NBC has delayed airing a new documentary about Trump’s child-separation policy, described by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes as “absolutely urgent,” until December, despite its importance for public interest. The reason behind the delay appears to be concerns that airing it earlier could hurt Trump’s feelings, thereby making him unlikely to do an MSNBC debate. This decision has been criticized as prioritizing Trump’s sensitivities over informing the public on a significant and painful policy issue.

  • Nougat
    3•1 month ago

    This appears to be overstated. The “offend Donald Trump” comment comes from Oliver Darcy, who left CNN in August 2024 to focus full time on his email newsletter and website, Status, which focuses on news about the media industry.

    This is Oliver Darcy’s take, and no one else’s.

    • @WoahWoahOP
      7•1 month ago

      It’s Oliver Darcy’s reporting based on conversations with multiple individuals at various levels of the corporation. This isn’t something Darcy inferred on their own, they’re reporting out on conversations they’ve had with individuals at the company.

      • Nougat
        1•1 month ago

        Multiple?

        Darcy reported that Rebecca Blumenstein, president of editorial for NBC News, opposed airing “Separated” before the election because executives want Trump to agree to another presidential debate hosted by the network.

        However, Stephen Labaton, NBCUniversal head of communications, maintained to Darcy that “the debate had nothing to do with the scheduling of this programming.”

        This story is making the rounds on a number of different outlets, and they all depend wholly on this one guy saying that Blumenstein said something, while Labaton said something different to that same guy. There’s a single person as a source here, the story is overstated.

        Edit: Oh, I see - the headline on the article doesn’t match the title of this post. “…due to worries it will hurt Trump’s feelings” - was that your editorializing, or did they change the headline?

        • @WoahWoahOP
          1•1 month ago

          It’s not exactly difficult to see Darcy’s original article for the full context of the conversations involved—you’ve already pointed out where their reports can be found. In cases like this, it’s not uncommon for the sources to remain unnamed.

          Whether you’re not a fan of the reporter, the way the information was gathered, or how it’s presented, that’s beside the point. Individual journalists routinely compile insights from anonymous sources and publish those findings. I doubt you go around copying and pasting your Lemmy posts complaining about every article based on single-author reports with unnamed sources.