ReportWire

Tag: Rachel Maddow

  • MSNBC’s name is being replaced, but its leaders insist that its mission will remain the same

    NEW YORK (AP) — Asked what viewers should expect when television’s MSNBC makes its corporate divorce from NBC News official this weekend, network president Rebecca Kutler points to a poster on the wall of a conference room at its new offices off Times Square.

    Its message reads: “Same Mission. New Name.”

    “To me, that encapsulates exactly what we need to be saying,” Kutler said. “Our job in the next few weeks is to flood the zone … and make sure they know the thing that they love will be the exact same thing on Nov. 15.”

    Saturday is when MSNBC officially becomes MS NOW, standing for My Source for News, Opinion and the World. That’s the most visible manifestation of parent company Comcast’s decision to spin off most of its cable networks into a new company known as Versant.

    It’s tough enough when one partner tells another that they’re leaving for someone new. In this case, they’re just leaving the partner behind; a cable television network is considered such a diminishing asset in today’s media world that giant companies would rather be free of them.

    “A lot of us really didn’t know what it meant,” said prime-time host Jen Psaki, “and it didn’t feel great initially.”

    Embracing the ethos of a startup

    Left on its own, MS NOW is embracing the ethos of a startup, suggesting it will be better positioned to experiment without ties to the more corporate NBC News. “Morning Joe” is starting its own newsletter. Podcast ideas are encouraged. The network is expanding live events, letting its television stars interact with the audience; Rachel Maddow has one in Chicago later this month.

    “I didn’t see this as a divorce,” said nighttime host Michael Steele. “I see this as the kid growing up and leaving home. We all know what that’s like.”

    As Kutler says, the network’s focus on news and commentary with a liberal perspective remains intact. So does its lineup of stars — Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber and the like. MS NOW has built its own reporting and support staff, and is moving into a new headquarters west of Broadway in Manhattan that is, not incidentally, the former longtime headquarters of The New York Times.

    The new office, tricked out with the latest electronics, ends one geographical oddity: No longer are the political polar opposites MSNBC and Fox News Channel located across Sixth Avenue from one another.

    The MS NOW news staff has about three dozen reporters, among them Washington Post alums Jackie Alemany and Carol Leonnig. It has signed partnerships with Sky News for international reporting and AccuWeather for forecasting.

    “Being divorced from NBC News gives it the opportunity to make deals on its own to supplement its cable existence,” said longtime broadcast and cable news executive Kate O’Brian, who spent several years at ABC. They have a strong identity and a built-in audience of people who oppose President Donald Trump, she said.

    “They’re lean, nimble and niche, putting them in a better position to adapt to any emergent platforms,” O’Brian said.

    MS NOW is leaner in audience than MSNBC was a year ago. The network’s prime-time weekday average of 1.17 million viewers this year is down 29% from 2024 — a number linked in large part to its viewers’ disappointment at the presidential election results. Fox News Channel, popular with Trump supporters, is up 14% to 3.11 million viewers.

    Yet MSNBC has roughly twice the audience of CNN, which saw an identical 29% decrease in viewers over the first nine months of 2025. MSNBC was also buoyed by a strong election night performance where it ran neck-and-neck with Fox, even while missing the khaki-clad numbers nerd, Steve Kornacki, who chose to remain with NBC News.

    MS NOW’s freedom appealed to reporters Jacob Soboroff, who chose it over NBC News, and Rosa Flores, who said she is joining the newly-named network from CNN primarily because she sees the opportunity to do a greater variety of things beyond the immigration beat she’d been covering.

    “All the legacy news organizations are trying to make their way,” Flores said. “I felt like being part of a news organization that was building solutions from the ground up was so unique that I wanted to be a part of it.”

    Being part of a news operation with a clear political identity was not a barrier for Soboroff. “It’s about the people for me, always, it’s not about the politics,” he said. “I feel like I do what I’ve always done, which is report the facts on the ground, turn them around to our audience and let the audience make up their own minds about what they think.”

    Cleaning out the office at Rockefeller Center

    The company is spending a reported $20 million on a marketing campaign designed to publicize the changeover, which will include billboards in Times Square, the Grove in Los Angeles and the South Capitol Digital Experience Wall in Washington, D.C.

    Far cheaper is the mug with MSNBC crossed out and replaced by MS NOW on the set of “Morning Joe.” Co-host Mika Brzezinski recently cleared out her Rockefeller Center office and reminisced about times that NBC’s Richard Engel and Keir Simmons appeared on their show. “We’re going to miss some reporters,” she said, “and they’re going to miss us.”

    With a rapidly evolving media landscape, success or failure will ultimately be decided by who has the content people most want to see, said her co-host and husband, Joe Scarborough.

    “If this were five years ago, I would have been, ‘Oh, my God, how are we going to do this?’” he said. “Everything is so fluid now.”

    ___

    David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

    Source link

  • Harris seemed to touch a nerve with Newsom, but says he has ‘a great sense of humor’

    Kamala Harris picked her way through several sticky subjects in a Tuesday night TV interview, including her account of being ghosted by Gov. Gavin Newsom when she called for his support during her brief, unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.

    On the eve of the public release of her book detailing that campaign, Harris spoke with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her relationship with Newsom as well as the redistricting ballot measure Californians will vote on in November — and she also hailed “the power of the people” in getting Jimmy Kimmel back on ABC.

    Kimmel was indefinitely suspended last week by the Walt Disney Co. over remarks he made about the suspect in the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After fierce protests, consumers announcing subscription cancellations, and hundreds of celebrities speaking out against government censorship, Disney announced Monday that Kimmel would return on ABC the following day.

    “Talk about the power being with the people and the people making that clear with their checkbooks,” Harris said of Kimmel’s return. “It spoke volumes, and it moved a decision in the right direction.”

    Harris was speaking with Maddow about her new book, “107 Days,” which details her short sprint of a presidential campaign in 2024 after then-President Biden decided not to seek reelection.

    The book discloses which Democrats immediately supported her to become the Democratic nominee, and which didn’t, notably Newsom. She wrote that, when she called, he texted her that he was hiking and would call her back but never did.

    After Maddow raised the anecdote in the opening of the show, Harris said she had known Newsom “forever.”

    “Gavin has a great sense of humor so, you know, he’s gonna be fine,” Harris said.

    Newsom was icier when asked by a reporter about the interaction — or lack thereof — on Friday.

    “You want to waste your time with this, we’ll do it,” Newsom said, adding that he was hiking when he received a call from an unknown number, even as he was trying to learn more about Biden’s decision not to run for reelection while also asking his team to craft a statement supporting Harris to be the Democratic nominee. “I assume that’s in the book as well — that, hours later, the endorsement came out.”

    Harris brought up Newsom when asked about Proposition 50, the redistricting ballot measure championed by the governor and other California Democrats that voters will decide in November. If approved, the state’s congressional districts will be redrawn in an effort to boost Democratic seats in the house to counter efforts by President Trump to increase the number of Republicans elected in GOP-led states.

    “Let me say about what [Newsom] is doing, redistricting, it is absolutely the right way to go. Part of what we’ve got to, I think, challenge ourselves to accept, is that we tend to play by the rules,” Harris said. “But I think this is a moment where you gotta fight fire with fire. And so what Gavin is doing, what the California Legislature is doing, what those who are supporting it are doing is to say, ‘You know what, you want to play, then let’s get in the field. Let’s get in the arena, and let’s do this.’ And I support that.”

