In the previous part of this series I illustrated some of the unique challenges that face MSNBC as a result of its relationship with NBC. The framework that MSNBC is required to function in is a result of the direction and priorities given to it by NBC and is not a burden shared by the other cable news channels. NBC’s strategy to date vis a vis MSNBC has been to place the onus of news coverage on the shoulders of NBC News and NBC News’ programs because that’s where the viewers and advertising dollars are and changing focus could dilute NBC’s windfall. An argument can be made that this position is not entirely justified. There is evidence that, though broadcast news (and broadcast television in general) has been hemorrhaging viewers for decades as the cable channels started growing at a near exponential rate, even on a big news day the three cable news networks combined almost never equal the viewership of the broadcast networks when they choose to simulcast a story. FOX did it last year on one night but that has been the exception and not the rule. Thus it could be suggested that the turf war mentality that arises from this paranoia at NBC Corporate, its affiliates, and NBC News over the possibility of being undercut by MSNBC may be unwarranted. But for now that seems to be the conventional wisdom at NBC. In a nutshell, NBC News and its programming (and all that is necessary to make that a reality) receive an overwhelmingly disproportionate priority over anything MSNBC does. In this section I will more closely examine how this relationship as it currently exists can play out to the detriment of MSNBC’s coverage in cases when MSNBC should not be getting shortchanged.

For the sake of discussion, let us accept as fact that MSNBC’s charter is to deliver the news as it unfolds and to cover the stories in depth through live reports, interviews, and analysis the way CNN and FOX do. It is true that recently NBC/MSNBC have been conducting an advertising campaign where MSNBC is positioned as a better alternative to CNN Headline News; a strategy which suggests that NBC views HLN as the competition. But it is also true to even the most casual observer of both networks that HLN’s and MSNBC’s charters and the way the two networks approach news coverage are fundamentally different to the point of making a direct comparison counterproductive. In other words, while MSNBC may be being advertised as a better alternative to HLN, it is covering the news the way FOX and CNN do and not the way HLN does.

By being a “24 hour” news channel (though in reality no channel is live 24 hours a day anymore…not even HLN…it’s just too expensive to do that) MSNBC is positioned to do things that NBC News cannot for the simple reason that NBC is not all about news. In fact NBC is mostly about entertainment. Breaking news as it happens is the appeal of a 24 hour news channel because broadcast networks are loathe to cut into their lucrative schedules. It has a tendency to annoy viewers who have their programs pre-empted. People actually complained during the later Apollo missions because re-runs of “I Love Lucy” had been pre-empted. Broadcast networks see reactions like that and plan accordingly. Which is why when breaking news of national import happens, networks tend to keep “news interrupts” to a minimum. But the all news cable channels have no such restrictions because that’s what they’re in business for. One would think that this would play to MSNBC’s benefit but that is not always the case.

For a near perfect example of this one only has to go back two weeks ago to when the Pope’s health took a sudden turn for the worse. MSNBC had a bit of luck that night because both CNN and FOX were caught napping with reruns of coverage of Terry Schiavo’s death that they chose not to interrupt. MSNBC was already live with Dan Abrams, also covering Schiavo, when news started leaking out of Rome that the Pope had suffered a cardio collapse and was in dire straits. Incredibly, MSNBC owned the late night coverage as CNN and FOX continued on with their taped programs. For the next hour and twenty minutes it was the only network devoting coverage to the Pope with analysis of his medical condition and live reports from Rome. CNN eventually switched over to the CNN International feed. But MSNBC had gotten the drop on the competition.

MSNBC was in a unique position. It had owned the early coverage. Plus it had MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing already in Rome as part of an extended Papal assignment. What’s more, NBC the next day decided to gamble and pull the trigger to get their people out to Rome, even flying Matt Lauer out to Rome on Friday night to anchor Weekend Today on Saturday. NBC and MSNBC would have their people in place, in force, 24 hours before any other network could mount a similar campaign.

But somewhere along the way the decision was made that NBC News would carry the water and MSNBC would follow behind, even though there were no plans to interrupt large portions of NBC’s regular programming unless and/or until the Pope died. This decision would translate on the TV screen into heavy emphasis of the Pope on Today, Weekend Today, and NBC Nightly News featuring interviews and analysis from Rome. Katie Couric would cut her vacation in China short and fly to Rome. But there would be no wholesale adjustments made on MSNBC save flying Chris Mathews to anchor Hardball from Rome. The daytime coverage would continue to originate out of Secaucus and not Rome. Jansing would be confined to mostly hourly update reporting with little interviewing or analysis while the bulk of the interviews would be conducted from the studios at Secaucus. In effect, NBC/MSNBC took its best available asset that was already in place in Rome and marginalized it even though NBC would not be doing coverage from Rome during non-traditional NBC News periods. By not going beyond the confines of NBC News regular programming, NBC News would leave a void for NBC viewers seeking information on the Pope and an opportunity for MSNBC to shine in coverage from Rome 24 hours before any other cable network. But this opportunity was not taken advantage of. This was no accident. For whatever reason it was planned this way by NBC and MSNBC executives.

