MSNBC’s Journey From ‘News Network’ To Opinion Network

It’s not clear when it started but the word was spreading throughout the newsroom and the message was clear; edgier, more provocative, POV style oriented newscasts were now a goal again. The days of not voicing any opinion on anything which, according to Felix Gillette in the New York Oberver, was ordered from on high after the Olbermann/Matthews mess of 2008 (see Appendix A), were apparently over.

The form which this new format would take was far subtler than what normally passes for POV in primetime but the difference was noticeable. More controversial guests were booked setting up the possibility of more back and forth confrontation with the anchors. Segment topic selection moved away from pure news and towards more incendiary red meat political subject matter. Anchors were encouraged to inject themselves into the discussion; to get with the POV brand Griffin viewed as the key to MSNBC’s future success.

The follow through to this new policy was and is uneven; some news hours have displayed it more flagrantly than others and some news anchors have appeared more predisposed to doing it than others. ICN has heard that there has been consternation in the newsroom regarding this POV/opinion push but that it was what Griffin wanted. And, after all, Griffin runs MSNBC.
Now, given these conditions, take a moment and put yourself in the position of an MSNBC news anchor.

You were trained to be a journalist and use those skills as a news anchor, not trained to be someone who takes and voices positions on the air. But what are you going to do? You’re seeing POV analysis shows popping up all over the place on MSNBC now. If you resist Griffin’s new edgier POV style ideas are you risking your career at the network? Say you get dropped by the network because of that…who is going to take you? The sad fact is if you’re not a big name you have little chance of jumping over to CNN, FNC, ABC, or CBS. If you stood any chance at NBC you would already know because NBC News President Steve Capus wouldn’t have let you get dropped in the first place. There is little demand now for interchangeable cog anchors. Those days are over and they’re not coming back. But you already knew that. Your only viable anchor option now appears to be local. Of course you can try becoming a network reporter, if that’s what you want. But it isn’t, is it? If you want to remain viable on the national anchor stage, maybe going along with what Griffin wants isn’t such a bad idea under the circumstances.

But, on the other hand, if you do go along doing what Griffin wants are you risking committing career suicide on the national level and will you only be employable on MSNBC…for as long as they choose to keep you? You are almost guaranteed to wind up in on air situations that make you look bad and/or notorious because of the edgier POV style Griffin wants you to take on. You should have a thick skin because you will become a regular name calling fixture of NewsBusters and all the Red blogs. If you had any future possibilities of moving over to NBC you have now put them at risk because, for the moment, NBC News isn’t going the POV route Griffin is and your new reputation will follow you over there and dog them. You’d become Kryptonite for CNN because it still hasn’t shown much inclination to want edgy POV on their newscasts. You’d become Kryptonite for FNC on the theory that someone who stakes out Progressive POV positions on MSNBC’s air would be an unacceptable news anchor choice for that network…one Shepard Smith is enough. You would be poison for CBS and ABC. Forget about being a network reporter…your rep is mud. Your only viable anchor option now appears to be local.

Basically, for lack of better words, no matter which direction you choose to go you’re screwed.
So I’m not surprised when I see someone like Thomas Roberts, who joined MSNBC as a straight news anchor with a straight news reputation, humiliate a guest who didn’t show up even though it turned out it was MSNBC’s fault she didn’t show up, and then when she did show up the next day he opened the interview with this…

“Maggie, do you defend your own race-baiting to further bigotry and homophobia on a national level?”

I was angry with what Roberts did at the time because I found it journalistically appalling but after thinking about it, given that Catch-22 scenario that now confronts him as an MSNBC anchor, I now better comprehend his predicament and I empathize with him.

With POV now seeping its way into MSNBC’s “newscasts” and POV analysis shows popping up all over the schedule, the network’s Lean Forward branding campaign evolved to better reflect what was coming over its airwaves.

As noted earlier, the first round of Lean Forward TV adds were tame and didn’t do much more than introduce the network’s talent to the masses. But beginning in 2011 MSNBC started unveiling Lean Forward: Revision Two.

Unlike the previous round of ads, these new ads were all POV themed ads, save for Morning Joe’s two minute long Lean Forward ad. While POV Lean Forward ads for MSNBC’s POV stars like Maddow and the others would seem to be a more reflective and necessary portrait than the first round of comparatively innocuous ads, POV stars would not be the only ones making POV Lean Forward ads.
Some of MSNBC’s journalists have made such POV ads. Tamron Hall made two; one complaining about the use of US troops as political pawns and another talking about income inequality.

