MSNBC

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      What Rachel Maddow Has Been Thinking About Offscreen

      by

      “The Rachel Maddow Show” debuted in the interregnum between political eras. Before it lay the 9/11 era and the George W. Bush presidency. Days after the show launched in 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed, and a few weeks later Barack Obama was elected president.And then history just kept speeding up. The Tea Party. The debt ceiling debacles. Donald Trump. The coronavirus pandemic. January 6th. The big lie. Maddow covered and tried to make sense of it all. Now, after 14 years, she has taken her show down to one episode a week and is launching other projects — like “Ultra,” the history podcast we discuss in this episode.[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]But I wanted to talk to Maddow about how American politics and media have changed over the course of her show. We discuss the legacies of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cycle of economic crises we appear to keep having, Maddow’s relationships with Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson, where the current G.O.P.’s anti-democracy efforts really started, how Obama’s presidency changed politics, how Maddow finds and chooses her stories, the statehouse Republicans who tilled the soil for Trump’s big lie and more.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)MSNBC“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma. Our researcher is Emefa Agawu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Rough Draft review: Katy Tur’s fascinating – and flawed – story of news and family

      by

      Rough Draft review: Katy Tur’s fascinating – and flawed – story of news and familyThe MSNBC anchor follows her Trump bestseller with a compelling memoir but her press criticism falls flat Katy Tur spent 500 days covering Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, wrote a bestselling book called Unbelievable, and now hosts a show on MSNBC. She was planning to pitch a memoir about the 2020 election but changed her mind during the Covid pandemic, after a heavy package arrived from her mother.Because Our Fathers Lied review: Robert McNamara, Vietnam and a partial healingRead moreThe package contained a hard drive, which contained every minute of tape her parents, Bob Tur and Marika Gerrard, had taken as sole proprietors of the Los Angeles News Service. The drive contained all the footage shot from helicopters piloted by her father, Bob: from Madonna giving her parents the finger on the day she married Sean Penn to the famous chase of OJ Simpson as he sped through the streets of LA in a white Ford Bronco.As a child, Katy was often a passenger as her mother leaned far out of the cockpit to catch the best possible shot. Her daredevil father once got so close to a forest fire, he was cited for fanning its flames. Sometimes Katy felt the heat on her shins from a blaze barely 500ft below.That hard drive convinced Tur to switch subject. Her second book therefore tells a story she had spent her adult life avoiding: the story of her childhood. The switch was the right choice because even a particularly hard-fought campaign could not compete with the drama of her upbringing.Bob Tur was the kind of journalist who would do anything to get the story, “an oracle” to Katy. When the Northridge earthquake knocked out power to half of Los Angeles, her father used a forklift to rip open a hangar door so he could drag the chopper out and take off.He had such good sources in the fire department that he and his wife once scooped KABC-Los Angeles when its own 11pm anchor was shot outside the station. The Turs then sold the tape to KABC. A few hours later, Katy was born.Years later, she fondly recalled a childhood that “smelled like eucalyptus trees, the Pacific ocean and jet fuel”. But she was resolutely silent about all the ghastly things she experienced.Her father was the son of a gambler who would take him to the racetrack, give him the rent money to keep it from his own father, then beat his own son to get it back. Bob Tur’s “nose was broken by his father’s fist”, his “hand stabbed with his father’s fork”, his “face slashed by his father’s key”. He was “missing a piece of his ear because his father sliced it off”. In his mid-teens, Bob ran away.But according to Katy Tur, her father was unable to unlearn the worst lessons of his childhood and repeated the pattern of violence in his adult life, striking his wife, whipping Katy and her brother, punching holes in the living room walls.When Tur was covering the Boston Marathon bombing, she got the most startling call of her life. Her father told her he had “decided to become a woman. It’s why I’ve been so angry.”After the transition, Zoey Tur attacked Katy Tur for allegedly being transphobic. She insists she has always been supportive of such a courageous decision. But what she could not forgive was Zoey’s refusal to discuss or acknowledge the violence Bob Tur inflicted on his family, because the man who committed it no longer existed.Tur writes: “It felt like my dad was playing a get-out-of-gender-free card I didn’t know existed … I was dumbfounded by the idea that a person could change their gender … and think that in the process the deeds of the past would no longer be relevant.”It was “like a bank robber pleading not guilty on account of gender misalignment. But that’s how my father saw it.”“Bob Tur is dead,” Zoey Tur said. But, Katy Tur replied, “The stuff Bob Tur did isn’t dead.”The family story gives Katy Tur’s book its spine and its power. But interspersed with personal history are occasional attempts at press criticism which reveal uneven judgement.On the one hand, Tur acknowledges that her parents’ hugely successful focus on sensationalism is often blamed for the downfall of local TV news, and “some would say the downfall of national TV news too”.“They don’t dispute it,” she writes. “Neither do I.”But when she complains that too many people bemoan the decline of her profession in the decades since Walter Cronkite practiced it, she goes completely off the rails.Quoting a biography of Cronkite by Douglas Brinkley, another pundit of uneven judgement, she endorses the absurd idea that CBS Evening News covered the civil rights movement of the 1960s too sympathetically – citing as evidence the fact that bigoted southern affiliates derided their New York parent as the “Colored Broadcasting Station.”Tur also thinks it was wrong for the CBS Evening News to devote two thirds of its broadcast to Watergate two days before the 1972 election, when the New York Times and every major organization except the Washington Post was ignoring the scandal.The Great Stewardess Rebellion review: stirring study of what Roe v Wade helped vanquishRead moreShe disputes Cronkite’s 1968 description of Chicago police under Mayor Richard Daley as a “bunch of thugs”, a description delivered when the Connecticut senator Abraham Ribicoff was accurately accusing Daley of using “Gestapo tactics” against leftwing protesters.Tur even questions Cronkite’s single finest moment, also in ’68, when he accurately identified Vietnam as a “stalemate” after the Tet offensive.Tur is a better than average network news correspondent. I admired her work when she covered Trump. But judgements like the ones she passes on Cronkite are the very reason so many long for the days when networks employed correspondents of the caliber of Roger Mudd, Richard Threlkeld, Charles Kuralt, Elie Abel, Bob Simon, Charles Collingwood, Ed Bradley, Edwin Newman, Jim Wooten and more – all of whom were vastly superior to their current counterparts.
      Rough Draft: Motherhood and Journalism in a World Gone Mad is published in the US by Atria/One Signal
      TopicsBooksUS press and publishingUS television industryMSNBCUS televisionTelevisionUS politicsreviewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      From Bernie to Biden to … MSNBC