    But Harris was more cautious when asked about other electoral contests, notably the New York City mayoral race. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and has large leads in the polls over other candidates in the race, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

    Asked whether she backed Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, Harris was measured.

    “Look, as far as I’m concerned, he’s the Democratic nominee, and he should be supported,” Harris said, prompting Maddow to ask whether she endorsed him.

    “I support the Democrat in the race, sure,” she replied. “But let me just say this, he’s not the only star. … I hope that we don’t so over-index on New York City that we lose sight of the stars throughout our country.”

    Harris, who announced this summer that she would not run for California governor next year, demurred when asked about whether she would run for president for a third time in 2028.

    “That’s not my focus right now,” she said.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris Directly Asked if She Supports Zohran Mamda…

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani during a Monday night interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, potentially further boosting the democratic socialist assemblyman’s campaign.

    The endorsement comes as Mamdani’s chances have surged to 85 percent on prediction markets as of last week, as recent polling shows commanding leads over his opponents ahead of the November 4 general election.

    Newsweek reached out to Mamdani’s office via email on Monday for comment.

    Why It Matters

    Harris’ endorsement represents a potential lift for Mamdani’s campaign amid ongoing divisions within the Democratic Party over his candidacy.

    The former vice president’s support contrasts with the reluctance of key Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, who have remained neutral.

    What To Know

    On Maddow’s eponymous The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, the host directly asked Harris if she endorsed Mamdani’s candidacy. Harris responded: “Look, as far as I’m concerned, he’s the Democratic nominee, and he should be supported.”

    The former vice president went on to pivot the discussion to lesser-known Democratic leaders running in other mayoral campaigns, including state Representative Barbara Drummond of Alabama and Helena Moreno of New Orleans.

    Mamdani’s campaign has gained significant momentum following Mayor Eric Adams’ decision to remain in the race, which paradoxically boosted the assemblyman’s chances from 79.7 percent to 85 percent on Polymarket prediction markets. Polling data reveals Mamdani’s dominance across multiple surveys conducted in early September, consistently showing double-digit leads over his closest rival, former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

    Five major polls demonstrate Mamdani’s commanding position. A CBS News/YouGov poll showed him leading 43 percent to Cuomo’s 28 percent, while a Marist survey recorded a 45 percent to 24 percent advantage. Quinnipiac University’s poll gave Mamdani a 22-point lead at 45 percent to 23 percent and an Emerson College poll showed 43 percent to 28 percent. The New York Times/Siena poll recorded Mamdani at 46 percent versus Cuomo’s 24 percent.

    However, when hypothetical head-to-head matchups remove Adams from the equation, Mamdani’s lead narrows significantly in some scenarios. While maintaining substantial advantages in most polls, the gap tightens to as little as 4 points in the Times/Siena survey, suggesting Cuomo could absorb anti-Mamdani votes in a more consolidated field.

    New York State Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs announced he would not endorse Mamdani, citing fundamental disagreements over policy approaches and specifically opposing his views on Israel. Jacobs said he “strongly disagree[s] with his views on the State of Israel” and rejects “the platform of the so-called ‘Democratic Socialists of America.’”

    Despite calls from President Donald Trump for candidates to consolidate against Mamdani, both Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa have refused to exit the race. Adams spokesperson Todd Shapiro emphatically denied rumors earlier this month of the mayor’s withdrawal, saying Adams “is in this race to win it,” with more than 20 events scheduled and multiple fundraisers planned.

    What People Are Saying

    Maddow, during the interview: “Arguably the fastest rising star right now in Democratic politics is Zohran Mamdani who is going to be elected mayor of New York City, and, um, probably in a landslide, if the polls are anything to go by. Lots of mainline Democrats have been very shy about his candidacy.”

    Jacobs: “Mr. Mamdani and I are in agreement that America’s greatest problem is the continued growth in income disparity in our nation. On how to address it–we fundamentally disagree.”

    Trump, on Truth Social: “Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has Endorsed the ‘Liddle’ Communist,’ Zohran Mamdani, running for Mayor of New York. This is a rather shocking development, and a very bad one for New York City.”

    Independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “The oligarchs are panicking. They will spend as much as it takes to try to defeat Zohran Mamdani. They’ve got the money. We’ve got the people.”

    What Happens Next?

    With less than six weeks until the general election, the focus shifts to whether Harris’ endorsement will encourage Democratic leaders to follow suit and publicly support Mamdani.

    Source link

  • MSNBC Acquires Rachel Maddow-Produced ‘Andrew Young: The Dirty Work’ (Exclusive)

    Rachel Maddow has set up her next documentary project at her home network.

    MSNBC has acquired Andrew Young: The Dirty Work, the second documentary from the host’s Surprise Inside production company, which focuses on the eponymous Civil Rights Movement leader who worked alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and later became a Congressman and mayor of Atlanta.

    The Matt Kay-directed film will air on MSNBC on Friday, Oct. 17 at 9 pm ET after a special edition of The Rachel Maddow Show dedicated to Young’s life and legacy.

    “At a time when confrontations with the government and grassroots protests are back at the center of American political life, the civil rights movement is more than just a moral cornerstone for our country — it’s a living, breathing, practical manual for how to fight for what’s right, and win that fight, and maybe even save your own soul in the process,” Maddow said in a statement. “Andrew Young’s story is not gauzy or romantic, it’s the gritty truth of what it takes to build and sustain a winning movement. Andrew Young: The Dirty Work is about how hard it is to be a hero, and how beautiful, too.”

    An extended first look at the project will debut at the network’s yearly fan event, “MSNBCLIVE ‘25: This Is Who We Are,” on Oct. 11 in New York.

    Co-produced by Left/Right and executive produced by Maddow, the film will see the 93-year-old Young tell his story in his own words, from his start as a pastor to his pivotal work during the Civil Rights Movement (Young was portrayed by André Holland in the 2014 film Selma) to his debut in national politics as a U.S. representative from Georgia.

    Later, Young served as an American ambassador to the United Nations under President Jimmy Carter and as the mayor of Atlanta for two terms. Looking back on his career, he reflects in the film on “the dirty work,” or “the quiet, difficult labor that makes landmark change possible,” according to MSNBC.

    “I was born at the right time and happened to be at the right places to be part of the Civil Rights movement that helped change America,” Andrew Young said in a statement about the film.

    The film follows the first release from Maddow’s production company, From Russia With Lev, which premiered in 2024, two years after Surprise Inside launched. The film debuted to 2.2 million viewers and was later nominated for a 2025 News & Documentary Emmy award.

    Katie Kilkenny

    Source link

  • ‘You’re next:’ Some Trump supporters blame the media for assassination attempt

    ‘You’re next:’ Some Trump supporters blame the media for assassination attempt

    New York (CNN) — Moments after Donald Trump was rushed to safety following a failed assassination attempt at a Saturday night rally, some of his supporters turned toward the press pen with obscenities as they fingered reporters for blame.

    “This is your fault!” one attendee emphatically yelled, pointing at individual journalists as he approached the fence line separating them from attendees. “This is your fault!”

    “It is your fault!” exclaimed another.

