MSNBC Hires Madeleine Haeringer, NBC News Veteran, to Run Digital, Audio, Longform
Madeleine Haeringer, a former senior editorial executive at NBC News, was named to a top job at MSNBC that will have her overseeing the cable-news outlet's digital, audio and longform content as it prepares to be spun off from NBCUniversal by parent Comcast.
Haeringer previously spent 22 years at NBC News, serving as a senior vice president of editorial and coordinated coverage across cable, broadcast and streaming., She also supervised units devoted to business and technology; health, race and inequality; and climate. And she worked to develop documentaries and scripted projects.
More from Variety
MSNBC's New Weekend Primetime Quartet Has Already Started a Conversation
Steve Kornacki Exits MSNBC for NBC News, Sports as Spin-Off Nears
MSNBC Ties Anchors to First Amendment in New Promo Campaign
After leaving NBC News in 2022 ,she worked as executive vice president and general manager of Crooked Media, where she supervised planning, development and programming for that progressive-media company's content portfolio. Over the years, she has managed NBC News' efforts to produce short-form content for the now-defunct streaming service Quibi and worked for Vice Media when that company was launching a weekday news program that aired on HBO.
MSNBC in trying to build its own bespoke news staff, as it will no longer be able to utilize the newsgathering resources of NBC News once Comcast spins off the majority of its cable operations into a new, publicly traded company. That move is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
Since taking the leadership reins at MSNBC earlier this year, president Rebecca Kutler has revamped the cable network's lineup and hired new senior executives who have been tasked with building up newsgathering resources in Washington, D.C.
Best of Variety
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
What's Coming to Disney+ in April 2025
The Best Celebrity Memoirs to Read This Year: From Chelsea Handler to Anthony Hopkins
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hails court ruling allowing White House to restrict AP access
President Trump celebrated a federal appeals court's ruling that allows the White House, for now, to restrict The Associated Press (AP) from the Oval Office and other limited spaces when reporting on the commander-in-chief. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked, in a 2-1 decision on Friday, an early April order from a district court judge that allowed the AP to regain its access to key White House spaces. The ruling blocked an April 8 order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden that found that the news wire's exclusion from the press pool, a small cadre of reporters reporting on the president's whereabouts, was unlawful. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao said in the Friday opinion, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. AP's spokesperson Patrick Maks said the organization is 'disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The White House's decision to exclude the AP originated from the news wire not wanting to use Gulf of America in its industry stylebook. The three-judge panel did not halt the part of McFadden's April order that provides AP access to the East Room. Judge Cornelia Pillard said in her dissent that being able to be in the press pool never relied on the news outlet's viewpoint until this year. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. Days after McFadden ruled in favor of AP in April, the White House removed a spot in the press pool normally occupied by wire services.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bruises, Threats And Obama-Shaped MDMA: 7 Shocking Revelations From Diddy's Trial
Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking and racketeering trial is well underway, with witnesses painting a picture of a violent and controlling Combs. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have accused the media mogul of using his money and prestige to run a criminal enterprise since at least 2004. He was indicted on five federal charges: one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs' apparent downfall comes after his ex, R&B singer Casandra 'Cassie' Ventura filed a damning lawsuit against him in November 2023. The lawsuit was settled quickly and quietly the following day, but additional accusers came forward alleging that Combs had abused and/or sexually violated them. Some of the accusers were minors at the time of the alleged events. He has denied the allegations against him and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He also rejected a plea deal shortly before the trial started. Combs' attorneys have attempted to downplay the case against him as an attempt to bring down a thriving Black man. In the months that followed, federal authorities raided his homes in Los Angeles and Miami, and CNN released a video showing Combs attacking Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel in 2016. Combs, who was once celebrated as a beacon of Black male success, has been held at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in September. The trial, which is not being televised or recorded, is expected to last around two months. Jury selection began on May 5. Opening statements occurred the following Monday. Many of the witnesses who have taken the stand essentially described Combs as evil. Kid Cudi called him a 'marvel supervillain;' Ventura said his 'eyes [would] go black;' and Bryana Bongolan, a friend to Ventura, said he called himself the 'devil.' If convicted, Combs could spend the rest of his life in jail. Here's a look at some of the most explosive and jarring moments from the trial. 'There was a line of questioning where your client was nodding vigorously and looking at the jury,' Judge Arun Subramanian told Combs' attorneys on June 5, according to NBC News. 'There should be no efforts to have any interactions with this jury.' The nodding the judge referred to came while Bongolan was on the stand. The judge said that Combs would be removed from the courtroom if he continued. Combs' lead attorney Marc Agnifilo told the judge that the interaction is 'not going to happen again.' 'This cannot happen again,' Subramanian reiterated. A pregnant Ventura took the stand for about a week at the beginning of the trial. At one point, she described what Combs called 'freak-offs.' 