MSNBC producer quits over gross bias

MSNBC producer, Ariana Pekary, published a scathing resignation letter about the lack of real journalism at MSNBC, which instead concentrates on biased stories to push their narratives. Here is a short excerpt:

“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”

As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.

Not surprisingly, those who live in the news bubble on the left are unlikely to have heard the story:

Is the producer’s letter an example of speaking truth to power?

Or is it not newsworthy since it is simply stating the obvious?

1 Like

I read her resignation letter and agreed with it.

Also, because I read her resignation letter I think OP has misconstrued its message purposefully.

Unless they want to fund NPR more.

6 Likes

Her point is that MSNBC’s business model is to pander to their viewers’ preconceptions and biases. My experience is that NPR’s viewpoint is very similar to that of MSNBC even though it is supported by state and federal taxpayers.

2 Likes

Not a single thing to disagree with.

The tl;dr is:

Donald Trump is an ■■■■■■■■ and reporting centers around his overall crappiness rather than actual news because it’s better for ratings.

Oh?

Let’s discuss this quote:

You may not watch MSNBC but just know that this problem still affects you, too. All the commercial networks function the same – and no doubt that content seeps into your social media feed, one way or the other.

It’s possible that I’m more sensitive to the editorial process due to my background in public radio, where no decision I ever witnessed was predicated on how a topic or guest would “rate.”

I agree with her 100% on the first paragraph, and believe her on the second. Do you?

1 Like

No, that is not it at all.

1 Like

Sub out “cable news” for MSNBC, and your first sentence is accurate.

Your second sentence is colored by your paradigm.

You stand with the right-wingiest 2% of people in the civilized world. When you stand where you stand, everything from center right to Venezuela looks the same.

1 Like

Great find.

We all agree with her message still though, don’t we? I still do.

2 Likes

I keyed in on this;

As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.

This cancer risks human lives, even in the middle of a pandemic. The primary focus quickly became what Donald Trump was doing (poorly) to address the crisis, rather than the science itself. As new details have become available about antibodies, a vaccine, or how COVID actually spreads, producers still want to focus on the politics. Important facts or studies get buried.

This cancer risks our democracy, even in the middle of a presidential election. Any discussion about the election usually focuses on Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, a repeat offense from 2016 (Trump smothers out all other coverage). Also important is to ensure citizens can vote by mail this year, but I’ve watched that topic get ignored or “killed” numerous times.

MSNBC is the left version of FOX…

1 Like

and brietbart is the huffingtonpost and ____ is ____ and on and on and we’re all eating the click bait and watching the split screen arguments and becoming them.

Good OP
Good thread
Good posts

Well done.

This wasn’t her point in the resignation letter but it’s mine; The free market no longer rewards good journalism.

I have no good solutions for that

6 Likes

Free market journalism. You can blame the FCC for dismantling most of the regulatory framework that had been imposed on the television industry back in the 60’s.

There isn’t any unbiased news source…and I’m not sure if there ever was.

The first priority of for profit businesses is to make money…

The sell what people want to buy…

Rstings equals more advertising dollars…

An altruistic person suddenly realizes they are in a business model instead of a community service and people on one side use that to attack people on the other side…

1 Like

Really?
NPR is nearly the antithesis to cable news. All of cable news.

That, and Reagan no longer enforcing the Fairness doctrine (which is not what cons say it is), And Clinton signing the TelCo act of 1996.

We now have monopolies, in “news” and profit almost always is the main goal.

1 Like

Damn…I pretty much agree with that post.

We had a bit of a golden era, with Murrow, then Cronkite…(even though cons hated them too). Their goal was the truth…

There are good news sources, and yes, all are biased to a degree…

But a functioning democracy requires an informed populace. And with so much mis-information, or mostly infotainment…one really has to work at getting to the truth.

The truth is out there.

Tombstone 1880s

Epitaph and Nugget

1 Like