Rachel Maddow reportedly takes hefty pay cut

Typically female. Too damn humble.

I am certain Morning Joe (and his sideshow ho), a Republican operative, will demand a raise rather than humbly offer to take a pay cut!

Oh, please. Maddow's salary wasn't cut solely because the ratings have sucked the past couple of weeks. Liberals are obviously still reeling from the election, and the only thing going on right now is Trump announcing his ever more odious cabinet nominees.

They're cutting her salary for the same reason they're cutting everyone's salary: fewer people watch either network or cable TV with each passing year. (I can watch MSNBC online, but I haven't had cable TV for over a decade.) Even the networks' most blue chip shows – their morning & late night ones, and a mere 15 years ago they were *each* generating over $200 million a year in profit, at least for NBC & ABC – are rapidly losing viewership, and they're taking pay cuts as well. (This is also why Ellen Pompeo left "Grey's Anatomy": she's too pricey. Mariska's been saved only because SVU is the single best performing drama on streaming.)

Rach, honey, I could live very well on just the amount of your pay cut. Wanna throw some of your $ at your devoted fans? Thanks -- and stop by my place if you want to take it out in trade.

Purr Rachel.

Purr, purr Rachel.

No matter. Comcast’s is spinning off its cable operations. Musk will buy them just out of spite and shut down MSNBC.

She works one day a week.

Now how will she afford her meds?

From 30 million to 20 million, how will she get by?

Poor, poor her. The poor dear.

She looks like Arnie from the movie Christine.

I haven't watched since that Alix Whatsername took over.

R5 Sounds good to me.

While I like Rachel and taking a pay cut merely improves my opinion of her, let's not pretend that $25mm per year is not an extremely lucrative amount, even if it represents a $5mm pay cut.

She's been on MSNBC since 2008 - 16 years. The article notes her "typical five year contract" which suggests that her last last five year contract was for $30mm per year. Let's assume her first contract was shorter and for less. To use the word "typical" suggests that at least her last two contracts were each for five years.

They’ll be cutting her loose soon.

How does she get away with working one time a week?

I think Musk is going to try and buy MSNBC when it's split off.

I'm surprised she signed a new contract when the future of the network is in doubt. She must have some escape clauses in case someone like Musk buys it.

It’s not a pay cut really. It’s a 5-year $125 million contract. That’s better than a 1-year $30 million contract, for instance. The former gives her security.

My Lezzie crush. I love her.

Boo hoo.

Has Whoopi commented?

How will her great-great-great grandkids afford caviar and Cristal while sitting on their fat asses? She’s so selfish.

R22 I'm a rich elderly lesbian in my 50s. If I'd wanted progeny, I'd have had them long ago.

---RM

I haven't been following the Comcast saga but I thought MSNBC's ratings rose the last time Trump was president? The fact that they're down now is just a matter of election fatigue.

She gay shamed Mayor Pete. Take off another 5 million for that.

Pride goeth before a fall.

[quote] She gay shamed Mayor Pete.

Link.

It's not like she's sitting around fishing all day. There are podcasts to research, then voice. Books to write. Documentaries to write, produce, film etc. Claws back in fellas!

I agree, R24. Once the shit-show of tRump-2, the sequel starts - I will start to pay more attention. Otherwise, I am still exhausted.

I found her delivery tedious and over dramatic. And she shouldn’t be working on news again after the Russia collusion, Mueller report came out to nothing.

R30, I agree completely. I really dislike her breathless delivery like she has some amazing news to share. Which of course she never has. But we’re in the minority.

[quote] It's not like she's sitting around fishing all day. There are podcasts to research, then voice. Books to write. Documentaries to write, produce, film etc. Claws back in fellas!

None of that is part of her job at MSNBC. She was able to get them to underwrite her gig as an historian. Better than being on some faculty. Plus, they promote the hell out of everything she produces.

I really admire her agent. All that money for appearing (from home) once a week and on the occasional big news event.

Her lover is known to have very expensive tastes (that's why Rachel keeps this gig). I'm sure Ms. Mikula found the MSNBC paycut to be quite discourteous. I can imagine the items that were hurled in that condo kitchen when the news broke...to be a fly on the wall.

I quit watching the Big 3 network news during the 2000 election debacle.

I quit watching MSNBC sometime in October of this year simply because of election fatigue.