    Axios reporter Sophia Cai, who quoted some in the crowd warning the press, “you’re next” and that their “time is coming,” even reported that a few rally goers tried to breach the barriers establishing the press pen, but that they were stopped by security personnel.

    In the immediate wake of the horrific shooting attempt on Trump’s life, which resulted in the tragic death of one rally attendee and the severe wounding of two others, the news media has quickly emerged among some Trump supporters as a body to assign blame.

    While the Trump campaign urged its staff to “condemn all forms of violence” and said it “will not tolerate dangerous rhetoric on social media,” some of the former president’s supporters in MAGA Media vehemently assailed the press for its hard-knuckled reporting on Trump, which has sounded the alarm on what four more years under the former president would look like.

    Over the course of the campaign cycle, news organizations have, among other things, reported at length on Trump’s plans to warp the federal government for his own ends, including to seek vengeance against his political opponents. That reporting is now facing scrutiny, with some Trump supporters blaming it for producing a charged atmosphere that gave way to the assassination attempt, while mostly looking past the incendiary rhetoric of the former president himself.

    Immediately after the attack, top figures across the news media condemned the shooting, underscoring that violence against a political candidate is an attack on democracy itself. Top liberal commentators also expressed their disgust in strong terms. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the country’s most recognized liberal personality, said she did not “have adequate words to describe how disgusted and horrified” she was.

    “There is no *no* *no* *no* violent solution to any American political conflict,” Maddow wrote on Threads. “I am grateful the former president is going to be ok, and miserably sad and angry about the other people hurt and killed. This is a very dark day.”

    The reaction from the press and liberal media figures stood in stark contrast to how right-wing media personalities have responded in the aftermath of attacks on Democrats. Instead of raising the volume or fanning the flames of false flag conspiracy theories, which top figures on the right have done after attacks on Paul Pelosi and Gabrielle Giffords, they urged for calm.

    Nevertheless, the anti-press attitude in MAGA circles has unquestionably increased. Despite the accuracy of the news media’s reporting on Trump, supporters of the former president have moved to vilify and scapegoat journalists for the heinous attack, sending anti-media attitudes to alarming heights.

    “On a daily basis, MSNBC tells its audience that Trump is a threat to democracy, an authoritarian in waiting, and a would-be dictator if no one stops him,” conservative radio host Erick Erickson wrote on X. “What did they think would happen?”

    Donald Trump Jr. blasted CNN, The Washington Post, and the press at large for recent coverage of his father.

    “Dems and their friends in the media knew exactly what they were doing with the ‘literally Hitler’ bullshit!,” he wrote on X.

    With just over 100 days until the November elections, the inflamed disposition toward the press has prompted cause for concern among news executives and spurred discussion inside newsrooms about safety and security precautions — especially with the Republican National Convention set to start on Monday. That four-day event, which was already a security concern prior to the assassination attempt, will bring together scores of journalists, alongside thousands of Trump supporters.

    “Journalists are always among the very first to run towards a crisis, and we collectively are working in overdrive to keep everyone safe,” one news executive told me. “That is the absolute top priority.”

    Oliver Darcy and CNN

    Source link

  • Judge says Maddow, other MSNBC hosts made ‘verifiably false’ statements about doctor suing for defamation

    Judge says Maddow, other MSNBC hosts made ‘verifiably false’ statements about doctor suing for defamation

    NBCUniversal faces a defamation lawsuit after a judge ruled that MSNBC hosts, including Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace, made “verifiably false” statements that a Georgia doctor performed unnecessary hysterectomies at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) center.

    Plaintiff Dr. Mahendra Amin, an obstetrician gynecologist who provided medical care to women detained at the Irwin County Detention Center, was accused in 2020 of performing unnecessary hysterectomies by a nurse at the facility who made a whistleblower complaint.

    NBC reporters Jacob Soboroff and Julia Ainsley worked to verify the whistleblower’s claims, and eventually published an article despite initial skepticism from the network’s standards department. MSNBC quickly followed with a series of on-air reports in which the doctor was often referred to as the “uterus collector,” but the whistleblower’s claims were never proven to be true.

    “NBC investigated the whistleblower letter’s accusations; that investigation did not corroborate the accusations and even undermined some; NBC republished the letter’s accusations anyway,” Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the Southern District of Georgia wrote on June 26 in a 108-page summary.

    MSNBC WEEKLY VIEWERSHIP HITS 2024 LOW DURING TIME OF CRISIS FOR BIDEN

    Wallace, who identified Amin by name, according to the court document, made “multiple statements” that were defamatory when she was the first MSNBC host to discuss the story on-air, the plaintiff claims.

    READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

    “We are following breaking news today. It’s about an alarming new whistleblower complaint that alleges, quote, high numbers of female detainees, detained immigrants, at an ICE detention center in Georgia received questionable hysterectomies while in ICE custody,” Wallace told “Deadline: White House” viewers.

    Amin “performed only two hysterectomies on women detained at the facility,” according to court documents.

    That same evening, “All In With Chris Hayes” featured an interview with the whistleblower. Hayes’ MSNBC program also spoke with a lawyer who claims as many as 15 immigrant women were given full or partial hysterectomies or other procedures for which no medical indication existed.

    BIDEN DEBATE DEBACLE: 10 EYE-OPENING MEDIA RESPONSES, FROM MSNBC PANIC TO ‘THE VIEW’ CALLING FOR REPLACEMENT

    Maddow, MSNBC’s biggest star who reportedly earns $30 million per year despite only hosting her program once a week, amplified the whistleblower claims by passionately covering them on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

    MSNBC regularly informed viewers of an ICE statement that “accusations will be fully investigated by an independent office, however, ICE vehemently disputes the implication that detainees are used for experimental medical procedures.”

    Maddow also included a statement from Amin, in which he vigorously denied the whistleblower’s claims.

    According to the court document, Maddow “initially questioned reporting on the allegations,” and suggested there was a lot of “jumping to conclusions around the complaint” but proceeded to cover it anyway. “All In with Chris Hayes” did a follow-up later in the week.

    MSNBC HOST ATTACKS WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS’ ‘GROTESQUE’ BEHAVIOR AGAINST KARINE JEAN-PIERRE

    Rachel Maddow

    Rachel Maddow is at the center of a defamation lawsuit.

    Amin demanded that NBC retract the “false and defamatory” statements from the four MSNBC broadcasts to no avail. The United States Senate investigated the whistleblower claims but failed to confirm the accusations.

    The judge detailed that “undisputed evidence has established” that “there were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility,” “Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies on female detainees from the ICDC,” and the doctor is not a “uterus collector.”

    “The Court must look to each of the statements in the context of the entire broadcast or social media post to assess the construction placed upon it by the average viewer,” the judge wrote.

    “Viewed in their entirety, the September 15, 2020 episodes of ‘Deadline: White House,’ ‘All In With Chris Hayes,’ and ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ accuse Plaintiff of performing mass hysterectomies on detainee women. It does not matter that NBC did not make these accusations directly, but only republished the whistleblower letter’s allegations,” the judge continued. “If accusations against a plaintiff are ‘based entirely on hearsay,’ ‘[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges.’”

    Wood ordered a jury trial to determine if MSNBC engaged in “actual malice.”

    MSNBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Original article source: Judge says Maddow, other MSNBC hosts made ‘verifiably false’ statements about doctor suing for defamation

    Source link

  • NBC says it will cut ties with former RNC head Ronna McDaniel after days of employee objections

    NBC says it will cut ties with former RNC head Ronna McDaniel after days of employee objections

    NEW YORK – NBC News will cut ties with former Republican National Committee chief Ronna McDaniel, hired last week as an on-air political contributor, following a furious protest by some of its journalists and commentators, according to a memo from the top official of the network’s news division.

    The communication to network staff Tuesday from NBC News Group Chairman Cesar Conde comes four days after the network said that McDaniel had joined as a paid contributor to offer political analysis over all of its platforms, including the liberal cable news network MSNBC.

    The response from journalists and others within the network was swift — and public. Former “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd criticized his bosses on the air Sunday for the hire, saying he didn’t know what to believe from her after she supported former President Donald Trump in “gaslighting” and “character assassination” following the 2020 election.

    An extraordinary succession of MSNBC hosts — Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Nicolle Wallace, Jen Psaki and Lawrence O’Donnell — all publicly protested the decision to hire McDaniel on their shows Monday.

    “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge that you’re wrong,” Maddow said on her show.

    Todd said that many NBC News journalists were uncomfortable with the hiring because of McDaniel’s “gaslighting” and “character assassination” while at the RNC.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    David Bauder, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Jon Stewart’s return to ‘The Daily Show’ felt familiar to those who missed him while he was away

    Jon Stewart’s return to ‘The Daily Show’ felt familiar to those who missed him while he was away

    NEW YORK – No, Jon Stewart really wasn’t sitting at his desk at Comedy Central for the last nine years, waiting for someone to turn the lights back on.

    Yet it almost felt that way during Stewart’s return to “The Daily Show” Monday night. His signature moves — blunt satire, facial grimaces, incisive use of video and some occasional lectures — were all intact. Public figures are served notice that the media’s sharpest bull detector is back on the job.

    Stewart has said that the lack of a comedic outlet for his observations as the presidential campaign unfolded largely drove his decision to reprise his most memorable role, one night a week through the election. The much-diminished Comedy Central, unable to find a successor to Trevor Noah as host, happily welcomed him back.

    Questions about the future of late-night TV, which is rapidly shedding viewers and losing influence, won’t be answered in one night. Neither will that night prove Stewart can regain the position of prominence he stepped away from in August 2015.

    But it was a promising start.

    “Are you disappointed yet?” Stewart said after one sophomoric joke, about naming “The Daily Show” election coverage, “Indecision 2024: Electile Dysfunction.”

    HE DOVE DIRECTLY INTO THE NEWS OF THE DAY

    Stewart seemed to take a page from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow when she turned a daily hosting role into a weekly one. Both resisted trying to do too much, to cram a week’s — or in Stewart’s case, nine years — worth of material into one show. He moved swiftly into the news, and up-to-date doings of President Joe Biden and his Republican rival.

    In Biden’s case, it meant directly addressing questions about his age and fitness for office, which the president’s supporters surely want to avoid. He examined Biden’s news conference last week meant to counter characterizations in special counsel Robert Hur’s report on classified documents found in Biden’s home.

    “Joe Biden had a big press conference to dispel the notion that he may have lost a step and, politically speaking, lost three or four steps,” he said.

    He said about Biden aides who thought it was a good idea for him to turn down a Super Bowl interview in favor of a TikTok appearance: “Fire everyone.”

    Stewart showed tape of administration officials like Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats testifying to Biden’s sharpness and suggested it might be a good idea to film the president in those meetings so the public can see him.

    Yet Stewart also used tightly-edited videotape of Donald Trump and his family during depositions saying they couldn’t recall things to counter the notion that Biden is alone in showing memory issues during such high-pressure legal proceedings. “The Daily Show” even found one where Trump said he couldn’t remember talking about how good his memory is.

    His main point: Worries about whether either the 81-year-old Biden or 77-year-old Trump are up to the toughest job in the world shouldn’t be swept under the rug.

    “It is the candidates’ job to assuage concerns, not the voters’ job not to mention them,” Stewart said.

    HE WAS PRETTY WELL-RECEIVED BY CRITICS

    Based on one night, a handful of critics noted Stewart’s seamless transition.

    Alison Herman of Variety wrote that “it almost seemed like he never left,” a phrase repeated in the headlines of reviews by both NPR critic Eric Deggans and CNN’s Brian Lowry.

    “From the show’s opening moments, Stewart eased back into the host’s chair without missing a beat, firing off jokes with a familiar style that felt like he had left just a few weeks ago, rather than in 2015,” Deggans wrote. “He brought a confidence the show sorely needs.”

    Jeremy Egner of The New York Times wrote that “Stewart’s first night found him grayer — at one point he used his own wizened face as a prop in a joke about the presidential candidates’ ages. But he was otherwise in classic form.”

    The comparison of Stewart returning to “The Daily Show” and two candidates likely staging a rematch was too obvious to let go by. Correspondent Dulce Sloan, ostensibly talking about discouraged voters, said they needed someone new, more than just “old white dudes” coming back to reclaim a job.

    “We’re talking about the election, right?” Stewart said.

    The “campaign” interlude allowed Stewart, and viewers who had drifted away from “The Daily Show” after he left, to become acquainted with unfamiliar cast members. An on-set interview with Jordan Klepper, who will host the show for the rest of the week, was less successful.

    During his time away, Stewart spent time as an activist fighting to get benefits for Sept. 11, 2001, responders and two years hosting “The Problem with Jon Stewart” on the Apple TV+ streaming service. He made a subtle allusion to the latter on Monday, saying he would be making jokes about China and AI, subjects that reportedly made Apple uncomfortable before axing the show.

    ___

    David Bauder covers media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.





    David Bauder, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow Test Monday Media Model to Boost Talk TV

    Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow Test Monday Media Model to Boost Talk TV


    Can Mondays do for the TV business what Thursdays and Sundays once did? Some of the medium’s best-known personalities are trying to figure this question out.

    When Jon Stewart re-emerges Monday night as a one-night-a-week host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” he will join MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Jen Psaki in making bespoke Monday appearances for their network, part of what has become a low-key scheduling experiment that actually has high stakes: In a medium best known for offering viewers the same hosts in the same time slots five nights a week, can TV networks that thrive on news-and-talk programs generate new attention and advertising dollars by doling them out less frequently ?

    “Monday is really appealing,” says Stephanie Morales, vice president of media intelligence at Magna, the Interpublic Group media-research firm. It tends to be the second-most-watched day of the week on linear TV, behind Sundays, she says. And viewers of talk and news programs tend to come in with headier expectations, she adds, because they anticipate the host tacking a stack of events that took place over the weekend. Mondays can be a great place to have a top newsmaker or celebrity guest, says Morales, because of the more intense viewership.

    MSNBC and Comedy Central declined to make executives available for comment.

    Their task is a difficult one. By creating a Monday-only talent slot, both networks have created what are essentially three different programs they must promote, market and book. Stewart will cede “Daily Show” broadcasts on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to the program’s current group of correspondents. Maddow and Psaki make occasional appearances outside of their programs, typically when a big headline rises in the current election cycle and MSNBC offers a different sort of analysis programming in primetime that makes use of multiple contributors.

