At the crossroads of information and view, ‘Morning Joe’ hosts grapple with aftermath of Trump conference

One of the striking things about how furiously many people reacted to the information last week that MSNBC “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski met with President-Elect Donald Trump was how quaint their defenders sounded.

“It is insane for critics to NOT ponder all of us in the media require to recognize more so we can distribute/update more,” Jim VandeHei, co-founder of Axios and Politico, said on social media.

It would be journalistic malpractice for the hosts of a morning television information program not to receive a conference with a president-elect, correct? But “Morning Joe” isn’t traditional journalism, and last week’s incident is a telling illustration of the broader pattern of impartial truth-finding being crowded out in the marketplace by opinionated information and the expectations that creates.

Scarborough, a former congressman, and his wife, veteran newswoman Brzezinski, didn’t just talk about the presidential campaign from their four-hour weekday perch. They tirelessly and emotionally advocated for Democrat Kamala Harris, likening Trump to a fascist-in-waiting.

“They have portrayed themselves as bastions of integrity standing up to a would-be dictator,” says Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief now professor at George Washington University’s school of media and community affairs. “What the followers view is the daily procession of people on the display constantly talking about the evils of Donald Trump and then Joe and Mika display up and have high tea with the guy.”

The social media blowback was instant and intense. “You do not require to talk to Hitler to cover him effectively,” was one of the nicer messages.

More telling is the people who have responded with action.

“Morning Joe” had 770,000 viewers last Monday, its spectators — like many shows on MSNBC — down from its yearly average of 1.09 million because some of the network’s liberal-leaning viewers have tuned away after what they regard as depressing election results. That’s the day Scarborough and Brzezinski announced they had met with Trump the previous Friday.

By Tuesday, the “Morning Joe” spectators had slipped to 680,000, according to the Nielsen corporation, and Wednesday’s viewership was 647,000. Thursday rebounded to 707,000. It’s only three days of data, but those are the benevolent of statistics about which television executives brood.

“The spectators for the polarized information-industrial complicated has become unforgiving,” says Kate O’Brian, outgoing head of information of the E.W. Scripps Co.

The Washington Post learned this last month when it lost a reported 250,000 subscribers — presumably the bulk of them non-Trump supporters — after announcing it would not endorse a candidate for president. A draft of an editorial endorsing Harris had already been in the works.

Mixing information and view isn’t recent; many U.S. newspapers in the 1800s were unabashedly partisan. But for most of the history century, there was a vigorous attempt to divide the two. Broadcast television, licensed to serve the community gain, built up truth-based information divisions. What began to transformation things was the achievement of Fox information in building a conservative spectators that believed it was underserved and undervalued.

Now there’s a vigorous industry catering to people who desire to view their points of view reflected — and are less interested in reporting or any content that contradicts them.

The most notable pattern in 2024 campaign coverage was the diminishing influence of so-called legacy information brands in favor of outlets like podcasts that offered publicity-hungry politicians a amiable, if not supportive, home. Trump, for example, visited several podcasters, including the influential Joe Rogan, who awarded Trump with an endorsement.

“I won’t even call it journalism,” Sesno says. “It’s storytelling.”

The history decade’s trip of Megyn Kelly is one illustration of how view can pay off in today’s climate. Once one of the more aggressive reporters at Fox information, she angered Trump in a 2015 debate with a pointed question about his treatment of women. She moved to the legacy outlet NBC information, but that didn’t work for her. She has since started a flourishing podcast with conservative, and Trump-amiable, view.

Among cable TV-based information brands, CNN has tried hardest to now an image of impartiality, even if many conservatives dissent. So the collapse in its ratings has been noteworthy: the network’s spectators of 4.7 million people for its election night coverage was essentially half the 9.1 million people it had for the same night in 2020.

O’Brian is leaving Scripps at the complete of the year because it is ending its 24-hour television information network after finding impartiality was a tough business. Scripps is continuing a streaming information product.

That’s the surroundings Scarborough and Brzezinski work in on “Morning Joe.”

“They are very talented display hosts,” Sesno says. “But they are not out on the front lines doing journalism, seeking truth in the way that a professional journalist does.”

Hours after the hosts’ announcement that they had met with Trump, an MSNBC co-worker, legal contributor and correspondent Katie Phang, said on X that “normalizing Trump is a impoverished concept.” Scarborough had made a point of saying that was not what he was attempting to do.

“It’s not up to you or your corrupt industry to ‘normalize’ or not ‘normalize’ any politician who wins an election fair & square,” Christina Pushaw, the pugnacious aide to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, replied to Phang. “Americans had their declare; Trump will be your president arrive January whether you ‘normalize’ it or not. I would suggests journos should receive reality.”

Quaintness alert: Sesno is among those who depend the “Morning Joe” hosts did the correct thing.

Whatever the motivations — and there are some who depend that worries that a Trump administration could make life challenging very challenging for them was on the hosts’ minds — opening a line of communication to ensure that a display based on politics is not completely cut off from the thinking of a presidential administration makes business sense, he says. A little modesty doesn’t hurt.

Even if her own job has proven that it’s not a great business now, Scripps’ O’Brian has seen enough focus groups of people who yearn for a more traditional journalism-based way to depend in its importance.

“I ponder that there is still a require for nonpartisan information,” says the former longtime ABC information producer, “and maybe what brings it back to where it used to be will be an exhaustion from the hyper-polarized climate that we currently live in.”

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. pursue him at http://x.com/dbauder.