https://www.arianapekary.net/post/personal-news-why-i-m-now-leaving-msnbc

Personal news: why I’m now leaving MSNBC

“Just quit.”

That’s the advice Alec gave a year and a half ago when I expressed concerns about my job.

“You just quit. It’s that simple.”

“Stay at MSNBC at least until the midterms,” Jeffrey said a couple years back. He advised to watch and see what happens.

“Hang in there… you’re needed,” Elizabeth recommended last winter. “I was in your shoes when I was younger but I stuck it out.”

A year and a half ago, simply quitting my job without knowing my next step sounded pretty radical. So I stuck it out a bit longer until we were in the middle of a pandemic to make a truly radical move.

July 24th was my last day at MSNBC. I don’t know what I’m going to do next exactly but I simply couldn’t stay there anymore. My colleagues are very smart people with good intentions. The problem is the job itself. It forces skilled journalists to make bad decisions on a daily basis.

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.” The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.

But behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done.

“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.

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.

Context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience. There may be some truth to that (our education system really should improve the critical thinking skills of Americans) – but another hard truth is that it is the job of journalists to teach and inform, which means they might need to figure out a better way to do that. They could contemplate more creative methods for captivating an audience. Just about anything would improve the current process, which can be pretty rudimentary (think basing today’s content on whatever rated well yesterday, or look to see what’s trending online today).

Occasionally, the producers will choose to do a topic or story without regard for how they think it will rate, but that is the exception, not the rule. Due to the simple structure of the industry – the desire to charge more money for commercials, as well as the ratings bonuses that top-tier decision-makers earn – they always relapse into their old profitable programming habits.

I understand that the journalistic process is largely subjective and any group of individuals may justify a different set of priorities on any given day. Therefore, it’s particularly notable to me, for one, that nearly every rundown at the network basically is the same, hour after hour. And two, they use this subjective nature of the news to justify economically beneficial decisions. I’ve even heard producers deny their role as journalists. A very capable senior producer once said: “Our viewers don’t really consider us the news. They come to us for comfort.”

Again, personally, I don’t think the people need to change. I think the job itself needs to change. There is a better way to do this. I’m not so cynical to think that we are absolutely doomed (though we are on that path). I know we can find a cure. If we can figure how to send a man to the moon, if Alex Trebek can defy the odds with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and if Harry Reid can actually overcome pancreatic cancer (he’s now cancer free), then we can fix this, too.

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

I know James Baldwin wasn’t thinking about MSNBC when he wrote that line in 1962, but those words spoke loudly to me in the summer of 2020. Unfortunately, many of the same ailments are still at stake today. Now maybe we can’t really change the inherently broken structure of broadcast news, but I know for certain that it won’t change unless we actually face it, in public, and at least try to change it.

Through this pandemic and the surreal, alienating lockdown, I’ve witnessed many people question their lives and what they’re doing with their time on this planet. I reckon I’m one of those people, looking for greater meaning and truth. As much as I love my life in New York City and really don’t want to leave, I feel fortunate to be able to return to Virginia in the near term to reconnect with family, friends, and a community of independent journalists. I’m both nervous and excited about this change. Thanks to COVID-19, I’m learning to live with uncertainty.

And so very soon, I’m going to be seeking you out, any one of you who also may sense that the news is fundamentally flawed and is frustrated by it. This effort will start informally but I hope to crystallize a plan for when better, safer days are upon us. On that front, feel free to reach out anytime if you would like to discuss any of this – whether in agreement or not. More than ever, I’m craving a full and civil discourse.

Until next time, thank you for reading. I wish you all well.

Ariana

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40701835)

XO tends to portray these events as RIPPING their old network, with the implication somehow being a good thing. But almost inevitably, these people leave because the network is not far left enough.

This author is no exception. This is what she says:

“Context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience. There may be some truth to that (our education system really should improve the critical thinking skills of Americans) – but another hard truth is that it is the job of journalists to teach and inform, which means they might need to figure out a better way to do that.”

In other words, this former employee is upset that MSNBC did not do a good enough job at “teaching and informing” its audience as to the foundations of shitlibbery. Instead, MSNBC only focuses on what’s good for their ratings. Why exactly are you celebrating this again??

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40701985)

If you had been more descriptive, and said, MSNBC journalist leaves network for not being lib enough, you would see what a non-story this is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702014)

New to the bort?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702067)

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 all seems accurate and not necessarily shitlib-especially the part about it stirring up national division instead of unity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702007)

She does not give a shit at all if some far left kook gets some airtime.

As for her second part, did she say anything about the politicization of HCQ, including some lib states banning it? Of course not. Never mind the fact that Dems who have banned it quite literally have blood on their hands, that doesn’t count because we all know HCQ is an unproven and dangerous drug which the Buffoon in Chief promoted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702034)

When people defect from the BS of the left -- be it Taibbi, Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, this guy, or others -- they finally see, accurately, the incoherence of the shitlibs.

Should it concern us that they move even farther left?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702119)

“Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone.

223. Some readers may say, "This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don't have all these totalitarian tendencies." It's quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others' values (up to a point) and wouldn't want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power- hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole from having a totalitarian tendency.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702291)

Agreed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40704362)

They're just partisan hacks. MSNBC and Fox are partisan hacks preaching to a known audience. CNN is uniquely disgusting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40701996)

Something wrong here...this journo is a well-educated idiot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40702055)

I believe XO prescribed lampposts and piñatas

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4597032&forum_id=2#40703534)