A Substack author of considerable self-importance, let’s call him
, files a screed headlined, “Morning Joe” explosion is a seminal event in American media,” that begins with florid writing like this:When considering the wreckage of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski’s credibility the image in my mind’s eye is the debris field and vapor trails of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia that painted a tragic Jackson Pollock against pale blue skies turned into a canvas of ruin.
He goes on for more than 2500 more overwrought words that meander through some name-dropping of NBC news greats, a reference to the Hindenburg disaster, an ode to Edward R. Murrow and a clip from World War II, another clip from one of his own past columns, and some more digs at Joe and Mika for spending some time at Mar-a-Lago with the next President of the United States.
(Note to readers: would you want to read 2500 words from me?)
(Note to self: no, they wouldn’t.)
Does anyone really care that much about Joe and Mika? Is their visit with Donald Trump really a “seminal event?”
Is obsession over the news media and media stars really an obsession among mainly the media and media stars? Do the rest of us really care?
It’s been three weeks since I turned on MSNBC for more than a few seconds, and I’m still on board with with what I wrote here:
I've Turned Off MSNBC
I’ve turned off Morning Joe. And Nicolle Wallace. I used to get something resembling a kick out of watching some people I respect and others I put up with say things I agree with, but that’s wearing thin these days.
It’s the same with the morning Roundtable panel on my local NPR station, which similarly features only people I respect and never anyone I find merely tolerable, but still centers on communal rending of garments. I’d rather read the newspaper. (If I can find one—don’t get me started…)
This weekend, I came across a column by Ginia Bellafante in the Sunday New York Times (I’m referencing a physical object with pages that turn) with the headline, “Some New Yorkers Wonder If it’s Time to Tune Out the News,” that made some of the same points.
When I spoke with a friend in Brooklyn a day or two after Donald Trump won, he told me he had committed to reading only the print paper — and just in the morning, forgoing any possible all-consuming afternoon digression into whatever might be up with Tulsi Gabbard. When I checked with him earlier this week, he was still maintaining the ritual and it felt good, he said.
Meanwhile, the ratings for Morning Joe continue to tank, as reported by
:“Morning Joe saw its ratings continue to decline Wednesday, as viewers protest the hosts warming up to Trump. The show averaged just 647K total viewers, with only 51K in the advertiser-coveted 25-54 demo. That means the show was down a staggering 60% in the demo versus its Q3 2024 average and down 43% in total viewers.”
I bet between you and me and our friends and family members, we know most of those 51,000 viewers. I bet most of them are here on Substack. They might even all be readers (still!) of The Washington Post, where you can still find insightful commentary and fine writing, like Erik Wemple’s column headlined,
Five reasons Democrats should turn off ‘Morning Joe’
The column dives deeply into the current brouhaha and Joe and Mika’s history with Trump, beginning with imagery that unlike Mr. Schmidt, chews no scenery.
In the creases and crevices of the Scarborough-Brzezinski presentation, it was easy to spot issues with their rationale, issues with the “Morning Joe” franchise and issues with the state of cable news. And, as luck would have it, it’s all reducible to five reasons Democrats should turn off “Morning Joe.”
Each of those five reasons are the same:
1. You’re better off reading a newspaper
2. You’re better off reading a newspaper
3. You’re better off reading a newspaper
4. You’re better off reading a newspaper
5. You’re better off reading a newspaper
I have spend a good part of my career as a propagandist consultant to liberal groups and many of them have worked to combat what we used to call media bias. During the Gulf War I invented a Media Bias Detector that people could use at home while they were watching the news.
Today, the problem isn’t media bias, it’s disinformation. Hardly anyone expects total objectivity from the “legacy media,” but they should expect—and most of the time, they get—responsibility.
That means grownup reporting, fact-checking, reliable sources, standards and editorial supervision. My preferred media diet consists of The New York Times, the Guardian and The Washington Post, with daily stops at Political Wire and the morning newsletters like Axios and Playbook.
I can rely on the Times for lively writing like Peter Baker’s, who first explains in “The Landslide That Wasn’t” the basis of Trump’s victory:
All told, he proved that he is not the historical aberration that many political strategists thought he was, doomed to be repudiated and not re-elected. He demonstrated that more Americans agreed with his view of a dystopian nation in crisis and were willing to accept a convicted felon as their leader than considered him the unacceptable fascist-leaning threat to democracy that his opponents described.
