Fred asks the crucial question: "Who is watching this?" The key challenge is that the economic model of true journalism is under a great deal of pressure. Hayes stated, "I remain agnostic but skeptical of the ability of the market to support some of the things that are the most important in journalism.... If we are living in a world that is purely driven by this demand side, catnip impulse, it's unclear that is going to produce the best journalism."

How many would watch this video if it had an advertisement before it? Would the scant thousand or so hits justify the commercial cost of this video? As noted by Chris and Ned, the trends are grim. Today (July 28th), Up! was pre-empted by Olympics table tennis.

Table Tennis.

But let's be realistic here. Though most contributors here agree that Up is the best mass media issues show on television, its ratings are low compared to other television. Sure, for Saturday ratings, they are beating CNN, and in May their rating for A25-54 were 126,000 vs. CNN's 112,000. (source). Shows like Meet the press get about 700K viewers in this demographic that is key for advert dollars.

So how much is UP! pulling in? There isn't a lot of data out there to go by, but just to get a notional sense of the numbers: TV advertisements are typically 30 seconds and cost between $10 and $50 per 1000 viewers. UP!'s last show got 330K total viewers (2yo and up-"P2) (source). They showed 18 minutes of commercials in the first hour of the last show. So that is 36 30-second spots at $10 per 1000 viewers is $118K per hour or $594K per hour at the high $50 rate. That seems like a lot until you realize that even low end production costs of an hour of television is pricey- between $200 and $600K just for an hour of infomercial on a simple set. UP! has higher production values than an infomercial- they have boom shots, satellite feeds, multiple guests, NYC studios, a staff to do the research, writing, producing, and studio work.

If I am even close on these numbers, it does not look like an especially attractive business proposition. If they are even running in the black, I wouldn't be surprised if it is not by much.

Hayes' solution is to do better journalism, and that if he is successful in doing so, the customers will beat a path to his door. God bless his heart. But it seems to me that the math of actual rather than ideal human behavior is not especially encouraging.

I doubt MSNBC will cynically attempt to gain viewership for thoughtful content by spicing it up with what can metaphorically be described as sideboob content. It is amazing though how popular a post can be if you focus your energy on clever catnip like quips. When I do a discursive note with lots of citations, I am practically guaranteed there will be no likes. If I throw some red meat witticism at the crowd, then the likes are in the twenties and 30s.

My feeling is that the way Hayes is thinking about this frames it as a false choice. Being able to attract a lot of demand side interest can be done without degrading the content, or pandering to the tribalism of various segments of the online cliquish community.

I think it would be possible to run entertainment in parallel rather than interleaved with high quality journalism programs. The entertainment drives up viewership and the profitability needed to maintain high levels of journalistic quality, and high journalistic quality legitimizes the time "wasted" on the entertainment activity.

This probably needs to be demonstrated with a working example before it will be taken seriously. Harumph. Well crap. Maybe this would be a worthy endeavor. OTOH, I would cringe if it could be used by FOX.

Since when Republican start caring about middle class? I didn't see much diversity in the crowd this morning.

By the way, how come Morning Joe is not kicked out by MSNBC? He has close ties to republican party and every morning all he does is rant, rant and rant. And as election is just few days away, he also spends most of his time in DC. MSNBC, kick him out.

Forgotten to take your pills?

"MY COUNTRY" huh??? Seems to me there are about 300+ million other people who call the USA home... from all different walks of life. All races, creeds, nationalities, cultures, and languages etc... We all belong! Maybe you didn't stay awake during your social studies classes, because only a genuinely, truly ignorant person would make such a statement.

Thanks for the laugh!

Hey Jimmy why don't you dress up like Zombie Reagan and go over to Red State and virtual high five your fellow cretins.

I think it is interesting that people call Chris Hayes a commie, just as I think it is interesting that so many people are quick to discount the talents of the wealthy, just because they happened to start wealthy.

So if you want the third version (with a touch of reasoning) here it is:

There are odds to everything. There are odds to becoming the President of the United States, odds to becoming a junky and odds to dying in a car accident.

Three things influence odds. And these are:

1. Wealth - Wealth allows you to buy more chances or turns at play.

2. Talent - Talent allows you to make the most out of every turn at the hand.

3. Luck (or what I like to think of as the natural variation between each play) - Luck allows it so that at each iteration of a situation, sometimes you are provided with a more advantageous position and sometimes you are provided with the less advantageous position.

Hayes is pointing out that the wealthy (if they are smart), buy talent, but always defer to wealth. Meaning, if you are a great mind, the cabal that runs the banking industry would love to have you at their bank and they will give you some rewards because you can influence the odds through actions, but they'll still side with capital (wealth) in the end. In other words, they'll reward you, but they're not giving you their fortune and if possible, they'll try to get your talent without providing any rewards.

At our most balanced, this is how society functions. The people controlling the capital are always looking for the talent and always trying to create a 'stable' environment (one where luck is not so much a factor - or there is a small variance in the situation from one moment to the other).