      by

      Symone Sanders left a meteoric political trajectory to join the media. After working on Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign, advising Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and serving as Vice President Kamala Harris’s chief spokesperson for her first year in office, Sanders is pivoting to become the host of her own MSNBC show, “Symone.” This makes her the latest in a revolving door of former Washington insiders turned media anchors (think George Stephanopoulos, Nicolle Wallace, Jen Psaki and Kayleigh McEnany).In this conversation, Kara Swisher presses Sanders on whether the porousness between the Beltway and prime time is a good thing, and how she plans to cover a White House administration she just left.[You can listen to this episode of “Sway” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]They discuss the relevance of cable news in a world of plunging TV ratings and the rise of TikTok. They address speculation around high turnover in the vice president’s office (which Sanders dismisses as “palace intrigue”). And they talk politics, including Sanders’s predictions for midterms and whether Biden really is the best option for Democrats in 2024.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Courtesy of MSNBCThoughts? Email us at sway@nytimes.com.“Sway” is produced by Nayeema Raza, Blakeney Schick, Daphne Chen, Caitlin O’Keefe and Wyatt Orme, and edited by Nayeema Raza; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair, Michelle Harris and Mary Marge Locker; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; mixing by Carole Sabouraud and Sonia Herrero; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Psaki swaps White House for MSNBC as politics-to-TV pipeline chugs along