    Making sure a single day counts for more seems critical to Comedy Central, which lured Stewart back to hosting “The Daily Show” once a week for the 2024 election cycle. Prior to the news of his return, the Paramount Global network had been testing various guest hosts and the show’s own correspondent team — seemingly without much success. Roy Wood Jr., seen as a potential successor to the show’s most recent full-time host, Trevor Noah, opted to leave when Comedy Central would not offer solid details about its plans for the series. What’s more, the late-night show went dark during the recent Hollywood labor strikes, while rivals kept repeats on the air.

    The lack of original episodes may have taken a toll. Advertisers trimmed their support of “Daily” in 2023, according to Vivvix, a tracker of ad outlays. “Daily Show” generated nearly $20.2 million in ad sales in the first 10 months of 2023, compared with $39.9 million in 2022. In 2014, Stewart’s last full year as host, the show took in $129.1 million — a figure it has not matched since.

    Executives at Comedy Central see Mondays as the biggest viewing day of the week for younger audiences — especially men between 18 and 49. They also see Stewart using the day to recap events from the weekend and previous week and for setting an agenda for the week to come.  

    Jon Stewart has the personality to bring in new unique households,” Janice Prewett, group director of media strategy at independent Dallas agency TRG. “There is more opportunity for continued ratings and unique household growth as people are exposed to short-form videos of Jon on the Internet, which could pull them toward tuning in to the show.”

    But will his presence bring more viewers to the rest of the week, when the show’s correspondents will take the lead? Stewart and his WME agent, James Dixon, will serve as executive producers of the program and will have a say on both content and talent. Whether they can grow the program for the long term, or are simply going to keep it going in an election year, remains to be seen.

    There are some signs that a Monday strategy can pay off — a little. In 2023, advertisers increased their spending on MSNBC’s Monday broadcast of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to data from ad-tracking company iSpot. The program’s Monday broadcast generated $4.9 million in advertising last year, am 11.6% increase over the $4.4 million in ad dollars spent in 2022, when Maddow announced that she would do Mondays only starting in May of that year.

    Meanwhile, MSNBC has also seen new ad dollars committed to its Monday 8 p.m. slot, according to iSpot. The Monday hour anchored by Chris Hayes in 2022 snared approximately $4.6 million, in 2022, a figure that jumped 21% in 2023 to $5.6 million for an hour that has been anchored by Psaki since late September (Psaki also anchors a show middays on Sunday).

    The move appears to have brought new viewers to the network’s 8 p.m. slot. In January, “Inside with Jen Psaki” on Monday nights notched a 20% gain among viewers between 25 and 54, the demographic most coveted by advertisers, along with a 7% increase in overall viewers. To be sure, such spikes might be expected given that a rotating array of hosts had been anchoring the hour in place of Hayes, who has gained time to devote to other projects for the company.

    Yet there’s little indication the move has helped MSNBC’s ratings across the rest of the week. The overall audiences generated by Maddow and Psaki on Mondays are not duplicated on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

    “We do not anticipate the specific host change to result in greater viewership. However, we anticipate a potentially small ratings boost as the political season ramps up,” says Prewett. The opportunity for MSNBC, she adds, comes in ”aligning with audiences that Jen and Rachel resonate with most,” but “once the audience settles into the change, there will likely not be a huge opportunity for unique household gains.”

    A case of the Mondays may be a tough one to solve.



    Brian Steinberg

    Source link

  • Megyn Kelly Annihilates Biden – ‘Trump Will Win The Election’

    Megyn Kelly Annihilates Biden – ‘Trump Will Win The Election’


    Opinion

    Source YouTube: Megyn Kelly, Fox News

    The former Fox News host Megyn Kelly spoke out against President Joe Biden on Monday night, saying that recent polling numbers that show him training Donald Trump by 35 points are “devastating” for him.

    Kelly Sounds Off On Trump And Biden

    “If nothing changes, Trump will win the election,” Kelly said as she talked to The Fifth Column co-host Kmele Foster and International Women’s Forum Senior Policy Analyst Inez Stepman.

    Kelly went on to call out both Biden and Donald Trump for not passing immigration reform, slamming what she feels is the false notion of the migrants being portrayed as “asylum seekers,” saying most of their claims are “bulls***.’ 

    “It’s all bulls*** because most of the asylum seekers are not seeking asylum. It’s a lie!” Kelly said. “They could have sought asylum in Mexico. They went right through Mexico because they want to be here.”

    “They don’t want to actually assimilate, a lot of them, but they want their government check,” she continued. “They want a driver’s license. They want to do all the things that American citizens do without doing any of the things that people who immigrated here legally and jumped through all the hoops had to do.”

    Related: Megyn Kelly Reveals Why Taylor Swift Would Be Crazy To Endorse Biden – ‘If She’s Smart…’

    Kelly Doubles Down

    Kelly went on to say that despite that, “there could be more funding for asylum claims to be processed” and Biden and Trump “didn’t do it” even though they each had both houses of Congress for the first two years of their presidencies. 

    “Those people should be processed, and we should figure out who genuinely needs our help and shares our value,” Kelly added. “But we don’t do any of that. And now they want to give Mayorkas a magic wand to say ‘I deem ye asylum seekers. Welcome to America!’ That’s not how it works.”

    Not stopping there, Kelly proceeded to rip into Trump’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination Nikki Haley for her appearance on “Saturday Night Live!” over the weekend.

    “I’ve got serious questions about whether this is a good idea,” Kelly exclaimed. “What’s next? ‘The Daily Show?’ How about Scarborough? Tiptoe through those tulips. Rachel Maddow? Joy Reid? Why doesn’t she go on her show? I don’t get it.”

    “I like the Vivek Ramaswamy philosophy of like going everywhere and trying to get as many votes as you can get. I’m just not sure SNL is one of the venues where there’s any potential votes available,” she continued.

    Check out Kelly’s full comments on this in the video below.

    Related: Megyn Kelly Reveals What’s Really Wrong With Kamala Harris – ‘She Thinks She’s Rush Limbaugh’

    Kelly Calls Out The Obamas

    Back in September, Kelly questioned if Barack and Michelle Obama are the people really running Biden’s government.

    “There are a lot of people who think the Obamas are already running the government and that there is some sort of shadow puppet situation going on that they’re controlling,” she declared, according to The Daily Beast. “There’s been questions from the beginning—is it Joe Biden really making the calls?”

    “I think Michelle Obama is seen as a savior figure by the Democrats who think she’s the most beautiful person ever,” she added. “They think she’s the strongest leader. They think she’s their big hope.”

    What do you think about Kelly’s comments? Let us know in the comments section.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad





    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Rachel Maddow Says ‘Every Single’ Republican Must Answer This

    Rachel Maddow Says ‘Every Single’ Republican Must Answer This

    “That is him testing the political party that he says he’s going to lead” just “one year out from the election, to see what they will tolerate as an institution,” the MSNBC anchor explained Monday.

    It means that “every single member of that party will now have to answer whether this is who they are, whether this is what they stand for, whether this is the cause of their party,” Maddow added.

    Republican 2024 front-runner Trump and his allies have ramped up their extremist rhetoric in recent weeks with their reported plans to silence opponents and critics and carry out mass deportations if he wins back the White House.

