Well, as somebody who's never met a bridge he couldn't plant 600 pounds of explosives under, I'll say this for Cenk Uygur: The boy's got some industrial-sized balls on him. 
 
 Rather than even wait for a reported teleconference to explain his sudden departure from MSNBC, Uygur -- who always seems to be on a Red Bull IV drip anyway -- took to the comfortable environs of his Young Turks YouTube channel last night to basically fire a couple of impressive parting shots at his former employer. He claims that despite respectably sturdy ratings for the 6PM show during his six months or so at the reins, MSNBC president Phil Griffin made the decision to "go in a different direction" with it, basically relieving him of the show with the promise of a lower-profile on-air gig in a slot as yet to be determined. I've said before, numerous times in fact, that I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaster, so from that perspective I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while. But of course, Uygur says that his technical skills as an on-air host weren't the primary reason the network decided to cut him loose at six. 
 
 He says it's all about his politics and his often combative defense of them. 
 
 According to Uygur, Griffin told him that "people in Washington" weren't happy with the tone of his show. Cenk of course takes that to mean that he was upsetting the merchants' carts in the temples of political power; Griffin says that by "people in Washington" he meant NBC producers who were having trouble booking guests because, presumably, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction. Uygur goes on to say that at one point Griffin warned him that while he was content to rail against the establishment, MSNBC in fact is the establishment, and that that had to be kept in mind at all times. Whether this conversation really took place doesn't matter one bit because what Griffin supposedly said is a revelation about on par with finding out that the sky is blue. MSNBC, which is now part of the largest media conglomerate in the world, vertically integrated like no other, is the establishment -- well, no shit. 
 
 Whether Cenk's wounded pride was a factor in his decision to turn down MSNBC's consolation prize we'll never know for sure; obviously he's got a bit of an ego to think that he has the ability to scare the Beltway types to the point where they'd lock themselves inside their homes. But he's not lying when he says that whatever money he was being offered to stick around was almost certainly a hell of a lot more than he gets being an internet superstar. (I also couldn't help but nod knowingly at his mention of the various high-end "perks" that come with working for a corporate media behemoth; suddenly feeling like you're James Bond is nothing short of intoxicating.) So yeah, he definitely walked away from a nice paycheck and that alone could speak volumes about the purity of his motives. To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibility to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down. 
 
 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. 
 
 Uygur was a bit of a loose cannon on-air, but not so much that it should have cost him his job; Ed Schultz is infinitely more bellicose as a host and astonishingly he's still firmly in place in prime-time, despite a couple of recent, entirely predictable hiccups. The difference, I think, is one of inelegance. Even Schultz's occasionally obnoxious outrage has been carefully honed to the point where it's not quite the blunt instrument wielded by Uygur. While I'm not a big fan of Schultz's, he's a better broadcaster than Uygur. The same goes for the dearly departed Keith Olbermann, who was kept on for as long as he was only because of his undeniably immense talents as a television host. Olbermann pissed a lot of people off, from his peers to his managers to the overlords in the adminisphere; MSNBC's decision to finally cut him loose wasn't a case of Olbermann saying things management didn't want him to say as much as him infuriating everyone in his path. Griffin just decided he wasn't worth the hassle because his ratings were great but not that great. 
 
 And that's really what it comes down to. Cenk's numbers were decent, but they weren't through the roof, in MSNBC's mind not good enough to warrant giving him time to develop in a hugely important spot in its line-up. That plus his deficiencies as a network broadcaster -- and that includes his tendency to appear as if he's always one step away from challenging his political adversaries to a roshambo in the parking lot -- probably sealed his fate at six. What does all of this mean for his apparent replacement, Al Sharpton, a guy whose jarring on-air pauses and inability to complete a coherent thought make Uygur look like Murrow? Name recognition and novelty factor aside, he'd better hope his ratings are damn good -- and that they stay that way. 
 
 Still, in the end did Cenk apparently stand up for what he believes in -- and what his online audience expects of him -- in the aftermath of his demotion? Sure looks that way. 
 
 And for that he gets to walk out with his head held very high. 
 
 Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza ||||| After giving a nearly six-month tryout for the Internet talk show host Cenk Uygur, the cable news channel MSNBC is preparing to instead hand its 6 p.m. time slot to the Rev. Al Sharpton. 
 
 Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks. 
 
 There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. 
 
 Photo 
 
 He earned solid but not stand-out ratings; in late June the channel’s president, Phil Griffin, decided to try out Mr. Sharpton, and offered Mr. Uygur a new contract that included a weekend show, but not a higher-profile weekday show. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. 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.” ||||| Although the NYT somewhat sensationalistically hyped the innuendo that the White House had complained about Uygur to MSNBC, there's no evidence that that's true; for multiple reasons, I seriously doubt that's true and I don't think Uygur is claiming there is evidence for it (though it's hardly unheard of for White Houses in general, and this one in particular, to complain to networks about criticisms of the President ). Moreover, there are obvious factors that would cause MSNBC to make this move that have nothing to do with Uygur, including the growing criticisms the network faced over its blatant lack of diversity in its prime-time line-up and the fact that Sharpton is a highly recognizable celebrity -- a "star" in TV parlance -- who can single-handedly generate substantial media attention (unlike Uygur, Sharpton has also been a vocal and steadfast defender of President Obama from critics such as Cornel West). Nonetheless, there are revealing aspects to Uygur's removal worth examining. 
 
