Melissa Harris-Perry Walks Off Her MSNBC Show After Pre-emptions

[kristopher]

Source: NYT

In an unusually public flare-up, one of MSNBC’s television personalities clashed with the network on Friday in a dispute about airtime and editorial freedom and said she was refusing to host the show that bears her name this weekend.

The host, Melissa Harris-Perry, wrote in an email to co-workers this week that her show had effectively been taken away from her and that she felt “worthless” in the eyes of NBC News executives, who are restructuring MSNBC.

“Here is the reality: Our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season,” she wrote in the email, which became public on Friday. “After four years of building an audience, developing a brand and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced.”

In a phone interview, Ms. Harris-Perry confirmed she would not appear on the show this weekend. She said she had received no word about whether her show, which runs from 10 a.m. to noon on Saturdays and Sundays, had been canceled, but said she was frustrated that her time slot had faced pre-emptions for coverage of the presidential election. She said she had not appeared on the network at all “for weeks” and that she was mostly sidelined during recent election coverage in South Carolina and New Hampshire. (She was asked to return this weekend.)

In her email...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/business/media/melissa-harris-perry-walks-off-her-msnbc-show-after-pre-emptions.html

---

There has been a great deal of discussion not only on DU but nationally, about the election-related shift in programming by MSNBC. From MHP's blog post we are getting a glimpse of the confirming reality:

Some unknown decision-maker, presumably Andy Lack or Phil Griffin, has added my name to this spreadsheet, but nothing has changed in the posture of the MSNBC leadership team toward me or toward our show. Putting me on air seems to be a decision being made solely to save face because there is a growing chorus of questions from our viewers about my notable absence from MSNBC coverage. Social media has noted the dramatic change in editorial tone and racial composition of MSNBC’s on-air coverage. In addition, Dylan Byers of CNN has made repeated inquiries with MSNBC’s leadership and with me about the show and what appears to be its cancellation. I have not responded to reporters or social media inquiries. However, I am not willing to appear on air in order to quell concerns about the disappearance of our show and our voice.

https://medium.com/@JamilSmith/melissa-harris-perry-s-email-to-her-nerdland-staff-11292bdc27cb#.uqzk4xkdf

[lonestarnot]

1. Fuck MSNBC!

[Bubzer]

72. They've been slowly but surely silencing the progressive voices as time has gone by.

I wont watch them anymore. In fact, after Keith Olberman was taken off the air, my watch-time dropped substantially... then they took down Big Eddie, and I was done.

[lonestarnot]

84. Free Speech TV.

[Bubzer]

87. Yeah.... FSTV is about the best resource out there for progresive media these days.

Think I may need to make a separate post about that actually.

[lonestarnot]

88. Yep.

[uhnope]

100. Really unprofessional move by MHP. Sounds like she's losing it.

[lapfog_1]

2. i was a loyal MSNBC viewer

since the days of Keith.

Love Rachael, Lawrence, MHP, and others... tolerated tweety bird.

Chuck Todd was a waste, as was frat boy (gimme a job because you feel bad about my dad) Luke Russert.

And Morning Blow was not on my play list ever. (There is a job waiting for Mika at the Arsenal building in San Francisco).

But this election season has done it for me... I've completely stopped watching... even worse for Comcast is that I am seriously considering dropping cable altogether (MSNBC was the main reason to have it... now I just need to find a decent high speed internet alternative so I can watch HBO, Netflix, and Hulu).

[mahina]

5. Rachel is the only reason I still subscribe to cable.

115 bucks a month plus this plus that adds up, and I only pay it to be able to watch Rachel Maddow.

MHP is an excellent journalist and I'm so sorry she is being silenced.

Imagine how it feels to be a gifted journalist, silenced to allow for nonstop Trump coverage?

Nauseating, disgusting, alarming, scary and anti-democratic, MSNBC.

[left-of-center2012]

8. I used to like Rachel

Lately she seems to be too pro-Clinton and not unbiased.

[mahina]

9. She's still an outstanding journalist.

She broke and stayed on the Michigan mess. Etc.

