MSNBC reportedly drops Jon Meacham as a commentator...

[brooklynite]

...for not revealing that he wrote Joe Biden's President-Elect victory speech.

[zaj]

1. Rightly so...

[elephant hunter]

2. Hate to see him go...

... but, yeah, that's the price.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Wow

How disappointing.

He was one of my favorites. But he definitely needed to disclose that and failure to do so is, without question, a firing offense.

What was he thinking?

[Spazito]

4. How stupid...

Meacham made it crystal clear on MSNBC that he was supporting Biden before the election. Dropping him is short-sighted, imo.

[StarfishSaver]

6. There's a difference between supporting someone and working for them

And, more important, he didn't disclose it. They probably would have been fine with it if they had known. But he needed to tell them.

[Spazito]

13. If he were paid, I would agree...

I have to admit I admire and respect Meacham and his place as a historian in his commentator role is, to me, different than a political one. I think it is MSNBC's loss.

[StarfishSaver]

14. It's definitely a loss, but the problem was that he didn't tell them and they got blindsided

They had him on commenting about the speech that he wrote without any disclosure that he had anything to do with it. That's really bad.

[Spazito]

18. I didn't realize he spoke specifically about Biden's speech, that does make a difference...

very sad but he should have revealed his involvement at the time.

[JHB]

39. That's what puts it in the same category as George Will commenting on Reagan's...

...debate performance without disclosing that he had participated with Reagan's debate prep, taking the role of Carter in mock debates.

Well, maybe not same category. Will was worse by not mentioning that Reagan's people had gotten ahold of a copy of Carter's debate-prep book, so they knew what sort of arguments Carter would make.

[Spazito]

41. Oh wow, I didn't know any of this...

I'm curious, were they also working as paid contributors on cable networks at the time? If so, were they removed like Jon Meacham has been?

I don't care for George Will at all and I see him on MSNBC at times, he often seems to damn Democratic issues and does it using faint praise.

[JHB]

44. This was 1980, so the only cable network covering the election was CNN...

...which had only begun operation in June of that year. So no, not cable.

Will was a regular commentator for ABC News and was part of their post-debate analysis. It was there he lauded Reagan for performing "like a thoroughbred."

Nobody was surprised Will would say something like this; ABC hired him specifically to provide a conservative viewpoint (in reaction to criticism about "liberal bias" ). It wasn't until years later when it came out that the Reagan team used a stolen briefing book, and that Will had actively aided the campaign without disclosing his role.

[Spazito]

46. Thank you for this historical information...

it is very interesting. I was completely unaware of the Carter stolen briefing book and thought the first time that had happened was during the Gore/Bush election.

Very informative, thanks again, much appreciated!

[JHB]

48. Glad to help. That's one of DU's benefits: institutional memory.

On that note, please be aware that a lot of people garble the story and say Will was the one who stole the book. And he has used errors like that to dismiss the whole affair.

The fact is, someone on Carter's team didn't think to keep it secure and evidently left a copy lying out in one of the WH work or residence areas. Someone with WH access but not interested in seeing Carter re-elected (which could have been any number of briefers and their assistants, or even household staff) yoinked the copy and passed it on to Reagan's people. Will's part comes after all that.

[Spazito]

49. Good to have that heads up re Will's dismissal...

of his part in all of that.

As to institutional memory being a DU benefit, it is very much so to me. I learn something new just about every day I log on, your informative post being a prime example of that.

[Budi]

11. K & R

If they dropped every pundit that carried water for their preferred political side, then Chuck & Andrea & a few others shouldd go as well.

[melman]

5. No great loss

That guy is a total bore anyway.

[padah513]

19. I think it's a big loss

Hope CNN picks him up

[melman]

26. Okay

I find his droning impossibly dull. Instant channel-changer.

[BannonsLiver]

37. Yes

Not unlike a certain poster’s all consuming obsession with the Lincoln Project.

[melman]

40. I think racist Republicans are bad

and that telling the truth about them is good. I realize opinions on this may vary.

[Cha]

52. SNAP!!!!!!!

[George II]

58. Bazinga!

[Earthshine2]

53. +1 - Yes to both sentences nt

[George II]

56. I don't know why they dropped him but I agree, hope CNN picks him up. It's not like he had....

....a regular show on MSNBC or anything, he appeared maybe 2-3 times a week for short segments.

[AngryOldDem]

36. Yes it is.

This is part of the problem, seeing a historian as “boring.” We need people like him and Michael Beschloss now more than ever. We don’t know where we’re going if we don’t know where we’ve been. The past four years have put that in stark clarity.

But YMMV.

[demmiblue]

60. I agree. n/t

[USALiberal]

59. Lol, ok! Nt

[demmiblue]

7. Sad state of affairs, but understandable. n/t

[Roland99]

8. just like they dropped Olbermann, too? Yet EVERY Faux News channel on-air personality flaunts theirs

[dsc]

20. Olbermann didn't play well with others that was his downfall

[Volaris]

50. That's probably because some of those 'others' were idiots, and keith doesnt like suffering fools..

(On Edit)--he ALSO made a small political contribution to the candidate of his choice and didnt tell his employers. That was the reason GIVEN for his dismissal, as I recall it.

