Why Are NBC Anchors Throwing a Tantrum Over Ronna McDaniel?
They should keep in mind that Jen Psaki exists.

NBC News has hired recently departed Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Ronna McDaniel as an on-air contributor, and many of her new colleagues are fleeing for their safe spaces.
Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press, appeared on his old show with host Kristen Welker over the weekend and savaged the network for hiring McDaniel after all of the "gaslighting" that occurred at the RNC during her reign. He went on to suggest that the network had put Welker—who had just interviewed McDaniel—in a horrible position.
Quite a moment on Meet the Press this morning. pic.twitter.com/1RKvAq7mj2
— Mike Hixenbaugh (@Mike_Hixenbaugh) March 24, 2024
Todd was not alone: Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were similarly outraged.
Morning Joe hosts attack their employer, @NBCNews, for hiring @RonnaMcDaniel: "We weren't asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it." pic.twitter.com/llifVrosY4
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 25, 2024
That's quite a lot of hand-wringing over a cable channel hiring a former politico to provide opinion commentary—a turn of events that is not remotely unprecedented.
Indeed, Todd's suggestion that his bosses might have transgressed journalistic norms by hiring and interviewing a political operative with potentially mixed loyalties is pretty rich considering, well, the existence of Jen Psaki. Psaki, of course, is the anchor of her own show on MSNBC, despite formerly serving as White House press secretary for President Joe Biden. There was not some massive time gap between these two positions—on the contrary, she negotiated her move to cable while still working within the administration.
Psaki was a paid CNN contributor before working for Biden, and prior to that, she was part of the Obama administration. It's almost as if there's a revolving door between working in politics and being paid by the media to talk about politics, and liberal journalists did not particularly find this controversial until about 5 seconds ago. Indeed, Scarborough is himself a former Republican member of Congress. Nicolle Wallace, a former communications director for President George W. Bush, also has an MSNBC show. (The network has a type, and that type is ex-Republican-turned-anti-Trump zealot.)
Then there's Symone Sanders, who jumped from the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign to CNN and then joined the Biden campaign in 2020, became a spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris, and finally ended up with her own show at…MSNBC. To be clear, this practice of hiring former Washington insiders to provide commentary is standard practice within cable news; it is not remotely confined to MSNBC. Donna Brazile, who has previously served as acting chair of the Democratic National Committee, has been a paid contributor on CNN, ABC, and Fox News. Fox also employs Dana Perino, a former Bush White House spokesperson. And of course, ABC News famously hired George Stephanopoulos, a former communications director in the Bill Clinton White House, to serve as a correspondent and political analyst even though he had no previous journalism experience whatsoever.
The selective outrage over McDaniel is thus pretty rich.
What's really going on here is that mainstream media figures dislike McDaniel because of the work she did on Donald Trump's behalf. But unlike the network's cadre of Trump-hating Republican commentators, McDaniel is actually in a position to educate viewers about Trump's appeal to a significant share of the electorate. If they don't like what she's saying, other on-air personalities can challenge her. That is the whole point of cable news commentary, right?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>> McDaniel is actually in a position to educate viewers about Trump's appeal to a significant share of the electorate.
have her contribute here.
As if the commentariat doesn’t spend enough energy trying to educate people about Trump’s appeal. Oh wait. They just attack anyone who Trump doesn’t appeal to, reinforcing the view that his followers are a bunch of intolerant cunts. Maybe you’re right.
Remember folks, sarc totally isn’t biased at all, he’s just a victim of circumstance.
No I'm not. There is only one victim. There has only been one victim. There will only be one victim. His picture is in the dictionary next to the word victim. Cry about him more. Go ahead. Let it all out.
Poor sarc. Hates the competition.
Yes, pour Sarc.
Talking in the third person?
"His picture is in the dictionary next to the word victim."
Now I can finally see if Sarcasmic sports the glorious mullet I always imagined he does.
Such a victim. Need to up your depression meds buddy.