    “In real life,” Maddow noted, “a country under threat stands up for itself when the institutions that make up the civic and political life of the country stand up and say what they’re for and what they can no longer stand for.”

    The GOP is the only one to do it now, she added.

    See Maddow’s full analysis here:

    Source link

  • Rachel Maddow’s ‘Prequel’ is a deceptively framed history of the radical right

    Rachel Maddow’s ‘Prequel’ is a deceptively framed history of the radical right

    Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism, by Rachel Maddow, Crown, 416 pages, $32

    “American democracy itself was under attack from enemies within and without,” Rachel Maddow writes in Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism. If you’re not sure whether she is speaking of the past or the present, that’s because she wants to conflate the two.

    Prequel is a deeply flawed and deceptively framed history of right-wing radicalism in the United States on the eve of American entry into World War II. Maddow’s treatment of this well-worn topic draws principally from primary sources generated from the protagonists of her story, a collection of private spies and anti-fascist activists, as well as contemporary press reporting, sundry government documents, and a narrow base of secondary sources, one that noticeably omits prominent works in the field. Deficiencies in her sources, methods, and analyses make for a book that recapitulates past passions at the expense of sober reflection and reality.

    Maddow opens with her strongest case study, covering the German-born Nazi agent George Sylvester Viereck, who tried to push Americans toward neutrality by using personal connections with Congress to spread noninterventionist literature. She then switches focus to her weakest case study, that of populist Democratic governor and senator Huey “Kingfish” Long and his influence on the Nazi sympathizers Philip Johnson and Gerald L.K. Smith. Maddow does not clarify why Long, who died in 1935, is discussed here. But her tone and source selection imply that she agrees with the Kingfish’s contemporary critics that his populism and demagoguery made him a proto-fascist and a political gateway drug for more radical figures, like Johnson and Smith.

    Maddow then abruptly changes focus to the dark history of American segregation and its influence on Nazi racial science, following the German lawyer Heinrich Krieger’s travels through the American South. Then she circles back to more-prominent characters, such as the American fascist Lawrence Dennis, the antisemitic preacher Charles Coughlin, and the abstruse spiritualist (and leader of the fascist Silver Shirts) William Dudley Pelley, among others.

    The book’s first half is occasionally productive. The chapter on Pelley does a good job of exploring the roots of his ideology: his conflation of anti-communism with antisemitism, his eclectic spiritualism, his millenarian Christianity. And the chapter on American race law is a haunting look at how American legislatures maintained racial hierarchy and what the Nazis learned from their practices.

    But what narrative value she creates is relinquished by her analytical leaps, which conflate fascism with phenomena that were already well-grounded in American life well before the 1920s. And Maddow never directly states the size and scope of the groups she covers, such as the German American Bund and the Silver Shirts; instead we get such vague phrases as “many,” “a lot,” and “an insane number.” This makes it easier to confuse the breadth of Maddow’s cast of characters for the depth of their influence. (According to historian Francis MacDonnell’s Insidious Foes, the German American Bund never attracted more than 25,000 members and the Silver Shirts maxed out at 15,000.)

    The book’s meandering journey narrows in later chapters, as Maddow argues that German propaganda had a pervasive influence on “isolationist” congressmen. She presents the propagandists’ efforts as far more effective than they were, giving the impression that they were the root of Americans’ general desire to stay out of World War II. She pays only lip service to the deeper roots of “isolationism,” with a mere passing reference to the fallout from World War I. She does not mention the post-WWI revelations of Allied and American propaganda, the widespread alarm at the armaments industry’s intimate relationship with the government, or the Great War’s domestic abuses of civil liberties. (When Sen. Ernest Lundeen (R–Minn.) denounces a draft bill as “nothing short of slavery,” she dismisses him as “shrill.”) Instead, she writes as though the desire to remain neutral simply stemmed from abroad, stripping noninterventionism of its historical context and arguing that the “threads of isolationism, antisemitism, and fascism were becoming an ominously tight weave.”

    To make her case, Maddow retells a well-worn story about Viereck’s use of the congressional frank, a taxpayer-funded mailing service, to distribute what Maddow calls “pro-German mailings.” In fact, it was predominately literature that advocated neutrality. As historian Douglas M. Charles argued in J. Edgar Hoover and the Anti-interventionists, “All Viereck managed to accomplish was a wider distribution of anti-interventionist literature that, in any event, did not lead Americans to reassess their views on the Allies.”

    Her book culminates in the 1944 sedition trial, in which the United States federal government charged a heterogeneous and largely unaffiliated assortment of 30 defendants, which included far-right figures like George Sylvester Viereck, Lawrence Dennis, and William Dudley Pelley, for sedition under the 1940 Smith Act. She presents the episode as a missed opportunity to uproot homegrown fascism. In fact, the Justice Department filed its flimsy charges on politically motivated grounds—a clear threat to constitutionally protected speech and association, no matter how unsympathetic the defendants could be.

    Throughout Prequel, Maddow displays a systemically uncritical use of her source material, frequently presenting the self-gratifying hyperbole of fascist propagandists and the motivated reasoning of anti-fascist reporters as gospel.

    Whether she knows it or not, Maddow is dredging up a thesis from the past, written in the wake of World War II when passions were high and perspectives blinkered. This view does have some academic adherents, and she cites their work: Bradley W. Hart’s Hitler’s American Friends, James Q. Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model, Sarah Churchwell’s Behold, America, Steven J. Ross’s Hitler in Los Angeles, and others. But she drives her thesis beyond the confines of her evidence in a manner that these scholars do not. Hart, for example, hedges where Maddow does not, acknowledging that the “United States was not at risk of an imminent fascist takeover in the late 1930s” when he argues that there was “fertile terrain in which dictatorship might be able to take root.” Yet Maddow leaves the impression that there was a risk of an imminent fascist takeover in the 1930s, with German propaganda fertilizing that fertile terrain.

    Meanwhile, there is a sizeable body of work that challenges Maddow’s thesis and that of her source material. Such works include established scholarship such as Leo Ribuffo’s The Old Christian Right, Deborah Lipstadt’s Beyond Belief, and Bruce Kuklick’s recent Fascism Comes to America, to name a few. While these works do not downplay the pernicious ideologies of the far right nor their presence in American life, they do not sensationalize or dehistoricize them nor assign them more influence than they deserve. Lipstadt, who has devoted much of her career to combating the radical right’s penchant for Holocaust denial, dedicated an entire chapter of Beyond Belief to challenging American anxieties about a Nazi “fifth column”—the very fears that Maddow is trying to resurrect. While Nazi Germany did have spies and propagandists in the U.S., Lipstadt cautioned that “they never constituted a network with the scope and power the press attributed them.”

    In Insidious Foes, MacDonnell argues that while odious and illiberal, right-wing extremists “never posed any real danger to the republic”; instead, a media echo chamber constructed the perception of a vast and powerful far right. He also makes a good case that Germany’s propaganda effort was “spectacularly unsuccessful” and ultimately did more damage to the noninterventionist cause than it aided it. Ribuffo‘s classic The Old Christian Right (a work that Maddow mentions in her author’s note but does not cite) similarly argued that the fear of these groups was a “brown scare” that often “exaggerated both [the far right’s] power and its Axis connections.”

    How does Maddow square her findings with those of these earlier works? We do not know, because she does not tell us.

