Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(47,819 posts)
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 05:09 PM Nov 28

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?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/11/27/msnbc-ratings-drop-future-spinoff-comcast/

https://archive.ph/lrdZL

Strangely enough, MSNBC was one of the winners on election night. For the first time in its 28-year history, the network brought in more total viewers than CNN, and it was the second-most-watched channel in all of traditional television during the prime-time hours of Nov. 5.

Things have gone downhill since then. In the days that followed, MSNBC began seeing a significant decline in viewership (as has CNN), as left-leaning viewers opted to turn off the channel rather than watch the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory. One of the network’s most valuable franchises, “Morning Joe,” faced backlash after hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski revealed Nov. 18 that they had traveled to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in an effort to “restart communications.” They framed the visit as a necessary nod to the reality that voters elected a man the co-hosts have decried in the past as exemplifying fascist behaviors. Some viewers felt otherwise and turned off the show in protest in the days that followed.

Forget short-term ratings drops — questions about the future of the network picked up considerably Nov. 20, when parent company Comcast announced that it would spin off MSNBC and some of its other cable channels into a separate company. Network bigwigs framed the new entity — temporarily called SpinCo — as a lean, future-oriented machine that could provide an off-ramp for the declines in traditional television viewership that have shrunk revenue for major broadcast and cable companies. Others saw it as a way to peel off the cable companies that are seen as declining assets, with a potential sale down the road.

Given all this, MSNBC employees are trying to wrap their heads around what it all means and the potential changes ahead. The fear inside the building is about whether the move could portend a less ambitious future for MSNBC — with a smaller, lower-compensated staff and a lot less journalism, considering the network will be separated from the NBC News operation that contributes much of the reporting.

snip
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MSNBC confronts viewer frustration, changes and an identity crisis (Original Post) Celerity Nov 28 OP
What reporting? Bluetus Nov 28 #1
Colin Powell died in 2021, but I get what you're saying SpankMe Nov 28 #3
Powell still has more insight than most of the empty suits on MSNBC :) Bluetus Nov 28 #4
It's a good proposal SpankMe Nov 29 #7
I take your point about rage. However, Bluetus Nov 29 #8
Nobody wants to hear their plans - Nigrum Cattus Nov 28 #2
Good start. GPV Nov 28 #5
Here's my concerns. mwooldri Nov 28 #6

Bluetus

(567 posts)
1. What reporting?
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 05:58 PM
Nov 28

Are you talking about Khaki-slacks guy?

The fear inside the building is about whether the move could portend a less ambitious future for MSNBC — with a smaller, lower-compensated staff and a lot less journalism, considering the network will be separated from the NBC News operation that contributes much of the reporting.


This really comes down to whether they want to actually represent and report on the interests of the progressive community, or if they just want to try to use progressives as a way to bank some advertising revenue. Clearly, for the past decade at least, Comcast has only been interested in the advertising. They haven't invested in ANY significant reporting. Worse than that, with occasional exceptions, they have not even supported independent investigating reporters who can provide real insights.

I really don't need to hear what the NYT or WashPo has to say about most things. Sometimes they have important stories, but mostly they have been at the forefront of sanewashing and enabling Trump. I don't need to hear from Claire McCaskill and the other empty suits/blouses that never have any meaningful insight that is connected in any way with average working Americans and families.

If I were put in charge of the spin-off business and given freedom from Comcast and other regressive corporate powers (those are very big "ifs" ) I would keep the best anchors (that's a short list: Wallace, Hayes, Velshi, maybe Ruhle, maybe O'Donnell). I'd get rid of Mrs. Greenspan like yesterday, the morning Beltway assholes, Tur and the rest. I might keep Melber, but only for a weekly show focused on legal matters if he promised to never have on Peter Navarro or anybody equally disgusting, and never again quote a rap lyric on air. Rachel could keep her weekly slot if she would select topics that are relevant to a broad base of middle class Americans.