More shocking was Andrea Mitchell’s new Lean Forward ad. Remember, it was Mitchell who, according to Felix Gillette’s Observer piece, was the one who stood up to voice concerns to GE and NBC brass about the wild POV style of the Olbermann/Matthews 2008 campaign coverage and how it was a problem for MSNBC and NBC News. But now, here’s Mitchell doing a POV Lean Forward ad regarding the contentious and debated topic of voter suppression and the groups allegedly pushing it. Et tu, Andrea?

Then there was this recent albeit now infamous quote from Griffin to the Tampa Bay Times’ Eric Deggans…

“I’m sorry, I don’t care about journalists. … I want fair-minded, smart people who understand the world and can interpret it,” he said. “If they’re journalists, great. This notion that you somehow you have to have done something to earn so-called journalists’ credentials? Stop.”

This quote was wildly interpreted out of context. Griffin was specifically rebutting the idea that Sharpton wasn’t qualified to host a show because he wasn’t a journalist and I agree with that. You don’t need to be a journalist to do POV. But everyone seized on the “I don’t care about journalists” part without understanding the rest.

What Griffin wants from MSNBC is edgy POV style analysis in his shows. He has determined that this is MSNBC’s future. This is MSNBC’s brand. Whether it is a journalist that adheres to this brand or a non-journalist that adheres to it is irrelevant (thus the “I don’t care about journalists” quip). Just adhere to it. There is no firewall at MSNBC between POV and news anchoring. It’s now a mish-mash of POV and news analysis that has spread across all dayparts. Actual hour long newscasts no longer exist except during heavy news cycles or select breaking news situations. And I have seen more than once when the network gave short shrift to breaking news situations and would spend more time on the POV and POV analysis type stuff than the breaking event itself. The most recent example occurred just last month.

But, because Phil Griffin’s POV makeover of MSNBC is still ongoing, there are several question that need to be raised:

1) At what point does the makeover reach completion status? When all of MSNBC news hours have been replaced with POV analysis shows? Or some point short of that? Have we seen the last of the new POV analysis shows M-Fr or are more in the pipeline?

2) Where are the POV boundaries? What does MSNBC consider acceptable and what does it consider unacceptable? We have no idea but there is considerable public discussion going on right now about that in terms of Al Sharpton and his dual role as advocate for Trayvon Martin and his family and his other role as MSNBC host. There is almost no discussion going on about that in terms of the network’s few remaining dayside news hours.

3) How does NBC News and its staff fit in with Griffin’s POV designs for MSNBC? There may be no remaining firewall between MSNBC dayside and POV primetime because of all the crossover appearances taking place between the two, the increase of POV analysis shows, and the POV style seepage in most of its “newscasts”. But there is considerably more firewall remaining between NBC News and MSNBC in terms of POV creep.

But this could turn out to be very dicey going forward. Say a POV host or a POV inclined news anchor asks a loaded POV type question of an NBC News journalist; how does the NBC News person deal with that? Will they be expected to respond in kind? Will they push back against the question? Do they duck the question? What happens? This, I believe, is probably the single thorniest issue that will confront the two networks and the news division, especially where political and controversial news is involved.

4) Just how much does the NBC News staff recoil in horror at what’s going with MSNBC and how it potentially impacts them and their news division’s brand?

5) How much longer does MSNBC attempt to publicly delineate between what happens from 3-11 and what happens from 9-3? Just a couple of weeks ago Politico’s Dylan Byers wrote about this very subject.

Meanwhile, the shows that run from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. are not “point of view” shows

Really? Now with Alex Wagner? Thomas Roberts’ show? Andrea Mitchell and Tamron Hall doing POV Lean Forward ads? There is so much POV creep happening in relation to those 9-3 hours now that to continue to insist that a fundamental difference exists between 9-3 and 3-11 will almost certainly invite ridicule. There may be a difference in the style and execution but not necessarily the format and news rundown substance.

5) Does Comcast get dragged into this and what does it do? GE got dragged into it and GE interfered at least once when it muzzled Olbermann to temporarily end the “The Feud”; twice if you believe the reports that it was GE that forced Olbermann and Matthews off the air (a story that MSNBC publicly denied but many media writers believe to be true though none has ever written about it. We do talk to each other you know)

How these questions are answered will shape NBC News, MSNBC, and the POV brand Phil Griffin wants for his network.

Note – this post first appeared on Inside Cable News and appears here with their consent.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.