About That NBC News Drama …

Featuring Steve with the Big Feelings.

By , , and
104

The hiring and firing of Ronna McDaniel at NBC News brought up mixed feelings for the staffers at The Dispatch. Sarah, Jonah, Steve, and David (French!) open up about their own complicated relationships with mainstream media, the problems with hiring partisans into newsrooms, and whether McDaniel is a good avatar for any of these questions.

The Agenda:
—Roles of ideological purity in media
—The crew’s experiences at their respective news outlets
—Steve’s behind-the-scenes insight into McDaniel’s Meet the Press interview
—The changing definition of RINO
—The lack of truthfulness in news outlets
—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ballot-access dilemma

Show Notes:
—Meidas Touch article on Ronna McDaniel hiring
—Vox hit piece on Sarah Isgur following CNN exit

By , , and
Comments (104)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Rosemary Sotok

    Just curious / after reading all of the “ listen to me, I am so smart” comments on here, it was noticeable that no one commented on the the cop killer who had been arrested 26 times and still out and about with a gun…… thanks to lenient policies!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Was that a topic discussed in the podcast? If it wasn’t then take your complaint up with the producers and hosts.

      Collapse
    2. David Johnson

      It’s the guns.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    First, I want to thank whoever is responsible for putting in the short summary transcript for this in TMD. Reading that forced me to make the time to listen. I am not really a podcast guy and have been a broken record about transcripts because I know that I miss a lot.

    This was great!

    I love the open, honest discussion about the TV talking head game. I think you struck the perfect balance between giving examples and picking on any individual personality except possibly Nicolle Wallace (but she deserves it because, like Jonah said, the conservative label does not stick anymore).

    Almost every minute of the discussion sounded like it came out of my own head except:

    *** Sarah’s steelman attempt, floating that because half of the country believes in conspiracy, NBC could justify hiring someone who speaks their language. Ah, NO (or is that Naw Dawg?😁).

    *** And Jonah’s contention that once NBC made the mistake of hiring her, they should not have fired her. If you mistakenly (??) hire a known liar who has knowingly pushed a bogus conspiracy, you should be allowed, even compelled, to correct the mistake once it is pointed out (even if those howling also have other motives).

    I also appreciated the RFK Jr. discussion. He is not really worth paying attention to except for the reason you talked about: How many swing state ballots will he get on? That was exactly my question for Chris in my comment yesterday (before I heard this podcast).

    At this stage, I think it is impossible to tell who he hurts more, but if he is on the ballot in enough swing states, he really could be the deciding factor. Which would be the second sign of Armageddon after 2016. Or if I am being honest, it would probably be the twentieth sign since 2016. ☹

    Anyways, thanks for getting the band back together for this! 👏

    Collapse
  3. Rosemary Sotok

    Hey Dispatch!
    I may not stay with you because you are allowing this guy to say that Trump tried to steal the election——- , however it was patently clear to any thinking person that Biden did NOT win legitimately .!! Good grief it was soo obvious with Biden sitting in the basement and having hands full of people at his events while Trump had many hundreds . On DOES have to fight back on crooked efforts to direct the flow of votes!!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Chen

      Many of us have a hard time understanding why any 'thinking person' would vote for Trump so... I would believe it if an inanimate carbon rod were able to beat him. I would also call it a toss up between the rod and Biden. The point is: Trump is a god awful candidate and the more some people see of him, the more repellant he is.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kevin M. James

      I’m glad you’ve decided to give our friends at The Dispatch a listen. (They’ve certainly helped me stay informed and sane in these disorienting and distressing times.)

      However, if you’re expecting some sort of “we don’t allow people to say Trump tried to steal the election” rule here, you’re bound to be disappointed. Fox News more or less had such a rule…which has not only cost them $787 (and counting) in defamation claims over the lies they chose to air instead, but also played a key part in costing them the services of two of The Dispatch’s founders.

      Collapse
      1. Rosemary Sotok

        You call them “lies” but that is just your opinion. I truly believe Biden stole the election and most of my erudite, well educated friends believe the same.

        Collapse
        1. Aecrowder

          Any evidence?

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kevin M. James

          There's plenty of things you and I would surely disagree about that are a matter of opinion...but above I wrote specifically about "the lies they [Fox News] chose to air", specifically the ones about Dominion.