 Before being named six months ago as interim host of MSNBC's 6:00 p.m. program, Cenk Uygur blogged at liberal sites, hosted a popular Internet and radio show aimed at a young audience (The Young Turks), and had a regular segment on Dylan Ratigan's MSNBC show called "The Daily Rant." As one might expect, his style was combative, irreverent, and even at times angry, and he was often highly critical of both political parties and President Obama (though his anger at Democrats was typically due to what he perceived as excessive capitulation to the GOP). Last night, despite what The New York Times called "solid" (but not "stand-out") ratings, it was announced that MSNBC was replacing Uygur with Rev. Al Sharpton; Uygur -- in a 17-minute YouTube segment on his Young Turks show (posted below) -- then announced that he had rejected MSNBC's apparently lucrative offer to stay on in various other roles and explained what happened and why. 
 
 As The New York Times notes, "MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh." Uygur added: "I am by far the hardest on the Obama administration" at the network (though, as Uygur subsequently noted, MSNBC's afternoon host Ratigan is likely as hard on Obama, but prime-time shows are more visible). But it isn't the quantity or even intensity of his criticism that distinguished him, but rather the style in which he expressed it. 
 
 Uygur often refused to treat members of the political and media establishment with deference and respect. He didn't politely imply with disguised subtleties when he thought a politician or media figure was lying or corrupt, but instead said it outright. In interviews, he was sometimes unusually aggressive with leading Washington figures, subjecting them to civil though hostile treatment to which they were plainly unaccustomed. As Uygur put it in explaining last night why he rejected MSNBC's offer to stay on: 
 
 I said on the air that most politicians are corrupt. And I remember, my guest was like: "What - how can you say that? These are honorable gentlemen" [laughter] I am not going to do a show where I pretend that most of the politicians in Washington are honorable gentlemen. Hell no. 
 
 Uygur explained that, several months ago, he was summoned to a meeting with MSNBC boss Phil Griffin and told that while it is fun and enjoyable to be an "outsider," that is not what MSNBC is for. Instead, Griffin told him, MSNBC is "part of the establishment," and Uygur must conduct himself in accordance with that reality. It's perfectly fine in establishment discourse to express contempt for one of the two political parties. It's equally fine to periodically criticize your own. But what is most assuredly not fine -- particularly in a high-profile nighttime spot and without having a real power base that comes from mammoth ratings -- is to be aggressively adversarial to the political establishment itself and the financial interests that fund, own and control that political system. That is what Uygur was, and while there's no evidence that this was the primary cause of his removal, it was clearly a serious source of dissatisfaction with the station's executives, including MSNBC's chief. 
 
 Last week, Rachel Maddow interviewed Bill Moyers, who for years -- based on experience -- has been explaining that the corporate climate that preveails at large media companies significantly restricts and constrains what can be said. In response, Maddow said: 
 
 I mean, I work at a big corporate conglomerate controlled media outlet. And I feel like the way to handle this as an individual journalist for me is that I have carved out a sphere here of editorial independence. And on MSNBC, my deal with the company is I will do shows on MSNBC, and you will not tell me what to say. And they are very comfortable with that. And I think a lot of individual journalists find ways to do that. 
 
 I have zero doubt that what Maddow said there is 100% accurate. I am quite sure that no executives at MSNBC ever told her what to say or what she could not say; given her status as MSNBC's top-rated host, I doubt any executives would do so or that she would tolerate such dictates (indeed, Ugyur himself said he never received any such express decrees). Outside of Fox News -- which, unlike MSNBC (which, after all, puts Joe Scarborough on the air for three hours a day), is an overt partisan propaganda outlet where such content dictates are common -- that sort of direct censorship order is not how content is restricted at these corporations (though there are documented cases, including at the Bush-era MSNBC, were such explicit political censorship absolutely occurred; see here for examples). Rather, as Moyers explained in the Maddow interview, a form of self-censorship arises based on knowledge of what the corporate culture will and will not tolerate: 
 
 MOYERS: I served time at CBS News, enjoyed it, seven years in all. I was here at MSNBC for the launch of it 15 years ago. I worked at NBC. But I saw in every one of those environments the growth of the shadow of self censorship when -- I mean, I happen to know that when I was here, Newt Gingrich and Henry Kissinger did their best to mute my influence on "The Nightly News" because of the freedom and independence Andy Lack, who was then the president of NBC News, had given me. It's up there all the time, like gathering storm clouds. You do a terrific job of maintaining your independence. And I must say out of the Murdoch scandal has come a reminder of the importance of a free and independent press. The journalists who have been dogging this story for the last six years worked for "The Guardian," which is one of the great newspapers in the western world. "The Guardian" is run by a trust -- MADDOW: Public trust. MOYERS: -- a public trust, set up by the founding family to make sure that "The Guardian" would always be commercially and editorially independent. Wouldn't you have liked to have been in the editorial room at "The Guardian," when they decide -- they knew what they had -- they had the evidence, they would not have gone this way if they had not had the evidence. And they knew they were taking on the most powerful media baron in the world, the Berlusconi of England and the United States, but they did it because they were independent. We have been reminded that in the end, democracy depends upon maybe even just a few independent voices, free of any party or commercial allegiance. 
 
