NBC plans to drop Ronna McDaniel

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Dylan Byers
@DylanByers
·
Follow
SCOOP @PuckNews: NBC NEWS plans to drop ex RNC-chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor following on-air revolt from NBC/MSNBC talent. Execs are deliberating over details; announcement pending. Meanwhile, McDaniel is seeking legal representation.

Full details, scoops &… Show more
10:10 AM · Mar 26, 2024

[ProfessorGAC]

1. If True, I Like It

But, don't want to get too far ahead.

[Escurumbele]

46. "She is seeking legal representation"...hehe...their stupidity is going to cost them.

She is most probably walking away from a job she has not worked at with a nice check, and then Fox News will hire her to make sure she can be herself, or maybe like Chuck Todd said "she will say whatever the one who pays her wants her to say."

DISCLAIMER: First time I quote Chuck Todd, but one has to give credit where credit is due.

[ToxMarz]

52. She must be happy it's not a "right to work" state

[Blue Idaho]

73. Bless her heart...

If she insists on a contract, let her do the live 2:00 am weather in Fairbanks.

[Ms. Toad]

108. Completely irrelevant if she had a contract. N/t

[BlueKota]

102. Didn't someone post Fox already refused to hire her

prior to NBC hiring her?

[TigressDem]

92. [e-mail] SUBJECT LINE: ERROR hiring Ronna McDaniel

Let's flood them with a lot of documentation that the people don't want to watch someone who is an election denier and possible co-conspirator in the Jan 6 Coup attempt to act like she's for freedom of any sort unless paid to say so.

[ProfessorGAC]

93. Done.

Here's the text of my email.

Sending this note to express my incredulity over the hiring a R. McDaniel as a contributor.
I actually see the reason to hire multiple perspectives, but in this case, this hire involves someone who willfully fabricated stories (proven), was involved & actively participated in efforts to illegally usurp the will of the voters, & actively disparaged the media, including NBC, on many occasions.
My second criticism is from a business perspective. There are 2 networks (one very large, the other minor) that have locked up the right wing vote long ago. From a business perspective, hiring a known liar, radically partisan mouthpiece for a radical agenda generally disfavored by the Anerican people risks alienating existing viewers far more than getting settled viewers of right wing competitors to shift allegiance.
It's insulting for believers of good journalism & specious as a business move. It makes me seriously doubt the business acumen of those occupying the executive positions at your network.

[TigressDem]

94. Suave.

Your intelligence is showing.

Not that it's a bad thing.


I like it!!

[thucythucy]

2. For people who are forever whining about "frivolous lawsuits"

Republicans sure are a litigious lot.

Get involved with a GOP "personality" and sooner or later you're sure to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

[intheflow]

61. To be fair, she does have a contract.

NBC didn't have to hire her. They don't have a legal leg to stand on as they are the ones breaking the contract. This is a lawsuit I support, even though I'm very happy she'd not going to be on their payroll any more, and generally think she's a truly horrible person.

[thucythucy]

63. True enough.

Just goes to show though that the higher-ups at NBC should have put more thought into this hire.

[LiberalLovinLug]

79. the "higher ups" did put thought into it. There are MAGAts infesting everywhere

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2024, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I think there are probably a few of them in the executive ranks. They desperately want NBC to be regarded more MAGA friendly. Or at least not be seen as Trump bashers. They want a smarter magat other than the idiots like Comer Pile on their network. Someone who can actually string a few sentences together and sound intelligent when they are pissing all over Democrats.

[Sky Jewels]

85. Did you mean NBC?

CNN has definitely also lurched right though over the past couple years.

[LiberalLovinLug]

91. Yes thanks for noticing. Changed.

[nuxvomica]

69. It depends on the conditions of the contract

If there's a clause that reads: "This contract may be terminated should Chuck Todd grow a backbone," or something like that, NBC's in the clear.

[Ponietz]

81. The contract wasn't "at will"?

How do you know?

[intheflow]

99. I don't.

Just guessing but there was a promise of payment of some kind for regular gig and she was never given the chance to fulfill it. That appears to the courts as if NBC wasn’t acting in good faith - ironic since taking her off air was acting in good faith for democracy. But here we are, life in the 21st Century, am I right?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. They could have waited a week and fired her for cause when she says something stupid.

[jimfields33]

87. Are you kidding? I'd sue too.

Anybody with a brain would. A contract is a contract. NBC will hopefully do right and negotiate a pay settlement.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

3. Let her sue

Bring out all her dirty dealings in open court.


Also...."deliberating over details..."?? Just chuck her traitorous ass.

[agingdem]

28. I agree..let her sue but I'm going to bet

NBC will settle large chunk of change on her because that payout will be far less than losing sponsor revenue and anchors in revolt...