Go support the state going against him again while claiming you aren't.
His persecution delusions explain a lot about his alcoholism and complete lack of accountability.
Maybe Rico Suave could give her hairstyling tips too.
🙂
😉
Nobody is in a position to educate MSNBC viewers about the reality of support for trump.
To paraphrase Epictitus, nobody can lean something which they think they already know. Both the air staff and viewership of that channel are already certain that they know exactly why the "depolorables" support "Cheeto Mussolini", and since none of them would deign to go anywhere near a "flyover state" and most would at least hesitate to have a conversation with anyone other than a proper-thinking "progressive" (thoughtcrime being contagious and all that), they're not about to risk ending up in a situation to be confronted with information contradicting the things they've already decided are the "truth" about millions of people who they've never met (and hope to never have to).
Because the primary animating force of the left (and the right, but currently we're talking about the left) is rage. If they don't have something to be angry about, even for an instant, people might forget how "important" they are.
So true.
The "IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION" bumper sticker isn't just for Priuses anymore.
No one ever loved you did they?
All his imaginary coworkers who tell him how great his jokes and Reason posts are adore him.
And those fictional ‘cool dudes’ who rented the ‘HALF million dollar lake house’ that were actually a product of a three day long bender where he was actually passed out in a pool of his own vomit and soaked/caked with his own bodily excretions.
Sarcasmic is Bojack Horseman, except he was never famous?
All his imaginary coworkers who tell him how great his jokes and Reason posts are adore him.
sarcasmic has invisible friends
"sarcasmic
September.28.2021 at 7:08 pm
But please keep projecting. My lurker friends get a good laugh out of it.
No one loves him now either. Except when he bottoms for the pedophile who also posts here
"No one ever loved you did they?"
Sarkles was a child of divorce and shuffled between parents.
https://reason.com/2021/09/08/my-generation-inherited-the-aftermath-of-9-11/#comment-9090595
try putting one on a pickup truck and not ending up on a FBI watchlist, if not FISA surveillance.
No shit
More projection. Go see who is "angry" online. Check out twitter on what the actual nazis and nuts are saying and which side they are aligned with.
Explain this:
https://twitterfiles.substack.com/
I'd say the left is more purely motivated by anger and resentment, but there's plenty of anger from the right these days too. Perhaps more justified in some cases but it's there and it's something both parties use to keep the base riled up.
What I see as particularly bad from the left these days (particularly the media left) is this habit of apparently taking for granted that half of the political mainstream in the country is somehow beyond the pale. The election, the political and cultural direction of the country, etc. should all be matters for public debate, but it's taken for granted that any question about elections is a big insurrectiony lie and that any concern about culture and demographics is totally just irrational racism.
It’s kind of fun when I hate both sides of a conflict. I hope they tear each other apart and it creates total chaos at NBC. All while costing them tens of millions of dollars.
I’ll be popping the popcorn for this one.
No clue who this lady is, but couldn't you guys have found a more unflattering picture of her? If you're going to do such a childish thing, you may as well go all the way.
Pop her name into Google images. That actually is a flattering picture. Unless you want one showing off the rolls of fat on her arms, her extra chins when she looks down, or gesturing with hands that look like one of Deadpool's limbs growing back.
Only sarc, with his Atlas like physique, can say things like this about women.
I unmuted you in the vain hope that you thought that comment was funny, because it is.
As always I overestimated you and am disappointed. Just like your dad. Back on mute you go.
It’s a miracle you didn’t get your own comedy special. They apparently give those out like candy now.
Narrator: sarc never muted him.
POST THE MUTED LIST!
So Sarc, are you a bloated drunk, or a desiccated scrawny drunk?
It wasn’t funny, but you are largely correct. Ronna McDaniel isn’t attractive, nor is she photogenic.