      by

      Psaki swaps White House for MSNBC as politics-to-TV pipeline chugs along Summer switch to cable news likely to sharpen perception in America that both sides are just really in it for the moneyThe routine trafficking of political personnel in America to the nation’s television networks hit a road bump last week after staffers at NBC News complained about White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s rumor-as-fact plans to join the liberal news outlet MSNBC when she leaves her West Wing post this summer.The clumsily handled move, previewed in a leak to Axios, triggered anger among journalists who said they feared Psaki’s hiring would “taint” the NBC brand and reinforce the impression, already well-established in opinion polls, that the news business in the US works hand-in-glove with political factions.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead moreThe Psaki saga is hardly new. If the deal goes through, Psaki will join a long line of White House staff who have moved to media roles. In January, Symone Sanders, a former adviser and senior spokesperson for Kamala Harris, signed a deal with MSNBC to host a show.But the deals are unexceptional to either side of the political divide. Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany joined Fox News last year; Sean Spicer has his own show on Newsmax; and CBS News hired Mick Mulvaney as a paid on-air contributor – also triggering an internal revolt that even prompted late-night host Stephen Colbert to condemn it on his show.The anger is easy to explain. The pipeline between politics and lucrative gigs in the media in America is one that appears to sully the public view of both professions, creating a feeling that both sides are really in it for the money. It also encourages a sense that politics in the US is seen by the media in the same veins as sports – where hiring ex-players as commentators is common – where winning races is everything and actual policy means very little.“The pipeline from the White House to news organizations makes it more difficult for news organizations to have sufficient distance or be perceived to be credibly scrutinizing government,” said Ryan Thomas, an associate professor in the Missouri School of Journalism.“Partisans argue that people won’t care or won’t notice, but it is wrong irrespective of awareness. It’s like they are moving from formal to informal public relations apparatus that is unhealthy in its own terms, irrespective of its potential effects on press accountability.”Psaki’s hire comes at a time of press frustration that Joe Biden has given just eight open-access press conferences during his term, leading to an impression of scripted, artificial performances. Psaki’s tour of duty, transposed to a cable news with a more generous salary, is likely to increase perceptions that political spin and news coverage at cable news networks are so close as to be indistinguishable.The outgoing press secretary has said that she is undergoing “rigorous ethics training” as it relates “to future employment” before her move, adding that she hoped the press corps “would judge me for my record and how I treat you and I try to answer questions from everybody across the board”.Yet the transfer of Psaki to MSNBC seemed so natural that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) went so far as to launch a fundraiser. “She’s fought to restore trust in the free press after the Trump administration’s horrific attacks on the media,” it said in a statement. “And now, she’s planning to join MSNBC’s intrepid team of journalists to hold dangerous, far-right Republicans accountable.”Journalism ethics professors express concern that this type of high-profile hiring to a high-profile cable news network, publicized while Psaki is still in a political role, risks becoming the default image for what the public holds as standard practice for journalism at large.“There’s a trickle-down effect from the irresponsibility of cable news organizations to local news journalists who get tarred with the same brush,” Thomas said.Americans of opposing political parties are sharply divided on how much they trust the news reported by national media organizations, according to new research.A YouGov/Economist poll published last week found that while Americans are more likely to trust than distrust many prominent news sources, there are few organizations that are trusted by more than a small proportion of Americans on both sides of the political aisle.At the top of the list was the Weather Channel at 52%, followed by the BBC (39%), the national public broadcaster PBS (41%), and the Wall Street Journal (37%). At the bottom of the list, in descending order, came CNN, OAN, MSNBC, Fox News and Breitbart.A Gallup poll published last October found that trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly had edged down to 36%, making last year’s reading the second lowest on record. Only 7% of those polled said they had “a great deal” of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting. Thirty-four per cent said they had “none at all”.The issue of reporting bias, never far from the lips of ideological adversaries, comes as cable news ratings has experienced sharp post-Trump declines that helped expose arrangements that had long been in place but never fully acknowledged. One was the information pipeline between CNN’s Jeff Zucker, his top colleague Allison Gollust, and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo and his brother Andrew. The exposure of Chris Cuomo’s advice to his brother during the sexual harassment scandal that brought the New York governor down eventually helped cost the younger sibling his job, too.But it does not seem like media executives are learning the lessons of fraught ties and allegiances between their top hosts and the political establishment. According to the news outlet Puck, CNN and MSNBC programming executives were in Washington early in the year, courting potential on-air talent to fill holes in primetime slots exposed by the exit of Cuomo and soon-to-exit MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, whose support for Democratic causes is worn openly.One of the potential talents, of course, was Psaki who, Puck opined, had “achieved veritable celebrity status for her daily press briefings”.Wooing Psaki, Thomas said, presents an ethical issue that Psaki was negotiating a new job while determining access to reporters or responding to questions from staff at her future employer.In the longer term, he said, are questions over professional distance between political institutions and news organizations. “These press conferences are a performance of scrutiny rather than actual scrutiny. They become an audition process for a cable news gig,” he said.Not only does the rotation of seats damage the material ability of the press to hold government to account, he adds, but also raises issues of access. “The White House press corps is pretty addicted to access, so they’re easily tamed and shy away from asking tougher questions,” Thomas added.TopicsUS politicsUS television industryMSNBCTelevision industryTV newsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Maya Wiley and the Color Purple

