"MSNBC is a giant corporate propaganda operation to trick Democratic voters into voting for the most Republican candidate."

Said Cenk Uygur, "co-creator of the digital outlet the Young Turks (and a onetime MSNBC contributor and host), pointing to some "Republicans and lapsed Republicans on the channel, including" Joe Scarborough.

Quoted in "MSNBC confronts viewer frustration, changes and an identity crisis/The network’s audience has declined since the Nov. 5 election, as viewers have tuned out. Its parent company is spinning it off. What happens next?" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Still, Uygur said that MSNBC’s audience — “older Democratic viewers that decide primaries” — is an important one.... While MSNBC is not on the market, according to Comcast, Uygur recently floated a potential acquisition — not unlike Elon Musk, who also raised eyebrows by asking on his X platform how much the network might cost. “Anything is possible,” Uygur said. “If you’re looking to reform MSNBC into something that is popular, it makes sense to go to a popular online network, and see if they can do the trick.”

"The Ronna McDaniel Debacle and the Test for Talking Heads."

"I made the move from political operative to media analyst. Here’s how it can actually work."

Writes Jeff Greenfield, at Politico. Greenfield is "a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst" who moved from political operative to media analyst way back in the 1970s.

Trump is doing a live "town hall" show on CNN tonight.

Let's see how the major news media are handling this story the morning of:

The New York Times: Media correspondent Michael M. Grynbaum asks, "Should a leading presidential contender be given the opportunity to speak to voters on live television?" Wow. That suggests it could be considered unethical to give air to the horrible man.

Joy Reid, an anchor on rival MSNBC, derided the event as “a pretty open attempt by CNN to push itself to the right and make itself attractive and show its belly to MAGA.” Her colleague Chris Hayes called the town hall “very hard to defend.” Critics asked why CNN would provide a live platform to someone who defended rioters at the United States Capitol and still insists the 2020 election was rigged. Those objections intensified on Tuesday after Mr. Trump was found liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of the writer E. Jean Carroll. “Is @CNN still going to do a town hall with the sexual predator twice impeached insurrectionist?” Alexander S. Vindman, the Army colonel who was a witness in Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, wrote on Twitter.... 

Politico: The headline is "Trump world booked CNN hoping for a big audience. Now, they’re in the thick of it/The former president will fundraise off the E. Jean Carroll verdict. But he also has to get through a televised town hall where it will come up."

"So I Went On Bill Maher And This Happened..."

And here's the insane "Morning Joe" appearance from 2013 that he talks about (in which Mika Brzezinski acts like a complete idiot):

"When the Trump-era press secretaries Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany joined Fox News, liberals cried foul about a 'revolving door'..."

"... and claimed the Murdoch-owned network was an extension of the Trump White House. Those voices have said little about Ms. Psaki’s migration to MSNBC, nor that of another Biden White House alumna, Symone D. Sanders, who also hosts a weekend show on the channel. For her part, Ms. Psaki said MSNBC viewers can expect to see her authentic self — and that 'I am not going on television to be a mouthpiece.'"

From "Jen Psaki, Once the Voice of Biden, Moves to an Anchor Chair The former White House press secretary will start hosting a weekly MSNBC talk show on March 19. As for the president, “I am not going to gratuitously attack him'" (NYT).

An "elite destination"?

I'm trying to read Axios: "MSNBC will soon announce plans to move morning anchor Stephanie Ruhle to the 11 pm ET hour that Brian Williams turned into an elite destination, two sources familiar with the move tell Axios." 

Did Brian Williams ever even achieve the comeback he needed? I didn't watch closely, but I don't even understand the claim that he created an "elite destination" out of the MSNBC 11 pm time slot. 

It could mean that very few people watched. Is Axios snarky like that?

But "elite" doesn't mean just small — unless you're talking about type size. It means "exclusive, select" (OED):

1962 G. Murchie Music of Spheres ii. 24 The most elite of the elite new breeds grew powerful antigravity muscles and air gills called lungs.

1985 P. W. On & C. H. Persell in P. W. Cookson & C. H. Persell Preparing for Power i. 28 Janitors pick up the litter of the elite students and the dogs.