IIRC, Fox hired Donna Brazille, the former DNC chair, the one who gave Hillary debate questions. Was Chuck outraged?
thats because as a democrat she is a moderate centrist….
as opposed to any R) who are automatically labelled by the press as far-right insurrectionist
As is anyone who blasphemes against democrat hegemony.
Your memory is off a bit. Brazille was working for CNN while she was also head of the DNC, and gave the questions for a Dem Primary debate (hosted on CNN) to Hillary but not to Bernie or anyone else.
accidental advantage given, within the normal parameters
She was hired by Fox later.
If they don't like what she's saying, other on-air personalities can challenge her. That is the whole point of cable news commentary, right?
It's 2024 and you still believe the news? The point of news is to spin narrative and influence people.
the give-and-take of spirited debate between two well-informed and mostly-fair-minded proponents of diverse mainstreams political views is a thing of the distant past now, if it ever existed. I guess it existed as an ideal once, news networks used to try. Now they are afraid of giving the other side "a platform". They have a mission to promulgate their own biased views, not to help uninformed viewers weigh the pros and cons on various issues.
influence people
Pressing X to doubt on that one. No one has ever watched MSNBC and been converted to the cause. This is a church that doesn't even have pews, just a priest facing the choir.
Some people can't handle the truth.
and some wouldn't recognize it if it walked up to them and shook their hand, or went sailing over their head.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover partisan attacks within the mass media!
Yes, the DNC-Democratic Administrations and government agencies-major media-industrial complex is largely comprised of whiny, bitchy cunts, who freely move from one division to the other, and would not know objective reason if it grabbed them by the cooch. Joe Scarborough included.
Yes, the DNC-Democratic Administrations and government agencies-major media-industrial complex is largely comprised of whiny, bitchy cunts
Is that you, James Carville?
Edit: to be clear, he's not wrong.
It’s not her support of Trump or her work with the RNC that should worry people. They should be worried about the church she chooses to attend, give 10% of her income to, and what that church uses that money for.
As a devout atheist I say is fuck off. Church charity is more American than apple pie. Go suck a dick. No, a bag of dicks. I might go to church this Easter and give them money just because of this stupid comment of yours. No. I won't. But I'll think about it.
I’m all for Christian charity. My problem is with her specific church’s lack of transparency and history of lies and abuse.
Too bad for you.
"I’m all for Christian charity. My problem is with her specific church’s lack of transparency and history of lies and abuse."
Leave the Vatican out of this, lying pile of shit.
So? Don’t go to that church.
""church’s lack of transparency and history of lies and abuse.""
Pretty much all religion.
Being one of the biggest charities on the planet?
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/03/22/lds-church-upped-its-charitable/
They have been more generous since the public has become aware of the amount of wealth and land they have. That’s good and should be acknowledged. Even if it’s only for PR in my opinion.
They have over 250 Billion dollars in assets. They own more land in the US than China or Bill Gates. They are probably the most valuable land owner in the US. Nothing wrong with that except how secretive they are about it.
Much of their charity is building and maintaining meeting houses and temples. Much of that is volunteer hours that they attach a dollar amount to. I don’t consider that charitable. Temples are only used for ceremonies and endowments and stuff like that. They require giving the Church 10% of your income to attend. To me that just sounds like a convoluted way of running a for profit enterprise.
It’s only a small fraction of their charity, but their giving machines are another trick they use to brag about how charitable they are. They basically acts as a middleman between donors and charities and then include the donation in their charitable numbers. The only money they spend is on operational costs.
There’s a reason the SEC fined them 5 million dollars for all their shell companies. They claimed they did it because they didn’t want people to know how much assets they had in fear that people would stop tithing.
They have every right to be as secretive as they want about their finances. However, if they are as charitable and honest as they claim why do they have to be so secretive. The majority of major churches are transparent about their finances.
They have been more generous with humanitarian aid in the past few years and they do deserve credit for that.
I’m sure you have the same amount if disdain for private university land grants and such.
Look at how much land the feds claim to own. But let’s focus on a church. That’s what’s important.