[ancianita]

32. Maybe, but the more NBC can prove she had given false info, the less the payout NBC might have to suffer.

The fact that they didn't even know/care that she was in a federal indictment as Co-conspirator 2 doesn't work in their favor, either.

They need to eat the damages and fire the executives who hired her.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Absolutely they should fire those responsible for hiring her.

[agingdem]

48. I want NBC to suffer...NBC didn't learn

its lesson when they hired and fired Megan "Santa Claus/Jesus were white" Kelly..they didn't learn its lesson when Kristen Welker was trashed for her MTP debut interview with Trump, allowing him to spew his vomit with no interruptions or pushback never mind a STFU....sometimes a conglomerate like NBC needs to be reminded they need us more than we need them...

[ancianita]

77. Yes. It didn't learn because at core it's corporate, always wanting to expand its market.

Most media are more for profit than for the nation's being properly informed.

[thesquanderer]

60. re: "she was in a federal indictment as Co-conspirator 2"

If she was federally indicted for a crime and did not reveal that to her prospective employer, that might be grounds to void a contract, if there is any kind of "morals clause" in it. Contracts can include the right to dismiss anyone whose actions may reflect badly on the employer, and a federal indictment could fall into that category.

So with luck...

[ancianita]

78. Here's hoping, right?

Nice meme! Too bad it's more story than real life.

[ZonkerHarris]

70. nah, they will just buy out her contract. The only question is how much.

[walkingman]

4. I emailed them twice over the last couple of days

It is a disgrace that they hired her. I like out local NBC and watch MSNBC but whoever hired her should be held accountable - she is disgusting.

[PatSeg]

25. I just can't imagine what they were thinking

There are plenty of conservative voices on NBC/MSNBC, but they are sane reasonable people. There was no point or purpose to hiring McDaniel. Among other things like pro-insurrection and election denial, she is also unlikable and unappealing.

Who were they trying to attract?

[LiberalFighter]

43. I agree MSNBC has plenty of conservative voices.

Now if they wanted to show how crazy they are it may be an idea. But they don't need to hire someone.

[PatSeg]

72. Yes

And once and awhile I've seen a host showcase a "crazy" to make a point. Personally, I don't like it and think it is exploitive, but it's not like they were hiring them as a contributor.

I'll always wonder what was going on in someone's head when they decided McDaniel was a good fit.

[Ligyron]

106. Dish dirt on Trump?

That's the only thing I can think of, but how do you write that unto a contract anyway?

"Must say bad nasty awful things about former President and reveal super secret- secrets concerning a certain political party hint hint wink wink"...

...or something like that.

[PatSeg]

107. I hadn't thought of that

Yeah, don't know how you'd include that in a contract. Meanwhile, how on earth do you trust someone like Ronna anyway?

[Traildogbob]

5. Well of course

She is. The courts are only here for GQP representation. None of that petty justice stuff wasting their time.
Will she be sending in Fake Execs’ to overturn the majority vote? She will provide them lawyers, she told them on a phone call.
Mitten gotta be proud. He may ask she never take back the name trump demanded she drop, just to protect the Romney great reputation.
(Do I need sarcasm thing)

[bluesbassman]

7. Don't know what she's whining about; she'll probably get a fat buyout check.

That's IF NBC was stupid with the contract they gave her. If not, tough shit Ronna!

[MadameButterfly]

10. What case would she have? Does anyone have a right to be a paid contributor to NBC

If so, I could use some extra cash

[TheProle]

17. I'm not sure the case would argue any "right to be a paid contributor"

But employer/employee contracts exist for a reason. If her hire came with any protections against immediate termination, then the courts should hash it out.

If that costs NBC more, they can chalk it up to paying for not doing their due diligence.

[MadameButterfly]

20. I guess we have to make it cost them more

to keep her. Or our surrogates, like Rachel.

[Ocelot II]

18. There's almost certainly a contract, so they'll have to buy it from her.

Some executives' heads should roll for this whole debacle.

[ProfessorGAC]

65. Indded

Ignoring the lost cash for a moment, any execs who did not anticipate the blowback are too stupid to deserve those high salaries.
Now, they've shown they're paid too much for what they do AND it's going to cost the company money that's just wasted.

[spooky3]

19. Depends on the wording of her contract.

I still can’t understand how the executives were so completely out of touch as to have signed her in the first place. How could they not have anticipated a forceful pushback?

[johnnyfins]

49. Why is everyone saying they are out of touch

They are MAGA. It's quite obvious. In this day and age, it's not really possible to be out of touch concerning the state of our country. ESPECIALLY if you work for a major news outlet. Jesus...