    In closing the book, Maddow invites the reader to take inspiration from the work of Americans who sought to stop homegrown fascists by “any means at hand,” assessing their legacies as worth remembering and emulating. Yet Maddow omits the pernicious legacy that followed from using “any means at hand” and violating the very norms her heroes sought to protect. They created the destructive and restrictive myth of isolationism, which held that it was an absence of American power from the world’s stage that directly led to the rise of fascism abroad. They actively colluded with a foreign power—Great Britain—to interfere in American elections and manipulate American media. And they helped stoke the panic that led to Japanese internment and spurred the growth of the domestic security state. The latter, ironically, soon boomeranged against the left.

    Those legacies are also worth remembering if we are to preserve liberty from an ever-present threat—not from enemies within our ranks or outside our walls, but within ourselves.

    Brandan P. Buck

    Source link

  • Rachel Maddow Asks Disturbing ‘Open Question’ About A Jim Jordan Speakership

    Rachel Maddow Asks Disturbing ‘Open Question’ About A Jim Jordan Speakership

    Rachel Maddow raised an alarming question about what the next presidential election might look like with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) calling the shots in the House.

    “If he does become speaker, I gotta say it feels like it becomes basically an open question as to whether a House of Representatives under Jim Jordan’s leadership would ever certify the election results of an election in which Donald Trump ran,” the MSNBC host said on Monday.

    Jordan, who actively supported Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, is the Republican conference’s nominee for the speakership. An official vote is expected on Tuesday.

    He would need 217 votes to be successful. He fell well short of that figure in an internal election on Friday and has been attempting to corral the votes he needs since.

    Jordan was among the 147 Republicans in Congress who still voted to overturn the 2020 election even after a violent siege on Jan. 6, 2021.

    He ignored subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 committee’s probe into the insurrection. He has also refused to divulge what he and Trump discussed in a 10-minute phone call on the morning of the attack, which delayed Congress’ certification of the 2020 election that Trump lost.

    Source link

  • MSNBC Is Having Its Super Bowl With Donald Trump’s Indictments

    MSNBC Is Having Its Super Bowl With Donald Trump’s Indictments

    The MSNBC panel was awaiting former president Donald Trump’s Fulton County Jail mug shot, when Rachel Maddow asked her audience to register the gravity of the moment. “I’m saying we should slow down here just for a second, because this is serious stuff for the nation, for who we are as a country,” she said last week, as MSNBC aired the photo—the first of any current or former United States president. “This is not something to take lightly. Our constitutional republic depends on the very basic concept of rule by law, not rule by man,” Maddow continued. It was fitting that Trump looked so angry in the mug shot; despite being the fourth indictment and arrest this year, it was Trump’s first. “He’s embodying…the avatar for the rage that he has traded off of to become president in the first place,” Joy Reid said.

    But not every moment was that earnest on MSNBC that night. Over the course of the segment, which followed everything from Trump’s plane landing in Atlanta to his motorcade to and from the jailhouse, the MSNBC panel—Reid, Maddow, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Nicolle Wallace—oscillated between analysis, weighty reflection, and, well, schadenfreude. O’Donnell mused, was the “strawberry” hair color listed in the booking information Trump’s own description? Maddow cast a cheeky glance to her colleagues when she read his listed height: “six-foot-three.” Then came Trump’s weight—listed as 215 pounds—sending the table into hysterics.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    MSNBC’s talking heads had been given the license to have a little fun. Even when Maddow and others were reflecting on the sheer weightiness of this newscycle—that even a former president can be held accountable under the criminal justice system—a viewer could tell: This panel was relishing every part of it. And, it seems, the viewers are relishing in it all too.

    MSNBC has emerged as the network of choice for viewers looking for coverage of Trump’s criminal charges. The timing of Trump’s arrest in Georgia—Thursday night—didn’t correspond with Maddow’s regular Monday slot, but the network brought her on anyway; it was an evening ripe for the heavy hitters, after all. The tactic seems to be working. The network has seen a bump in ratings recently, reportedly beating Fox News in prime-time ratings for a full week in early June amid coverage of Trump’s second indictment, on charges related to classified documents. The network continued to bear the fruits of Trump’s legal woes earlier this month, which has been MSNBC’s most-watched in more than two years. When Trump was indicted for the fourth time, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, MSNBC prevailed over Fox News for the top three spots in the cable lineup, Forbes reported, citing Nielson data. More viewers turned to MSNBC from 9 p.m. through 3 a.m. than Fox News and CNN combined. Maddow’s 9 p.m. program, which happened to feature a previously scheduled interview with Hillary Clinton, drew 3.9 million viewers, and was the number one show across all of television, including broadcast. MSNBC beat Fox News in prime time again the next night. “While most of the country is experiencing some level of fatigue over Trump’s legal battles, MSNBC’s viewership has increased with each subsequent indictment,” Axios’s Sara Fischer noted.

    MSNBC’s approach—and success—is in spite of the broader recalibration toward nonpartisan media that newer outlets like Semafor and The Messenger have said they see a market for. CNN, too, made an apparent attempt to overcorrect for its breathless coverage of the Trump White House. The result, largely ushered under now ex-CEO Chris Licht, has at times been over-sanitized, leaving viewers unsure of what the network is offering.

    “CNN has definitely lost a ton of audience to MSNBC,” one CNN producer tells me. “One of Chris Licht’s great legacies was basically telling the audience we built during the Trump era: You’re not welcome, we don’t work for you. I don’t know if that’s ever going to be undone, and this new lineup is certainly not a strategy to attract this audience back.” CNN is maintaining its focus on hard news, both in its latest streaming effort and newly cemented prime-time lineup. “We now have a decade of data telling us that cable news viewers don’t want news in prime time,” the producer adds. “So this completely ‘blinders on, we’re gonna double down on news in prime time and hope for the best’—it just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

    Meanwhile, MSNBC has seemingly only doubled down on being the premier news source for the Trump resistance. For two years, the network’s coverage and numbers were largely driven by Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. “In addition to breaking pieces of news related to the probe—working in tandem with journalists from NBC News—MSNBC’s anchors, and, in particular, its opinionated progressive evening hosts, turned the Russia story into a gripping daily soap opera that not only helped grow the channel’s audience, but kept it coming back for more,” my colleague Joe Pompeo wrote back in 2019. A person close to MSNBC’s strategic thinking credits the network’s ratings to more than just the recent indictments, pointing to both the network’s consistency with viewers and expanded footprint across digital, audio, and streaming. Following Trump’s departure from office, the mandate for hosts has been to keep it nice, as Semafor reported—opinion without snark or bombast.

    Now MSNBC is approaching what could be the apex in Trump political coverage: his indictments, trials, and another presidential run. The network appears particularly well-positioned to take on this story with its stable of legal analysts, including former top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, former acting US solicitor general Neal Katyal, and former US attorney Joyce Vance. It helps that NBC News has also been a central player this political cycle and appears well-sourced with both Trumpworld and Ron Desantis’s camp; NBC nabbed the first network interview with the Florida governor after he launched his campaign, and has been nabbing scoops on him as well as on the Biden administration.

    Timing, too, is on their side; MSNBC is firing on all cylinders just as its competitors face a period of instability. Fox News is still figuring out its future without Tucker Carlson and girding for more defamation suits, while CNN is rudderless, with temporary management attempting to pick up the pieces post-Licht’s tenure, as the company searches for a new CEO.