It's none of my business who she votes for. She's given Bernie lots of airtime.

[LovingA2andMI]

38. RACHEL DID NOT "BRAKE" The MICHIGAN MESS...

Sorry to scream this but we live here in Michigan and it anger us citizen journalists across this state when it is said "Rachel Broke The Flint Water Crisis Story". NO, she did not.

There were stories going on in Michigan from the likes of Michigan Radio, Metro Times, The Motor City Mudracker, Deadline Detroit, Independent Underground News & Talk and Radio LIVE and of Course the Great Work of Journalist Curt Guyette of Michigan's ACLU that REALLY BROKE the story on a national basis.

In fact, Rachel's first in-depth story on the Flint Water Crisis came AFTER the Washington Post piece here 12/15/15:

"In Flint, Mich., there’s so much lead in children’s blood that a state of emergency is declared"

So no Rachel did not "brake" crap. She followed up on the work that many had done on-the-ground for upwards of two years. That is a fact.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Nobody did "brake". "Break" perhaps, but not "brake".

To "brake" is to slow down, to come to a stop.

To "break a story" is to crack it and expose it, to destroy whatever was hiding it and holding it back. It is akin to "breakthrough" or "break through".

Only posted because "brake" was written twice and in all-caps once.

[LovingA2andMI]

91. Who Cares...

The Point Is Rachel was not First, Second, Third or in the Top 10 of reporting this story -- originally or for nearly two years. That is a fact and deal with that!

[mahina]

98. Good heavens.

I so far haven't seen a link here showing any national broadcast coverage prior to the May 2012 link that I shared earlier.

If you have one, please post it. If you don't, you don't.

[Grown2Hate]

114. The point that's being missed...

she broke it to a NATIONAL AUDIENCE. It's true that she wasn't the first with the news, of course, but her show cared enough to bring it into the PUBLIC conscience at large, which only brought it MORE attention and clout. Hell, it brought the President to the state finally. I'm with ya, Mahina.

[mahina]

115. Thanks.

Well said.

[mahina]

44. Holy cow. I didn't say she did. I said she broke the mess, and nationally, she did.

It was my impression that the Emergency Manager law was at the root of the problem, that the Flint water decision wouldn't have been made without it.

The New York Times:
"In Flint, emergency managers not only oversaw the city — effectively seizing legal authority from the mayor and City Council — but also pressed to switch the source of the financially troubled city’s water supply to save money."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/us/anger-in-michigan-over-appointing-emergency-managers.html?_r=0

Is that so?

Here's her May 2012 show on the Michigan Emergency Manager law.

She came back to the matter repeatedly.

I hope things go better for Michigan and for you.

Broke is the past tense of break, and it is not spelled incorrectly.

Best to you.

[kristopher]

56. Seriously?

The crap the Rs have been pulling with the emergency manager law in Mi has been reported by everyone ever since they started doing it. Rachel's bias is overt to anyone with the same analytic experience and knowledge as Rachel (it's a not uncommon skill set) and her methods are extremely dishonest. As a researcher she'd be flagged for ethics violations.

I agree with LovingA2andMI about the meaning of your first post.

[LovingA2andMI]

92. Thank you!

[mahina]

93. Please show me a link to a national broadcast on the emergency manager law in Michigan that precedes

the May 2012 link that I posted above.

I'm not sure that was her first report on this story, but it will do.

You say she's biased, I'm interested to learn about it and ask you for evidence.

Will wait for both, breath bated.

[LovingA2andMI]

95. Keep Waiting....

That's not the point of this post nor is Rachel Maddow some type of Saint. This is a Michigan story and MICHIGAN Journalists and Independent Citizen Journalists broke it first. PERIOD.

Deal with that!

[mahina]

96. So odd...

Of course they did, as she has said frequently.

National. Broadcast. Media.

Good luck with all of it.

How goes the fight to repeal the emergency manager law?

What are the local news sources you like best?

We don't have much in the way of local news here at all really, but I subscribe to both of them, the Honolulu Star Advertiser and Civil Beat. Not much in the way of investigative journalism as it's such a small town. Hope that we can develop more journalists here. Mainly people from elsewhere feel free to write their truth, and then they move.

