks could have watered Griffin’s ear (including flacks for conservative guests who felt Uygur was too tough on them), or none of them. Maybe it was Griffin who was concerned, and used the old “people are saying” thing to cushion the blow. According to an MSNBC source, it was “staffers in our Washington bureau,” who expressed concerns about Uygur’s “style, not substance.”

In any case, whoever it was, it was not anyone at the White House. I asked Carney if he, or anyone else at The White House, had ever expressed such a concern about Cenk Uygur:

I have never expressed an opinion about Mr. Uygur to anyone at MSNBC. Nor has anyone in the White House communications office expressed concerns about his show with anyone at the network. We never had a problem with his show.

You know, there’s real news to cover out there, Tommy!

Fair enough. Perhaps if we weren’t so close to the August news dead zone, and we weren’t at Mr. Creosote levels of fed up with the debt ceiling story, The Blaze might have had something better to do with its time, and I, with mine.

With the door at 30 Rock shut firmly behind him, ex-MSNBC host Cenk Uygur‘s version of events–that he refused to “tone down” his show in the face of political pressure–is getting sharply rejected by network bosses. “Cenk’s claims are completely baseless,” an MSNBC spokesperson told Mediaite. “It’s unfortunate that he’s decided to depart in such a negative fashion.”

Uygur, host of the web talk show The Young Turks, had been hosting the 6 p.m. hour for MSNBC for nearly six months on a trial basis. The Rev. Al Sharpton is guest-hosting the hour this week, and the network is believed to be in negotiations with Sharpton about extending his stay or making him the permanent host.

In interviews Uygur has given since his departure from the network, he has claimed MSNBC bosses wanted him to tow the line:

In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC disputes Uygur was ever told what to say. “We did have numerous conversations with Cenk about his style, not substance.” The network says an offer was made “to develop him into an even bigger television talent,” though not necessarily in the 6 p.m. host role.

Another ex-MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, will have Uygur on his Current TV show Countdown tonight.

“They offered, honestly, a lot of money,” Uygur explains in his message, where he also says the role would have been a smaller one– “contributor, etc.”– instead of the alternate program the MSNBC statement suggested. He then explained something an executive once told him when he began as host: “there are two audiences– the audience you’re trying to appeal to, the viewers, and management.” Management took him aside in April, he explains, and told him to “tone it down” because “people in Washington are concerned about your tone.” He did the exact opposite.

Uygur then launches into an extensive analysis of his ratings to prove that he was doing just fine, highlighting the fact that he was doing far better when he decided to do it “my style” than when he was more tame. He used a comment from a viewer to explain how he felt– “watching Cenk on The Young Turks is like watching a tiger in the wild; watching him on MSNBC is like watching a tiger in a cage.”

He concluded succinctly that “I didn’t want to work in a place that wouldn’t let me do my kind of show, that wasn’t interested in my kind of show, that didn’t wnat to challenge power.” Noting that he had been “railing against” a media “desperate to get access” and spoiled with perks, taking the job seemed to him a sort of personal corruption. The statement lasts about ten minutes, followed by a five-minute Q&A with The Young Turks crew that’s definitely worth a look– Uygur distances his experiences from the other MSNBC hosts, complimenting them each colorfully– noting what a “smart person” Rachel Maddow is, calling Ed Schultz a “bull,” and exclaiming, in a complimentary way, “Dylan Ratigan– I’m shocked that he’s still on air!”

Uygur’s goodbye to MSNBC below:



Part II

The network shares that “it is unfortunate that Cenk has declined our offer to have him develop and host a program for another time slot.” Uygur plans to host a teleconference with the press Thursday to discuss his departure.

Previously, we reported that Rev. Al Sharpton was rumored to be a replacement for Uygur. As of now, there is no word on who will officially replace the MSNBC host.

h/t Deadline.com

Roughly a month ago Rush Limbaugh mocked MSNBC host Cenk Uygur by saying “”I don’t know what a Cenk Uygur is,” before adding “I don’t know where a Cenk Uygur works.” And while most would see those as unkind words, he was actually doing the former YouTube star of the Young Turks series a favor, by single handedly giving Uygur much needed relevance in the dog-eat-dog world of opinion media wars. Alas, it looks like it was too little, too late for the Young Turk, as his days hosting the 6PM may very well be numbered.

Chris Ariens reports for TVNewser:

Now TVNewser hears Uygur may be moved out of the 6pm hour, possibly to be replaced by Al Sharpton. When the host changes happened earlier this year, the 6pm hour was simply known as “MSNBC Live,” a telling sign that MSNBC was trying out Uygur.

Sharpton has hosted the 6pm show for the last two weeks. This past week, the hour was second, to Fox News, in A25-54 viewers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

It many ways this move makes sense. Sharpton is a known, if controversial, quantity, who’s not shy of confrontation. Uygur hosted a show on YouTube, and while he certainly enjoyed some nice moments hosting the 6PM show, he never made the impact that MSNBC executives were likely hoping for.

So…how did Uygur get here? When the 10 PM time slot on MSNBC was up for grabs in early 2009, Uygur wrote a piece on The Huffington Post “announcing his candidacy” for the position, and encouraged activists to petition MSNBC for the position. He even posted a YouTube video on The Young Turks channel telling viewers how to contact MSNBC and demand TYT get a show on the network.

Last October, Uygur’s persistence appeared to pay off, as he was given the interim host position at 6 PM, and MSNBC President Phil Griffin was giving him some high praise. “Cenk’s fresh perspective and his passion for politics make him a great addition to the MSNBC team. He’s developed a big following on MSNBC and we welcome him to this new role.”

Before getting the interim host position, Uygur was a frequent guest host for Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan, and got his own “Daily Rant” segment on the latter’s show.

Despite Uygur’s claim that his competitive rival would be Fox News, his ratings war has always been with CNN. Over the last few months his ratings have been up and down. In March, MSNBC Live trailed The Situation Room in total viewers. In April, the opposite happened. Uygur hit a ratings peak on May 2, the day after bin Laden’s death was announced, with over a million total viewers, but still got less than half of CNN’s numbers in total viewers and the demo. When The Ed Show was in that timeslot last year, it consistently beat CNN in the demo and total viewers. Excepting the post-bin Laden jump, Uygur’s ratings have been short of spectacular, hitting anywhere from 500 to 700K viewers nightly, less than MSNBC’s other primetime programs.

When asked about Uygur’s future at the 6PM slot in late Spring, a network insider told Mediaite “I think you can note that the ratings have been mixed,” adding “it’s an important time period and we’re paying close attention to it.”

In addition to being the former General Manager of MSNBC, Mediaite founder Dan Abrams hosted the 6PM hour on MSNBC for almost five years and says its a unique challenge at the network. “The 6pm hour on MSNBC has long been one of the toughest hours in cable news. While Fox has a built in audience of viewers many of whom who aren’t interested in watching 6pm local or even the network newscasts at 6:30, CNN and MSNBC have to battle with networks for audience. For any show to succeed there it really has to be different.”

What makes the 6PM time slot even more challenging at MSNBC is that it falls between two airings of Hardball with Chris Matthews. It is a unique parcel of airtime in the cable news landscape, and the the writing appears to be on the wall that Uygur’s days in at 6PM might very well be numbered.