
Inside MSNBC's secret plot to get rid of Joy Reid after her woke rants gave bosses 'heartburn'
MSNBC's secret plot to get rid of its wokest star Joy Reid has been revealed two months after she was fired from the network.
The Reid Out star's regular social media rants 'gave the Standards Department heartburn,' an insider at the liberal network told Politico.
NBC News boss Cesar Conde and former MSNBC boss Rashida Jones began plotting to get rid of Reid in late 2023, it is claimed.
They attempted what Politico called 'severance in drag' by only offering Reid a one year contract extension, while also cutting her pay in the hopes she'd get the hint and quit.
But Reid - famed for her strident support of DEI and dislike of MAGA - did not take the hint and stayed on.
Jones left MSNBC earlier this year, with new boss Rebecca Kutler promptly firing Reid shortly after beginning her role.
She had the blessing of Mark Lazarus, who's the CEO of SpinCo, the name of MSNBC's new parent company after it was separated from NBC News and its parent Comcast.
While MSNBC has now shed its most progressive star, there's no suggestion the network is going to become less wing.
But bosses are said to have wanted to take a less inflammatory approach to covering politics as Donald Trump's second term as president gets under way.
MSNBC's two top execs fired Joy Reid in February after more than a year of pushback from its parent Comcast, according to a sprawling report from Politico. Fueled by insight from more than three dozen staffers, it describes how C-suiters had become fed-up with Reid's rants
New boss Rebecca Kutler did the honors with soon-to-be SpinCo CEO Mark Lazarus's seal of approval, according to a sprawling report from Politico
Described as 'unafraid to break things' by an old coworker and a 'fantastic leader' by a former rival, Kutler ruthlessly pulled the Reid Out from MSNBC's programming as part of a round of layoffs - again, days after taking the reigns.
Lazarus, meanwhile, was billed as more conservative than some of his progressive colleagues at the Peacock Network and SpinCo, the cable-channel-centered company set to part from Comcast.
'He could have a MAGA hat at home and we wouldn't know,' one MSNBC staffer interviewed for the feature said.
Lazarus is also said to have told staffers he doesn't think Republicans get a fair shake on MSNBC.
He's been at NBC since 2011, and previously held the prestigious position of chairman of NBCU's media group.
There, he oversaw the company's TV and Streaming platforms - well enough to earn the trust of those at Comcast to handle the ongoing split.
Humiliatingly, Reid's firing was leaked before she could announce it after a list of names of layoffs was left sitting atop a printer at MSNBC's Rockefeller Center HQ.
Among those upset was the network's star Rachel Maddow, who took to her show to rant at bosses for getting rid of Reid and other non-white stars.
Lazarus, meanwhile, was billed as more conservative than some of his progressive colleagues at the Peacock Network and SpinCo, the cable-channel-centered company set to part from Comcast.
That was after Lazarus handed Maddow a $5million paycut as one of her first moves upon taking his position.
She now earns 'just' $25 million a year.
While Maddow remains a ratings draw, her audience is older and her decision to bite the hand that feeds her is said to have raised rumblings of discontent inside MSNBC, according to Puck.
Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki is MSNBC's new star and is seen by some as a less entitled successor to Maddow as cable TV continues to shed viewers and profits slowly fizzle.
He and Kutler are hoping to transform what is widely viewed as a declining asset - MSNBC - as the flagship of a a growing startup, set to bring in money from streaming and other means aside from cable.
'We have the ability to transcend this linear cable box,' Kutler - the leader of programming for the failed exploit that was CNN+ - told Politico for the report.
'We have the ability to build things.'