'It basically entails the hiring of an escort and setting up this experience so that I could perform for Sean,' Ventura said. The freak-offs allowed for Combs to 'watch me with the other person and actually direct us on what we were doing,' she added. 'Eventually it became a job for me, pretty much,' she claimed, adding that she had to personally reach out to the male escorts and had to participate in the freak-offs even if she was menstruating. She also claimed that he recorded the performances and used them as blackmail against her. Ventura described Combs during sexual encounters: 'His eyes go black. The version of him I was in love with was no longer there,' she said, according to The New York Times. Ventura also discussed being physically abused by Combs. Prosecutors showed the jury images of Ventura's injuries. Some of those images included bruises on her face, back and thigh, and a gash on her eyebrow, USA Today reported. Within two weeks of testifying, Ventura gave birth to her third child with her husband, Alex Fine. Kid Cudi, born Scott Mescudi, briefly dated Ventura in 2011. Mescudi testified on May 22 that Combs broke into his home when he was with Ventura and that he believes he set his luxury vehicle on fire with a Molotov cocktail. 'I'm going to be very candid,' Mescudi said while describing the break-in, according to Rolling Stone. 'I was like, 'Motherfucker, are you in my house?' And he said, 'I just want to talk to you.' I was like, 'I'm on my way over right now.' He was like, 'I'm here.'' But Mescudi did not find Combs when he arrived. He did, however, find that his dog was locked in a bathroom and that Christmas presents had been opened. He said Combs wanted to talk to him, but Mescudi said he responded by telling him, 'You broke into my house. You messed with my dog... Like, I don't want to talk to you.' Mescudi and Ventura stopped seeing each other in late December of 2011. 'The drama, it was just getting out of hand,' Mescudi testified. 'I kind of wanted to give her some space … for my safety, for her safety…' He also told the courtroom that he believed Ventura was 'playing' both him and Combs. Combs' former personal assistant from 2007 to 2009, David James, testified on May 19 that he personally acquired drugs for Combs before. James claimed that Combs used to take opiates during the day and ecstasy at night, according to CNN. Some of the ecstasy pills were shaped like former President Barack Obama, according to James. James also described Combs' drug use in more depth, including informing the jury of a 'medicine bag' that Combs brought around with him, according to Business Insider. 'There were probably 25 to 30 different pillboxes or pill bottles,' James said, according to BI. 'Some were like Advil, Tylenol. He had water pills to help him lose weight. He had Viagra in there. He had some pills that helped increase his sperm count, for example.' 'He did have ecstasy and Percocets in there, as well,' James added. Former member of the music groups Danity Kane and Diddy—Dirty Money, Dawn Richard, testified on May 16 that Combs compelled people in his orbit to stay quiet because 'where he comes from, people who say something can end up missing.' Richard described watching Combs beat Ventura when she took too long to cook his dinner, Business Insider reported. 'He took the skillet with the eggs in it and tried to hit her in the head, and she fell to the ground,' Richard testified. The next day, Combs told Richard and Ventura that 'what we saw was passion, and it was what lovers in a relationship do.' He also told them 'he was trying to take us to the top, and that, where he comes from, people go missing if they say things like that, like, if people talk. And then he gave us flowers,' according to Business Insider's report. Richard filed her own lawsuit against Combs in September 2024. She accused him of sexual assault, retaliation, threatening to end her life and refusing to pay her. Capricorn Clark had an on-and-off working relationship with Combs between 2004 and 2018, at one point working as his former assistant and as the marketing head for Sean Jean at another. She testified on May 27 that Combs kidnapped her at gunpoint in 2011 to kill Mescudi when he learned that Ventura was dating him. According to Clark, Combs came to her home in the early morning with a gun out, told her to get dressed, and said, 'We're going to go kill [Mescudi],' according to NPR. They went inside of Mescudi's house while he was not home, which Mescudi described in his own testimony. Clark claimed that Combs threatened to kill her if she informed the authorities. In a separate instance, Clark said Combs locked her in a building in Manhattan and subjected her to numerous lie detector tests when some of his jewelry went missing, NPR also reported. She said the man testing her told her that she would be 'thrown into the East River' if she failed. 'I was petrified,' Clark said. Mia, the pseudonym for a former assistant for Combs who he tasked with keeping an eye on Ventura, while taking the stand on May 29, described an instance in which Combs attacked Ventura at Prince's house in 2011 or 2012, according to The New York Times. 'Cass and I debated like little kids if we should sneak out of the house,' Mia reportedly said. But Combs showed up at the party. 'Oh, crap,' Mia recalled thinking when she saw her then-boss. 'Me and Cass just booked it.' When Combs caught them, he beat Cassie until a security guard for Prince interfered, according to USA Today. Mia claimed she was fired the next day for 'being insubordinate.' While on the stand, she also testified that Combs sexually assaulted her on more than one occasion. 'I couldn't tell him no about a sandwich — I couldn't tell him no about anything,' she said, according to the Times. 'There was no way I could tell him no, because then he would know that I thought what he was doing was wrong and then I would be a target.' Need help? Visit RAINN's National Sexual Assault Online Hotline or the National Sexual Violence Resource Center's website. Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Trump Weighs In On Possible Sean 'Diddy' Combs Pardon: 'He Used To Really Like Me' Cassie's Lawsuit Against Diddy Started A Movement Many Didn't See Coming 'Marvel Supervillain': Kid Cudi Describes Meeting With Diddy After Molotov Cocktail Hit His Porsche
