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.