But I'm not going back. Their formula of grandiosely announcing some huge Trump scandal, then one of their panel of "experts" like Joyce Vance or Maya Wiley or Jason Johnson pronouncing Trump is toast, then nothing happens to Trump, no longer works for me. Time for a new schtick. The old formula no longer works.

[quote]She's been on MSNBC since 2008 - 16 years.

I remember when she first started - taking over the timeslot formerly occupied by Dan Abrams, before they fired him.

When the timeslot became available, and MSNBC was looking to find the right host, rumors were flying that Rosie O'Donnell would take over the hour each night and discuss politics. Rosie, herself, sat for many interviews promoting herself and saying 'she was talking with MSNBC' and that she would have something to announce 'in the very near future'. I remember it was 'leaked' that she ran into Larry King at a restaurant, and warned him she'd be competing with him very soon (the two TV hosts genuinely liked each other).

Then the shoe dropped, and MSNBC officially said they chose their new host, and it wasn't Rosie. She, of course, suggested it was because she was a 'loud, liberal lesbian' and the network 'got cold feet'. She walked that back rather quickly when they announced the new host was Maddow. Whoops !

She started as a guest on Keith Olbermann’s show. Then she would fill in for him. The rest is history.

Aw, diddums.

I'd love to hear a bit about the multitude of charities she should certainly be supporting as a childless lesbian multi-millionaire.

Oh no, how will she survive on $25 million? It's a shanda, A SHANDA I TELL YOU!!

Having my salary cut from $30m to $25m sounds like my dream life.

Don Lemon would be happy with it.

[quote]after the Russia collusion, Mueller report came out to nothing.

Your orange turd won, r30, you can stop trolling now.

Imagine getting paid 25 million dollars a year to recite government propaganda and read from court documents

R36 I think MSNBC had their focus on Maddow all along, and were just stringing Rosie along and letting her talk about her 'negotiations' in the media - she was keeping MSNBC in the headlines in every interview she did.

IIRC, it was around this time that Rosie also went around announcing that she was contracted for a full season to host an hour long variety show each week on NBC - sort of like what Carol Burnett did in the 70s. I can't recall if it was after the MSNBC 'project' or before, but it was around that time. She did a pilot episode which aired the night before Thanksgiving, bombed in the ratings and it was over. NBC said they never offered her a whole season - just the one-off.

More recently, in 2020/21, Rosie was doing the exact same thing with the (then) upcoming revival of 'Funny Girl'. Every chance she had, she claimed she was going to play 'Mrs. Brice' in the Broadway revival. Contracts were signed, and they were going to start rehearsals after COVID, once B'way reopened. Sure enough, the production went into rehearsals in late 2021, and Jane Lynch got the role - Rosie's name was never mentioned, and she never mentioned 'Funny Girl' again.

Exactly what government propaganda does she recite, r42?

That Yahoo story has numerous factual errors. She didn't "start" at MSNBC on schmuck David Gregory's show. She started as a guest for [italic]Countdown[/italic] and Olbermann liked her. Other hosts (cough Gregory cough) didn't because she's smart, knows her shit, and doesn't cower before so-called "greatness" particularly when it's a hack who doesn't belong on the air dishing it out.

Second, the network isn't going to freak out over the ratings drop since Election night. It's only been a little over two weeks! And they've seen this kind of ratings chaos before; when Shitler won in 16, their viewership dropped; when Biden won in 2020, it climbed. Simultanously, when the Mango Mussolini won in 16, Fox's viewership exploded, and fell off a cliff in 20 with Biden. It does not take a rocket scientist (even Elmo!) to see exactly what has happened. Like about 40% of MSNBC's audience, I cannot watch the news since EN. For my mental health, I am limiting my news exposure to written matter that closely hews to facts and avoids conjecture and punditry.

Finally, as R5 mentioned, they announced just after EN that they are spinning off the cable portion of NBC. It's so early they don't even have a name for the spin off, calling it ridiculously "SpinCo". Two points: first, as a spin off, it's not up for sale per se, and while any publicly traded company is subject to a hostile takeover, the idea that Elmo will buy it to kill it is far fetched; second, spinning MSNBC off without their star at the helm is suicide that even the people who own and run cable networks will not commit.

My guess is that they offered her partial ownership or a massive stock/option deal in exchange for a modest pay cut, probably telling her that they'll use the $5M to hire staff, reporters, and build some infrastructure as extra incentive. If they're going to separate MSNBC from NBC news, they'll need that infrastructure to continue operating and wean themselves off of NBC's teat.