          To review: Dominion sued Fox for lying about them. The discovery process turned up a bunch of internal communications showing that key figures at Fox knew they were airing defamatory lies and made conscious decisions to keep doing it. For that and other reasons, Fox agreed to pay $787 million to settle the case.

          So no, my specific claim above wasn't simply opinion, but established fact.

          P.S. All of us are ignorant about some things. If some of your erudite, well-educated friends have experience in things like running campaigns, election-day operations, and election-related litigation, that would make them worth listening to. But if not...well, I'm not sure their views should be given any greater weight than, say, mine regarding plumbing or French poetry or animal husbandry.

          Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Thewalks

    I'm trying to imagine Eli Gold from "The Good Wife" as a CBS contributer. Yep, pretty easy. Maybe a Crossfire type show moderated by Shep Smith (who I miss greatly).

    Collapse
  5. Nejcik

    Having spent 15 years working full-time in newsrooms, I would be grateful if somebody could remind me of the experience Sarah had as of February 2019 that qualified her for an editorial role at CNN, overseeing coverage (i.e. not as an on-air commentator).
    Anything other than "had stuff published in law reviews and the Weekly Standard"?
    Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Evan

      Not in a newsroom, so not going to pretend to be an expert but wouldn't being a campaign director for a presidential candidate and communications director for the justice department be relevant experience? Ie she understands politics and campaigns intimately as well as how campaigns manage their interactions with the the media.Also being a Harvard educated lawyer
      doesn't hurt as far a demonstrating general competency.

      Collapse
  6. GoldenRuleLover

    I hate to break it to all of you, but you are no longer representative of the “conservative movement.” Conservative no longer means small government, low taxes, and strong foreign policy.

    Post J6, the MSM should only platform never Trump conservatives that are able and willing to discuss policy. There is zero reasons to platform MAGA spokespeople. They don’t have policies to defend and are happy to promote lies, conspiracy theories, & division. Never Trump conservatives should also be boosted because they should be the ones to pick up the pieces when MAGA implodes.

    It should go without saying that anyone who participated in the Jan 6 fake electors plot should never be able to show their face in public ever again much less on tv.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BloggerBarbie

      No, that's still what "conservative" means. It's just no longer what "Republican" means. People who say that the Republican party is conservative are just wrong.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Patterico

    Thank you Steve. Thank you David. Thank you Jonah. For recognizing that McDaniel’s hiring was inappropriate, not just because she was involved in an attempt to steal an election, but also because she pushed a giant *lie* that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.

    Sarah’s “steelmanning” position ignores that Ronna McDaniel’s position on the 2020 election is a *lie*. Let’s slightly reword Sarah’s “steelmanning” in a way that acknowledges the Big Lie to be a lie, and see how it holds up:

    “I want to steelman the other side, which is: Some large percentage of the country’s voters believe a lie about the 2020 election. And if you want to have conversations about politics, having someone who represents that lie is important. And if you want to point out that there’s no evidence for that, or that she lied, or anything else, feel free to do that, but you should be doing that on air. You should not be keeping her lies off the platform and preventing the lies from being included as part of the conversation. Because it’s not changing people’s minds to simply pretend the lie doesn’t exist.”

    Not terribly convincing, is it?

    Her “steelmanning” only works if you’re going to treat the Big Lie about the 2020 election like any other set of political opinions. “Oh yeah, I believe in a 15-week abortion ban, addressing the crisis at the border, and in pretending like the loser of the last presidential election actually won.”

    It is possible to make distinctions. Just because Sarah was treated unfairly by CNN (and she was) does not make McDaniel’s treatment unfair.

    Collapse
    1. Aecrowder

      I am glad Sarah attempted to make the argument, not because I agree with it, but because I think it's important for those of us who believe Trump tried to steal the election to consider how we can discuss with/persuade those who believe either that he won the election or that the things he did and said about the election weren't that big of a deal. I don't think Ronna being on NBC was going to lead to any significant change of opinion in MAGA world, but it seems like the way the media has dealt with this so far hasn't been doing anything aside from further solidifying each team's beliefs.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Patterico

        I appreciate your quest for the magic argument that you hope will persuade some voters to set aside their belief that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. However, the success of your quest depends upon first finding a person who a) still holds that belief and b) can be persuaded by things like arguments and logic and reason and evidence.