The balance now is off kilter on the side of capital. The banks made loans to many many people who could not afford it but also to many people who could afford so long as the economy did not change too much. It did change too much. Through influence, they managed to get the money back, from the people through the government.

This is a situation where there is too much capital and not enough talent. Why? Because once capital gets too big, it can begin to buy chance after chance for the next generation of capital.

Look at George Bush Jr. He wasn't an Ivy League student based on intelligence or business acumen.

If you divorce yourself from simple republican / democrat ideology or liberal / conservative views, you realize that the wealthy always need talent and that is going to come from the population, not just the wealthy. The talented always need capital, and must learn how to respect a stable source of wealth.

And what we all need (and traditional conservatives knew this and it was the Republican party until the neocons came in and took over) is the opportunity to fail.

It is also interesting that republicans are supporting Romney as a candidate. The way he made his wealth shows what happens when people who side on capital have incredible power, but also a great store of talent.

Some "really smart" and well compensated scheduler it is more important to watch 2 additional hours of already saturated Olympics coverage rather than Up with Chris Hayes. Or didn't you enjoy the badminton, handball, beach volleyball and table tennis competition that played in Up's place this morning?

The best mass media show on politics and US social issues will return on August 11 (but there will be no sunday after show). For completeness: there will be no July 29, August 4, 5th, or 12th shows. The regular schedule will resume Aug 18th.

The best mass media show on politics and US social issues

It's the best socialism show on TV that's for sure.

Tax the rich to feed the poor.

Remember when he had mike daisey on? I mean chris made this dope out to be some sort of hero.

Talk about backing the wrong horse.

Why? Why do you watch this if it upsets you? Do you think you are doing anything valuable? Do you think that anyone cares that you watch this or not? Are you in charge of writing a report to other like-minded individuals to keep them informed? What would make someone watch a couple hours of something that makes them mad or frustrates them?

Yes lets all become cyborg, live one life all for the collective.

Do away with individualism, free though, freedom, we can all wear nice grey jumps suites, do the same thing, live the same life.

So who will be the leader of this Utopian society? chris hayes?

Peter, there is a comic related to the Olympics and the metric problem with meritocracy: (link)

Far be it for me to associate the Olympics with an immense circle jerk. Quuelle horreur about the latest expose where athletes are comparing the Olympics to a sexual "Alice in Wonderland"! At least to watchers of Colbert Nation, it was not such a fricking shock that the Olympic village is an immense party of sexual partnering .

For selection pressure to be able to drive speciation, organisms are driven towards unambiguous metrics: the impressiveness of the peacock's plumage, SAT score, or Wall Street bonus. In the pedagogy of more sociocentric societies, it is a mistake to think that competition is absent. As a Yank living in New Zealand, it was culturally jarring for me to observe the norm in schools was to "punish" good sports teams by breaking them up, and by not recognizing prowess of excellent atheletes, but to focus on the pleasure of participation in the sport rather than the victory or loss. They promote communitarian values that everyone is essential to the team no matter how modest their contribution might seem- that everyone wins.

Look closer and you will see that the laws of evolution have not been overthrown, and that the selection pressure has not subsided one jot. What has happened- and this is the crucial point- is that the selection pressure now favors speciation (excellence) of attributes that are more beneficial to a sociocentric society. Girls heads are turned by the boys who work together, exude empathy towards others, and so on. The children gain praise from their teachers and their mates for developing these attributes. (This is not to say that all of them are good.)

This is something that US schools do not select for. Hayes' book fell flat in its analysis of norms, and the social structures that strengthen them. Of course, if managers are solely measuring the revenue generated by a particular Wall Street broker, and there are no penalties for degrading the quality of the "game play" (in this case banking), then of course the norms will quickly fall away. In New Zealand, the culprits are quickly shamed for degrading the quality of the collective enterprise. In New Zealand, there is a great deal of suspicion about elites.

It is known as the "tall poppy syndrome".

The hard question for Hayes is what he can do with baseless allegations. As a journalist, there is no there there. Without verifiable data, there is nothing to report. Hayes also knows that this is the fulcrum that politicians use to game the media. After two months of repeating to viewers that Romney won't release taxes, it's no longer news. The public begins to think that news outlets that continue to drone on about the obvious is just harping on a dead issue. And what can realistically be done in 90 days. In July 1972, after the Washington Post and the New York Times was publishing far more factual data that if true would mean that republicans in the white house and possibly even the President were criminals- Gallup reported that more than half of Americans had never even heard of Watergate. The truth did not come out until long after the election.

So what can responsible host- analysts at MSNBC do with a politician who stonewalls? I think there are honest things they can do, but it has little to do with getting people to favorite a facebook page, or favorite comments or stories that confirm their tribal preconceptions/ conspiracy theories.

As for Papa Bear's framing? The motives make no sense unless we believe McCain has devolved into a petty and vindictive old man who feels like torching the house as his farewell F-U to the GOP. On the other hand, injuring Romney is not just counter to McCain's sense of honor and loyalty to an ideological comrade in arms. Even if you think his identification with these military values is a cynical facade, injuring a moderate makes no sense for his political goals. No- McCain might have the knowledge, but for him to reveal any detailed information would require a compelling motive.