[mahina]

109. The original post is about Melisa Harris-Perry.

In case you might have missed the post below from another DUer, here's Rachel's nationally broadcast story about emergency managers from immediately following the first instance of its use.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1362234

And again, all support and thanks to local media who always break local stories first.

[monicaangela]

106. Rachel was on it before 2012 mahina

As far as emergency managers go:

[mahina]

107. Mahalo for that

[monicaangela]

110. Na'u ka hau'oli

[mahina]

111. :)

[mahina]

50. By the way

She urges people to support their local community media, however small, and invites local writers on all the time. She says that's where real investigative journalism happens.

[SoapBox]

11. I've given up on Rachel...

What a shocking disappointment, when she became one of the blatant and biased for Camp Weathervane.

I won't even turn the channel on...between shilling for Rump and Hill, it's intolerable.

[William Seger]

14. Jeez, this site becomes more like FreeRepublic every day (n/t)

[kristopher]

22. Stow the accusations of "conspiracy theory".

The OP (and their programming) confirms that MSNBC is 100% dedicated to shutting down Sanders' message. Rachel is routinely promoting arguments and storylines that would make Fox News blush.

[SusanCalvin]

24. Yep. It's a shame. nt

[William Seger]

26. I haven't missed many of Rachel's shows lately, since they're online

... but I seem to have missed the shows you're talking about.

During the 2008 primaries, I pretty much had to stop reading DU for a while. (sigh)

[kristopher]

41. I'd guess that flows from your ability, not the facts on the ground.

Lots of people think Fox News is gospel too.

[William Seger]

46. "Facts on the ground" ?

Mentioning that Rachel's shows are online was a hint. Show me some of these "facts on the ground."

[kristopher]

55. I don't argue with Fox viewers about Fox for a reason...

If you are open minded it is extremely obvious. She is about as objective as Capehart.

[William Seger]

61. Arguing with Fox viewers is fun

... and easy, if you have the "facts on the ground."

[GoneFishin]

42. I loved Rachel on radio, tried to watch her TV show a couple of times. I couldn't do it. They had

so obviously taken away her teeth that I could have been watching any milquetoast ABC talking head.

[mahina]

45. How so?

Could you share a few links to those stories? I listen to her every day and I haven't heard them.

Thanks much.

[kristopher]

59. Why not just watch her for a week with a critical eye.

[mahina]

60. So none come to mind?

[uhnope]

108. extreme hyperbole. how is it you use a term in quotes even though it hasn't been used?

you don't think this

Rachel is routinely promoting arguments and storylines that would make Fox News blush.

is extreme hyperbole?

[Nitram]

65. That's the kiss of death for a Bernie supporter.

She said something positive about Clinton. Oh my.

[kristopher]

67. Clinton ethics claim another victim.

Rachel's narration:

"Now, if you ask Democratic voters who they expect to be their nominee in November the answer is a very clear and consistent one since the beginning of this campaign. Democratic voters have expected Hillary Clinton to be the candidate who will win the nomination in the end since the very beginning of this campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show (starts just after 7 min.)

Note the dates in this chart that backdropped that statement: 1/25/16 - 2/7/16




For the record, this is what the chart to represent her claim actually looks like:



For those who will glom onto the difference between voter preference and voter forecast I have two replies:
1) Why did she truncate the timeline in her chart down to 2 weeks while discussing a timeframe of more than 1 year, and
2) She knows that the precise phrasing she used isn't a common polling question and that phrasing adds nothing to the narrative that is not found in the voter preference poll numbers. This is the part that is most damning IMO as it shows a deliberate effort as opposed to just a producer's mistake.

Rachel has been pushing the boundaries in her support for Clinton, but this is the kind of behavior she is famous for exposing. Clinton ethics claim another victim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511257526


And then there is this as noted by Hartmann. It's been an ongoing line of BS from Rachel.

I noticed this one also, but Hartmann has done a masterful job of showing the deception.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

Bernie’s 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Won’t Tell You That
Don't rely on the media to tell you what's going on.