From there, I'd concentrate on the many independent voices who are more interested in getting the honest, unvarnished truth in front of the public. There are lots of people that could be brought in for panel discussions. People like Thom Hartmann, any of the people on Sirius XM Progress, David Corn, key contributors from DU, DKos and other progressive sites, any of Marc Elias' associates, Glenn Kirchner, Olbermann ... Those are just a few names off the top of my head. There could easily be hundreds who have real insights. People contributing to Rolling Stone, Media Matters, Substack, many other publications. I'd organize regular topical panel discussions, each focusing on an issue that is important to middle class working Americans. I want real meat, not sanewashing, and not 5 hours of whining about Trump. I don't need to see stars, but if you want to sprinkle in some stars, then how about Goerge Takei, Mark Hammill, George Clooney, Cher, Dolly Parton, Springsteen, Morgan Freeman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sandra Bullock -- people well-loved by a broad swath of Americans, who have a real voice in what it means to be a decent, caring society.

And I'd make a direct pitch to people like Gates to underwrite some of these panel discussions. I'd love to see people like Gates, Buffett and other successful business people who get the big picture.

I'd try to organize periodic meetings of a "Council of Presidents," that would include all the former Presidents and VPs, plus prominent politicians like Colin Powell, Pete Butigieg, and many others to talk about where the country stands vis-a-vis other developed nations, and what we have to do to leave a better place for our grandchildren.

In short, forget about politics. Focus on issues. Get the show out of the Beltway and out into America where real people are.

SpankMe

(3,364 posts)
3. Colin Powell died in 2021, but I get what you're saying
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 08:06 PM
Nov 28

This seems like a pretty good programming concept. Could such a thing be made profitable? How could you get progressive billionaires to underwrite some of this?

Conservative rich people are funding and supporting right-wing media all over the place. Progressive rich people are focusing on clean water and vaccinating children in Africa. This is a noble cause, but this election has shown that the focus must return to home soil for a while.

A major effort by all progressives to balance out the public information space and chip away at this cesspool of disinformation should be the next priority.

Bluetus

(567 posts)
4. Powell still has more insight than most of the empty suits on MSNBC :)
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 08:21 PM
Nov 28

Sorry, I forgot that he had passed.

And to carry on a little farther. I think such programming would be interesting, and a real service to the country if they invited people from the right who were not insane, and had a civilized exchange of views. I could even stomach people like Dick Cheney and John Bolton, even Jamie Dimon, as long as there was a balance in the panel where people would be allowed to do fact-checking and challenge the fringiest ideas -- both right and left. The idea here would be to build that programming up to where it was seen as a legit discussion with the people, as opposed to the Sunday Press the Meat fare, which is all about big corporations and defense contractors pushing their agenda in a truly Beltway-only club.

If they could get this going, others would want to be included, and the network would have to hold firm with a "sane people only" sign on the door.

SpankMe

(3,364 posts)
7. It's a good proposal
Fri Nov 29, 2024, 01:40 AM
Nov 29

And, you're right that a dead guy has more credibility than MSNBC management.

Your proposal describes what PBS news shows were intended to be back in the day, and still kind of are. But since the balance and journalistic integrity you describe doesn't induce rage, it wouldn't get the viewership it needs to sustain itself much less be profitable.

Commentators on this subject have been proposing various forms of not-for-profit news, supported philanthropically, for decades. Variations on PBS/NPR and BBC news models have been envisioned, being funded by consortia of government, billionaires, paid subscriptions and existing big TV/cable media itself (ABC/Disney, CBS/Paramount, NBC/Comcast).

Some have suggested that commercial news - news as a profit center - be abandoned by the big media companies and that they instead provide it as a public service and be allowed to write off the expense, or donate a fraction of what they would have spent on news gathering and reporting to a CSPAN-like news organization that would be a high quality service like BBC or McClatchy or AP news.

Bluetus

(567 posts)
8. I take your point about rage. However,
Fri Nov 29, 2024, 09:34 AM
Nov 29

What MSNBC has been doing the past decade definitely does NOT work. If they don't make a radical change, they will disappear completely within 12 months.

