General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNBC plans to drop Ronna McDaniel
Link to tweet
Dylan Byers
@DylanByers
·
Follow
SCOOP @PuckNews: NBC NEWS plans to drop ex RNC-chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor following on-air revolt from NBC/MSNBC talent. Execs are deliberating over details; announcement pending. Meanwhile, McDaniel is seeking legal representation.
Full details, scoops & Show more
10:10 AM · Mar 26, 2024
ProfessorGAC
(65,289 posts)But, don't want to get too far ahead.
Escurumbele
(3,407 posts)She is most probably walking away from a job she has not worked at with a nice check, and then Fox News will hire her to make sure she can be herself, or maybe like Chuck Todd said "she will say whatever the one who pays her wants her to say."
DISCLAIMER: First time I quote Chuck Todd, but one has to give credit where credit is due.
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Blue Idaho
(5,060 posts)If she insists on a contract, let her do the live 2:00 am weather in Fairbanks.
Ms. Toad
(34,117 posts)BlueKota
(1,828 posts)prior to NBC hiring her?
TigressDem
(5,125 posts)Let's flood them with a lot of documentation that the people don't want to watch someone who is an election denier and possible co-conspirator in the Jan 6 Coup attempt to act like she's for freedom of any sort unless paid to say so.
ProfessorGAC
(65,289 posts)Here's the text of my email.
I actually see the reason to hire multiple perspectives, but in this case, this hire involves someone who willfully fabricated stories (proven), was involved & actively participated in efforts to illegally usurp the will of the voters, & actively disparaged the media, including NBC, on many occasions.
My second criticism is from a business perspective. There are 2 networks (one very large, the other minor) that have locked up the right wing vote long ago. From a business perspective, hiring a known liar, radically partisan mouthpiece for a radical agenda generally disfavored by the Anerican people risks alienating existing viewers far more than getting settled viewers of right wing competitors to shift allegiance.
It's insulting for believers of good journalism & specious as a business move. It makes me seriously doubt the business acumen of those occupying the executive positions at your network.
TigressDem
(5,125 posts)Your intelligence is showing.
Not that it's a bad thing.
I like it!!
thucythucy
(8,102 posts)Republicans sure are a litigious lot.
Get involved with a GOP "personality" and sooner or later you're sure to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
intheflow
(28,509 posts)NBC didn't have to hire her. They don't have a legal leg to stand on as they are the ones breaking the contract. This is a lawsuit I support, even though I'm very happy she'd not going to be on their payroll any more, and generally think she's a truly horrible person.
thucythucy
(8,102 posts)Just goes to show though that the higher-ups at NBC should have put more thought into this hire.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2024, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)
I think there are probably a few of them in the executive ranks. They desperately want NBC to be regarded more MAGA friendly. Or at least not be seen as Trump bashers. They want a smarter magat other than the idiots like Comer Pile on their network. Someone who can actually string a few sentences together and sound intelligent when they are pissing all over Democrats.
Sky Jewels
(7,184 posts)CNN has definitely also lurched right though over the past couple years.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)nuxvomica
(12,454 posts)If there's a clause that reads: "This contract may be terminated should Chuck Todd grow a backbone," or something like that, NBC's in the clear.
Ponietz
(3,044 posts)How do you know?
intheflow
(28,509 posts)Just guessing but there was a promise of payment of some kind for regular gig and she was never given the chance to fulfill it. That appears to the courts as if NBC wasnt acting in good faith - ironic since taking her off air was acting in good faith for democracy. But here we are, life in the 21st Century, am I right?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,348 posts)jimfields33
(16,044 posts)Anybody with a brain would. A contract is a contract. NBC will hopefully do right and negotiate a pay settlement.
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,872 posts)Bring out all her dirty dealings in open court.
Also...."deliberating over details..."?? Just chuck her traitorous ass.
agingdem
(7,868 posts)NBC will settle large chunk of change on her because that payout will be far less than losing sponsor revenue and anchors in revolt...
ancianita
(36,176 posts)The fact that they didn't even know/care that she was in a federal indictment as Co-conspirator 2 doesn't work in their favor, either.
They need to eat the damages and fire the executives who hired her.
LiberalFighter
(51,197 posts)agingdem
(7,868 posts)its lesson when they hired and fired Megan "Santa Claus/Jesus were white" Kelly..they didn't learn its lesson when Kristen Welker was trashed for her MTP debut interview with Trump, allowing him to spew his vomit with no interruptions or pushback never mind a STFU....sometimes a conglomerate like NBC needs to be reminded they need us more than we need them...
ancianita
(36,176 posts)Most media are more for profit than for the nation's being properly informed.
thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)If she was federally indicted for a crime and did not reveal that to her prospective employer, that might be grounds to void a contract, if there is any kind of "morals clause" in it. Contracts can include the right to dismiss anyone whose actions may reflect badly on the employer, and a federal indictment could fall into that category.
