There is a lot of talk in journalism circles about the need to be "non-partisan." But the truth is that we are all human and we have our blind spots. We may think of ourselves as not picking a side, but every question a journalist asks, every decision that is made about what story to report on and how to frame the issue is a political decision. And that also applies to news organizations, who ultimately reflect the humans who work for them.
Every organization and journalist has blind spots. So the most important thing you can do as a journalist or a news organization is to be aware of your blind spots and then attempt to be as fair as possible. By knowing your journalistic weaknesses, you are able to highlight potential issues and make sure to adjust your coverage accordingly.
I have been a regular viewer of MSNOW (formerly MSNBC) since it's earliest days. Even when there were shows I couldn't stomach (the early Michael Savage/Tucker Carlson era was tough), it overall felt like a better match for my personal interests than the other major cable news networks. It has always been a network that struggled between deciding what it wanted to be. Pressures from NBC News to be more "straight news" often led to some mundane programming. And pressures to not be perceived as "anti-American" led to some ill-fated decisions, such as the decision to fire Phil Donahue in 2003.
While things have settled down a bit in recent years, I have thought the MSNOW split from NBC and NBC News will be a net positive. Free of the tension caused by NBC News interference, MSNOW can embrace what seems to be its sweet spot in the cable news marketplace. Leaning left, but still willing to be both fair and hard on its allies when needed.
Back in October, I argued MSNOW should embrace populism and I still think that's a good idea. It both resonates with the DNA of the network and allows it to carve out its own spot in cable news. Populism is also something that would be attractive to the social media and YouTube audiences the network is apparently now trying to embrace:
Over the past few years, focus group after focus group has found that a large number of Americans struggle with the same issues. They feel abandoned. Good-paying manufacturing jobs have left the country. And that impacts workers in every place from the deep rural south to the biggest urban cities. Local stores (with local jobs) have been swallowed up by large hedge fund-driven semi-monopolies.
It feels as if every aspect of America - all the important community institutions that used to bind us together - are now just hallowed-out piggy banks that are being sucked by private equity funds and then discarded.
And no matter the politics of the people you ask, they all feel as if they've been let down by the government. By the media. That the issues that are important to them are dismissed by power brokers on Wall Street and in the Federal Government.
And that's where I think MSNOW's focus should be. It needs to non-partisan voice of the viewers. It needs to be the voice of populism, the one place where issues that matter to America as a whole can be reported on and highlighted.
The beauty of focusing on populism is that it is political, but not partisan. It allows MSNBC/MSNOW to concentrate on topics that are intimately important to viewers but have a political component that allows the network to leverage its existing news assets.
And to be honest, this is a topic that neither Fox News or CNN are likely to be brave enough to tackle. Both of those networks are captured by the political and cultural beliefs of their own billionaire owners. And while the new MSNOW won't be immune from those pressures, it will be the best situated to lean into populism. An approach which is unique enough to give it added value in the marketplace.
But even if MSNOW isn't interested in populism, it needs to at least be perceived as being fair and also equally hard-hitting to friend and foe. It's fine to editorially feel drawn to one side of the political spectrum. But the difference between leaning left and being a house organ for the Left is the difference between being a conservative-leaning news organization and Fox News.
And if MSNBC/MSNOW has one core problem, it's the tendency to take it easy on the Democratic Party's organizational figures. Because the network's anchor lineup contains a few ex-White House or other party strategists, there can be a tendency to want to hew to the conventional wisdom they are most comfortable with embracing. The network as a whole was entirely too slow to take criticisms of Joe Biden's health seriously. And it can be too willing to let Democratic legislators come on and say their piece without pressing them in a way that is both fair but skeptical.
As one example, on Thursday, Ali Velshi filled in for Chris Hayes on his primetime show and one of his guests was House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The timing of the interview was important, because it came at a time when Democrats are in the middle of deciding how best to push back against funding DHS for another year. And both Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been under fire from some fellow Democrats, who argue their proposal to limit masked agents and force them to wear body cams is essentially worthless. Because DHS has already proved to be willing to ignore laws they find inconvenient.
So Velshi asked Jeffries about the proposal, without asking the Minority Leader the obvious follow-up question: "Given that ICE agents are already ignoring existing laws on a regular basis, what would prevent them from doing the same after this deal is made?" The end result was that Jeffries just ended up delivering a variation of his talking points, which didn't provide any clarity for the viewer. That was especially frustrating for regular viewers of All In With Chris Hayes, because the DHS's willingness to ignore existing laws is a regular talking point by Hayes, and presumably an issue he would have pressed with Jeffries.
Later in the interview, Velshi asked about the decision by some Democratic House members to vote to compel Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. It has been well-reported that the Dem votes were motivated in large part by the strategy that the Clinton testimony could be used to set a precedent which could compel a future ex-President Trump to testify in front of a House or Senate committee.
Velshi directly asked Jeffries about whether Donald Trump might be asked to testify in the future and not only did Jeffries dodge the question - and in a quite clumsy fashion - within two sentences, he was talking about affordability.
After Jeffries finished his expansive yet also off-topic response, Velshi needed to do what some other television journalists have began doing with members of the Trump Administration that give non-responsive answers. Follow-up with the question, "With respect, can you answer my question directly?"
I'm not arguing that MSNOW anchors should consistently pick on-air confrontations with friendly Democratic legislators. I am arguing that they shouldn't see the network as a friendly environment where they are never asked the hard questions or forced to confront difficult issues. That sort of party friendly approach doesn't serve the viewers well and it doesn't do the network any favors, either.
To be clear, some of the MSNOW anchors do an overall good job pressing their Democratic guests when needed. But they are often not the norm for the network and that continues to be one of MSNOW's biggest weaknesses.
And on a side note, the political consultant who convinced Hakeem Jeffries to move his hands forcefully every time he makes a point should be run out of the business.