And they've been generous for decades.
What are “private university land grants?” Are you referring to Land grant colleges?
We can focus on a tax exempt church amassing land, money, power, and influence while at the same time focusing on deregulating and privatizing excess public lands.
They have been more charitable since the SEC fine. Your article even says it increased last year. There are plenty of other churches that are just as if not more charitable, transparent, and without all the baggage of bigotry, abuse, and anti-American activities.
Same tax deductible land youre complaining about above dumdum.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/04/business/harvard-owns-roughly-one-third-allston-now-it-needs-win-over-residents/
Land Grant College has a specific meaning. That’s why I asked you to clarify. Maybe if you read actual books instead of just watching YouTube you would know that.
Maybe, if you fucked off and died, your family would once again be happy, asshole.
Yes. Given land to be sold off including private universities.
However, some land-grant colleges are private, including Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Tuskegee University.[5]
Who is personally being enriched at the church? A lot of scumbag church leaders like Olsteen or Copeland are personally enriching themselves. Many of this church's leaders have pretty been pretty successful, like the current president who was a prominent heart surgeon.
There is much to condemn the LDS over and I as an Atheist am a big fan of Ex-LDS Alyssa Grenfell on YouTube.
But every problem of the LDS can be solved by Separation of Religion and State wherever the Church has sway in politics and/or by everyone in the LDS walking out and staying home to watch South Park Jesus and His Super-Duper Friends.
No problem of the LDS justifies murder, so Fuck Off, Psycho!
Yes. We should remove voting rights from everyone who goes to church. Nobody who is religious should be near government. Atheist governments are the best. Ask communists.
What insanity.
Communist dictators didn't do their evil in the name of there being no god. Can you imagine trying to motivate people to go die in Afganistan for the lack of a god? That's just silly. "Comrades of the Soviet State! Those Allah fearing Afganis are worshiping their god and doing all manner of religious things. We shall march our armies and destroy them to tear down their idols and mosques and force them to accept no god!"
Communist dictators used nationalism and educational brainwashing with the Marxist Dialectic to inspire their people to go die to spread communism and liberate their fellow workers and peasants held in the tyranny of capitalist oppressors. So what if Stalin, who was raised to be a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church, didn't believe in a God. It's not what motivated him.
Hell, Pol Pot killed anyone who could READ. Killed people who wore glasses because he figured they were readers. Killed doctors and other educated people. So much for pushing an athiest agenda, he probably killed all the atheists they had in Cambodia leaving him all the ignorant peasants who historically are the big fans of religions.
Depending on how you rank Hitler and Mousolini on your atheist/communist scale they were huge fans of the Catholic Church and gave them all sorts of special privileges.
What about Japan? They were an empire the likes of which communists want to remake nations and they followed their God Emperor. No athiests there.
I know it's hard for you to understand people who don't belive in your god. Think of it this way, I don't believe in Allah and think the followers of Allah are fucking nuts. I suspect you feel much the same. In don't believe in Zeus, Jupiter, Vishnu, Kalli, Zarathustra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Cthulu. Again, I suspect you feel the same.
I go one step further and don't believe in the God you believe in. So to me you sound like some guy in India trying to convince me I need more Vishnu in my life and I can't be a good person without the love.of Vishnu. That's it. No real big deal.
I will bet we lead similar lives. I look both ways before crossing the street. I'll bet you dont expect your god to stop traffic for you to safely cross the street. I obey the various traffic signs and signals when driving. I expect you don't prey your way down the road never stopping or looking because you figure your god will keep the roads clear for you. If I hear gunshots I head for cover, I expect you don't assume your god will save you from the flying bullets so you do the same.
The big difference is I stay home on Sundays.
You do realize that authoritarian regimes push atheism to remove family and church to form a dedication to the state, no?
There is a reason communism is intrinsically tied to atheism.
Marxists detest competition.
And it's all freely given, and protected by the First Amendment from the prying hands of government.