    Over at MSNBC, things are comparatively low drama. I’m told that MSNBC president Rashida Jones has an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality that has been well-received by top talent.

    Charlotte Klein

    Source link

  • Why CNN and MSNBC Didn’t Carry Trump’s Post-Arraignment Speech Live

    Why CNN and MSNBC Didn’t Carry Trump’s Post-Arraignment Speech Live

    News networks had a marathon day of coverage on Tuesday around Donald Trump’s second arraignment. After the former president surrendered to federal authorities in Miami and pleaded not guilty to dozens of alleged crimes related to his mishandling of classified documents, cameras followed him to Versailles, a Cuban restaurant, where he was greeted by a crowd of supporters singing Happy Birthday to him on the eve of his 77th trip around the sun. By that point, Jake Tapper had had enough. “The folks in the Control Room: I don’t need to see any more of that. He’s trying to turn it into a spectacle, into a campaign ad—that is enough of that. We’ve seen it already,” the CNN anchor said in the middle of his afternoon broadcast, before turning back to CNN legal analyst Elie Honig about the 37 charges that Trump was facing. Tapper wasn’t the only one using their discretion in this way, as The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona noted: 

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    As the Trump circus continued into Tuesday evening, so too did anchors’ decisive monitoring of their broadcasts. Neither CNN nor MSNBC carried Trump’s speech live from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he was holding the first fundraiser for his 2024 campaign. MSNBC anticipated that the address would be “essentially a Trump campaign speech,” just as his speech was following his first arraignment in April, Rachel Maddow explained to viewers as Trump began his public remarks. “Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live. As we have said before in these circumstances, there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things,” said Maddow. “We are here to bring you the news. It hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect in advance to be a litany of lies and false accusations—no matter who says them.” She added that “this is not a glib decision” and that MSNBC would “monitor the speech…if he says anything newsworthy, we promise we will turn that right around and bring it back to you.” On CNN, Anderson Cooper made a similar point, noting that CNN would monitor the rally for news and share anything noteworthy with viewers. Tapper said that they would not be carrying Trump’s remarks live “because frankly he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous.”

    CNN’s Oliver Darcy, in his Reliable Sources newsletter, noted that the move “notably represented a departure from how the network handled Trump’s post-New York arraignment speech. In that case, under former boss Chris Licht, CNN aired most of Trump’s remarks.” I’m told that Licht, who left the network earlier this month following a disastrous Trump town hall and brutal Atlantic profile, saw Trump’s reaction as a key part of the story to cover and had communicated as much to staff. On Tuesday, though, anchors appeared newly empowered to do otherwise. 

    Meanwhile, Fox News and Newsmax carried Trump’s speech live. A chyron on Fox claimed, “TRUMP’S REMARKS IGNORED BY OTHER NETWORKS,” and, before Trump began speaking, Fox News Tonight host Brian Kilmeade referred to Trump as the “president of the United States.” Later, airing footage of President Joe Biden speaking at the White House side-by-side Trump speaking at Bedminster, a Fox News chyron read: “WANNABE DICTATOR SPEAKS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER HAVING HIS POLITICAL RIVAL ARRESTED.”

    Charlotte Klein

    Source link

  • Rachel Maddow Spots Trump’s Most ‘Personally Embarrassing’ Part Of Indictment

    Rachel Maddow Spots Trump’s Most ‘Personally Embarrassing’ Part Of Indictment

    The former president, she noted, had warned that his arrest would lead to “the biggest protest we have ever had” and predicted that the people of the country wouldn’t stand for it.

    “There’s no shame in not having people protest your arrest and indictment,” she said. “Except when you have begged people to, and told people to, and in fact promised publicly that people would.”

    That, she said, is “personally embarrassing” for Trump.

    Fellow MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell said that’s bad news for Trump ― and the former president is now painfully aware of the fact that the crowds aren’t coming on his command anymore.

    “Trump knows better than any of us: They’re not coming,” he said, then referred to the potential scene of a next possible indictment: “They wont come to Georgia. They’re not coming. That stuff is completely over… he doesn’t have that anymore.”

    See more of the MSNBC panel discussion below:

    Source link

  • Media narrative of US election: Bad news for Trump, GOP

    Media narrative of US election: Bad news for Trump, GOP

    NEW YORK — Americans awoke Wednesday to Election Day outcomes that remained nearly as murky as the night before: “House, Senate control still hangs in the balance,” a CNN caption blared.

    Yet if the results of midterm elections hadn’t solidified, the media narrative clearly had. Good night for Democrats. Bad night for Republicans. Bad night, especially, for Donald Trump.

    This quick analysis took shape despite the very real possibility that Republicans would wind up wresting control of one or both houses of Congress from the Democrats. From the coverage’s perspective, Republicans had failed to meet expectations.

    “Republicans wildly underperformed, and heads should roll,” conservative commentator Ben Shapiro tweeted.

    The Washington Post’s website headlined, “Congress Hangs in the Balance as Democrats Defy Expectations.”

    The New York Times headlined, “Control of Congress Hinges on Closely Fought Races.” Yet further headlines on the newspaper’s site said there were no signs of a red wave that Republicans expected, and the lead analysis story was about why an expected GOP rout fell short.

    The Times’ closely watched “Needle,” which barely budged much of Tuesday night, predicted Wednesday afternoon that the Democrats had a 66 percent chance of controlling the Senate, and the Republicans an 83 percent chance of winning the House.

    Trump, who opted not to announce a 2024 candidacy the night before the election, faced a particularly rough media assessment.

    A Washington Post analysis explained, “why the 2022 election was such a disaster for Trump.”

    The New York Post, overlooking the governor’s race in its home state, put Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Trump rival on its cover, standing before a huge American flag. “DeFuture,” was the headline.

    Fox News’ website ran a steady stream of stories with damaging headlines: “Trump-endorsed Vance doesn’t mention former president in victory speech.” “Republican Brad Raffensperger, reviled by Trump, wins again in Georgia.” And “Conservatives point finger at Trump after GOP’s underwhelming elections results.”

    “This ended up being a referendum on crazy,” said MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch on Wednesday.

    Armed with statistics and projections on election night, television networks were wary of drawing conclusions about the closely divided nation’s political future. The night’s first big story, DeSantis’ big win, was favorable for Republicans.

    But as Tuesday night slipped into Wednesday morning, the story of what was not happening for the GOP became the main talking point.

    “Republicans will have some soul searching to do here,” said Fox News Channel’s Dana Perino.

    Kellyanne Conway, the former Trump aide who was a commentator on Fox, grew impatient at one point with on-set discussions about Republicans not performing up to expectations or hopes.

    “It’s enough,” she said. “We’ll take it.”

    Television networks made an extra effort on Tuesday to have personnel on hand to deal with threats to democracy, such as election deniers or attempts to prevent voting. Instead, there wasn’t much for them to do.

    Through it all, news organizations stressed transparency, and how counting election results had become more difficult because of increased early voting and different state rules in how the vote was counted.

    “This is more complicated than it was 10 years ago,” CNN’s John King said, “because people are voting in different ways.”

    ———

    David Bauder is AP’s media writer. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    Source link