 Nobody succeeds at a large corporation without understanding and accommodating the prevailing ethos and the interests of that corporation as perceived by one's bosses. As Uygur explains, the more important someone becomes to the success of a corporation (as Maddow has), the more flexibility they have to depart from, even violate, some of the unstated rules, but no corporate employee -- including media stars -- will last long if they step too far out (News Corp. even rid itself of Glenn Beck despite declining-though-still-impressive-for-his-time-slot ratings; there were multiple factors, including a successful advertiser boycott, but clearly one factor was that he had departed so far from the standard two-party-system discourse, and had become so adversarial to the establishment itself, that, despite those ratings, it was no longer consistent with News Corp.'s interests to keep him on the air). 
 
 This isn't to say that every journalist working for a large media corporation engages in self-censorship. Some are able to construct real editorial independence, while others -- soul-less careerists and the like -- just don't have much of an inclination to be truly adversarial to the political and financial establishment. But as Uygur's stories make clear, MSNBC very much considers itself "part of the establishment" and demands that its on-air personalities reflect that status. With some exceptions, MSNBC largely fits comfortably in the standard, daily Republicans v. Democrats theatrical conflicts, usually from the perspective that the former is bad and the latter are good. It's liberal -- certainly more liberal than other establishment media outlets have been in the past -- but it's establishment liberalism, and that's allowed. It's wandering too far afield from that framework, being too hostile to the system of political and financial power itself, that is frowned upon. 
 
 Uygur's explanation for what happened and why he turned down MSNBC's offer -- including the means used to lure people into that system -- is well worth watching (see the video below). It sheds substantial light on the subtle though clear pressures applied at these media outlets. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 On an unrelated note, I have an Op-Ed in the Guardian today on Obama, his efforts to cut Social Security, and the American left. ||||| The Cenk Uygur experiment at MSNBC is officially over, with the outspoken host exiting in the same voluble manner that characterized his time there. 
 
 
 
 Uygur, who had hosted the news program “MSNBC Live” during the 6 p.m. hour, has left the network after it sought to move him to a less prominent slot. The host then went on his Internet show "The Young Turks" on Wednesday night to lash out at MSNBC brass, particularly president Phil Griffin, for requiring a coziness with power players. 
 
 "'People in Washington are concerned about your tone,'" Uygur said Griffin told him, a message he said he couldn't abide. He said the network was too concerned with access to politicans and newsmakers at the expense of sound judgment and skepticism. (You can watch Uygur's remarks on the video clip below.) 
 
 
 
 MSNBC now looks poised to hand the 6 p.m. "MSNBC Live" chair to Al Sharpton, who delivered solid ratings in the three weeks since he began sitting in for Uygur. Still, it remains to be seen whether the civil-rights activist, who has never hosted a major news program, can reliably deliver an audience over the long term. The move does represents the latest phase in the migration of Sharpton from polarizing rabblerouser to the media mainstream. 
 
 Uygur was moved from a paid contributor to the regular 6 p.m. host in January, after the departure of Keith Olbermann resulted in Ed Schultz's show moving out of that 6 p.m. slot. In his time at the network, Uygur provided a jolt of energy with an opinionated and lively tone — he was often critical of President Obama as much as he was certain Republican leaders — though his manner could be unpolished and rough around the edges. After respectable but not spectacular ratings, MSNBC at the end of June began trying out Sharpton. 
 
 
 
 Uygur did not reveal his next step — his Internet show, which is also broadcast on Sirius, garners millions of viewers — but in the meantime, he will appear Thursday night on Olbermann's Current program. Uygur declined to say whether he'll take on a more permanent role at the channel. 
 
 
 
 
 
 — Steven Zeitchik 
 
 twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT
– The deal isn't official yet, but the New York Times and Los Angeles Times say Al Sharpton is all but certain to get his own show at 6pm EST on MSNBC. It doesn't come without a dose of drama, though. Sharpton won the job over the outspoken Cenk Uygur, who left the network and accused its top brass of caving to the pressure of "people in Washington" who wanted him to tone down his criticism. (Uygur gives his version on his online Young Turks show, and the lengthy video is at left.) Not so, says MSNBC's Phil Griffin: “We never told Cenk what to say or what not to say." It wasn't politicians who complained but the network's own producers, who said it was getting hard to book guests because of Uygur's combative style. The right-wing Blaze loved the whole story, asking, "Is the White House programming a news channel?" The White House promptly denied the charge as ridiculous to Mediaite. For more on the Uygur controversy, see Salon or the Huffington Post.