Tuesday Talk*: Right, Wrong and Ronna

Her excuse was that as head of the Republican National Committee, it was her job to be a good team player and take one for the team.

After conceding that the insurrection of January 6th was “not acceptable,” there was no rigged election and Biden won “fair and square,” Ronna Romney McDaniel says she now gets to be herself and say what she believes. Does she get a free pass for the lies she intentionally spewed “for the team”? A lot of people at NBC and its lefty cousin, MSNBC, oppose her hire as an on-air commentator (at $300,000 per year). Are they wrong?

“I want to associate myself with all my colleagues, both at MSNBC and NBC News, who have voiced loud and principled objections to our company putting on the payroll someone who hasn’t just attacked us as journalists, but someone who is part of an ongoing project to get rid of our system of government,” she said. “Someone who still is trying to convince Americans that this election stuff, it doesn’t really work.”

Ms. Maddow then implored company executives to reverse their decision.

“Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call,” she said. “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong.”

If you’re all too happy to lie for your job, then you are a liar. There is no “take one for the team” justification for lying, just as there is no reason to believe that McDaniel will be any less inclined to lie for the sake of keeping her new paycheck and pleasing her new masters. That’s the problem with being a liar.

But then, it’s not as if staffing their shows with flagrantly biased ex-pols and losing defamation defendants troubled them before.

You weren’t upset by Jen Psaki’s rapid transition from White House press sec to commentator to host of her own show on MSNBC. You were and are fine with Al Sharpton.

The problem is that these pseudo-news shows were all the rage after Trump’s election, going from hard left to the hourly recap of Trump’s latest idiocy. As the trend is shifting away from the progressive extreme to a more fair and balanced presentation of issues, NBC wants to position itself with pundits to appeal to a broader audience that doesn’t hate Trump as much as Joy Reid.

The firestorm over Ms. McDaniel, who recently stepped down from the Republican National Committee at the urging of former President Donald J. Trump, underscores the challenges facing news organizations as they try to integrate voices that are supportive of Mr. Trump into their election-year coverage, at a moment of intense partisanship and tribalism among voters and viewers.

On Monday’s “Morning Joe,” Ms. Brzezinski told viewers, “To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage.” But she said Ms. McDaniel’s actions surrounding the 2020 election disqualified her from such a position.

Are there any credible conservative voices that aren’t anti-Trump, that weren’t complicit in pushing lies and false conspiracies on an unwitting public and who are still worthy of being taken seriously? Was Ronna wrong to back up Trump, even if she lacked the enthusiasm Trump and his die-hard supporters wanted, knowing that it was completely false? Can she sell her integrity to the job and then expect to be embraced as an honest broker later?

If not, and for those of us for whom integrity matters, rehabilitating liars is not an option, what about the others who were similarly biased, or worse, but whose position on the payroll was neither questioned nor doubted. I mean, Rev. Al, for crying out loud. Tawana, anyone? Just because he lost a few thousand pounds and cut off his pompadour does not make him erudite, knowledgeable or illuminating.

Should Ronna McDaniel be accepted as a legitimate conservative voice, or is she perpetually tainted by her lies for Trump? And if we’re going to challenge integrity, what about those on the left who got a pass because they’re priors aligned better with the existing talent? Is it time to vet the anchor corps for all, or is this just entertainment anyway, not to be taken seriously by anyone?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.

15 thoughts on “Tuesday Talk*: Right, Wrong and Ronna

  1. James

    The News exists to sell products and/or ideas. Informing the public is an occasional side effect. Anyone who has been on the other side of an issue can see how it is done. Ronna seems to have exactly the right level of integrity required for the Job.

    1. BlueThing

      Indeed.

      Maddow riding the pursuit of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory for ratings is a particular lowlight of her career and MSNBC.

      As far as I can tell, the difference between Fox and MSNBC is their political valence, and I respect MSNBC on air talent about as much as I respect Fox’s.

    2. phv3773

      Is there any difference, in the marketplace, between being wrong and being deliberately untruthful?

  2. Jeff Davidson

    I suspect that Jen Psaki never declared journalists the enemies of the state, carried water for the violence of J6, or declared that any election her candidate lost was rigged by racial minorities (i.e. blacks who are so incompetent as to make DEI the scapegoat for every bad thing that happens but so wily that they can manipulate a national election and leave no cognizable evidence.)

  3. Virginia Burke

    Snarkiness about the hosts at MSNBC doesn’t create a valid enough whaddaboutism to validate the hiring of Ronna. The objection to her is not because she’s a Republican, they have plenty of those at MSNBC, it is about the fact that she doesn’t come with a “perspective” she comes with a game plan. She’s a shape shifter and is unequivocally unrepentant about her heavy hand in supporting Trump’s efforts to destroy democratic norms and poison people’s trust in elections. Her position is that she thinks its okay to lie, if the whole team is lying. What possible use can she be to the network besides bringing sensationalism – something the other hosts, to their credit, object to.

  4. Pedantic Grammar Police

    Are there any credible voices anywhere in the MSM? Is there anyone did not faithfully read every lie that appeared on the teleprompter? Is there anyone who did not mindlessly repeat every conspiracy theory dreamed up by the establishment, from the Magic Bullet and the Gulf of Tonkin to Saddam Hussein’s 9/11 participation to Covid and the Russia hoax? There are not. Mitt Romney’s niece is a swamp creature exactly like all of the other MSM talking heads. They are teleprompter readers, and that is all that they are. The only difference is the flavor of lies that they regurgitate.

  5. Elpey P.

    There are approved lies and there are evil lies. We’ve long ago established the normality of lying (and of “poisoning trust” and of advocating end runs around “democracy”) in our national discourse and institutions, and are now well into the phase of normalizing the chronic amnesia about it.

  6. Mike P.

    She’s gone, thanks to the author of this blog who obviously has more pull than we give him credit for…

  7. Mark Dwyer

    There are and can be no differences among these reporters. Each of them equally is Goebbels.

  8. Nigel Declan

    The winner in this will end up being Ms. McDaniel, who likely left with a sizeable severance in exchange for a week’s work while NBC and its hosts look like gormless buffoons.

  9. Charlie O

    There are plenty of conservatives speaking on MSNBC. Liz Cheney (with whom disagree on most policies) has been on. The former head of the RNC (Steele) has a show. The problem with non anti-Trump conservatives is they all sound like cult members. They are heads are so buried in the sand (or possibly elsewhere) that they have no grip on reality. The stupid cr@p I’m already seeing these people put out about the Key Bridge down the road from me is a perfect example. You know, sometimes bad stuff and accidents just happen.

Comments are closed.