Erik Wemple, the media critic for The Washington Post, recently published a scathing critique of MSNBC’s programming strategy, particularly concerning the network’s coverage of Donald Trump’s post-presidency era. Wemple’s central argument revolves around what he perceives as a pronounced bias towards consensus and a lack of dissenting viewpoints on MSNBC, leading to a homogenized and predictable viewing experience.
Wemple’s investigation involved an extensive 18-hour viewing marathon of MSNBC programming, spanning from the early morning "Morning Joe" show to primetime slots. His goal was to identify instances of genuine debate and diverse perspectives, akin to what he observes on other cable news networks since Trump’s departure from the White House. The result, according to Wemple, was largely disappointing, with only a single instance of what he considered a true debate.
This lone exception occurred during MSNBC’s new evening program, "The Weeknight," where co-hosts Symone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, and Alicia Menendez engaged in a spirited discussion with Republican Representative Victoria Spartz of Indiana. Wemple acknowledged this exchange as an "intense exchange of views that qualifies as a debate." However, he emphasized that this was an isolated incident within the broader context of MSNBC’s programming.
Wemple’s criticism extends beyond the scarcity of dissenting voices to the type of Republican voices that are featured on the network. He quoted Aidan McLaughlin, editor-in-chief of Mediaite, who suggested that MSNBC deliberately seeks out anti-Trump Republicans to create a semblance of balance. McLaughlin argued that these individuals, while holding Republican affiliations, do not accurately represent the views of the 77 million voters who supported Trump.
The consequence of this approach, according to Wemple, is a programming environment where hosts and guests primarily compete to deliver the most forceful condemnations of the "Trump regime." This creates a situation where viewers are consistently exposed to a unified perspective, lacking the opportunity to engage with alternative viewpoints and critically evaluate different arguments.
Wemple argues that this programming model leads to "vast expanses of predictable programming in which people passionately agree with one another." He suggests that the absence of genuine debate and diverse perspectives diminishes the value of MSNBC’s content and ultimately disserves its audience.
While Wemple’s critique is largely negative, he does acknowledge that certain MSNBC programs occasionally deviate from this pattern. He specifically mentions host Ari Melber, who sometimes includes dissenting voices on his show. Additionally, he notes that "Morning Joe" co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski recently hosted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on their program. However, these instances are presented as exceptions rather than the rule.
Wemple contends that MSNBC’s current programming model would have been considered "outright journalistic fraud" before Trump’s rise to prominence. He suggests that the heightened political polarization and the perceived threat posed by Trump have led to a relaxation of traditional journalistic standards, where objectivity and impartiality are sacrificed in favor of ideological alignment.
He contrasts MSNBC’s approach with that of CNN, which he describes as featuring Trump-supporting guests in "loud chaotic" arguments. While he doesn’t necessarily endorse CNN’s approach, he argues that it at least provides viewers with the opportunity to hear pro-Trump arguments, even if they are presented in a contentious manner and potentially lack factual basis.
Ultimately, Wemple expresses skepticism about the ability of television, as a medium, to effectively cover Trump. He suggests that the inherent limitations of the medium, combined with the complexities of Trump’s persona and political movement, make it difficult to provide balanced and nuanced coverage. As an alternative, he recommends that readers turn to newspapers for more in-depth and objective reporting.
In response to Wemple’s criticisms, an MSNBC spokesperson provided a list of commentators and hosts with Republican backgrounds who frequently appear on the network. These individuals, including Michael Steele, Tim Miller, and Susan Del Percio, are described as consistently anti-Trump voices. However, Wemple’s argument centers not on the presence of Republicans on the network, but rather on the specific types of Republicans who are chosen and the overall lack of ideological diversity.
Notably, MSNBC declined to provide an official comment to Fox News Digital regarding Wemple’s column. This silence may be interpreted as an indication that the network is unwilling to publicly address the criticisms raised by Wemple and others.
The publication of Wemple’s column coincides with the recent struggles of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s new primetime program on MSNBC. The program reportedly experienced a significant drop in viewership in its key demographic, further highlighting the challenges faced by the network in attracting and retaining viewers.
Wemple’s critique of MSNBC raises important questions about the role of cable news networks in a polarized media landscape. His analysis suggests that the pursuit of ideological alignment and the avoidance of dissenting viewpoints can undermine the quality of journalism and ultimately disserve the public. By highlighting the perceived biases and limitations of MSNBC’s programming strategy, Wemple encourages viewers to critically evaluate the information they consume and seek out diverse perspectives from a variety of sources.