[spooky3]

53. They are out of touch if they didn't see in advance that important

People inside their organization, and many viewers, would be outraged by this. Top mgt’s own political preferences are irrelevant. They have to think about profits, and those are driven by on air talent and viewer interest.

[MadameButterfly]

105. listen to Olbermann's podcast ofr a while and you get an idea what these execs are like

though of course we are getting Kieth's version of things.
It seems they are about money and not the public good, and not very good at either.

[Mr.Bill]

66. Anyone who did not know what this woman was all about

should not occupy any position in a news organization.

[rsdsharp]

23. She has a slam dunk breach of contract case.

They knew what they were getting when they signed her. I can’t see that she breached the contract. They don’t have to put her on the air, but they do have to pay her, subject to her ability to mitigate her damages.

[LiberalFighter]

47. Would the contract say time of day or location?

Have her do an interview like Tucker did with Putin.

Make her appearances at 3 in the morning.

Have her do a judging of various stinks and identify which closely matches Republicans.

[rsdsharp]

71. I assume the contract defines her roll as a "contributor."

I also assume it contains a for cause termination clause, which I don’t see as being triggered. There may also be a buy out clause.You seem to be talking about burying her appearances. I think they would be better served by cutting their losses and buying her out. The problem isn’t her performance, it’s the objection of their on air hosts and viewers.

[avebury]

101. It may depend what is any contract that may have been signed.

Beyond that I don't what case she may have.

[Blue Owl]

6. They can try to drop her but the stench is gonna linger

Kinda like Captain Pantload himself....

[Sky Jewels]

88. At least they now know

many Americans won’t submit to fascism without a fight.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

8. Will RRM say..."YOU guys hired ex RNC Chair Michael Steele!"

Of course.

But nor did Michael Steele involve himself in the plot to steal an election, provide cover for a coup, get involved with not certifying the 2020 election, and continue to LIE for TSF! Big difference here!

RRM did all of that and then some. The opposition to her by the MSNBC hosts were all based on her own words, actions, and facts on the matters at hand. There is plenty of video evidence to back up these claims.

[MadameButterfly]

11. Is Michael Steele even a Republican any more?

He sounds downright liberal compared to Trumpers

IN any case, he's made it clear he want's nothing to do with the insurrection thing.

[happy feet]

15. He's still Republican

[FSogol]

9. Good. Now fire the executives that hired her. n/t

[Prairie_Seagull]

12. Rachels piece on this was excellent last night.

Saw Rachel, did not see others. This was her taking a stand for sure.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/maddow-takes-aim-at-her-own-network-for-ronna-mcdaniel-hire/ar-BB1kwSlI

[bdamomma]

27. Yes, Rachel was very good.

Even Lawrence O'Donnell said "Daniels was too close to the "enemy" meaning the Orange Pus Thug.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

38. Thanks for this link.

I'm a bit confused, tho, because some were so adamant that NBC and MSNBC were not the same.

[thesquanderer]

57. They're basically two divisions of the same company. n/t

[senseandsensibility]

44. Yes, she basically asked the top brass to do this

and said it was important to admit mistakes and change course.

[Prairie_Seagull]

56. I like to think we all had a little to do with this.

Just think what we could do if this type of vehemence can be marshaled for...

[angrychair]

58. I attribute this change of heart

To Rachel's segment last night. She welds significant influence with management and peers and her public statement last night pretty much sealed the deal for McDaniel's departure.

[getagrip_already]

13. If shes just a contributor, probably not a lot she can sue for.

Those are typically equivalent to employee at will positions. You are a consultant. A 1099 professional.

Buhh buhh felicia.

[Ocelot II]

22. Depends. There might have been a contract under which she was to be paid

for a certain number of appearances or on-air hours, and if so there's likely to be an early termination clause that entitles her to some amount if they cut her before the contract expires.

[getagrip_already]

26. True, but at $300k/year, it wont be too painful

To them to just pay her out.

It not like Meghan Kelley's $69 M contract.

[MadameButterfly]

14. This is a direct result, and the main intent of Rachel's leading story last night

Of course it was her plus many others, but she made a powerful case and pretty hard to argue against or ignore. She literally laid down the gauntlet. Thank you Rachel.

[dchill]

31. Every MSNBC show after 4 pm took a very hard line...

... against NBCNews and McDaniel. But Rachel Maddow is the Captain of that ship.

[MadameButterfly]

64. I only watched RAchel but I'm glad to hear it and will watch the others n/t

[Fla Dem]

16. Whatever they offered her in salary, for sure she will demand payment.

[spooky3]

21. At least they won't have to pay millions as they did with Megyn Kelly. Nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Let her go to Newsmax, where she belongs. Nt

[lindysalsagal]

29. She admits to being an election denier and part of the insurrection. Plenty of photo and video evidence.

Nothing a news room should be involved with.