2014 G. Tholen Changing Nature of Graduate Labour Market ii. 45 Recruitment practices for elite graduate positions may not deliberately be unmeritocratic.

"It was a Razzie-worthy performance in my view, but I’m not the target audience for this sick show."

Writes Ja'han Jones, in "Kyle Rittenhouse’s white crocodile tears hold value in America/The man charged with homicide in the deaths of two anti-police brutality protesters put on quite the show for a nearly all-white jury this week" by  (MSNBC).

The Rittenhouse murder trial is being prosecuted in front of a nearly all-white jury, before a white judge who uses conservative lingo to describe protesters, in a country where white vigilantism is often excused, if not worshipped. In that context, Rittenhouse’s tears, real or not, have tremendous value. There’s a type of person who is vulnerable to emotional appeals from violent white men, and Rittenhouse’s attorneys only need one of 12 jurors to fit the profile to win this case.... 

From the outset, the Rittenhouse murder trial has been theater, with a cast of characters who are seemingly meant to vindicate conservatives’ violent hero worship. Rittenhouse’s waterworks were an essential part of the act, painting him as a reluctant killer instead of a boastful one. His acquittal would set a dangerous precedent, but it could be the finale we’re headed toward. 

Prepare yourself for much more of that. The media are not going to help preserve the peace if Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted (or the judge grants the motion for a mistrial with prejudice).

I watched in real time as Rittenhouse broke down and cried, and I said:

"His job, like everyone on MSNBC, was so to spread disinformation to help Dems & keep the MSNBC audience addicted to endorphins & fear."

In a separate tweet, Dr. Redlener claims he was "wrong" about this. He wasn't "wrong." That implies a good faith effort to get it right.

His job, like everyone on MSNBC, was so to spread disinformation to help Dems & keep the MSNBC audience addicted to endorphins & fear. 👇 pic.twitter.com/cZ4MrXI0ZE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 15, 2020

That screenshot of the NYT is from this article, "CNN and MSNBC Fret Over Post-Trump Future/Ratings have hit new highs, but executives and journalists at both networks are uneasy about the year ahead.

People at both networks know that viewers who abhorred President Trump may no longer need their nightly therapy sessions with Rachel Maddow or Don Lemon. And President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. seems unlikely to generate the 24/7 grist of drama and scandal that resurrected cable news, taking it from a dying medium to a focal point of modern politics. So even as CNN smashed a 40-year viewership record last month and MSNBC notched its highest ratings since its founding in 1996, journalists and executives at the networks say they are uneasy about the year ahead....

It makes you wonder why they'd stop looking for trouble and anxiety. Are they motivated to help the Democratic Party or to keep their ratings up? 

Presidential historian Jon Meacham was speechwriting for Joe Biden and (apparently) did not disclose it to MSNBC.

And MSNBC has cut him off as a paid contributor, according to Fox News. 

Meacham worked on Biden's victory speech and then appeared on MSNBC commenting on the speech. MSNBC's Brian Williams asked him, "I’m not the historian that you are, and I don’t have the Pulitzer that you do, but do you concur that is the way we are used to hearing from our presidents?" To which Meacham responded, "Absolutely."

The implication of the question — as I see it there, out of context — is that Trump didn't speak in the conventional presidential way, and Biden restores the appropriate tone for the presidency. It's pretty awful to go on TV and comment on a speech that you wrote as if you were just hearing it.

Here's the NYT article from yesterday that made the disclosure of Meacham's speechwriting role: "Helping to Shape the Words of the President-Elect: A Presidential Historian/Jon Meacham, best known for writing about past presidents like Andrew Jackson and George Bush, has helped shape some of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s most significant speeches."

In [his victory speech], Mr. Biden spoke of a mission “to rebuild the soul of America, to rebuild the backbone of this nation, the middle class, and to make America respected around the world again” and was widely credited with striking the right tone about bringing the country back together. The language echoed the title of Mr. Meacham’s 2018 book, “The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels,” which has long served as a touchstone for Mr. Biden, who has reached out to Mr. Meacham in the past to discuss passages he liked....