So what's your take on the Vatican?
Weird old male virgins in dresses telling sane people how to live their lives?
When I ran a consumer residential mortgage office, I had mostly Mormon employees for about 18 months. They were good employees. So much so that I voluntarily toned down my non teetotaler behavior and was careful about my language because I didn’t want to make them uncomfortable. It was largely a positive experience.
I also spoke with most of them at length about the specifics of the church. They are not ‘required’ to tithe. Although it is strongly encouraged. And on balance, I would say that LDS was a strong positive influence on their lives.
I say all of this as an agnostic. I have no stake in LDS or any other religious entity.
I just want to say I find it hilarious how the LDS has turned into crypto judaism in the minds of some extremely addled people. You are so butt blasted about their wealth (real or imagined) and can only imagine that charity exists as a PR stunt.
Mormons are fuckin' weird, but hatred based on envy is just gross. That way lies communism.
Do you know of why you never go fishing with just one Mormon?
If you don't bring two of them the one will drink all your beer.
Yeah, the Mor-mons are gonna take over the world!
Seriously, you sound like ma idiot.
We're talking about NBC anchors here:
Throwing tantrums is the only thing they're good at.
Well, they are pretty stupid.
They are incapable of self awareness. They look like screaming toddlers to everyone except the mindless bleating sheep.
Exactly GQP are awful, awful humans
GQP? Wouldn't that just be the Log Cabin-ers?
🙂
😉
Naah. Shit-pile commenter.
Why, you looking to have a log deposited through the back door of your cabin?
It's mostly because unironically advocated overthrow of the government and supported insurrectionists, I'm sure you'll find this is the primary complaint against her, although there are many others.
She denounced j6 and even pardoning them in her first interview retard.
Meanwhile the left is protesting violently non stop, harassing judges in their homes, shooting up congressional baseball fields, burning down cities...
JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer should be FORGIVEN for spewing hatred out of its tinfoil hate-hat.... 'Cause, twatabout Hitler and Shitler?!?!?!
Butt, whatabout that them thar whatabouts? Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout OJ Simpson?
How many brain cells does it take to run a socio-political simulation on the following:
Judge and Jury: “Murderer, we find you guilty of murder! 20 years in the hoosegow for YOU! Now OFF with ye!”
Murderer: “But OJ Simpson got off for murder, why not me? We’re all equal, and need to be treated likewise-equal!”
Judge and Jury: “Oh, yes, sure, we forgot about that! You’re free to go! Have a good life, and try not to murder too many MORE people, please! Goodbye!”
Now WHERE does this line of thinking and acting lead to? Think REALLY-REALLY HARD now, please! What ABOUT OJ Simpson, now? Can we make progress towards peace & justice in this fashion?
(Ass for me, I think we should have PUT THE SQUEEZE on OJ!)
"Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press"
I bet he has no partisan political history.
How dare you!
Because Progressives, while being basically evil themselves, project that onto anyone who worked for the Republican Party at any time in any context, and believe that former or current Republicans should be banned from public life.
And because Progressives, while being basically incapable of understanding how the world works, think that an analyst who knows nothing about the opposition party is a better source of analysis of that party than someone who was part of it at some point.
former or current Republicans should be banned from public life.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere"
Doesn't MSNBC still employ Al Sharpton?
Yes, yes they do.
"They should keep in mind that Jen Psaki exists."
That's (D)ifferent!
She has that MSNBC show ‘Deep Inside Jen Psaki’.
Looks like Joel Osteen in drag
Is that a new show for small children?
She defended Trump through January 6th, and has lied for him, following his lead like a trained dog for years. She even changed her name because Romney was in it, which is the only reason she got the job in the first place. There is no way you can trust anything she says, whether it's for NBC or RNC or Walmart Greeter. If you're going to cut Trump's speeches because they are misinformation, which every major network had to do in 2020 while he was telling us inject ourselves with bleach, why hire someone who is just as trustable?