[dchill]

30. "NBC Plans to dump the gun they shot themselves with"

[liberalla]

35. I like that!!! Or, they could've avoided the whole problem if they'd done the

correct (obvious) thing in the first place.

[dchill]

37. Right. But once the trigger is pulled...

You get consequences.

[liberalla]

42. Yes, it gets messy...

so here we go ~

[MontanaMama]

90. Indeed!!!

[IowaGuy]

33. NBC's bigger problem than Rona.....

are the brain dead suits that thought it was a good idea to hire her in the first place. Those synaptically challenged ass clowns are still sitting in their executive suites.

[blue neen]

83. "synaptically challenged ass clowns"

Excellent! You have a way with words.

[Sky Jewels]

86. I think they're more oligarch/fascist pleasers

than stupid. They want to be good little lap dogs for their billionaire masters.

[progressoid]

34. Just pay her a few million to shut her up MSNBC. Then lay off some more people to pay for it. Eazy peazy.

https://www.thewrap.com/nbc-news-layoffs/

[mysteryowl]

36. I hope so, yet...

NBC has decision makers that are a problem in the first place for hiring her.

She is planning on a legal action, well, she will just be spending a lot of money she needs to live on.
NBC is much bigger and has more lawyers!

[MOMFUDSKI]

39. On her head?

One can hope.

[live love laugh]

41. "McDaniel is seeking legal representation" LOL 😂

[NonPC]

45. No Law Degree Needed

She'll take it to the Supreme Court if she needs to.

[LiberalFighter]

50. Will the RNC represent her or psy her legal expenses?

[et tu]

51. all this adds more

smoke and mirrors of nothing to see about defendant 45
news corps are mainly conservative, owners are business first
and we know the money class can buy just about anybody they want.
unite and vote~

[Mickju]

54. They should fire whomever is responsible for hiring her.

[angrychair]

55. Once Rachel came out against it

I knew it was only a matter of time. She brings in more eyes and revenue than most of the rest of the on air talent combined.
This very likely due in no small part to her statement last night on her show.

[Cha]

59. "Just tell her the contract agreement never happened... "

Link to tweet

[NBachers]

62. Don't worry - the Executives are in charge.

[bagimin]

67. Give her a lollipop

and send her off to newsmax or the steve bannon show.

[Marcuse]

68. Every time the MAGA does something stupid Romney should be forced to appear on MSNBC for vigorous interrogation.

[Joinfortmill]

74. Good, but too little, too late.

[Cha]

75. "Ronna is a seditionist. She co-conspired with Donald Trump against the United States

Link to tweet

[Emile]

76. They need to fire the piss poor management

that hired her.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

80. So it was just a way to funnel money to an anti-democracy agent?

[Jarqui]

82. Someone should be going with her

the person who hired her

[Warpy]

89. All they have to do is follow any segment of hers with somebody sane

That happens often enough, she'll be using her legal representation to try to get out of that contract, not enforce it.

NBC should have vetted her a little better. Most recent job title certainly didn't tell them what they needed to find out about her.

She'll land on her feet. I'm sure Newsmax will hire her.

[sybylla]

95. I'd like to see them keep her under contract but put her in a closet.

She doesn't get to work for anyone else.

Then when she's charged with election interference, they can fire her for cause.

[wolfie001]

96. Whomever the peep or peeps are that hired her.....

.....needs to go bye bye. This is like putting a nat-zee on the Nuremburg Tribunal.

[Rocknation]

97. What is there to "plan?" Admit that a mistake was made, give severance to both her

and the person responsible for coming up with the ludicrous idea of hiring her, and drive on. Didn't we just finish resolving a problem by eliminating the mere appearance of impropriety?


Rocknation

[dlk]

98. Say farewell to the fake news queen

She won’t be missed. NBC knowingly and willingly trashed it’s reputation as a serious news organization.

[C_U_L8R]

100. We have a new unit of measurement

The Ronnamucci.

[twodogsbarking]

103. She looks like she would be good a cleaning terlets. Everyone has a skill.

[BlueKota]

104. I am glad they fired her

I am troubled by their statement though about continuing to wanting to hire people with varying view points. I'd be okay with that, if it were a traditional old fashioned conservative Republican.

But there isn't one Trump supporter they could find who doesn't support the big lie about the election, or over throwing the United States of America as it exists? If they want to interview some of the shit heads with a reporter who is willing forcefully humiliate them with facts, I'm fine with that. Giving the jobs as "contributers or commentators", however, gives the false impression they actually have something of truth and value to add to the conversation. If there is a Maggat capable of doing that I haven't seen one yet. The fourth estate's job isn't to please and appease all viewers, it's to report on what's actually happening, and when commenting can be of value add it, but only when it's reality based.