Bernie Sanders has made voter-turnout history, getting about a third more votes than any other primary candidate in the history of New Hampshire primaries, but much of our media is reporting the opposite; that it’s no big deal what he’s accomplishing.

Rachel Maddow rolled out the latest confused bit of reporting on the evening of Friday, February 12th. Whether this ended up on the air as a Maddow-producer “brilliant idea” or was suggested by the Clinton campaign is unknown, but the entire piece was confounding.

Rachel started by saying that the rationale for Bernie’s becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernie’s mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his “political revolution” and how he’s bringing new people into politics.

Then she dropped the anvil, as she does so well.

It turns out that fewer people showed up to vote Democratic in New Hampshire and Iowa this year than they did in Obama’s 2008! If that’s the case – and it is – then how could Bernie possibly claim that he’s “energizing” “new” people? He must be running a con on us, or he’s just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobody’s really showing up.

Time to doubt both Bernie and his ideas, right?

After all, as Rachel points out, “40,000 fewer people voted in this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary than did in 2008,” she said. Adding, for emphasis, the three-word sentence: “Forty thousand less!”

“And it was the same story in Iowa last week,” Rachel continued. “Voter turnout was a record for Republicans in Iowa, but on the Democratic side it was down. Iowa voter turnout on the Democratic side was DOWN from 2008!”

Clearly Bernie’s campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His “revolution” isn’t happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernie’s claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.

However…

Rachel missed a few facts – something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1259975

[Nitram]

69. Aren't these two different polls?

NBC News/Survey Monkey vs HuffPost Pollster?

[kristopher]

70. Yes.

Read the remarks I wrote.

[Nitram]

73. I don't think you've got much of a case.

Maddow stated that a majority of Democratic voters have expected Clinton to win the nomination since the beginning of the campaign.The bottom chart that shows the whole time period bears that out, and both show that there is still a gap. But your chart shows the gap between the two started smaller and ended even smaller. The poll Maddow used shows Clinton at a much higher level of popularity at the beginning of the campaign, and a significantly larger gap between the two by the first week of February 2016.

If you're saying that Maddow is cheating or unethically supporting Clinton because she used a different poll, I'm afraid I don't follow your line of reasoning.

That said, I do get tired of the Bernie supporters' use of catch phrases like "Clinton ethics" to flog their conviction that Clinton is a She-devil who is as bad as the Republican candidates - which is totally untrue. And of course, anyone who suggests that Clinton might win is tarred by the same nasty brush. There goes Maddow, under the bus. Wasn't loyal enough to Bernie, I guess.

[kristopher]

74. She lied with the flatline chart...

... as she attempted to create the impression that Bernie wasn't closing the gap between them in support.

She lied.

[Nitram]

76. No, Maddow did not lie or misrepresent the data. Her chart shows very different results...

...for the first five weeks of 2016 than the HuffPost chart. Look at the numbers on the charts. The HuffPost chart shows them 7.7% apart at the end of January and the NBC News one shows them 44% apart. That's an enormous difference having nothing at all to do with the difference in time frame. I'm very aware that how data is shown can create false impressions and misrepresent the data, but this is not an example of that. If those results were shown for the time frame on the Huffpost chart, the gap would look just as large considering the the Huffpost chart shows Clinton lower in early 2015 than the NBC News chart does for January 1st 2016 (60% vs 70%).

[kristopher]

77. She lied.

She attempted to create the impression she was talking about the trends in the HuffPo start while showing the flatline chart. She tried to cover herself by using the obscure wording of the flatline chart; but she negated that by repeatedly referring to a timeline "since the beginning". She also enhanced the lie by pointedly making no reference at all to the much more relevant trend lines shown in the HuffPo chart.

By any reasonable standard of ethics, she lied.

[Gore1FL]

85. It shows a reduced sample that fits the story.

A large sample shows a statistical trend.

This is like when B.o.B. argued that the earth was flat because that's what it looked like to him. A larger sampling would, in fact, prove the spherical shape.