        I suggest to you that such a creature is mythical, like the unicorn. If someone tells me it is important to find arguments to persuade a unicorn, I will tell them it is a waste of time to worry about such arguments until and unless they first find me a unicorn.

        And anyway, even if you did find that unicorn, I don’t understand what your argument has to do with NBC hiring known liar Ronna McDaniel. If one desires to engage in an effort (in my view quixotic) to reason Trump fans out of their belief in the Big Lie, despite the fact that they did not reason themselves *into* that belief, how is this persuasion effort aided by paying a known liar to continue spreading her lies?

        Collapse
    2. Jackrabbit McQuivers

      brilliant formulation. Thank you for saying this in a far more compelling way than I would have.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      BloggerBarbie

      Exactly. Do not treat lies and conspiracy BS like they are legitimate "alternative truths." They are not. There is such a thing as reality, and news programs should only feature that. If they want to report on people who believe that Elvis is living on the moon and he really won the 1860 election, that might be an interesting human interest story. But you don't say it's a legitimate alternative view.

      Of course, the question there was whether she should have been hired in the first place. Hiring her and then firing her was the worst possible solution.

      Collapse
    4. Pohl

      Yes, liars should not . . . be hired by news organizations. Invite McDaniels as a guest if you must, but don’t give her a job. Duh.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Toog

    David's proposed test, "don't hire known liars", sounds good in principle. Actually applying it would boil down to a question of which lies matter.

    One can find examples of practically every White House press secretary being credibly accused of lying. Sometimes about important issues, and certainly on a big stage. If all of them are to be disqualified, okay. But I have a sneaking suspicion that networks, and maybe a lot of the rest of us, would apply a bunch of unspoken thresholds and qualifiers in which Psaki and Stephanopoulos wouldn't count as known liars, Sean Spicer definitely would, and Ari Fleischer probably would.

    There are certain lies most people tolerate, and even expect ("the president has full confidence in the secretary"). There are some that non-conservative media reliably reject (the election was stolen, or at least, the 2020 election was stolen). But some lies, like saying the president has the authority to forgive a half trillion in student loans unilaterally after Congress considered and rejected that very idea, are treated as normal and acceptable, and I'm not sure they should be.

    Collapse
  9. Drae4

    Just suppose that Ronna McDaniel had actually appeared on MSNBC and drew in a bigger viewing audience (Democrats wanting to see her get pulverized, MAGA loyalists wanting her to defend Trump). If Trump is great for their media ratings (and income), shouldn't that have been their bottom line with McDaniel?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tmcke

      Sorry do you watch MSNBC? The protests are real, Management fucked up. Ronna would have been an embarrassment,

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin M. James

        This is a general-audience website, not a show on premium cable. There are dozens of more appropriate words available to describe management’s error.

        Collapse
      2. Drae4

        No, I don't watch MSNBC. I'm usually disappointed by the news talk shows as they just want to get talking points for both sides out. My point was whether or not she would have been good for MSNBC's ratings, even if she was an "embarrassment."

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    NashLives

    Duverger's ghost here. You can have a multiparty (3+) democracy or first past the post, you generally can't have both. If you want three or four or five parties, that means you want to amend the constitution and convert our FPTP elections to PR. I'd be fine with this, but conservatives are generally more pro-FPTP. I'm never quite sure in these kinds of conversations if folks really want a third party, or if they want the current Republican party to be devoured by some new thing. To be clear, I'd also be fine with that - but it's a distinct outcome from a multiparty system, and you'd take different steps to get there. If you want to muck with the electoral system that's an IMO much larger can of worms.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tmcke

      By the way, is FPTP something that folks understand? At age 72 I have never heard of it. But how does our constitution make multi party democracy impossible? I don't see it. And please don't use jargon.

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        All you need to know about first past the post is that 1) you vote for a single person instead of a party or slate published by a party and 2) whoever gets the most votes win (as opposed to needing more than 50%.)

        Basically what Duverger's law says is that systems where there is proportional representation (and therefore coalition governments are formed) can sustain several parties, but systems where elections are winner-take-all cannot sustain more than two parties over time because the incentives are such that smaller factions should combine efforts rather than cannibalize each other and award victory to the largest party.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        First Past The Post (FPTP)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Rev Snow

          "First Past the Post" is a terrible and misleading name, because the trouble with the system is that there is no fixed post to get past.

          Collapse
Load More