It's very nice for Biden to read a book about America's soul and to want to get some of that high-flown rhetoric into his speeches, but the aspiration toward loftiness is shot to hell if Meacham goes on TV to admire what he's not telling us is his own work!

"This week, it was announced that Tucker Carlson Tonight recorded the highest-rated quarter for a cable news show ever...."

"[T]he data quickly debunks the notion that the channel and its hosts are not popular with the younger, key demographics... As was the case in total viewership, Fox News led by Carlson, dwarfed the competition in the 25-54 demo.... Carlson won the valued 18-48 demographic by an equitable margin... Executives are led to believe that the two demographics are highly influenced by Twitter and other social media platforms. Carlson, the media’s biggest star, provided a brutal counterpunch to that belief. Carlson tweets once or twice a week. He sent just one tweet in the entire month of April....  His head-to-head MSNBC competitor Chris Hayes’ timeline is updated by the minute. Hayes is beloved, retweeted, and praised.... Yet... [Chris Hayes is] a lackluster 23rd overall in the younger 18-49 demo.... Carlson’s most controversial monologues over the past quarter likely represent what at least half of Americans, young and old, think. He’s made no excuse for pathetic rioters, he’s raised concerns about the dangers of Black Lives Matter being immune from judgment, and has questioned if defunding the police force would truly make us safer. Publicly, online and on opposing channels, these comments are offensive, racist, and despicable. Privately, they are interesting, subjective stances worth considering.... Alternative views are particularly a refreshment to the younger demographics, who are showered in extreme thinking online. They are just trying to get through their days without getting fired or shamed. Carlson is that opposing perspective for them in the evening."

Writes Bobby Burack (at Outkick).

"MSNBC used to run this thing: this is who we are. Well, I didn’t like who you were this week, and I don’t think a lot of people who work there liked this either..."

".... and I think this ‘cancel culture’ is a cancer on progressivism... Liberals always have to fight a two-front war. Republicans only have to fight the Democrats; Democrats have to fight the Republicans, and each other."

Said Bill Maher, quoted in "Bill Maher Goes Full Sexist, Defends Chris Matthews and Mocks His Sexual Harassment Accuser/It was a truly ugly, outrageously sexist display from the 'Real Time' host" (The Daily Beast).

According to Maher, Matthews “said some things that are kind of creepy to women,” continuing, “You know, I just, guys are married for a million years, they want to flirt for two seconds. He said to somebody, Laura Bassett, four years ago, she’s in makeup, he said, ‘Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?’ Yes, it is creepy. She said, ‘I was afraid to name him at the time out of fear of retaliation. I’m not afraid anymore.’ Thank you, Rosa Parks. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ! I guess my question is: Do you wonder how Democrats lose?"...

The Judiciary Committee is voting on the impeachment.

Are you watching?

UPDATE: There was no need to watch. You knew what would happen. Grim, elongated voting — along party lines, entirely. Of course.

We watched on MSNBC, where the voiceover intoned: "And there you have it: History has been made." Somber commentators informed us that Trump has now been "held accountable" and that he has a mark on his record that will follow him everywhere.

"TV’s impeachment drama is drawing big ratings, but a Democratic debate on MSNBC sank to a viewership low."

The NYT reports.

After five full days of hearings across two weeks, the average live TV viewership for impeachment has been roughly 12 million people, according to Nielsen. Ratings have dipped slightly from a peak on Day 1, Nov. 13, which drew an audience of 13.1 million, but the drop-off is less than what many sitcoms see after a season premiere.

And the numbers for cable news are superlative: Last week, Fox News notched its highest-rated week of the year in terms of total viewership. MSNBC enjoyed the best week in its 23-year history for total viewers....

Partisan talk shows are doing particularly well. On Fox News, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson earned close to their biggest audiences of the year, with Mr. Hannity at one point zooming past 4.4 million viewers. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow’s average viewership during impeachment has put her on track for one of her best-ever ratings months....

But the Democratic candidates' debate on Wednesday night only got "6.6 million tuning in to MSNBC." Maybe the Democrats are better off if we don't see too much of their candidates, but do the ratings for the impeachment hearings suggest that the American voters are eager to get rid of Trump? Obviously not. It's Fox News that's getting the most viewers, and I'm going to presume that choosing to watch the hearings (and analysis) on Fox means that you're hoping to see Trump exonerated. Plenty of people watched on MSNBC too, and I presume they were looking to see guilt, guilt, guilt.