Instead of a flat line over a week, it's an incline over a longer period.

Graphs are easily used to misrepresent data,

[Cal33]

71. Maybe it's also a question of "Do as you are told, or else!" If this keeps up, MSNBC

might be losing so many viewers that it would have to fold.

[uhnope]

105. looks to me like MHP has shot herself in the foot in a bizarre and unprofessional manner. nt

[INdemo]

21. Not yet but Time Warner is trying to take over Hulu

I cut the chord to cable/dish about a year ago and haven't regretted it

[tazkcmo]

35. 20 years

And counting! Not just cable but TV. If I want to watch a movie or a particular show (Modern Family!!!) it's the internet for which I employ a local provider when possible. Currently, I'm forced to send TW 45 bucks a month due to Free Market Monopolies.

[saidsimplesimon]

28. I agree, time to cut the cable.

The constant loop of rump's latest adventures. The obvious culture of "dog eat dog" journalism coming from NBC. It's not worth my time to list all the ways NBC is destroying their brand.

The straw for me was the constant promotion of rump on morning blow.

[LeftyMom]

34. Does Joe have a job waiting too, or do you only fantasize about women you dislike doing BDSM porn?

Seriously, on what planet was that an appropriate comment?

[lapfog_1]

39. If Mika "Knew her worth" she would have walked off that show years ago

Joe is one large misogynistic asshole and constantly "shushes" Mika or talks over her.

And I guess she thinks her job is to sit there and take it over and over.

Hopefully they pay her the same as Joe... but I bet they don't.

[LeftyMom]

53. So you're going to further disrespect her?

[lapfog_1]

57. I guess so...in your opinion of course - n/t

[Dustlawyer]

3. Does she support Bernie? If so, they wouldn't want her on before Super Tuesday!

She focuses mainly on issues facing black Americans, did all of those get solved? (Sarcasm)

Another victim of heavy-handed censorship like Olberman, Schultz, Bashire, and Cenk.

[virtualobserver]

10. Melissa Harris-Perry Praises Bernie Sanders For "Genuine" Response To Black Lives Matter's Demands

not that this makes her a Bernie Sanders supporter, necessarily.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/30/melissa_harris-perry_praises_bernie_sanders_for_genuine_response_to_black_lives_matter.html

[watoos]

20. MHP supported Bernie

so did Ed Schultz, anyone but me see a connection?

One reason MHP gave for quitting was lack of editorial license, I think that translates to, they didn't like what she was saying.

Was it coincidence that msnbc pre-empted her shows during the elections/caucuses?

Don't kid yourselves, msnbc is the lead attack dog against Bernie and it couldn't have a newscaster talking up Bernie, it might catch on.

[William Seger]

68. No, the issue (at least the latest one) was that she wanted to talk about Beyonce

... INSTEAD of Bernie or Hillary or Trump or Cruz. In short, she wanted to talk about the kind of issues she's always talked about -- which need talking about and hardly anyone else is -- but MSNBC management wanted election coverage -- which is already talked to death.

[mahina]

48. I haven't really found her to be supportive of one candidate over another.

[Botany]

4. M.H.P. is one of the very best on politics in the business and MSNBC has ....

... frozen her out of the loop.

[valerief]

6. M$NBCComcast is getting ready for a Trump presidency. Or it's doing all it can for one. nt

[RKP5637]

78. MSNBC follows the money. MSNBC does not give a F who they support/promote, they're just looking

for $$$$$'s. And it sure looks like they think Trump is their new gravy train. I find them to be a deceitful outfit, especially now Comcast is steering them.

[mdbl]

7. The wonderful world of corporate media

what a drag!

[sulphurdunn]

12. I don't think the First Amendment

was written with the idea of protecting mass media controlled by a handful corporate executives.

[Triana]

13. "In the last few months, Mr. Lack has steered MSNBC away from its liberal identity"

It's intentional. They don't give a flying fuck about liberal or progressive viewers. That's what they said by doing this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/business/media/melissa-harris-perry-walks-off-her-msnbc-show-after-pre-emptions.html

I highly recommend switching to Democracy Now or FreeSpeechTV.