Rage is one emotion. There are other emotions that move people. Rage (and outrage) does not have to be the only way to attract an audience. Look at other programming that is successful. Take comedy and sex. Those work, but probably not good for dealing with civics. Sporting events get an audience. WWE may sell outrage, but most sports programming sells suspense and amazement. The late night comics sell personalities, and that's part of what I'm talking about here. I think that can work, if it is done in a compelling format.

The tornado chasers and hurricane watchers get an audience, as do the murder investigation shows. They have the common element that they are talking about bad things that could happen to you. That, IMHO, is the key to the kind of format I'm talking about. Don't think "politics". Think "bad things that could happen to me and my family". Seriously, I am not worried about using a bathroom that a trans person has been in. I just don't care. But I care a lot about how health care is practiced. I care what happens to jobs. I care whether scam artists are sucking money out of the stock market. I care about a bunch of things that CAN affect me directly. That is what needs to be programmed.

Nigrum Cattus

(368 posts)
2. Nobody wants to hear their plans -
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 08:00 PM
Nov 28

Produce real news, don't just regurgitate other's "reports".
Remember we have all been down this road before.
No both sides
No playing softball
We won't watch anyone's pablum
Make MSNBC a separate streaming (paid) service
If you don't you will be replaced by online content, possibly from outside the U.S.

mwooldri

(10,511 posts)
6. Here's my concerns.
Thu Nov 28, 2024, 08:44 PM
Nov 28

If MSNBC and CNBC is separated from NBC News, then I agree with that MSNBC employee who thinks MSNBC may become more opinion based than it is now.

What I feel is that Comcast is not being ambitious enough with separating off cable channels. What some people forget is that Comcast is a global company. It ended up acquiring Sky TV from Murdoch. I feel the Sky Group operations in Europe could include some operations that would be good in the proposed "SpinCo", notably Sky News.

Putting the UK originated Sky News together with MSNBC and CNBC can help with a few things:

One, SpinCo can switch the X-NBC branding and substitute it with Sky News, which isn't a bad brand. Some MSNBC fans will be familiar with Sky News since during the pandemic Sky News was broadcast on MSNBC overnight.

Two, having Sky News basically take over operations at CNBC/MSNBC will settle nerves at those organizations, comforted with the knowledge that they're being run by a team that is into news in a good and impartial way - having operated in an environment where the UK equivalent of the US "Fairness Doctrine" never disappeared. Also Sky News have an established global correspondence team which will replace some resources previously provided by NBC News. Plus Sky and NBC can continue to share news resources - the British Broadcasting Corp already share with CBS, PBS and NPR, the UK's Independent Television News (known more colloquially as ITV News) share with ABC.

Three, this will give the ex MSNBC, now probably known as Sky News America, an opportunity to pivot towards more news reporting (aka "hard news&quot and investigative reporting. Yes, it would appear more like CNN in a lot of ways but it would have MSNBC's strongest assets and something it lacks - bona fide hard news chops. When natural disasters strike people turn to CNN. Not to MSNBC. If MSNBC does a decent job of reporting breaking non political news then it'll give reason for regular viewers to remain viewing. It would be a better home for the likes of Rachel Maddow who would be free to do more analysis and feature programs - more her style than opinion stuff.

Four, SpinCo will probably pivot to becoming a "content creation company" that happens to have a bunch of legacy cable channels. The talent that isn't retained by "MSNBC" aka my idea of Sky News USA can still be retained, and they create their own streaming shows. Probably collate it under a new brand. I'd dare not call it Sky News Nation (cos Fixed News Nation exists) but set up as a counter-programing to Fixed News Nation. Heck, Keith Olbermann could go there with an in-vision version of his podcast.

Well that's my idea anyway. Doubt Comcast would consider it. We'd probably end up with a rebranded MSNBC that has fewer resources than NewsNation and does rely more on opinion pieces and will probably borrow a lot of NBC News coverage during a disaster e.g. hurricane, tornado, flood, mass shooting, etc.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»MSNBC confronts viewer fr...