"Within MSNBC, there’s an acknowledgement that the Trump-Russia narrative on which the cable network—and especially its primetime star Maddow—built monster ratings has fizzled for the moment."

"Insiders also claim not to be surprised that the conclusion of the long-awaited Mueller report—or at least the Trump-appointed attorney general's summary—was a whimper, not a bang for an outlet that has invested so much time and energy, in primetime and throughout its dayparts, in the notion that Trump is unworthy of the Oval Office and might at some point be forced to give it up. And it’s also possible that the Mueller disappointment drove loyal viewers away in much the same way that people avoid looking at their 401(k)s when the stock market is down. Maddow, who has consistently vied for the first or second top-rated cable news program, was sixth on Monday evening, down almost 500,000 total viewers from the previous Monday, as was MSNBC’s second top-rated program in primetime, The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell.... The hope now is that Trump’s conduct as president, along with the ramping up of the 2020 presidential campaign, will prove powerful storylines that will give MSNBC the opportunity to regroup.... 'This stuff ebbs and flows,' said one network insider. 'I think we’re ebbing.'"

From "MSNBC’s Trump-Russia Ratings Fizzle: ‘Time to Pivot to 2020’/The Mueller report and its potential implications have driven the network’s coverage—and monster ratings—for two years. Now it’s ended with a whimper, leaving execs in a bind" (Daily Beast).

Maddow was way down on Monday night, but I watched, and I hadn't watched Maddow in months. I wonder how many of her Monday viewers were people like me, who have not been feeding on collusion delusion and wanted to see how it looks when a collusion delusionist deflates. But one night of that was enough. It's not as funny as you might think. It's boring.

ADDED: I learned a new word there: "dayparts."

ALSO:

The MSNBC chyron says "MOUNTING PRESSURE" but this Northam constituent makes me think the pressure is lifting.

I love everything about this Virginian — right down to the coffee cup — and it's very funny afterwards how the newsman (Geoff Bennett) scrambles to maintain the "mounting pressure"...

How can the pressure be dissipating when all these faces are arrayed against Northam?



MSNBC is going on and on about this story, and I think you can really tell that what's driving them is a desperation to bolster the powerful Democrats who went all in on this?

It seems to me that if that guy with the coffee cup wants to give the Governor another chance, that's the right answer. I'm going with Coffee Cup Guy.

ADDED: He has a name — AJ Brewer. Let me transcribe what he said: "I don't like this idea of, you know, this person doesn't deserve a second chance. It seems to be, at least from my perspective, Ralph is a decent guy, and, whatever person he was 35 years ago doesn't seem to be that person today. I don't want people to treat me that way, so I'm not going to treat him that way."

ALSO: Here's an article about AJ Brewer in Richmond BizSense:

If it's true that "Trump's Talk of Caravan 'Invasion' Disappears After Midterms"....

... which is what I'm seeing on MSNBC right now, then the question is not merely why did Trump stop talking about it, but why does MSNBC want to bring it up? I think the answer to both questions is easy, and the answer to the second question is valuable even if it turns out that Trump hasn't stopped talking about the "Caravan 'Invasion.'" MSNBC wants a daily influx raw material that can be manufactured into the proposition that Trump is a racist whose power comes from racists wanting more racism. Trump's talk of the "Caravan 'Invasion'" worked as that raw material for MSNBC and now Trump's lack of talk works to the same end.

As I said 2 days ago:

It reminds me of a little game I used to play with my sons when they were adolescents called What if you had to argue? It challenged you to argue for a proposition that isn't true and doesn't even make sense. The game showed again and again — and comically — that you can state arguments for anything. I feel as though the press is playing a game of What if you had to argue? and the proposition is always The last thing Trump did is outrageous. But it's not a known and understood comical exercise. It's the only press we have.