No liberal, Dem or progressive should be watching any corporate, mainstream media or news programs which only exist to serve the corprat bottom line, not to serve vital information to the public regarding national or world affairs.

[truebluegreen]

18. Your last paragraph, exactly. nt

[Duval]

27. That is what we view. nt

[Overseas]

29. Wish he had enhanced it instead. So sick of clips of GOP liars. I can see those everywhere.

Really sickening to see all the GOP updates and even the horse race style shallow news about Hillary vs Bernie.

Judging by votes in the last two Presidential elections, the GOP are a minority but they seem to get the majority of air time.

[madokie]

15. Thanks Kris

for bringing us this.
Hope you have a great weekend.

[kristopher]

62. How have you been?

Did you ever get that windmill operational?

[madokie]

66. Old age got in my way

pretty much all I do now is little projects around the house and forage for mushrooms.
Spend a lot of time here trying to keep from getting bored out of my gourd

[rurallib]

16. I said in a post here a couple days after Comcast bought NBC

that any and all on the left would be gone from MSNBC by August. Seems to be right on schedule.
Not sure if that includes Tweety. Often hard to figure which side he is on.

[truebluegreen]

19. Tweety was a weathervane

before weathervanes were cool.*




*cool to some, that is

[craigmatic]

17. It's not really surprising they're purging most of their black anchors because Obama is about to be

out. Sharpton is next.

[Overseas]

23. I watched the MHP Show every weekend. I hope MSNBC apologizes and brings it back.

She had great panels on a variety of topics. Issues were explored in depth.

I wish MSNBC would stake out its territory as being a venue for the full variety of Democratic voices. Not just another horse race channel competing with Fox and CNN.

I'm so tired of watching too much analysis of the regressive GOP. I really dislike pretending they make any sense for the USA at this time in our history.

[NurseJackie]

25. That's a shame. I like her.

[erlewyne]

30. I refuse to watch MSNBC. I used to.

FOX is and always has been taboo.

Ms. Harris-Perry was a favorite.

Rachel turned me off over a year ago. I really liked her.

I will now go out of my way to pick up Melissa Harris-Perry.

[Old Vet]

31. Keith Olberman ..............

And his outstanding commentaries were a must see back in the day. I would look forward to his no nonsense in your face reporting, When he left I left MSNBC.

[Corey_Baker08]

32. I've Always Thought MSNBC Was The Most Liberal Network, If They're Not Who The Hell Do I Watch?

Any Suggestions?

[kristopher]

47. Triana "highly recommend(s) switching to Democracy Now or FreeSpeechTV."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141361656#post13

I heartily concur.

[Corey_Baker08]

49. Thanks

[oldandhappy]

54. Call your cable company and ask when they run Democracy Now.

[question everything]

33. She should replace Chris Matthews (nt)

[William Seger]

58. "All In" won an Emmy last week

... the only MSNBC win.

[jalan48]

36. It's Comcast. BIG corporate media. Does anyone think they want their taxes raised?

[No Vested Interest]

37. Joy Reid is apparently the favored AA female at MSNBC at present.

Joy Reid appears regularly as a guest/pundit, and I've seen her as a fill-in host as well.
Between Melissa Harris-Perry and Joy Reid, I prefer the latter.

[Wuddles440]

43. MSNBC once offered some...

attractive programming as a counter-balance to the conservative media machine, but no more. As with all media outlets now trying to mimic the success of FoxNews, MSNBC has drank the Kool-Aid and jumped on the conservative bandwagon. The only outlet for progressives/liberals/dems is "Progress" on satellite.

[SmittynMo]

51. Never cared that much for her

Hell, you can now say that about most of MSNBC's crew nowadays. I use to only listen to Rachel and Lawrence. Even those two are getting harder and harder to listen to.

Poor MHP got her panties in a bunch and now she'll pay for her mistake. She wasn't that good anyway. I wish her well on her big mistake.

[oldandhappy]

52. MSNBC made a choice over a year ago.

They have been gradually shifting to the right. NBC has a crew of young reporters coming forward in the campaign coverage. Doubt MSNBC will work very hard to keep Melissa, sad to say. I watch less and less.