So with luck...
ancianita
(36,176 posts)Nice meme! Too bad it's more story than real life.
ZonkerHarris
(24,273 posts)walkingman
(7,675 posts)It is a disgrace that they hired her. I like out local NBC and watch MSNBC but whoever hired her should be held accountable - she is disgusting.
PatSeg
(47,678 posts)There are plenty of conservative voices on NBC/MSNBC, but they are sane reasonable people. There was no point or purpose to hiring McDaniel. Among other things like pro-insurrection and election denial, she is also unlikable and unappealing.
Who were they trying to attract?
LiberalFighter
(51,197 posts)Now if they wanted to show how crazy they are it may be an idea. But they don't need to hire someone.
And once and awhile I've seen a host showcase a "crazy" to make a point. Personally, I don't like it and think it is exploitive, but it's not like they were hiring them as a contributor.
I'll always wonder what was going on in someone's head when they decided McDaniel was a good fit.
Ligyron
(7,640 posts)That's the only thing I can think of, but how do you write that unto a contract anyway?
"Must say bad nasty awful things about former President and reveal super secret- secrets concerning a certain political party hint hint wink wink"...
...or something like that.
PatSeg
(47,678 posts)Yeah, don't know how you'd include that in a contract. Meanwhile, how on earth do you trust someone like Ronna anyway?
Traildogbob
(8,856 posts)She is. The courts are only here for GQP representation. None of that petty justice stuff wasting their time.
Will she be sending in Fake Execs to overturn the majority vote? She will provide them lawyers, she told them on a phone call.
Mitten gotta be proud. He may ask she never take back the name trump demanded she drop, just to protect the Romney great reputation.
(Do I need sarcasm thing)
bluesbassman
(19,379 posts)That's IF NBC was stupid with the contract they gave her. If not, tough shit Ronna!
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)If so, I could use some extra cash
TheProle
(2,210 posts)But employer/employee contracts exist for a reason. If her hire came with any protections against immediate termination, then the courts should hash it out.
If that costs NBC more, they can chalk it up to paying for not doing their due diligence.
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)to keep her. Or our surrogates, like Rachel.
Ocelot II
(115,922 posts)Some executives' heads should roll for this whole debacle.
ProfessorGAC
(65,289 posts)Ignoring the lost cash for a moment, any execs who did not anticipate the blowback are too stupid to deserve those high salaries.
Now, they've shown they're paid too much for what they do AND it's going to cost the company money that's just wasted.
spooky3
(34,507 posts)I still cant understand how the executives were so completely out of touch as to have signed her in the first place. How could they not have anticipated a forceful pushback?
johnnyfins
(860 posts)They are MAGA. It's quite obvious. In this day and age, it's not really possible to be out of touch concerning the state of our country. ESPECIALLY if you work for a major news outlet. Jesus...
spooky3
(34,507 posts)People inside their organization, and many viewers, would be outraged by this. Top mgts own political preferences are irrelevant. They have to think about profits, and those are driven by on air talent and viewer interest.
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)though of course we are getting Kieth's version of things.
It seems they are about money and not the public good, and not very good at either.
Mr.Bill
(24,344 posts)should not occupy any position in a news organization.
rsdsharp
(9,219 posts)They knew what they were getting when they signed her. I cant see that she breached the contract. They dont have to put her on the air, but they do have to pay her, subject to her ability to mitigate her damages.
LiberalFighter
(51,197 posts)Have her do an interview like Tucker did with Putin.
Make her appearances at 3 in the morning.
Have her do a judging of various stinks and identify which closely matches Republicans.
rsdsharp
(9,219 posts)I also assume it contains a for cause termination clause, which I dont see as being triggered. There may also be a buy out clause.You seem to be talking about burying her appearances. I think they would be better served by cutting their losses and buying her out. The problem isnt her performance, its the objection of their on air hosts and viewers.
avebury
(10,953 posts)Beyond that I don't what case she may have.
Blue Owl
(50,532 posts)Kinda like Captain Pantload himself....
Sky Jewels
(7,184 posts)many Americans wont submit to fascism without a fight.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,828 posts)Of course.
But nor did Michael Steele involve himself in the plot to steal an election, provide cover for a coup, get involved with not certifying the 2020 election, and continue to LIE for TSF! Big difference here!
RRM did all of that and then some. The opposition to her by the MSNBC hosts were all based on her own words, actions, and facts on the matters at hand. There is plenty of video evidence to back up these claims.
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)He sounds downright liberal compared to Trumpers
IN any case, he's made it clear he want's nothing to do with the insurrection thing.
happy feet
(872 posts)FSogol
(45,562 posts)Prairie_Seagull
(3,344 posts)Saw Rachel, did not see others. This was her taking a stand for sure.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/maddow-takes-aim-at-her-own-network-for-ronna-mcdaniel-hire/ar-BB1kwSlI
bdamomma
(63,940 posts)Even Lawrence O'Donnell said "Daniels was too close to the "enemy" meaning the Orange Pus Thug.