So the proposition is Trump is a racist whose power comes from racists wanting more racism. MSNBC looks at what new material is available. When the material was that Trump was talking about the "Caravan 'Invasion,'" and MSNBC used that to argue for the proposition. But when the material is that Trump hasn't talked about the "Caravan 'Invasion'" in the last few days, MSNBC will use that material to argue for the proposition. If Trump now talks about the "Caravan 'Invasion,'" MSNBC will continue to play What if you had to argue? and the talk, like the previous silence, will show that Trump is a racist whose power comes from racists wanting more racism.

Are they going to say "time's up" suddenly in 7 minutes when the deadline hits?

ADDED, 2 minutes after the hour: No word yet.

Meade is watching MSNBC right next to me, and the people on that channel are freaking out, while nothing is happening.

ME: "Why do you watch MSNBC?"

MEADE: "Because they're the most extreme."

I'm monitoring MSNBC in the run-up to the press conference with Trump and Theresa May...

... and they cannot stop talking about the balloon. Every 10th word is "balloon." Meade keeps saying the balloon looks like Mika Mika Brzezinsk (as the balloon and Mika appear on split screen).

In case you don't know what I'm talking about:

“It’s going to swamp his Twitter feed. There’s no way he doesn’t see this,” an organizer said of the "Trump Baby." https://t.co/xhUkayWXck

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 13, 2018

ADDED: The idea is that Trump is a big baby, but they're all: "BALLOON!!!"

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said:

It is a rather cute balloon . . . it is probably going to be repurposed by Trump supporters into pro-Trump material, like that Trump chicken balloon.

That's what I thought too. For anyone who likes Trump, the balloon — if you stare at it long enough — feels pro-Trump. It's the magic of Trump. All the negative energy gets flipped into positive.

AND: I listened to the whole press conference. Great questions. Great support from Trump to Theresa May. Loved the byplay about the reporter's hat. Loved all the "fake news" shtick.

"MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics. It Encourages and Rewards Them."

Writes Glenn Greenwald:

During the 2016 primary and general election campaigns, various MSNBC hosts were openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. One of the network’s programs featured Malcolm Nance (pictured, above), whose background is quite sketchy but who is presented by the cable network (and now by NBC News) as an “intelligence expert” and former intelligence officer for the U.S. Navy.

On August 20, 2016, weekend host Joy Reid asked Nance about the supposed “affinity” for Russia harbored by Jill Stein supporters. In response, Nance told MSNBC viewers: “Jill Stein has a show on Russia Today."...

Jill Stein did not have a show on RT, nor did she ever host a show on RT. What Nance said was made up out of whole cloth – fabricated – in order to encourage MSNBC viewers to believe that Stein, one of the candidates running against Clinton, was a paid agent of the Kremlin and was an employee of RT....

To date – almost two years later – neither NBC News nor MSNBC, nor a single journalist who works for either one of those media outlets – has corrected this significant falsehood, despite obviously knowing that it was broadcast to their viewers....

Worse, not only was Nance never sanctioned in any way for the lie he told, but he was rewarded: he has since gone from “MSNBC Contributor” to “MSNBC intelligence analyst,” is far more pervasive on that network, and its hosts have spent the month aggressively promoting his new book on how Putin is destroying U.S. democracy.

"Will the 'blue wave' continue with Arizona special election?"

Yesterday, on MSNBC (video at link):

Today’s special election in Arizona’s eighth district is being watched closely to see if Democrats can continue flipping seats held by Republicans. Dr. Hiral Tipirnen, the Democratic candidate in the race, joins Katy Tur to discuss today’s election.

Answer, in yesterday's special election: NO.

Let's see how MSNBC reports the story: "Republican Debbie Lesko scores tight win in Arizona special election, NBC News projects/Lesko's lead might have kept a conservative congressional district in Republican hands — but the margin might be too close for comfort."

How tight?

Lesko held a 52.6 percent to 47.4 percent lead over Tiperneni, or 91,390 votes to 82,316 — an Republican advantage of 9,072 votes, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Arizona secretary of state's office.

Doesn't seem tight to me.

That margin may concern Republicans. President Donald Trump carried the district in the conservative Western Phoenix suburbs by 21 percentage points, and its previous occupant, Trent Franks, a Republican, ran unopposed.

The blue wave. It's there even when it's not there.