Opinion | Ronna's Rundown: The Static of Partisanship in the Echo Chamber of News
Image generated by DALL•E; conceived by Armon Owlia
One thing no one tells you when you leave the nest of journalism school is just how difficult it is to land a job in the media. Arguably, the one thing that’s even harder–is being a contributor to the quote-unquote other side of the argument.
Thus, the ballad of Ronna McDaniel, the recently resigned chair of the Republican National Committee and arguably one of the most powerful Republicans throughout the last near decade behind Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell.
Throughout every major decision and every piece of rhetoric, McDaniel was a constant presence, either at the helm or in the wings, influencing the party's machinery. To say her tenure was fraught with controversy would be putting it mildly.
Questioning the legitimacy of the media when putting Trump’s multiple proven lies to task, defending his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic despite massive casualties, selling out her uncle, Mitt Romney, as “an incoming freshman Senator” when he had the political experience and capital to express his opinion, standing behind the former President and denying the results of the 2020 presidential election, as well as helping to orchestrate the events that led to January 6…half of these would be enough to put a damper on any sense of legitimacy a person may have, especially within that office.
So, after her resignation, when she basically served her purpose in Trump’s eyes and was eyeing a career change, she did the standard thing most ex-politicians do: she decided to become a contributor to a network. In this case, she became a contributor for NBC News.
Nothing if not predictable, at least for once…until McMurphy and the inmates decided it was time to take over the asylum. Additionally, McMurphy came in multiple forms…none of whom were actual journalists, but all of whom were central figures to the NBC brand.
“The fact that Ms. McDaniel is on the payroll at NBC News, to me, that is inexplicable,” said Rachel Maddow on her Mar. 25 broadcast a mere 12 hours before McDaniel was fired, “I mean, you wouldn’t hire a wiseguy, you wouldn’t hire a made man, like a mobster, to work at a DA’s office, right? You wouldn’t hire a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener.”
Well, to be fair, Ms. Maddow, I wouldn’t hire a propagandist or commentator to anchor a news program, yet here you are. You may have been honored with awards meant for journalists, but that’s because you spoke your opinion and did your job as a commentator and personality in lieu of actual reporting, which often involves speaking to those who do not share your point of view.
“We believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage,” Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe said on air in response to McDaniel’s hiring, “but it should be conservative Republicans. Not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier, and we hope NBC will reconsider its decision.”
With all respect to Ms. Brzezinski, first and foremost, the list of actual conservative Republicans who not only went against Trump’s claims but also have the knowledge and experience of McDaniel's platform and, additionally, are available to do the job without sacrificing their political capital is like searching for a strand of hay in a pile of needles.
Second, putting McDaniel on the air, even after all this, would not be without precedent. John Ehrlichman, the White House Counsel of former President Richard Nixon and one of the chief architects of Watergate, after he went to prison, did, in fact, serve as a political commentator and an author, exposing the inner workings of the Republican Party and the Nixon Administration, giving us an insight into how the administration was able to divide the country so quickly and easily.
Another co-conspirator to manipulate democracy, another yes-man for a President who ended up being a crook, someone who intentionally tried to undermine the press to save himself and sow doubt. I don’t know about anyone else, but it’s hard to see much of a difference between the two other than their rank up the ladder.
“She is now a paid contributor by NBC News,” said Chuck Todd, NBC’s Chief Political Analyst and former “Meet The Press" host, on a Mar. 24 episode, “I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you [host Kristen Welker] was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe she was speaking for the RNC, when the RNC was paying for it.”
Mr. Todd, I acknowledge your significant contributions to journalism, and my critique comes from a place of deep respect for the field.
Reflecting on Tim Russert’s tenure at “Meet The Press,” his legacy was defined by an unwavering commitment to truth-seeking. Russert’s approach was not merely about posing questions but digging beneath the surface, challenging political figures with a rigor that left no room for unchecked statements. His interviews were exemplary of journalistic integrity, where every claim was meticulously scrutinized, irrespective of the interviewee's political affiliation.
In this tradition, the episode involving Senator Sanders citing outdated data on gun purchases without background checks stands out as a missed opportunity for journalistic diligence. It's important to note that this misinformation was not unique to Sanders; it had previously been referenced by President Obama following the Sandy Hook tragedy. However, by the time Sanders reiterated this claim, a new study contradicting this data had been published by the Washington Post, making it vital, yet overlooked, information for a follow-up question.
So, at this point, my confidence in the journalistic integrity that should underpin our profession is shaken. When misinformation is not addressed or corrected, especially on platforms with extensive reach, it challenges the trust audiences place in us as journalists. It's not about attributing an agenda but rather about upholding our essential duty to inform accurately.
Now, don’t get me wrong: you will never find me being McDaniel’s biggest fan. In my opinion, even as a political Independent who screams “moderate,” I believe her actions were highly questionable and potentially even criminal. This isn’t just my opinion; it is also the conclusion of the Department of Justice.
However, the sequence of events—NBC News’ decision to hire, then swiftly fire McDaniel amidst internal pushback that tricked into the equivalent of an on-air revolt, which stopped short of torches and pitchforks—highlights a broader concern within our media landscape.
This incident not only resurrects long-standing debates about media bias and the challenges of providing a balanced platform but also underscores the precarious tightrope media organizations must walk in today’s polarized environment.
After McDaniel’s firing, Maddow would take to the air and say about NBC’s decision, “To see all the, essentially, unanimous feeling among all the journalists in this building and also the senior staff and all the producers, and everybody in this building about this was one thing. But then, to see the executives and leadership hear that and respond to it, being willing to change course based on their respect for us and what we argued, I have deep respect for that.”
Yeah, remember, though, most of you at MSNBC, at least, are not actually journalists, and even the true journalists like Chuck Todd have shown their true colors, especially after saying, “There’s a reason why a lot of journalists at NBC News are uncomfortable with this: because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassinations.”
At this point, I must acknowledge the irony that, as a member of the media, I am offering a critique of how commentary is often mistaken for journalism. I recognize that this might seem contradictory. Yet, I pride myself on having a solid track record of interviewing a wide array of individuals across the political spectrum, engaging in real conversations, and truly listening.
I even interviewed a QAnon survivor to look at the dark side of social media and how they got sucked in. Do you think I was comfortable with that? Absolutely not. However, I was doing my job and my service to get the story despite the discomfort, and in the end, that is journalism. Not just hunkering down in what you know and are comfortable with.
If you don’t like it, and this goes not only to anyone at NBC News but anyone who wants to call themselves journalists, respectfully, it might be worth considering whether this is the right professional path because what you are doing is not journalism. It’s selective and biased, and while bias is something that we all have as humans, myself included and I will admit that refusing to acknowledge it and presenting it as quote-unquote unbiased material does more harm than help to the audience.
Believe it or not, journalism is not as difficult as it looks. That’s the beautiful thing about this industry is that, at its core, it’s easy. It’s all about listening to everyone, listening everywhere. There are always stories around us and the vast majority of the great ones? They’re the ones that challenge us, push us out of our comfort zone, and get us to think. Why do we hate each other? Why is there so much anger? Because we shout, we talk…but we don’t listen.
While I strongly disagree with McDaniel, I would invite her to sit down with me and I sit down with her for a simple conversation. That’s all. It doesn’t have to be about political policy, it doesn’t have to be about anything. It can be about her pet chihuahua, for all I care. What matters is that we start the conversation…and don’t allow the mob to shut it down like they already have.
Let’s not do this side and the other side. It’s time to meet in the middle.