      by

      The candidate for New York mayor has consciously picked a signature shade. Here’s why.Last week, during the first in-person Democratic debate for New York mayoral candidates, Maya Wiley, the 57-year-old progressive, did something unexpected.Not exceed her allotted response time (though she did do that) or go on the offensive when it came to stating her position as a mother and how it informs her plans for “smart policing” (though she also did that), but, rather, switch up her usual purple jacket, her official campaign color, for a bright red one.“Red is bold, vibrant, living, pulsing and signifies, ‘Bring it,’” she said in an interview in March. It means: “You want to go? We can go!”Ever since she entered the race, Ms. Wiley has used color to differentiate herself. Each candidate has embraced the idea of a visual signature to varying degrees: Raymond J. McGuire’s sharp tailoring calls to mind his background as a Wall Street executive; Dianne Morales’s black turtlenecks recall the no-nonsense disruption of Steve Jobs (and, perhaps, less salubriously, Elizabeth Holmes); Andrew Yang’s lack of a tie, his striped scarves and “Math” pins and hats bring to mind his background in tech. But Ms. Wiley has hewed to a political strategy of coordinating the colors of her campaign and her clothing more than anyone else. There she was, on Oct. 8, 2020, standing on the steps of the Brooklyn Museum wearing a bright plum peak-lapel blazer and coordinating fuchsia scarf. She wore purple again — this time lilac — for her first televised ad campaign.And she wore amethyst for the first virtual primary debate, broadcast on NY1 in May. Though she has appeared in other jewel tones since the campaign began, like emerald, jade and sapphire, purple is by far the defining color of her candidacy.Her competitors have taken notice.Ms. Wiley recently spoke out against the rise of anti-Asian rhetoric and condemned a racist caricature of her opponent Andrew Yang in The New York Daily News (similar to one of the Obamas on a 2008 cover of the New Yorker magazine). To thank her, Evelyn Yang, Mr. Yang’s wife, tweeted a photo featuring the Yangs with Ms. Wiley, in which both Ms. Wiley and Ms. Yang were wearing purple.“Thank you for your leadership @mayawiley. You were also the first to condemn the backhanded racist innuendo from the beginning. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I’m wearing your colors!” Ms. Yang wrote.Unlike the purple worn during the Biden inauguration, Ms. Wiley’s purple is not about bipartisanship, she said. On the contrary, it’s about making references to her “shero” Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress. Ms. Wiley is, after all, running to be the first Black female mayor of New York. It will not be easy: There are eight major candidates, and not one of them has established a dominant lead. (Ms. Wiley has strong support among the progressive wing, with endorsements from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren.) “I launched in purple on purpose,” said Ms. Wiley, who was the first Black female counsel for the mayor of New York, and a former NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst. (She still appears on NBC as a volunteer guest analyst.) “Purple was Shirley Chisholm’s color.”According to Patrick Egan, an associate professor of politics and public policy at New York University: “Purple was often the color of royalty, going way back. A candidate for an office like mayor of New York City has to walk a delicate line. New Yorkers like to think that their candidates for elected office are of the people, but we also like them to have a bit of pizazz and chutzpah that says that this is a person who is a cut above at the same time.”In her Brooklyn home office, surrounded by books and ephemera like small sculptures and candles atop low, double-decker bookshelves, Ms. Wiley elaborated on the idea over Zoom.A still from Maya Wiley’s campaign announcement video.Maya Wiley in a screenshot from the May 13 New York mayoral debate.Spectrum News NY1 & the NYC Campaign Finance Board“Shirley said, ‘People have to feel you,’” she said. “In typical campaign mode, pre-Covid, you get all these different ways for people to feel you — you can be with them, talk to them, look them in the eye.” But because so much of the campaign is happening remotely, she said, “appearance is even more important in helping people to feel me and know who I am.”Though she is aware of the way appearance has been used for and against women, especially Black women (remember the to-do about Michelle Obama’s arms in an official White House portrait during her time as first lady?), and the fact that, as a result, most female candidates have refused to engage with the topic, she has a different approach. Chalk it up to her experience on TV, where she was keenly aware of perception and the balance between “drawing the viewer’s eye” and getting them to hear the message, as she told The New York Times in an earlier interview..