Ultimately, I think this is exciting and a real opportunity for Rachel and the rest of the MSNBC staff. They'll finally have a shot at developing a real liberal network without the constraints of NBC standards and the fiefdoms built there. And what better time than when the liberal audience is going through shellshock and recalibrating? My only concern is that they'll keep Rashida Jones or worse, bring in someone like Chris Licht or a former Fox/Murdoch buffoon. I'd love to see them bring Olbermann back but now I see why Rachel nixed the idea six months ago. (I'd like to point out to Rachel that Keith is 65 and doesn't want to work forever, but would be a tremendous resource getting MSNBC back on track, having built it in the first place as well as struggling through Al Gore's Current TV fiasco.)

[quote] Two points: first, as a spin off, it's not up for sale per se, and while any publicly traded company is subject to a hostile takeover, the idea that Elmo will buy it to kill it is far fetched;

Not after what he did to Twitter.

Oh no how will she afford her top tier haircuts going forward

Without NBC News they are not going to be able to cover any breaking news. It will just be a glorified SiriusXM talk station.

Elmo (and the Russians, the Saudis, and oligarchs around the world) didn't buy Twitter because they thought it was a great business opportunity any more than it being a credible news source, R46. Twitter was extremely threatening to TPTB, and controlling the hive mind was paramount to the emerging broligarchy. An independent MSNBC won't even be static noise to them. And if my conjecture is correct — that Rachel is acquiring a significant ownership stake in SpinCo — she'll have something to say about a potential new owner in Elmo.

NBC News did lend a great deal of credibility to MSNBC over the past two decades R48, but lately not so much. NBC News has seen its best days and like the news divisions at the other on-air networks, it's struggling to stay alive. We all need to remember that TV news was created as largely and artificial construct; the deal networks made with the FCC of yore was to provide public service in exchange for the lucrative airwaves, and the news divisions were expensive and lost a lot of money, but provided cover. That's no longer operative, particularly now that the Project 2025 rightwing loon who wrote the chapter on how to destroy the FCC is being put in charge of the FCC.

Shutting down critical media and controlling the remaining media is a key part of the authoritarian playbook.

Taking control of MSNBC and CNBC would certainly make sense for MAGA.

Joe and Mika are giving it up for free. Why buy it?

MAGA and the broligarchy are not the same thing. And while your authoritarian assertion is true, we still live with a Constitution in which the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. We're not quite at the stage where they'll be able to shut down critical media, although I fear that unless things change, that's where we're headed. Forgive my optimism this morning; I'm reflecting on Churchill's quote “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, only after they've tried everything else” hoping that our fellow countrymen will come to their senses when the real motivation behind Trump and billionaires and despots becomes evident. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the MAGAts are going to suddenly decide that Trump is the charlatan that we all know he is; I'm counting on them not liking the coming recession/possibly depression that the incoming administration is going to inflict. That and their faces are subject to the face-eating leopard party just as much as ours.

[quote]Taking control of MSNBC and CNBC would certainly make sense for MAGA.

It would make more sense, and cost less, to sit back and watch MSNBC disintegrate on its own.

I can’t stand her.

At least Joy Reid is somewhat entertaining due to her ridiculous getups and wigs.

I like Rachel Maddow; however, dropping to $25 after making $30 million is not a hefty paycheck especially when Rachel only works one night a week on air.

Yes, Rachel writes books and creates her podcasts, but that seems to be her own side hustles, not really for MSNBC specifically, although perhaps those outside ventures do help to build the MSNBC brand.

Rachel used to earn $7 million a year working five nights a week on air. Then, she negotiated only being on the air one night a week and began earning $30 million annually. How did that happen?

Now at $25 million annually, Rachel won't be watching her pennies.

I don’t know why MSNBC pays her to do podcasts and books and “specials” which mostly line her own pockets. It’s about time they cut her salary. Her contributions to the network are minimal.

I imagine MSNBC cuts a cut of what she produces. They’re paying for it.

O Mary I'm afraid these two womyn could end up on the street. Someone here start a Go Fund Me for them and then post the info on here when you're done.

Why did Keith Olbermann leave?

Rachel should have dipped out of MSNBC after the first rump term. She lost her luster since then

Rachel has skills. If producers only have 30 seconds of material they can count on Rachel to be able to stretch it to 30 minutes or longer.