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shit-pile. Your head is already there asking for company.
What lies?
Maybe if they hadn't cut the speeches idiots like you would know he never remotely suggested that people should inject bleach. No one should trust anything these people say about Trump.
Todd's wife, Kristian, is a an operative for Democratic candidates and progressive causes. All while he was hosting Meet the Press.
Todd had previously worked for (D) campaigns and issues. His predecessor, Tim Russert, was also a dem operative. All these clowns should be tarred and feathered.
I prefer executed by firing squad. Or we could get creative, and burn them at the stake.
RINO McDaniel will fit right in with Joe and his leftist buddies. Remember, Scarborough used to claim he was a Republican. They will continue to focus on belittling Trump, just like their sugar daddy tells them to.
NBC no longer has a journalistic reputation. It is staffed by ex-White House, intelligence agency, military and congressional figures who are keen to keep pulling the political weight of their contacts on the "inside".
Neocons like to pretend that they are on a holy mission to save the world. Just as in the McCarthy Era, they will start demanding that the MAGA McDaniels renounce anything and everything associated with Trump. The tears will flow. At some point, they may even have to find a gender-related offense that explains McDaniels' sudden need for a place of refuge. And then all will be forgiven as NBC returns to the safe and stable paradise of group-think.
^ This
And it's not just NBC.
The difference is that Joe McCarthy was almost 100% correct. Current day network ‘news’ agencies like NBC are proof of that.
If they don't like what she's saying, other on-air personalities can challenge her. That is the whole point of cable news commentary, right?
No, like any other business, the point is to make money. In the cable new business, that means you pick an audience and start confirming biases. This gets you more viewers with the same biases, which makes your advertising spots more valuable. Anything that might disrupt the echo chamber is anathema to that business model.
Bingo. I would want to see this verified, but I saw someone claim that TV news in the 50s and 60s and into the 70s was not expected to be a profitable part of the network’s programming. (It was a guy that has many videos on YouTube that seem to be well researched and even handed. Ryan Chapman, I think is his name.) That Walter Cronkite era was a time when commentary was a few minutes at the end of the time slot. Now, news channels are commentary the majority of the time, especially during prime time.
It just seems that the profit motive has killed journalistic ethics and their sense of responsibility to the public to tell them what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear.
""Now, news channels are commentary the majority of the time,""
Yep, I've been saying it for years now. The 24 news station killed news as it shifted to opt ed to fill time. There is about enough news for 20 minutes.
In the early days of CNN, they mainly used to just run the same "Headline News" features over and over every 30 minutes, with slight changes as events took place. Desert Storm started the shift to the 24-hour news cycle, and the founding of MSNBC and then FOX in 1996 sealed it.
News has never been the business. The business is *advertizing*. News was just one of the ways to get people to buy the paper or turn on the television and view the ads.
One can engage in whataboutism if one wants to. They can talk about how common it is for politicians and political spokespeople to bounce back and forth between political commentary on media outlets and working for parties or office holders. They can do this as an appeal to hypocrisy as a way to defend Ronna McDaniel being hired by NBC. Or, they could discuss whether it is appropriate, in principle, for a hard news outlet to have commentators and contributors that were partisan operatives. And they could discuss whether it is valuable for the audience to hear her commentary specifically.
In the NBC interview, supposedly arranged before her deal was announced, McDaniel said this:
When you’re the RNC chair, you - you kind of take one for the team, right? Now I get to be a little bit more myself.”
That sounds like an admission that she said and did things as RNC chair that she didn’t believe or didn’t believe was correct, but it advanced the GOP cause (that is, the Trump cause). I think it might be worth having her on NBC now just so she can keep saying obviously true things like this. Republican voters should hear more often directly from the mouths of Republican politicians and mouthpieces that they are no more honest than anyone else and say what will get them the most votes from voters that don’t show any skepticism towards their side.
News has always been largely partisan. Better just to accept that and view it through that lens rather than assuming that the ones who share your bias are purveyors of truth.