And McCain has none. Plausible deniability and stonewalling will work every time and almost worked even in an extreme criminal situation like Watergate. But the big difference with Watergate is that there is no higher motive compelling them to talk- No other republican insider does either.

It is completely plausible that after the dust has settled over the 2008 campaign, Harry asks, "John, I just have to ask you, WTF were you thinking with Palin? Why didn't you go with Romney?- Surely you know he would be next in line, and that you'd want to give a moderate the best chances for 2012?"

McCain: "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years... [We could have managed that because the IRS was all over his returns and the deductions are lawful so he was clean- it didn't disqualify him. And it wouldn't have come out- we could have stonewalled. Our main problem was that the polls were going the wrong direction and we needed a game changing nomination- or we'd lose. Ok, it was reckless and we should have studied Palin more closely, but that was our thinking. "

THAT picture is much much more plausible. Why wouldn't Reid name McCain? Because he has no facts, and he knows if he asserted McCain was the source and McCain made a blanket denial- eg "It was over drinks and I was just having some fun with my friend Harry- all this talk about Romney's taxes is balderdash, and an attempt by Obama to distract from his failures on the economy."- most independents would believe McCain and this would turn Romney into the victim. If asked I am sure McCain issue his stock statement:

"HUFFPO: When pressed about whether Romney might be shielding his returns because he paid no taxes, McCain refused to discuss such specifics.

"Please, I am not going to get into that kind of conversation," he said. "All I can tell you, and I can tell you again, is there was nothing disqualifying in his tax returns. And that is a fact." (source)

What is needed is for someone to turn over real information that can be verified.

Here's why this question is highly pertinent to the Hayes interview. How is it that the news media can play its role in democracy and advance the cause of helping the public make an informed decision in November? It seems the media has been gamed- FOX is an arm of the GOP, and those adhering to traditional journalism are boxed in by Romney stonewalling and strategy of plausible deniability.

The Watergate story would have died with the sentencing of the burglars in 1972- that is, if it were it not for Mark Felt.

Other reporters would have done the same as Woodward and Bernstein- they did not do the unusual to change the course of events. Felt was the true hero of Watergate- a high ranking FBI man who was once considered a possible successor to Hoover. He had no love for the press, leaks, personal vendettas, or gain and he had many more motivations for that than McCain. He did it because something very very wrong was going on and he felt compelled to do the right thing.

However you feel personally about McCain morphing into a Tea party sounding extremist, McCain has demonstrated that he will act out of a sense of principle and has shown he favors moderate GOP positions. His natural alliance is with folks like Romney or Huntsman.

I hope Reid and the Dems have something with verifiable data but this is highly unlikely if McCain is the source. In he is and my account is closer to truth than Papa Bear's, then McCain would never have given Reid anything solid.

And the story has little real impact on the election. The public is misled and only the Press is at best the passive participant, and at worst fans the deception, in the case of Fox.

Perhaps Hayes and other new inductees into the Fourth Estate can offer some innovations. Because the status quo "best case as a passive participant" is not helping the public have better insights into the truth.

Saying Romney is hiding his tax returns from us because he paid no taxes is brilliant. The answer is in Romney’s hands and simple if he was anyone else, just release the returns.

Instead Romney fakes indignation, demanding sources and proof. The candidate doth protest too much, methinks.

"Nihilist" is a label with senses that Hayes likely does not intend.

It seems to me he most often is talking about political sense- like the Nihilist movement in Russia: A state of normlessness- the sort of state of anarchy feared by the David Brooks/Edmund Burkes of the world. A socially deregulated world where anything goes- where all authority is regarded as fraudulent, and all norms regarded as the tool of privileged wills to subjugate the individual wills of the 99%. Part of this system of domination use the tools of a "Cult idolatry of the elites" and an "idolatrous metaphysics" which legitimizes this social structure.

It is easy to mistake this terminology for philosophical analysis because he so often echos themes of popular philosophy. The very title of his book echoes Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" as well as some of the concepts found there and in and the extra norm world in "Beyond Good and Evil". But Hayes employs these terms of nihilism/"normlessness", will to power and so on in their sociological and political rather then their broader philosophical senses. It would not surprise me if he at some time in the future wrote a paper connecting these dots, but up to now he confines himself to the political analyst senses.

If someone feels differently, by all means speak UP.

Actually he did during the Colbert interview:

Hayes: "Twilight is an aspirational title"

Colbert: "Really?!? You... Want it to be over for guys like me?

Hayes: More or Less. Look, guys like you have had a pretty poor record over this last decade... (Source: Colbert interview)

He pretty much champions those he calls the insurrectionists. Though he does hope to avoid "nihilism", he does little to advance his ideas of what a trans-ideological set of social norms might look like, how they might emerge, and what form the allowable social mechanisms of enforcement of such norms might take.