There are some possible explanations why this approach was taken. For one thing, satellite time is expensive. It wouldn’t be just MSNBC using satellite time but NBC News as well. Given the NBC/MSNBC relationship, NBC News would be using it more to emphasize their programming. Whereas with CNN and FOX there’s just one satellite that doesn’t have to be shared with a “competing” network. However this started to fall apart as a likely explanation when the interviews being conducted out of Secaucus during the morning and daytime hours included interviewing people live in Rome with Secaucus based talent. This begs the question; what is the point of having a skilled journalist and adept interviewer like Jansing in Rome if you are going to use the people in your American studio to interview people in Rome?

Another explanation is that this could be seen as an opportunity to feature more MSNBC talent covering a story that had a high viewer interest. There is no doubt that more viewers would become familiar with the faces of MSNBC as this story unfolded and I could see how this would sound very attractive to those in charge who are looking for a way to emphasize MSNBC’s ability to cover a story from all angles. However there is a drawback to this approach that may not have been anticipated. The drawback is that the viewer will see people in the studio in Secaucus interviewing people in the studio in Secaucus or via satellite while the other cable networks’ people who are in Rome are interviewing people in Rome. On location coverage tends to be more compelling to the viewer than static coverage originating from a studio. NBC seemed to know this is the case because they ensured that their NBC News programs had heavy Rome coverage of Rome from Rome. Yet for reasons that are still inexplicable to me, they chose not to extend this approach to MSNBC. When news broke that the Pope was dead, Jansing had a couple of quickie interviews in Rome and then coverage was turned over to Lester Holt who was on standby apparently at 30 Rock. Holt then proceeded to interview people in studios and in Rome. Meanwhile CNN and FOX coverage stayed mostly in Rome. Given the choice which would you rather watch? Live coverage from Rome or static coverage from a studio?

Another possible explanation is that MSNBC wanted Chris Mathews to head up the bulk of the coverage from Rome. For a while now MSNBC (and by extrapolation NBC) has been positioning Mathews as the face of MSNBC. Saturday’s quickie MSNBC TV ads of the coverage originally said, “Join Chris Jansing and Chris Mathews in Rome”. Those were hastily replaced 24 hours later with ads that said, “Join Chris Mathews anchoring from Rome and Chris Jansing reporting from Rome”. So it was apparent that NBC/MSNBC wanted Mathews to be the face of this coverage. But Mathews would not arrive in Rome for yet another day and wouldn’t go live until that night. Meanwhile Jansing, who was already in Rome, would contribute relatively little to the overall coverage beyond giving minor updates once an hour.

The result was, having established the lead in the coverage, MSNBC relinquished it. By taking Jansing out of the equation and not utilizing her to the fullest extent while Mathews was in transit and by basing it’s coverage out of the Secaucus studios, NBC/MSNBC gave FOX and CNN back the 24 hours they had originally stolen from them. CNN had the time to flood the zone in Rome with its front line talent and did the bulk of its coverage originating out of Rome. Even FOX, which was sluggishly slow to react and sent a relatively meager contingent to Rome compared to CNN or NBC, managed to outpace MSNBC for live coverage from Rome; going so far as to interview people live in the middle of St. Peter’s Square (and would continue to do so throughout the following days). MSNBC, with the exception of Mathews and Hardball, stayed mostly in Secaucus. When it came time for the Papal funeral, the viewing patterns had been firmly established based on the coverage of the three networks up to that point and MSNBC got creamed by both CNN and FOX in the ratings.

NBC/MSNBC had a golden opportunity and they muffed it. This was one of those seminal news events that can frame a viewer’s perceptions of the network the viewer is watching. Through a series of procedural decisions involving turf wars and doling out whom gets what resources, MSNBC came out looking a lot weaker and worse off than it is. Anybody who watched the Democratic and Republican conventions and the various debates last year saw MSNBC in fine form with substantial on location coverage and analysis during daytime hours. However the principles followed during those events were not applied to this case, to MSNBC’s detriment.

In the final part of this analysis, I will discuss how MSNBC could maximize it’s strengths to help mitigate the negative aspects of the NBC/MSNBC relationship.