"But unlike the network's cadre of Trump-hating Republican commentators, McDaniel is actually in a position to educate viewers about Trump's appeal to a significant share of the electorate. "
Yes, that is why they are having a collective freak out. MSNBC, hell the MSM as a whole, is now all in on "white rural MAGA folks are a terrorist threat to the country and democracy". They cant have someone who might give even the slightest suggestion that these are actual people with real frustrations, grievances, and good reason to not want more govt as the solution to every problem.
No, it's far easier to import more DNC commentators who will toe the party line, inflate the blue bubble to greater proportions, and ensure the only view allowed to be seen on their 'balanced' programming is that democrats are reasonable, benevolent, fact/science based educated people, while republicans are backwards, evil, uneducated bigots who are destroying the world as we know it.
Yes, that is why they are having a collective freak out. MSNBC, hell the MSM as a whole, is now all in on “white rural MAGA folks are a terrorist threat to the country and democracy”. They cant have someone who might give even the slightest suggestion that these are actual people with real frustrations, grievances, and good reason to not want more govt as the solution to every problem.
They understand that, the main issue is that they either believe those complaints are unjustified, or they're frustrated that their political ideology is being resisted, which they consider to be "right-wing extremism" based on the resistance alone. "Reasonable conservatives" don't get involved in politics and let the left win as long as they get their tax cuts in exchange.
Weird that there was no issue at these networks with:
Jen Psaki
Simone Sanders
George Stephanopolous
Nicole Wallace
Joe Scarborough
Michael Steele
Donna Brazile
Claire McCaskill
...im sure im actually missing a bunch. Really giving up the game here. If it forwards the DNC either directly or through controlled opposition its all gravy, but if its someone that doesn't toe the line for the dems and neocons, then grab the fainting couches, *journalism* as we know it is under attack
Robert Reich.
I don't spot a Trump supporter on your list.
You do understand that's the literal, explicit objection? Not that she's "partisan." But that she didn't condemn Orange Hitler as head of the RNC.
None of the people you list fail that test.
Reason.com gets a LOT of bashing in these comments. But this is an outstanding article and one case where they get it right - pointing out blatant hypocrisy in the media.
The correct answer to the title's question is that ALL NBC anchors are left wing Trump hating propagandists (and have been since Trump was first elected).
>"Why Are NBC Anchors Throwing a Tantrum Over Ronna McDaniel?
They should keep in mind that Jen Psaki exists.
Because that's (D)ifferent.
I am saddened by the resolute refusal to call this stuff what it is - doublethink.
People literally have two different sets of principles - one for their side and one for opponents - and they also have the ability to deny even to themselves that this is true.
Its all about power and they'll mentally shut out anything that would prevent them from more power.
>"McDaniel is actually in a position to educate viewers about Trump's appeal to a significant share of the electorate
This is a stupid take.
McDaniel was not hired in order to do any such thing. She was hired because she's a RINO neo-con who hates Trump and actively worked to sink him along with all the others. That's why she was forced out of party leadership.
She's going to be there to badmouth Trump 'as a conservative' and push the idea that the Republicans should acede to every Democrat demand like they normally were doing during the McCain years.
She's not going to be there.
It's just (D)ifferent.
Conspiracy theory:
This is all a set up.
She took the job expecting to be abused and eventually fired.
But the widespread publicity and social media firestorm will underline the democrat propaganda machine.
What I haven't decided yet is if she will file a lawsuit over the firing to keep the expose going a few months longer.
Well, she has been fired, so there's that.
And the tantrum throwers win.
NBC is dropping Ronna due to outcry.
I real,y hope it ends badly for all those scumbag leftists.
The writer has a pretty basic misunderstanding of the beliefs of those on the Left. Their view is that those on the Right should never be given any opportunity to express their views or present their positions to the public.
^This
And they think they are pro-democracy.
The walls of the echo chamber must not be breached.