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-uf1ume{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-wxi1cx{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}At that time, Ms. Wiley described her aesthetic as “Boho meets B.A.P.” “And I’m sticking with it,” she said now. “That includes all that I am. That includes unapologetically being a Black woman. That includes unapologetically being a Black woman whose parents were activists, but also a Black woman who is a lawyer, so that just envelops all those different parts of me.”As she said this, Ms. Wiley, 57, was wearing the same power-shouldered Anne Klein lilac blazer she had worn in her ad, as well as small interlocking hoop earrings from the Makers Show at City Point Brooklyn, a pop-up shop created by Julie Feltman to support local female entrepreneurs. “Blazers are perfect for me because I just do a black T-shirt and pants underneath,” Ms. Wiley said. “I get to be comfortable and casual at the same time.” In any case, the style choices are her own; she does not use a stylist and doesn’t solicit input on her dress from her staff.Ms. Wiley in April.Stephanie Diani for The New York TimesAccording to Peppermint, the trans actress and performer perhaps best known for her roles on “Pose” and “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” who is a supporter of Ms. Wiley, the candidate’s image is important.“There’s often pressure for Black women to conform to ‘societal norms,’” Peppermint said, noting that Ms. Wiley’s hairstyle in particular stood out as reflecting her “community” instead.Hollywood actresses including Nia Long and Gabrielle Union, as well as news program hosts like Joy Reid, have publicly discussed the behind-the-scenes struggles Black women often face in the public square, especially when it comes to judgments about their hair.Ms. Wiley does her own hair and does not dye her natural gray because, she said in a 2019 interview with The Times: “I earned every last one of these. I turned it into an attitude.” She called her intricately twisted up-do “my crown.”“It’s intentionally a little asymmetrical,” she said. Also, she acknowledged, it’s “a little bit edgy.”In the March interview, Ms. Wiley said she first became aware of style as a small girl growing up in Washington, D.C. when her grandmother made her dresses and sent them to her from Texas. Ms. Wiley believes in color, because, she said, “color is joy.” “Running for office even in a traumatic time doesn’t mean losing all the joy that we can find,” she said. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fox News Intensifies Its Pro-Trump Politics as Dissenters Depart

      by

      Donna Brazile, a Democratic analyst, has left the Murdoch-owned network as some hosts and journalists who questioned Donald Trump have exited or been sidelined.Fox News once devoted its 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. time slots to relatively straightforward newscasts. Now those hours are filled by opinion shows led by hosts who denounce Democrats and defend the worldview of former President Donald J. Trump. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      'Kornacki khakis for the win!' Internet agrees MSNBC host is trousers icon

      by

      Presenter helps dun-coloured pants also worn by President-elect Biden roar back into geek chic fashionSteve Kornacki, the MSNBC pundit who broke the internet in November with his khaki trousers, returned to TV screens for the Georgia Senate runoffs this week. Related: ‘You can’t lose a single vote’: can Biden navigate the 50-50 Senate? Continue reading… More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      TV networks left in limbo as America struggles to decide who won election

