Ronna McDaniel OUT at NBC News

[Continential]

It is hilarious how she is hated by virtually everyone regardless of ideology.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It is hilarious how she is hated by virtually everyone regardless of ideology.

She's the new Meghan McCain.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

She's awful but I don't blame her; NBC should've never signed the contract to begin with.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1772708877470957849

She had every right to pursue legal action.

It may be too late for most people in most states, but let this be a lesson every time a Republican politician says "America is too litigious.'

There is no bigger user of lawyers and lawsuits in the U.S than corporations and nobody should believe Republican lies about the supposed evils of tort law.

If the first thing a Republican does is turn to the law when they've been wronged, nobody should have their right to sue taken away from them and nobody should feel guilty for accessing legal representation.

[SteveRogers]

I understand where the sentiments are coming from. Still, there is going to be a fundamental incongruence between the concept of a national news network, and an extended effort to cancel 45% of the country.

Sorry but this is a bad faith argument and you know it. There is a vast difference between hiring someone who is simply a Republican and hiring someone who is an election denier and was quite literally a part of the scheme to try and steal the last election. No honest news organization would hire someone with those credentials. This very clearly is not about ideology and again, trying to make it out to be purely that is just disingenuous.

You win some, you lose some. Donald Trump has won the 2024 Republican nomination. Choosing to only represent anti-Trump Republicans is either opting not to represent one side of the political spectrum on your network, or to mislead your audience into believing something else*.

I actually don't have a problem with the former if networks are upfront about it. If NBC wants to be clear they will be a Democratic outlet as long as Donald Trump dominates the Republican party that is fine. What irritates me about MSNBC is the insistence on platforming astroturfed "Republicans" who represent nobody but a grift on resistance wine moms.

NBC is justified in not employing Ronna or anyone else but they should be upfront and acknowledge what that decision means, instead of treating it like a fringe view.

So if a lie becomes popular enough, a news network should report the lie instead of the news?

[GeorgiaModerate]

I understand where the sentiments are coming from. Still, there is going to be a fundamental incongruence between the concept of a national news network, and an extended effort to cancel 45% of the country.

Sorry but this is a bad faith argument and you know it. There is a vast difference between hiring someone who is simply a Republican and hiring someone who is an election denier and was quite literally a part of the scheme to try and steal the last election. No honest news organization would hire someone with those credentials. This very clearly is not about ideology and again, trying to make it out to be purely that is just disingenuous.

You win some, you lose some. Donald Trump has won the 2024 Republican nomination. Choosing to only represent anti-Trump Republicans is either opting not to represent one side of the political spectrum on your network, or to mislead your audience into believing something else*.

I actually don't have a problem with the former if networks are upfront about it. If NBC wants to be clear they will be a Democratic outlet as long as Donald Trump dominates the Republican party that is fine. What irritates me about MSNBC is the insistence on platforming astroturfed "Republicans" who represent nobody but a grift on resistance wine moms.

NBC is justified in not employing Ronna or anyone else but they should be upfront and acknowledge what that decision means, instead of treating it like a fringe view.

So if a lie becomes popular enough, a news network should report the lie instead of the news?

The best statement of responsible journalism I've ever seen is this: if you (the reporter) are writing a story about the weather, and you interview two people - one who says it's sunny and the other who says it's raining - your job is not to print both statements and give them equal weight.  Your job is to look out the damn window and report which one is right.

[emailking]

I was glad MSNBC said she would not be appearing on there. Also glad I think almost every host on an opinion program spoke out about it and the parent network did the right thing in the end. You don't carry water for Trump's lies for years and then get to be treated normally when need a paycheck.

[Dan the Roman]

I understand where the sentiments are coming from. Still, there is going to be a fundamental incongruence between the concept of a national news network, and an extended effort to cancel 45% of the country.

Sorry but this is a bad faith argument and you know it. There is a vast difference between hiring someone who is simply a Republican and hiring someone who is an election denier and was quite literally a part of the scheme to try and steal the last election. No honest news organization would hire someone with those credentials. This very clearly is not about ideology and again, trying to make it out to be purely that is just disingenuous.

You win some, you lose some. Donald Trump has won the 2024 Republican nomination. Choosing to only represent anti-Trump Republicans is either opting not to represent one side of the political spectrum on your network, or to mislead your audience into believing something else*.

I actually don't have a problem with the former if networks are upfront about it. If NBC wants to be clear they will be a Democratic outlet as long as Donald Trump dominates the Republican party that is fine. What irritates me about MSNBC is the insistence on platforming astroturfed "Republicans" who represent nobody but a grift on resistance wine moms.