Meanwhile, MSNBC - and many top talents - continued their move to another floor at 30 Rock, where SpinCo will soon be up and running later this year.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
New GOP bill would protect AI companies from lawsuits if they offer transparency
Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., is introducing legislation Thursday that would shield artificial intelligence developers from an array of civil liability lawsuits provided they meet certain disclosure requirements. Lummis' bill, the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act, seeks to clarify that doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, engineers and other professionals who use AI programs in their decision-making retain legal liability for any errors they make — so long as AI developers publicly disclose how their systems work. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI — in fact, it requires AI developers to publicly disclose model specifications so professionals can make informed decisions about the AI tools they choose to utilize,' Lummis, a member of the Commerce Committee, said in a statement first shared with NBC News. 'It also means that licensed professionals are ultimately responsible for the advice and decisions they make. This is smart policy for the digital age that protects innovation, demands transparency, and puts professionals and their clients first.' Lummis' office touted the bill as the first piece of federal legislation that offers clear guidelines for AI liability in a professional context. The measure would not govern liability for other AI elements, such as self-driving vehicles, and it would not provide immunity when AI developers act recklessly or willfully engage in misconduct. 'AI is transforming industries — medicine, law, engineering, finance — and becoming embedded in professional tools that shape critical decisions,' her office said in a release. 'But outdated liability rules discourage innovation, exposing developers to unbounded legal risk even when trained professionals are using these tools.' Exactly who is liable when AI is used in sensitive medical, legal or financial situations is a bit of a gray area, with some states seeking to enact their own standards. The House-passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which is advancing through Congress and supported by President Donald Trump, includes a provision that would ban states from enacting any AI regulations for 10 years. Senate Republicans last week proposed changing the provision to instead block federal funding for broadband projects to states that regulate AI. Both Democratic and Republican state officials have criticized the effort to prohibit state-level regulations over the next decade, while AI executives have argued that varying state laws would stifle industry growth when the United States is in stiff competition with countries like China.


The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Southern Baptist same-sex marriage resolution rings an alarm
That's a lot of animosity packed into one declaration. But it's one that Republicans seem increasingly interested in supporting. What's scary is that there are now efforts to bring same-sex marriage back to the Supreme Court with the intention of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges. Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives has passed a resolution to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decade-old ruling. Eight other state legislatures introduced similar measures affecting the legality of same-sex marriage. It's not just outrageous that so many legislative officials are trying to do away with gay marriage. It's terrifying to the LGBTQ+ people you know. The Southern Baptist resolution is a harrowing sign of the legal fight that could be around the corner. Opinion: A trans athlete won in California. Her peers cheered - and exposed the truth. Polling says gay marriage is popular. Do Republicans care? Same-sex marriage still has majority support in the United States, according to polling. In a Gallup survey conducted in May 2025 , 68% of respondents say same-sex marriages should have the same rights as traditional marriages, compared with 29% of people who disagreed. While that's a hopeful number, there are some caveats. Support for gay marriage has decreased from 71% in 2023. Republican support has dropped to 41% from 55% in 2021 and 2022, and is now the lowest it's been since 2016. Opinion: Republicans are going after marriage. LGBTQ+ people like me tried to warn you. Now that a denomination with nearly 13 million members is coming out against gay marriage, I fear that we will continue to see a decline in support. Even if gay marriage retains support, the Supreme Court already went against popular opinion when it overturned Roe v. Wade. In his opinion on that issue, Justice Clarence Thomas said he believed the court should reconsider Obergefell. He said the quiet part out loud. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. What happened to 'love thy neighbor'? Guess not if they're LGBTQ? While I grew up within a different denomination, my childhood in North Carolina was spent around Southern Baptists. I have attended their services; I have been to their funerals. I know LGBTQ+ people who were raised in their churches, and my heart breaks for them and their families. While Christianity has become burdened by dogma and interpretations, the most important lesson, the one that is universal, regardless of your denomination, is that you're supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself. To me, this means wanting them to have the same rights as you have, including in your marriage. It is shameful that Southern Baptists have lost sight of this message and instead want to advocate for fewer rights for LGBTQ+ people. But it's not surprising given where Trump's Republican Party is trending on the topic. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeno on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno


The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
GOP student loan overhaul is getting closer to becoming law
Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. "While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @