There’s been a significant stir at MSNBC this week, with tensions running high following the network’s decision to pull its regular programming after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. The move has sparked accusations from insiders that NBCU News Group Chairman Cesar Conde and network president Rashida Jones are attempting to curry favor with the Trump camp, should he win the presidency again.
According to three insiders who spoke to TheWrap, the decision to replace all programming across NBC news platforms with a single breaking news feed was seen as a deliberate effort to avoid tension with a potential Trump administration.
This decision, they claim, was made to preemptively win points and prevent any backlash from Trump and his allies. One individual described it as a “clearly deliberate coddling of Trump,” adding, “There’s a level of disgust in the company I haven’t seen before.”
The network’s decision, which lasted from Saturday night through Monday afternoon, included preempting the popular “Morning Joe” show with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. The hosts, known for their Democratic-leaning views, were reportedly sidelined to avoid any controversial statements during the heated aftermath of the assassination attempt.
Joe Scarborough expressed his frustration on-air, stating, “Next time we’re told there’s going to be a news feed replacing us, we will be in our chairs. And the news feed will be us or they can get somebody else to host this show.”
This isn’t the first time Conde’s decisions have sparked controversy. In March, he faced backlash for hiring former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid network commentator, a move that was quickly rescinded after widespread criticism. The latest decision has further eroded trust between network talent and leadership.
A network spokesperson confirmed that the programming decisions were made entirely by the News Group, emphasizing the importance of a unified front in developing coverage situations. Despite this, many staffers feel the move was unnecessary and damaging to the network’s integrity.
Journalism experts have weighed in on the situation. Michael Socolow, a professor of journalism and communications at the University of Maine, suggested that the decision reflected the network’s prioritization of reporting over punditry in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt. He argued that it was a correct move to prevent further inflaming the situation with partisan commentary.
However, Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at CUNY, criticized the decision, pointing out that by Monday morning, there was no new breaking news related to the assassination attempt. He argued that MSNBC viewers were looking for commentary by that point, and the decision displayed a lack of faith in the network’s own staff and talent.
