Rachel Maddow Takes Pay Cut With MSNBC’s Future in Jeopardy
It appears to be a pretty serious one too. I wonder how this bodes for those at MSNBC who haven’t even been asked to take one.
Post election blues could be fairly significant at this particular stop on the dial.
Something’s changing… quickly
I would think this new administration would be good for them.
But liberal tv and radio don’t work. Liberals don’t want to be told how to think. They read newspapers they want to think for themselves.
Besides, they’re too busy playing their old Grateful Dead records to tune in to that stuff.
worked well for CNN last time as I understand. Something seems different…
CNN doesn’t have good ratings either. I haven’t looked at it since Ted Turner was in charge.
me either. Mostly because they are in a weird position in my cable selections.
Fox Fox Business MSNBC and CNBC are all right together and easy to breeze through on my way to HBO
Viewers continue to bolt from Morning Joe amid fallout over hosts ‘kissing the ring’ at Mar-a-Lago
this doesn’t look like haircut territory. 86,000 viewers in the demo you want for a nationwide show is probably not going to cut it long term
seems like liberals REALLY don’t like being told what to think, all of a sudden more than usual
I heard an interview this am with Steven A Smith of all people. He works out of Philly where Comcast is located.
For what it is worth, he said Comcast NBC is trying to unload MSNBC, claims people associate them as same, and it is hurting the Mothership, more so now.
He also claims it was an edict for the morning Joe cast to go down to Mar-a-Lago.
aren’t they? I know I do. seems logical considering you put msNBC and cNBC right in the title.
Is same parent company. The discussion is that with where country is, the top brass fear this is going to start to hurt the overall brand/main network more and more.
Again, this was just his report. We’ll see.
too late
This is an issue where we will agree. And I will definitely both sides this.
As someone who previously existed and worked in this industry, I always felt integrity was acknowledging and respecting the power you had with your voice as a journalist. Depending on how you spun whatever you were covering, you had the ability to influence. As a purist, I thought the job was to inform and teach. Allow people to understand things that would affect them, and why they should care. And in an ideal world, do it with his little bias as possible.
The commercialization and entertainment for profit is a corruption of that responsibility.
Newspapers and now news companies have always been about money. It’s that simple. Why is there a Hearst estate etc.
It gotten bad on both sides and both ends of the spectrum.
It’s why X and Indy podcasts are thriving
And of course rooms like this
Um … nope
Comcast is trying to unload all of its cable channels. The election might have motivated the timing, but this is a long time coming. Cable is making money now, but the trajectory is all in the wrong direction. They spinning them off now before they bring down the mothership. The only thing NBC needs is content for Peacock and most of the stuff on cable isn’t good streaming content.
Will be interesting to see what happens to CNN over the next decade as cable TV continues its slow decline. Foxnews has the advantage that their viewers are the last in line to ditch cable. They will have time to figure out how best to transition to whatever comes next.
I saw an article this morning. She’s going from $30,000,000 per year to $25,000,000 per year.
BFD, I don’t see her going to the poor house any time soon!
Curious about your thoughts on the Morning Joe situation. I don’t watch much cable news anything but I probably tuned into their show more often than any other in the last fifteen or so years. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt from a journalistic perspective (opening communications in theory should benefit both and the viewers) but there didn’t seem to be any transparency about the contents or nature of the meeting. I’ve listened to the show a few times since, in bits and pieces, and they’re still hitting the incoming administration pretty hard on the merits of the cabinet picks, so I don’t know what if anything material has changed.
The assumption is that they’ll pull their punches now, I assume, but it’s hard to imagine that actually happening. If it means less explicit Trump trolling and antagonizing, I feel that’s a net benefit so long as they aren’t skimping on the meaningful content and criticism. I’ve followed Steve Schmidt’s blistering response to those developments and I’m not sure how to take them; I suspect there’s some personal issues between them in addition to what he’s hitting them for on the surface level.
Here’s the part I don’t get.
The anchors’ decision to see Trump was widely criticized. The show has since turned off comments on their posts on X, and hasn’t posted clips of the show either Monday or Tuesday.
A source close to the show told the Daily Beast that the meeting with Trump was “f—ing worth it“ because it may help keep him from constantly bashing the press, which he has called the ”enemy of the people."
In an interview Monday with Fox News, Trump said it was “very important, if not vital, to have a free, fair and open media or press.”
It is impossible that anyone in media worth their salt actually believes that the press is responsible for Trump’s bad behavior, and that he’ll suddenly confer on the press the credibility he’s worked so hard to dismantle for fucking decades. He has said so explicitly.
What fantasy world are they living in?
I really am not that outraged about them going to meet with Trump. I get because it was done off the record, it has the appearance of pandering.
Admittedly, I have never watched their show. I guess after years of dishing out harsh criticism (and some pearl clutching), it is tough for folks to swallow that they willingly met with him.
But, is similar to when Kaitlin Collins and CNN gave him a town hall, and allowed him to spin some yarns. There is an argument to be made to not normalize his rhetoric, and I was initially annoyed. But in the spirit of equal time, not inappropriate to give forum to the person who could end up being President.
That to me is all this was. If you really are preparing to cover him for the next four years, then why not look him in the eye for the reset. Sort of, if you have something to say about me, say it to my face, on both ends. And with him hunkered down, this was only way it might happen,
I can’t really believe they thought they were going to win any favor. Same with MSNBC if they were ones that forced the meeting. If so, they are deserving of the grief.
And in the end, if it was an effort to extend some sort of olive branch for the sake of doing their job better, am ok with that. If they are deciding not to hyperventilate, and instead focus on policies and offering well founded and supported criticism, that is better.