Never forget that in 2009, the year of our first Black president, our first woman Speaker and a Democratic trifecta that included (for a short time) a filibuster-proof Senate majority, the most frequent guest on Meet the Press was … Newt Gingrich. When Republicans are in charge, the line is “Well, they’re in charge.” When Democrats are in charge, the line is “Well, Democrats are in charge so we have to make room for the other side.”
One other thing, from the transcript:
“STEPHEN HAYES: Yeah. I mean, look, on the other hand, if you've read some of the criticism of NBC that has come since the announcement it is very clear that some of the critics just don't want to be confronted with Republican voices or conservative arguments. So there is that. And that's bad. We should want to have a robust exchange between people who believe different things.”
Now, I grant you, he followed that up with
“But I agree with what's been said here. I mean, that's not what Ronna McDaniel is doing. That's not what she's been doing. And she has huge credibility problems, not because she's been a partisan spinner on behalf of the Republican Party, but because she not only presided but directed, drove, the QAnonization of the Republican Party during her tenure.”
But still. Tell me what Republican voices or conservative arguments I haven't been exposed to or confronted with in the past 40 years.
I'm not asking not to be "confronted" (nice choice of words there, never used in talking about conservatives) with Republican ideas; I'm asking our political news media not to take seriously that which has been proven not to be serious. Just like every other desk of the newspaper/newscast/website does. They take into account the track record of the people who contact them with "ideas" and "stories" and "scoops." The people who make six and seven figures covering national politics not only do not do this -- they are proud that they do not do this. They sneer at you when you point out that they are not doing it, and double down on it.
excellent analysis, Parker, thank you. WaPo reports this morning that NBC is so far standing with the hire or at least hasn't announced any change. how long is that viable in the face of blowback that started Friday and seems still furious this morning? is the calculation that the rw viewers they'll gain will more than compensate for the loss of many loyal viewers?
you point to something I have yet to see addressed explicitly, which is why American political media is so right-wing-focused, so eager to understand those voters and represent their views while totally ignoring the views of the majority. was there a single story, just one, in 2016 about Clinton voters/supporters? don't think so. we're a silent majority not bc we're not politically disengaged but bc we literally don't exist in the minds of those who control newsrooms and, I guess, their reporters and producers. I get that early on, after Trump's shock win, there was a collective spasm of anxiety at having missed the story. but in the big (ongoing) pile of stories that resulted, was there ever one single one on voters who actually like Clinton? apparently not. which helped reinforce the idea that *nobody* liked her yet she was absolutely going to win, so they needed to do everything they could to smear her.
I'm sick of being invisible or worse, presumed not to exist, when many millions are like me frustrated, worried, trying to understand the baffling firehose of daily news and figure out how I can act in accordance with my principles to help get GOPs who are anti-governance the hell out of government.
If it's any consolation, NBC is almost certainly not going to get a noticeable bump in the ratings because a bunch of RonnaRomney stans decided to start watching.
I do wonder if some manufacturer of televisions, like Samsung or LG, is fronting part of the money. They may sell a lot of TVs to people who broke their old sets by throwing something at them, or throwing them out the window. (We can't afford a new TV right now, so we won't be tuning in to catch Ronna's tergiversations and lies.)
I used to watch a lot of MSNBC, but I'm proud to announce it's now been a month without, not even a minute of it. I wish I could say this was a principled decision based on their firing of Mehdi Hassan, but the timing was just a coincidence. I just realized that their campaign coverage was designed to constantly ratchet up my anxiety level, because the more anxious liberals are the more MSNBC they watch. Like Facebook understanding that Facebook is terrible for teen girls and their self-image, but also recognizing that the social anxiety it creates causes its users to come back more and more, increasing "engagement with the platform", and that's all they really care about.
Anyway, I feel like I'm adequately informed, I certainly know enough to know what I need to do between now and November, no more information needed for that, thanks.
This is infuriating and insulting. I am tired and disgusted by the pandering of corporate media and the billionaire class to the interests of the far right at the expense of our democracy. I pay for subscriptions to journalists and individuals I trust and admire for their truth. They deserve our support. And, we deserve their honesty.
It says something that Chuck Todd is calling this out. After years of not questioning, he's questioning. It's nice, but feels a little late to the party.
Just wondering about the difference between NBC and MSNBC? (other than "MS", I mean.) NBC has only one political show, Meet the Press on Sundays, is that right? So they're paying Ronna $300k to occasionally appear on one show, once a week at most? Or is the idea that she's going to be a panelist at MSNBC too? I don't have much respect for MSNBC, but I really can't think of a single one of their hosts that would welcome Ronna McDaniel as a panelist.
I think this post highlights a key conflict between the missions of informing people and growing your reach. McDaniel got (correctly) attacked for saying she represents 50% of the country, but the underlying fact is that double-digit percentages do believe The Big Lie and a number of other demonstrable falsehoods. It seems basically impossible to both maintain your credibility and reach out to that side of the populace.
McDaniel all but admitted that she has been willing to compromise her credibility to "take one for the team," and it feels that NBC is heading in the same direction.