[dsc]

61. that was the reason

but pretty much no one on that network came to his public defense. Nor did anyone he worked with before. I think his burning bridges is what made him vulnerable to being dismissed. Joe S. did the same thing, and he is still there.

[NotAPuppet]

27. I miss Olbermann.

He’s exactly what the left needs to counter the right wing talking heads.

[George II]

57. They dropped Olbermann because he was boorish around the office and didn't get along well....

...with many of his colleagues.

That was a shame, he's the best they ever had - 100X the guy they have in his 8:00 slot now.

[dem4decades]

9. Didn't he speak at the Convention?

[cilla4progress]

10. More circular firing squad

Meacham was a commentator (acclaimed presidential historian) not an anchor. No expectation of neutrality. Hell, we know where the ANCHORS stand politically.

WTF. Unfortunate.

[StarfishSaver]

16. They said he can still come on as a guest commentator - he just won't be a paid commentator any more

[Ms. Toad]

28. There is a difference between being a commentator -

and commenting on material you wrote, without disclosing that you wrote it.

[cilla4progress]

30. I agree.

Meacham is a bit full of himself. But I do love to hear him wax on!

[Ferrets are Cool]

12. Disappointing

[Budi]

15. If this is the Speech he wrote Meacham has earned an award & a place in the Biden admin

This was outstanding

[Cha]

54. Mahalo, Budi!💙

[Tanuki]

17. He reportedly will still be welcomed as a guest on MSNBC,

though not as a paid contributor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/the-historian-jon-meacham-who-wrote-of-the-soul-of-america-has-been-working-on-bidens-speeches.html

... "The network declined to comment on Monday, but Mr. Meacham will no longer be a paid contributor going forward, according to a person familiar with the decision. That person added, however, that Mr. Meacham would be welcomed back on the airwaves as a guest.".. (more)

[Spazito]

23. That's good news...

I think it would have been MSNBC's loss if they shut him out completely.

Thanks for posting this.

[sunnybrook]

29. That also added he may be retained as a paid contributor

After the inauguration. This is a mistake on his part but not a huge gigantic one. He did not write the speech. Biden wrote the speech. He was consulted about some of the themes and it sounds like others were too. If you rate scandals from one to ten this is about a two.

[chowder66]

51. +1

[AngryOldDem]

32. Good.

Given this country’s appalling ignorance of its history, we need people like him and Michael Beschloss now more than ever.

[procon]

21. He knew better so I don't understand why he put

himself in jeopardy, possibly risking his career, and leaving no option for MSNBC but to fire him. If he had informed them, maybe he been put on an extended hiatus until after Biden was in office. It still seems likely that he would still his job, but with a "full disclosure..." caution for his work with Biden.

It was completely avoidable by my reasoning, and he has no one to blame but himself. Still, I enjoyed his commentary as a presidential historian and will miss his droll wit.

[flamingdem]

22. Good. Biden can have him full time

Excellent speech

[PubliusEnigma]

24. I'm pretty sure he'll have a job going forward.

[yardwork]

25. But Chris Christie, who prepared Trump for debates, can stay?

What a double standard.

[AngryOldDem]

33. Christie's on MSNBC?

I thought ABC News had him.

[brooklynite]

34. Chris Christie doesn't work for MSNBC...

...and is brought on as a known Republican surrogate. Just as Rahm Emmanuel is a known Democratic surrogate. The key is that this is all known in advance.

[qazplm135]

35. he revealed it

we knew. Before hand. Ethics matter, whether our side or theirs.

[AngryOldDem]

31. Wow.

Meacham should have known better.

SMDH.

But maybe he’ll join Biden’s speechwriting team?

[mcar]

38. It was a hell of a speech

so congratulations to him.

He should have disclosed that to MSNBC.

[GoCubsGo]

42. Got to wonder if Biden will be hiring him on.

If that acceptance speech is any indication of his qualifications, it might not be a bad idea.

[OnDoutside]

43. I'd be more concerned if he was asked and then denied it. This is sins of omission. In fact, he was

a paid contributor on a "Librul" channel and had spoken at the Dem National Convention. Seriously the Speech got fantastic reviews, and he didn't make a big deal of it.

[Hortensis]

45. Sorry to hear it. At this point I don't question their decision,

Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2020, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

but it's yet another reason not to watch shows sadly lacking in real informative value. I'll always listen to what Meacham says, wherever he is.

[Sorceress]

47. Sorry to hear this.

Definitely a significant mistake to not disclose it. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t. He could have given even note insight from that perspective. I appreciate that he, as a Republican, stood up for Biden and the democracy. It is so rare these days.

[George II]

55. I don't know why that was such a big deal. He's a Presidential historian, not a paid Democratic....

...operative. In fact he's not even a Democrat, apparently he has no political affiliation. As far as I know, he's never appeared on any other competing networks.

He's not hiding anything, in fact he made a brief appearance at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in August. Did NBC have a problem with that?