      by

      “This is why elections are fun,” said CNN’s John King, relentlessly jabbing at one of his two giant iPads as the lead in Florida lurched back and forth. Then he said it again. Absolutely no one agreed with him.About an hour and an epoch earlier, the networks and news channels had seemed as interested in their own redemption story as they were in the election itself. They hoped for a do-over of 2016, where every glib presumption would be replaced with a cautionary note, and a radical plan to wait, no matter how long it took, to see what would actually happen.That was temporarily good for democracy, but possibly difficult for television executives, whose solemn duty was to make their product as opaque as reality. “There is no telling when we are going to have a winner,” said Martha MacCallum, introducing Fox’s coverage with something other than a bang. “It could be hours, it could be days, it could possibly take even weeks.” On MSNBC, Brian Williams told viewers: “It’s going to be a night of a lot of math.” It wasn’t a thrilling observation, but it was at least unlikely to be clipped up and played on Twitter’s infinite loop in the days ahead.Of course, there was still the odd hostage to fortune. “Biden is doing much better with white voters, and I think that’s going to be a theme throughout this night,” said David Axelrod, the former Obama adviser, and you wondered if that would ultimately seem too obvious to remember or too idiotic to forget. In those moments, as the words left their mouths, the pundit class seemed like tightrope walkers: foolhardy or brave, one foot in front of another, the weight of history on their backs.Then the numbers came in, and the math went out of the window – or maybe just got more complicated. NBC’s Chuck Todd, swooshing around his own magic map, remarked: “All that tells me is, it’s going to take forever to call Florida.” Twenty minutes later, he said that the state “looked like an uphill climb for Joe Biden”. Half an hour after that, it was firmly in the Trump column.CNN’s entire broadcast, meanwhile, had become brutally compelling, appearing to jettison its ensemble of sedate anchors in favour of King’s one-man dramatic monologue on the Florida county of Miami-Dade. But, other than King’s unusual sense of what constitutes a good time, it wasn’t clear why it was still treating Florida like a toss-up.On the BBC, Andrew Neil and Katty Kay were formidable and austere, with Neil signing off from his perch at the corporation in a mood of magnificent irritation with America for not having made its mind up yet. The static cameras and distinct shortage of pounding theme music set them apart from their excitable US counterparts, which were increasingly difficult to distinguish from each other.CBS had a “what happens if” map; MSNBC had a “what if” map. Every studio adhered to an aesthetic of fluorescent Tetris. Countdown clocks and “key race alerts” with no outcome attached dragged viewers remorselessly from hour to hour. The phrase “blue wall” became ubiquitous, again.At some point , John King’s touchscreen stopped working. “You’re gonna have to come back to me,” he said. Meanwhile, the New York Times’ notorious election needles had swung firmly in Trump’s favour, and the prospect of days more trauma to come.Then one of them swung back again, and Fox News called Arizona for Biden ahead of anybody else. Karl Rove, who when Fox put Ohio in Obama’s column in 2012 had vocally disagreed on air with the station’s decision desk, vocally disagreed on air with the station’s decision desk.The only person who seemed certain of anything was the president himself.Trump tweeted that the Democrats “are trying to STEAL the election” and claimed that “Votes cannot be cast after the Poles are closed!” CNN’s Jake Tapper said that “the fact that the president misspelled ‘polls’ is just ‘chef’s kiss’”, which drew the kind of social media enthusiasm on the left that you might a few hours earlier have imagined would be reserved for a victory in Texas.Instead, the naive prospect of euphoria had been replaced with the desperate urge to stave off despair. In another time, those who found themselves unable to switch off might at least have hoped to absorb their anxiety with a few fellow travellers, and a drinking game or two. This year, the stakes are too vast, the lockdowns too dislocating. Instead, they sat in their bubbles, waiting – and waiting – for the future to burst through.Fun? Trump called it fraud. “We gotta dip in here because there have been several statements that are just frankly not true,” said the NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie, to her and the network’s eternal credit, even as rivals let him lie without interruption. On the BBC, a few hours earlier, the political scientist Larry Sabato had made a more plausible assessment.“We are very, very split,” he said. “This night has just begun.” More