NBC is justified in not employing Ronna or anyone else but they should be upfront and acknowledge what that decision means, instead of treating it like a fringe view.

So if a lie becomes popular enough, a news network should report the lie instead of the news?

The best statement of responsible journalism I've ever seen is this: if you (the reporter) are writing a story about the weather, and you interview two people - one who says it's sunny and the other who says it's raining - your job is not to print both statements and give them equal weight.  Your job is to look out the damn window and report which one is right.

This applies to news.  The problem MSNBC is not news. It's a series of talk shows with panels.

The rise of this format has arguably been a disaster for discourse but pretending that Al Sharpton is there to report the news is absurd.

At the point at which your show is a format where pundits exist to provide insights into the opinions of groups you probably should honestly represent the opinions of one of the parties. Then if you want have others or even your host rebut/fact check them.

If you were running a news show in 1932 Germany you would not want to report anything Goebbels said as fact. If you were putting together a panel of seven Reichstag members excluding anyone from the largest party in the country would raise serious questions. Especially if you were excluding both the Communists and the Nazis as together they were a majority. I mean it might be ethical and if it had been done five years earlier accomplished something, but by that point you are instead creating a bubble where people tall to themselves while the world burns.

So it comes down to this.

Is this a news program designed to convey information?

Is it a political discussion show with a panel that goes over current events?

The former is diminished by letting people on solely on the basis of popularity. In the latter case, a political force existing in large enough numbers makes it a relevent topic of discussion.

[Young Conservative]

This just feeds GOP perceptions of media bias and helps Trump frankly.

PS. I haven't visited the forum in a few years, wonder if anyone remembers me. I'm less "young" now. Lol.

[Badger]

I understand where the sentiments are coming from. Still, there is going to be a fundamental incongruence between the concept of a national news network, and an extended effort to cancel 45% of the country.

Sorry but this is a bad faith argument and you know it. There is a vast difference between hiring someone who is simply a Republican and hiring someone who is an election denier and was quite literally a part of the scheme to try and steal the last election. No honest news organization would hire someone with those credentials. This very clearly is not about ideology and again, trying to make it out to be purely that is just disingenuous.

You win some, you lose some. Donald Trump has won the 2024 Republican nomination. Choosing to only represent anti-Trump Republicans is either opting not to represent one side of the political spectrum on your network, or to mislead your audience into believing something else*.

I actually don't have a problem with the former if networks are upfront about it. If NBC wants to be clear they will be a Democratic outlet as long as Donald Trump dominates the Republican party that is fine. What irritates me about MSNBC is the insistence on platforming astroturfed "Republicans" who represent nobody but a grift on resistance wine moms.

NBC is justified in not employing Ronna or anyone else but they should be upfront and acknowledge what that decision means, instead of treating it like a fringe view.

So if a lie becomes popular enough, a news network should report the lie instead of the news?

The best statement of responsible journalism I've ever seen is this: if you (the reporter) are writing a story about the weather, and you interview two people - one who says it's sunny and the other who says it's raining - your job is not to print both statements and give them equal weight.  Your job is to look out the damn window and report which one is right.

. 110% this. Instead of doing so they will merely call the incident a so-called controversy

[dead0man]

I just want a Republican on MS/NBC who considers practically all active Republicans domestic terrorists that should be in Gitmo.

I see what you did there.

[Yoda]

Common sense and correct move, but they need to do a self examination and figure out why they thought this horrendous hire was a good move in the first place. Hiring someone to be a contributor, who is supposedly there to inform people of the facts, who has a history of lying about the results of elections was utterly moronic to put it lightly.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Ronna should familiarize herself with the old saying, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

[Beet]

MSNBC is a partisan Democrat network who thinks they own the 'sacred airwaves', and it can only be used by people in their little club of like minded fellow travelers. They hire 'Republicans' to maintain an extremely thin facade. Everyone knows this already, this episode is just an amusing farce where they tripped over themselves and misjudged how thin it was supposed to be.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Ronna wasn't fired because she is a Republican. She was fired because she peddled election lies and conspiracies and actively worked to overturn our free and fair election. Those people should be marginalized, not given a national platform. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

[Agafin]

It's kinda funny that MSNBC tried to pretend it was a fair and balanced source of news though. It's not really much different from Fox News, just in the opposite direction. The NYT (for print media) and CNN (on tv) are much closer to what I'd consider as fair and balanced which has ironically made them hated by both sides (moreso in the case of CNN).

edit: Well there's also stuff like the AP and reuters which are obviously unbiased but I'm not really sure they count.