Peter Baker’s analysis dissects the fallacy of Trumps’ claim his margin of 1.6 percentage points, the third smallest since 1888, was a “landslide,” and includes writing I enjoyed like this:
At his first White House news conference as president after the 2016 election, he declared that he secured “the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan,” which was true only if one did not count George H.W. Bush, Mr. Clinton and Barack Obama, each of whom won larger totals in the Electoral College.
A year later, Mr. Trump claimed online to be “the most popular Republican in history of the Party,” which again was true only if one did not count five other Republican presidents since World War II who were more popular at their peak, according to polls. And he regularly boasted at rallies that he won the women’s vote in 2016, which was true only if one did not count women who were not white.
Delicious. And informative. Just what I want from my morning news diet.
Every political and communications professional I know is obsessing over how to navigate the new media ecosystem. A story in Semafor is headlined ,‘Get me on Rogan!’: PR scrambles to navigate new media and quotes the CEO of something called a “critical issues advisory firm” saying,
There are a lot of companies coming to us and saying, ‘OK, in addition to your classic WSJ, Bloomberg, what are the other ways we can reach the audience we want to reach and influence?’
We all know that people are getting information from social media, podcasts and YouTube, but what we don’t know is how information that blips by in an instant on your phone is sticking, or becoming the basis for future actions like voting.
As Andy Warhol almost said, in the future, everyone will be paying attention for 15 seconds. (Actually, it’s more like two seconds).
What can we do to get through?
The Times may have an answer. Today I read the obituary of former Senator Fred Harris, one of my early political heroes.
“The issue is privilege,” Mr. Harris told The New York Times in 1975. “The fundamental problem is that too few people have all the money and power, and everybody else has too little of either. The widespread diffusion of economic and political power ought to be the express goal — the stated goal — of government.”
Sound relevant to today? The Times obituary goes on,
Mr. Harris insisted that his message was an appeal to voters to unite across racial, regional and narrow self-interested lines. He saw it as an attack on “the superrich, giant corporations” and what he saw as the cherished illusion that there is equal opportunity in the United States.
Mr. Harris campaigned on a shoestring. He collected an army of volunteers and small contributions in ice-cream buckets, traveled in a camper and carrying his own luggage. He sought a coalition of disaffected Black and poor white people, blue-collar workers, farmers and families burdened by unemployment, inflation and taxes.
“Those in the coalition don’t have to love one another,” he said. “All they have to do is recognize that they are commonly exploited, and that if they get themselves together they are a popular majority and can take back the government.”
When I was living and working around Washington D.C.’s Dupont Circle in the 1980s, I spent a significant number of my evenings at a bar called Jimmy K’s, (whose proprietor and a few of his customers read and react to this newsletter) where I once had the pleasure of meeting Fred Harris. After one or three of Jimmy’s famous Cajun Martinis (soak pickled okra in vodka. add hot peppers. chill glass and shake) Senator Harris told me the old-school line about the secret to getting by in Washington.
“If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, screw their women—and then vote against them, you have no business being in politics.” Fred Harris was telling a joke, not making an admission, and I enjoyed hanging out with him.
But that community of “commonly exploited” now are listening to Joe Rogan, not Joe and Mika, and obsessing over right wing media or wallowing with MSNBC isn’t going to get them to vote for Democrats. We need to figure out what will. I have some ideas on this subject, as you may have noticed.
If you want to stay engaged with the news, read newspapers. And it wouldn’t hurt to remember Fred Harris, and his populist message that still rings true.
The issue is still privilege, as is going to be increasingly clear—and dangerous when the billionaires, plutocrats and Musk-rats take over.
In the meantime, you’re not missing anything over on MSNBC. I’ll repeat my plug for the Guardian, which is unique partly because, as this article explains, “The Guardian has no proprietor in the normal sense of the word.”
The Guardian is owned by a foundation called the Scott Trust, whose “job is to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to uphold the values laid out by CP Scott, which underscore all we continue to pursue today in our journalism: honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and a sense of duty to the reader and to the community.”
Maybe the Scott Trust could buy The Washington Post.
I do still try to catch Lawrence…
Watch what hosts you'd like... quite a few work pretty hard against trumpism so, I wouldn't toss a voice like MSNBC out yet. RESIST TRUMP