Never forget that in 2009, the year of our first Black president, our first woman Speaker and a Democratic trifecta that included (for a short time) a filibuster-proof Senate majority, the most frequent guest on Meet the Press was … Newt Gingrich. When Republicans are in charge, the line is “Well, they’re in charge.” When Democrats are in charge, the line is “Well, Democrats are in charge so we have to make room for the other side.”
One other thing, from the transcript:
“STEPHEN HAYES: Yeah. I mean, look, on the other hand, if you've read some of the criticism of NBC that has come since the announcement it is very clear that some of the critics just don't want to be confronted with Republican voices or conservative arguments. So there is that. And that's bad. We should want to have a robust exchange between people who believe different things.”
Now, I grant you, he followed that up with
“But I agree with what's been said here. I mean, that's not what Ronna McDaniel is doing. That's not what she's been doing. And she has huge credibility problems, not because she's been a partisan spinner on behalf of the Republican Party, but because she not only presided but directed, drove, the QAnonization of the Republican Party during her tenure.”
But still. Tell me what Republican voices or conservative arguments I haven't been exposed to or confronted with in the past 40 years.
I'm not asking not to be "confronted" (nice choice of words there, never used in talking about conservatives) with Republican ideas; I'm asking our political news media not to take seriously that which has been proven not to be serious. Just like every other desk of the newspaper/newscast/website does. They take into account the track record of the people who contact them with "ideas" and "stories" and "scoops." The people who make six and seven figures covering national politics not only do not do this -- they are proud that they do not do this. They sneer at you when you point out that they are not doing it, and double down on it.
excellent analysis, Parker, thank you. WaPo reports this morning that NBC is so far standing with the hire or at least hasn't announced any change. how long is that viable in the face of blowback that started Friday and seems still furious this morning? is the calculation that the rw viewers they'll gain will more than compensate for the loss of many loyal viewers?
you point to something I have yet to see addressed explicitly, which is why American political media is so right-wing-focused, so eager to understand those voters and represent their views while totally ignoring the views of the majority. was there a single story, just one, in 2016 about Clinton voters/supporters? don't think so. we're a silent majority not bc we're not politically disengaged but bc we literally don't exist in the minds of those who control newsrooms and, I guess, their reporters and producers. I get that early on, after Trump's shock win, there was a collective spasm of anxiety at having missed the story. but in the big (ongoing) pile of stories that resulted, was there ever one single one on voters who actually like Clinton? apparently not. which helped reinforce the idea that *nobody* liked her yet she was absolutely going to win, so they needed to do everything they could to smear her.
I'm sick of being invisible or worse, presumed not to exist, when many millions are like me frustrated, worried, trying to understand the baffling firehose of daily news and figure out how I can act in accordance with my principles to help get GOPs who are anti-governance the hell out of government.
If it's any consolation, NBC is almost certainly not going to get a noticeable bump in the ratings because a bunch of RonnaRomney stans decided to start watching.
I do wonder if some manufacturer of televisions, like Samsung or LG, is fronting part of the money. They may sell a lot of TVs to people who broke their old sets by throwing something at them, or throwing them out the window. (We can't afford a new TV right now, so we won't be tuning in to catch Ronna's tergiversations and lies.)
I used to watch a lot of MSNBC, but I'm proud to announce it's now been a month without, not even a minute of it. I wish I could say this was a principled decision based on their firing of Mehdi Hassan, but the timing was just a coincidence. I just realized that their campaign coverage was designed to constantly ratchet up my anxiety level, because the more anxious liberals are the more MSNBC they watch. Like Facebook understanding that Facebook is terrible for teen girls and their self-image, but also recognizing that the social anxiety it creates causes its users to come back more and more, increasing "engagement with the platform", and that's all they really care about.
Anyway, I feel like I'm adequately informed, I certainly know enough to know what I need to do between now and November, no more information needed for that, thanks.
The Megyn Kelly debacle should have taught NBC something. Sadly, it did not.
This is infuriating and insulting. I am tired and disgusted by the pandering of corporate media and the billionaire class to the interests of the far right at the expense of our democracy. I pay for subscriptions to journalists and individuals I trust and admire for their truth. They deserve our support. And, we deserve their honesty.
It says something that Chuck Todd is calling this out. After years of not questioning, he's questioning. It's nice, but feels a little late to the party.
Just wondering about the difference between NBC and MSNBC? (other than "MS", I mean.) NBC has only one political show, Meet the Press on Sundays, is that right? So they're paying Ronna $300k to occasionally appear on one show, once a week at most? Or is the idea that she's going to be a panelist at MSNBC too? I don't have much respect for MSNBC, but I really can't think of a single one of their hosts that would welcome Ronna McDaniel as a panelist.
I think this post highlights a key conflict between the missions of informing people and growing your reach. McDaniel got (correctly) attacked for saying she represents 50% of the country, but the underlying fact is that double-digit percentages do believe The Big Lie and a number of other demonstrable falsehoods. It seems basically impossible to both maintain your credibility and reach out to that side of the populace.
McDaniel all but admitted that she has been willing to compromise her credibility to "take one for the team," and it feels that NBC is heading in the same direction.