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,872 posts)I'm a bit confused, tho, because some were so adamant that NBC and MSNBC were not the same.
thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)senseandsensibility
(17,182 posts)and said it was important to admit mistakes and change course.
Prairie_Seagull
(3,344 posts)Just think what we could do if this type of vehemence can be marshaled for...
angrychair
(8,748 posts)To Rachel's segment last night. She welds significant influence with management and peers and her public statement last night pretty much sealed the deal for McDaniel's departure.
getagrip_already
(14,907 posts)Those are typically equivalent to employee at will positions. You are a consultant. A 1099 professional.
Buhh buhh felicia.
Ocelot II
(115,922 posts)for a certain number of appearances or on-air hours, and if so there's likely to be an early termination clause that entitles her to some amount if they cut her before the contract expires.
getagrip_already
(14,907 posts)To them to just pay her out.
It not like Meghan Kelley's $69 M contract.
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)Of course it was her plus many others, but she made a powerful case and pretty hard to argue against or ignore. She literally laid down the gauntlet. Thank you Rachel.
dchill
(38,577 posts)... against NBCNews and McDaniel. But Rachel Maddow is the Captain of that ship.
MadameButterfly
(1,073 posts)Fla Dem
(23,809 posts)spooky3
(34,507 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,690 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,765 posts)Nothing a news room should be involved with.
dchill
(38,577 posts)liberalla
(9,273 posts)correct (obvious) thing in the first place.
dchill
(38,577 posts)You get consequences.
liberalla
(9,273 posts)so here we go ~
MontanaMama
(23,364 posts)IowaGuy
(778 posts)are the brain dead suits that thought it was a good idea to hire her in the first place. Those synaptically challenged ass clowns are still sitting in their executive suites.
blue neen
(12,335 posts)Excellent! You have a way with words.
Sky Jewels
(7,184 posts)than stupid. They want to be good little lap dogs for their billionaire masters.
progressoid
(50,001 posts)mysteryowl
(7,405 posts)NBC has decision makers that are a problem in the first place for hiring her.
She is planning on a legal action, well, she will just be spending a lot of money she needs to live on.
NBC is much bigger and has more lawyers!
MOMFUDSKI
(5,731 posts)One can hope.
live love laugh
(13,171 posts)NonPC
(308 posts)She'll take it to the Supreme Court if she needs to.
LiberalFighter
(51,197 posts)et tu
(928 posts)smoke and mirrors of nothing to see about defendant 45
news corps are mainly conservative, owners are business first
and we know the money class can buy just about anybody they want.
unite and vote~
Mickju
(1,807 posts)angrychair
(8,748 posts)I knew it was only a matter of time. She brings in more eyes and revenue than most of the rest of the on air talent combined.
This very likely due in no small part to her statement last night on her show.
Cha
(297,873 posts)NBachers
(17,155 posts)bagimin
(1,334 posts)and send her off to newsmax or the steve bannon show.
Marcuse
(7,538 posts)Joinfortmill
(14,486 posts)Cha
(297,873 posts)Emile
(23,043 posts)that hired her.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,510 posts)Jarqui
(10,131 posts)the person who hired her
Warpy
(111,397 posts)That happens often enough, she'll be using her legal representation to try to get out of that contract, not enforce it.
NBC should have vetted her a little better. Most recent job title certainly didn't tell them what they needed to find out about her.
She'll land on her feet. I'm sure Newsmax will hire her.
sybylla
(8,528 posts)She doesn't get to work for anyone else.
Then when she's charged with election interference, they can fire her for cause.
wolfie001
(2,280 posts).....needs to go bye bye. This is like putting a nat-zee on the Nuremburg Tribunal.
Rocknation
(44,581 posts)and the person responsible for coming up with the ludicrous idea of hiring her, and drive on. Didn't we just finish resolving a problem by eliminating the mere appearance of impropriety?
Rocknation
dlk
(11,585 posts)She wont be missed. NBC knowingly and willingly trashed its reputation as a serious news organization.
C_U_L8R
(45,027 posts)The Ronnamucci.
twodogsbarking
(9,853 posts)BlueKota
(1,828 posts)I am troubled by their statement though about continuing to wanting to hire people with varying view points. I'd be okay with that, if it were a traditional old fashioned conservative Republican.
But there isn't one Trump supporter they could find who doesn't support the big lie about the election, or over throwing the United States of America as it exists? If they want to interview some of the shit heads with a reporter who is willing forcefully humiliate them with facts, I'm fine with that. Giving the jobs as "contributers or commentators", however, gives the false impression they actually have something of truth and value to add to the conversation. If there is a Maggat capable of doing that I haven't seen one yet. The fourth estate's job isn't to please and appease all viewers, it's to report on what's actually happening, and when commenting can be of value add it, but only when it's reality based.