[emailking]

MSNBC is a partisan Democrat network who thinks they own the 'sacred airwaves', and it can only be used by people in their little club of like minded fellow travelers. They hire 'Republicans' to maintain an extremely thin facade. Everyone knows this already, this episode is just an amusing farce where they tripped over themselves and misjudged how thin it was supposed to be.

They own their own programming! Anyway, MSNBC didn't hire or fire her.

[emailking]

It's kinda funny that MSNBC tried to pretend it was a fair and balanced source of news though. It's not really much different from Fox News, just in the opposite direction. The NYT (for print media) and CNN (on tv) are much closer to what I'd consider as fair and balanced which has ironically made them hated by both sides (moreso in the case of CNN).

MSNBC didn't hire her and in fact said she would not be appearing on the network.

[Mechavada]

This just feeds GOP perceptions of media bias and helps Trump frankly.

PS. I haven't visited the forum in a few years, wonder if anyone remembers me. I'm less "young" now. Lol.

What's up dude?

[Agafin]

Ronna wasn't fired because she is a Republican. She was fired because she peddled election lies and conspiracies and actively worked to overturn our free and fair election. Those people should be marginalized, not given a national platform. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

There's a critical point at which it becomes impossible to marginalize some opinions no matter how much you try as there's simply too many people who hold it. At that point, it's much better to try and confront those who hold it. As an example, France succesfully managed to marginalize the far-right National Rally/Front back in the 2000s when it was still confined to about 15% national support. But as that support rose to over double that amount by the mid 2010s, it became impossible to do so as there where just way too many french people who agreed with them. Like it or hate it, Trump has mainstreamed election denialism.

[wbrocks67]

Ronna wasn't fired because she is a Republican. She was fired because she peddled election lies and conspiracies and actively worked to overturn our free and fair election. Those people should be marginalized, not given a national platform. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

Because certain people enjoy being disingenuous.

[Agafin]

It's kinda funny that MSNBC tried to pretend it was a fair and balanced source of news though. It's not really much different from Fox News, just in the opposite direction. The NYT (for print media) and CNN (on tv) are much closer to what I'd consider as fair and balanced which has ironically made them hated by both sides (moreso in the case of CNN).

MSNBC didn't hire her and in fact said she would not be appearing on the network.

Huh, so what's this thread about then?

[Mechavada]

MSNBC is a partisan Democrat network who thinks they own the 'sacred airwaves', and it can only be used by people in their little club of like minded fellow travelers. They hire 'Republicans' to maintain an extremely thin facade. Everyone knows this already, this episode is just an amusing farce where they tripped over themselves and misjudged how thin it was supposed to be.

"The longer we travel the closer we end up in the same circle."
What times to be living in.

Yeah, I mean this whole scenario in my opinion is emblematic of a larger problem with MSNBC if anything.  I see several posters on here saying they "tell the news" and are about "fact finding" but everytime I watch MSNBC for a few minutes it seems more like overly trite and vomitous propaganda for a certain subset of establishment PUMA types who are committed to denying the great evils of the system they defend without question.  This isn't an exoneration of McDaniel, far from it actually, but I imagine a big reason why all these MSNBC personalities have reacted in such a butthurt manner is they fear the competition for ill informed conspiracy theories and other non-sense that distracts people from what is actually going on.  Like you know, how you need to sell an arm and a leg in this country to be able to afford a house.

[Mechavada]

Ronna wasn't fired because she is a Republican. She was fired because she peddled election lies and conspiracies and actively worked to overturn our free and fair election. Those people should be marginalized, not given a national platform. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

How is that different from like everyone else who works at MSNBC?

[emailking]

It's kinda funny that MSNBC tried to pretend it was a fair and balanced source of news though. It's not really much different from Fox News, just in the opposite direction. The NYT (for print media) and CNN (on tv) are much closer to what I'd consider as fair and balanced which has ironically made them hated by both sides (moreso in the case of CNN).

MSNBC didn't hire her and in fact said she would not be appearing on the network.

Huh, so what's this thread about then?

She was hired by the parent company NBCUniversal and fired by them. They have news programs separate from MSNBC. She would have been available to appear as a paid contributor on MSNBC but the network immediately rejected that.

[John Dule]

This just feeds GOP perceptions of media bias and helps Trump frankly.

PS. I haven't visited the forum in a few years, wonder if anyone remembers me. I'm less "young" now. Lol.

A bias that is completely earned, given that he attempted to exterminate American democracy.