[ladjf]

63. The Establishment has spoken, again.

Meanwhile, many Democrats are attempting to firm up the control enjoyed by the Establishment.

[FairWinds]

64. I'll back MHP the same way she backed

Tavis Smiley and Cornel West.

She never even took the trouble to address the substance on their analysis . .

Oh no, they were "jealous" or "felt left out" or some lame thing . .

She was all about the personal attacks.

She was glad to do those hits for the oligarchy, but now she's all hurt when the
same thing happens to her.

I'll get behind the Big Ed, the Turk and . . . um, who was that great MSNBC afternoon progressive guy?

but Melissa, not so much.

[WishfulThinker]

75. MSNBC=DNC

It's all because of big money folks! Rachel, Chris Hays "reporting" clearly biased. Matthews has always been biased.Can't watch them any more. I ,for one, am now boycotting MSNBC. It is no longer a news outlet for progressives! Democrat all my life but no longer a member of DNC!

[yurbud]

79. and they are supposedly the lefty version of Fox News?

[Purveyor]

80. I'm certain the 8 people that actually watch MSNBC are

devasted.

[mgmaggiemg]

81. I am unsure this is about

trying to take away an editorial voice as it is to cover elections...it's like sports...it's the season...however why not just have her cover elections ...during her time slot...simple really...at least part of the time...however if msnbc has to go to local stations during that time slot to cover primaries...this is just star talent throwing a fit...that's all I like her btw....I mean she can be upset...but the elections will be over in a few months things will be back to normal

[kristopher]

82. Nope.

You can cover elections and include fair coverage of both Dems. When you exclude one Dem from all coverage other than attacks, then you're engaged in an activity other than "coverage".

[mgmaggiemg]

83. whine whine whine

have some cheese bernie people have done plenty of attacking, more attacking then explaining of candidates plan...nt

[Gore1FL]

86. What channel did the hosts do that? n/t

[Jester Messiah]

89. Guess she didn't toe the Clinton line.

Good for her!

[Leontius]

90. Keep walking.

[Dont call me Shirley]

94. Melissa joins the greats, Phil Donhue, Kieth Obeman, Cenk Uygur, Ed Schultz and anyone I missed.

[Beacool]

97. She didn't handle the situation well.

I think that she had legitimate grounds to complain, but the way she publicly blew up at the network doesn't bode well for her continued employment with them.

[rockfordfile]

99. It seems that NBC/MSNBC have a racial problem

It's a African-American woman that NBC/MSNBC is doing this to.

Considering how NBC/MSNBC are reporting the racist republican party says a lot about them.

A lot of people have noticed that Comcast has screwed up NBC/MSNBC. The NFL show was good but now it's turned to crap.

The fact they still have the pos morning show with the far right republican gives cred to the problem of the network.

[uhnope]

102. well MHP played the race card too but then tried to take it back. Bizarre.

They kicked out the Ed Show guy, too, don't forget.
Except they didn't even kick out MHP, she's decided to jump on her own. Sounds like she's not well.

[uhnope]

101. Sounds like MHP is really losing it. God, what an unpro move. Career suicide. nt

[Mike Nelson]

103. Melissa Harris-Perry should...

...have accepted MSNBC's offer. Very few people get a job on network TV. Joy Reid and Steve Kornacki lost their shows, but went on to moderate. Both Steve and Joy appear to have secured higher profile jobs despite what looked like an apparent demotion. Melissa may have erred here, she should try to reverse this decision.

[underpants]

104. Totally respect this but seriously 10-12 on Saturdays - no one is watching

[Stellar]

112. So, now MSNBC is hiring known liars from Ted Cruz, just after suspending Brian Williams for lying.

I will nor be watching MSNBC again. I don't think they have anybody left that won't lie for them, that is if they are now hiring known liars. My concern is for Rachel....you think she might be learning to lie? SMH!

[kristopher]

113. As disappointed as I am to say it, I'm afraid Rachel has taken to it...

...like a duck to water.