There used to be this radio guy called Paul Harvey. He’d tell these long convoluted stories with a punchline at the end. He’d say “now you know the rest of the story.” By then you were asleep. That’s who RM reminds me of.

Does Elon really have plans to turn MSNBC into the new Fox?

[quote]Does Elon really have plans to turn MSNBC into the new Fox?

No. It would have a different format than current news channels. Musk stated, "I would like to fire Rachel Maddow (for fun) and then turn it into a channel that reports the top stories from X each day. Citizen reporting on cable news!" It would save money not to have to pay for rich talking heads.

[QUOTE] Rachel has skills. If producers only have 30 seconds of material they can count on Rachel to be able to stretch it to 30 minutes or longer.

And how exactly does she do that? By over-explaining simple concepts?

I think she's hot, but I never watch her show. R67 is correct -- she knows how to go on and on, saying the same thing over and over in slightly different ways.

But you have to remember that she has a Ph.D. in Political Science, and she's doing exactly what she was trained to do. When you write a dissertation, you take one or two "salient points" and write an entire book around them. That's why, when I was reading "scholarly works" in grad school, my ex (the genius/sociopath) could blow through a book in a few minutes and pick out the [italic]one thing[/italic] that was important and remember it. I'd read the entire book and still miss the "salient point" because of all the surrounding bullshit.

So Rachel talks the same way she wrote her dissertation -- padding everything to death. And while to me she certainly is easy on the eyes, she goes on and on and on.

Does her agent still get 10% or will she tell them to fucking eat it!

I think she repeats herself because she’s aimed her reporting at the slow students who need the repetition to make connections.

Too bad everything she repeats is just bs her audience wants to hear.

Yes, what R68 said, they teach you in grad school how to read only enough of the book to get the thesis out of it.

Well, they never taught me that, R72. And there were plenty of other things in grad school I was just supposed to "get" without being told flat out.

IMHO, if you're raised working class, there are a lot of things the upper classes know in their bones that go right over your head.

Just sayin'.

If I had a job I loved and the cut like this was no big deal in the grand scheme of things, I'd take the cut.

Not so much in their bones, R68/R73, but from their prep school education.

They should cut that fag Steve Kornacki to save some cash.

I’m sure he’d rather spend his time licking somebody’s doo doo box.

Gross!

Girls, girls, it sounds like you both had the benefit of a graduate school education, so why turn this into a class war?

R68–You say nobody taught you how to glean the essential arguments out of a book, yet you acknowledge that your ex was doing it right in front of your eyes. If you failed to see the trick, it’s not anyone’s fault but your own.

Even with the pay cut she has to be the highest paid actor in the country.

The lazier academic fields don’t even skim the books for theses. They just name drop some French guy.

Has Rachel switched pronouns yet?

Who cares? After getting it wrong AGAIN, I honestly don't I'm going to go back to MSNBC. Any chance of that died with JoMik's Trump meeting & the network being so far off on two of the last three elections. I get enough of the Trump horror stories at dinner parties. There's no need for these agenda driven talking heads. Fuck them all.

That's a great photo of Maddow

R80. No. She's not the correct generation to do that. Even the hard core bulldykes & flaming fairies in the 50+ age group largely maintain their birth gender identity.

Told ya

Other than being a taking head, what does she do? Is she an investigative reporter who has contacts and who can get a scoop?

Your only post, r81?

When Elon Musk buys MSNBC it'll be time to retire, must've saved something with a $30 million salary, Network never made money, created as TV lobbyist for Democratic Party. Now that Trump won, they have no viewers to preach to.

I mentioned in the MSNBC thread (or was it this one) that Rachel must have negotiated some escape clause into the new contract, in case someone like Musk buys the network.

If she didn't, she has a horrible Agent.

[quote]I mentioned in the MSNBC thread (or was it this one) that Rachel must have negotiated some escape clause into the new contract, in case someone like Musk buys the network. If she didn't, she has a horrible Agent.

Musk will release her once she does the walk of atonement.

MSNBC is NOT up for sale. Problem solved...saw it on X/twitter.

[quote]MSNBC is NOT up for sale.

Twitter wasn't up for sale either.

I’ll have her cleaning toilets and getting my Red Bull 80 hours a week.

Could Elon Musk X-ify MSNBC? Don’t Bet On It:

It’s “not for sale” but the company that owns it is spitting it out. The Comcast cable networks as a stand-alone company will be an attractive target. It will be a public company. Anyone can buy up its stock.