Jen Psaki starts new MSNBC show in Rachel Maddow's former time slot

Jen Psaki took over the coveted 9pm Tuesday - Friday slot on MSNBC last week - but just two nights in to her broadcast, viewership has crumbled. Psaki, a former White House press secretary, replaced Rachel Maddow with a new show titled 'The Briefing,' but her sudden ratings collapse appears to be one of the most humiliating flops in recent cable news memory. After building momentum with her Sunday show 'Inside,' Psaki was elevated by MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler as a face of the network's new era.
Maddow had taken up the five-nights-a-week schedule to cover Donald Trump's first 100 days of his second term. She will now return to her weekly Monday night show while Psaki takes over. The change was seen as an opportunity to hand the reins to Psaki, a DC insider with access and experience, setting out to do four nights from Tuesday through Friday. But instead of holding steady, Psaki's first full week has seen a ratings freefall.
According to Nielsen data, The Briefing launched on Tuesday with a respectable 1.2 million total viewers and 139,000 in the critical 25–54 age demographic - the group most coveted by advertisers. But by Wednesday night, Psaki's audience cratered to just over one million viewers, and her key demo numbers plunged by 53 percent, down to a startling 65,000. Among younger viewers aged 18–49, the drop was even steeper - a brutal 67 percent collapse from Tuesday to Wednesday as her ratings fell off a cliff.
The Briefing was trounced not just by its competitors at Fox News and CNN, but by 38 other cable news programs across networks. Psaki's show was outperformed in the demographic by reruns of 'Seinfeld,' 'Friends,' 'Bob's Burgers,' 'The King of Queens,' and even Nickelodeon's 'Paw Patrol.' Among MSNBC's own programming, the ratings provide difficult viewing. From 8-11pm, Wednesday marked MSNBC's lowest-rated night since January 8, before President Trump was sworn in for his second term. And at 9pm, Psaki delivered the lowest-rated MSNBC slot on a Wednesday during that hour since Alex Wagner's disastrous showing in December 2024.
Psaki always knew she had a difficult task trying to follow Rachel Maddow, the face of MSNBC for nearly two decades, and acknowledged as much in an interview last month. 'There's only one Rachel Maddow,' Psaki said. 'Even if I trained at the Rachel Maddow anchor school - which doesn't exist, that I'm aware of - for five years, I could never do what she does how she does it.' She emphasized how she intended to bring her own experience from 20 years in Democratic politics, including her time with Presidents Obama and Biden, to offer 'clarity' and 'stories of hope.' But doesn't seem to be enough to hold viewers. Before stepping away from her five-night schedule, Maddow confessed Psaki's show would be better than hers because the former press secretary has actual news connections.
'The thing she has which I do not have, which is going to make 9 o'clock better with Jen Psaki than it is with Rachel Maddow, is that she both knows people and knows how to talk to people,' Maddow told People. 'I really am a weird little hermit who works great with my staff, but I don't know anybody in Washington. I don't know anybody in the news, and it's on purpose. 'I am not great at interacting with people. I'm not a great interviewer and I'm not great at cultivating sources. It's not my thing. I'm a reader, not a talker.' Maddow expressed her support in Psaki as her successor, claiming she believes Psaki will be immune to the 'television curse that turns decent people into monsters.' 'I don't know anybody else who really can do that the way that she does,' Maddow said. 'She's not been susceptible to that wizardry. She's a good person.' Indeed, the decision to hand Psaki the 9pm slot was seen as a bold move by MSNBC's leadership - particularly as the network navigates both a corporate split from NBC News and a changing media landscape during Trump's second term. Psaki's critics argue that the experiment shows MSNBC may have overestimated her star power and underestimated Maddow's gravitational pull.
The network had already seen a decline when Alex Wagner (pictured) attempted to fill Maddow's shoes. Wagner was eventually shuffled to a new role following lackluster ratings. Despite the poor start, Psaki remains focused on the long term. During April's interview she said she hoped to use her show to help viewers make sense of a chaotic moment. 'Right now, in this moment, as the federal government is being dismantled and the rule of law is being threatened, there's a huge appetite for information and understanding of what the heck is happening,' Psaki said. She added that the name change from Inside to The Briefing reflected a shift in tone, away from the idea that Washington insiders have all the answers: 'I didn't want to send the message to viewers that that was our assumption.'
It may be too early to say whether Psaki's disastrous Wednesday ratings were a one-off slump or the beginning of a downward spiral. Cable ratings can fluctuate in the early days of a show's run, and MSNBC may give The Briefing time to stabilize but her launch has been bruising, and the 9pm hour, once a dominant force under Maddow is facing a full-blown crisis. Psaki's promotion is the latest in a slew of changes by new MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler (pictured). Kutler axed Joy Reid and canceled her namesake show The ReidOut, which has been a fixture of MSNBC's evening programming since 2020. Katie Phang, Jonathan Capehart and Ayman Mohyeldin have also been given the boot from their current timeslots by the network's new boss.
Kutler was officially named president of MSNBC on February 12, after dropping her interim title following Rashida Jones' departure. MSNBC stars and contributors have reportedly had to endure several indignities as the progressive network aims to cut costs amid plummeting ratings. In recent years, contributors to the network have sometimes had to pay for their own Ubers to get to the MSNBC DC studios, and have been forced to do their own makeup, as reported by Puck News. As the outlet puts it, it is '[sad], but justifiable when you're averaging less than 600,000 viewers in total day and less than 60,000 in the demo.' The DC studios are the home base for anchors such Psaki and the former headquarters for fired Reid. MSNBC has been struggling with its audience and is preparing to split from parent its company NBCUniversal later this year.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

24 minutes ago

• Telegraph

My phone has been feeding me footage of Steve Carell in a suspicious way. And I couldn't be happier

On Tuesday this week, my Instagram feed started throwing me footage of the comedian Steve Carell dancing round a stadium in a billowing purple gown. On closer inspection, it turned out that Steve Carell had been giving the commencement address to graduating students of Northwestern University, Illinois, where one of his children is a student, another is a graduate and Steve Carell himself was receiving an honorary doctorate. As a youngster, he attended a summer school at Northwestern, which he credits with sparking his interest in improvisational comedy; he then moved to Chicago to perform at its illustrious Second City club, beginning a career so successful that he now stars in TV series and films where he doesn't even have to be funny. Imagine how easy that must be! Although he's usually funny anyway. At the graduation ceremony, he gave a keynote speech about the importance of kindness – or, as he defines it, 'basic human decency' – before breaking into a dance routine across the stage and out into the crowd. But why did my Instagram feed think I would want to see this? The previous day, I'd been talking about how I'm a massive fan of Steve Carell – did it know? I don't mean that I'd been texting or WhatsApping about it from my mobile phone, never mind posting on Insta itself (which I never do, because I've forgotten my password so can't get in; my profile is frozen to a handful of half-amusing old photos which are going to look so damn pitiful when I'm dead), I mean I'd been talking out loud. To a friend. In a room. Was my phone eavesdropping? I've also been watching a new Netflix series called The Four Seasons, featuring Steve Carell, which dropped in May. Is my Instagram aware of that? It shouldn't be! Dinosaur that I am, I watch TV on a TV. Not a phone. I don't have Instagram on the TV. I'm never logged on to Instagram and Netflix at the same time. Do you have these worries? Do you wonder why you've been sent certain adverts or messages, and what, in your house, is listening closely to everything you're saying? (God knows it's not your husband.) I don't worry too much. I suspect we don't yet need to be too intimidated by the idea of 'smart appliances'. We're told that AI is about to phase out human endeavour entirely, but my laptop can't even find my printer. Are these gadgets really ready to take over the world? My mobile doesn't work in the kitchen! Perhaps this eruption of Steve Carell dancing on my phone is evidence of sinister controlling influences at work. If so, THE JOKE'S ON INSTAGRAM because I enjoyed the footage! I love Steve Carell! I'd watch him do anything! The Four Seasons is an eight-part TV adaptation of Alan Alda's 1981 film of the same name, about a group of college friends who meet for regular holidays. In the first episode, one of the friends (Steve Carell) confides that he's planning to leave his wife, while his wife (Kerri Kenney-Silver) reveals that she's planning a surprise vow renewal to mark their 25th wedding anniversary. And we watch the fallout from there. So it's a copy of an old film, it's broken into a simplistic four-season structure and it hasn't been tremendously well received (60 per cent on the 'popcornometer' at Rotten Tomatoes, a review site I find reliable and trustworthy). And yet I loved it, I loved it. I watched it quickly, one episode at a time but near-nightly over a fortnight, and looked forward with such delight to each evening's instalment. You know the kind of show where you plan your dinner with a bit of celebratory flair, to go with the programme? It was like that. I remember popping to the butcher's for a rack of lamb to accompany episode seven (roasted pink with a garlic and rosemary crumb, Greek salad on the side: perfect for the hot weather) and thinking, 'This is like lockdown all over again.' A lot of the joy is down to the performers. I was familiar with only three of them in advance, but those three were Steve Carell, Tina Fey and (in a cameo) Alan Alda. I could probably come up with 10 actors currently alive whom I'd find equally likeable and watchable as those three, but maybe none that I find more so. The sheer pleasure of slipping into these people's company bought enough time to get used to the ones who were unknown to me and, by the end, I loved them all. If you're happily married, as I think I am, there's additional glee in being reminded how awful divorce must be. If your marriage is wobbly, this might buy you a few more years together, as the view from the parapet is not a pretty one. Steve Carell's character is besotted with his new young girlfriend, but he's required to go skiing with her mindless young chums, can't mention Woody Allen for fear of offence, and has to eat vegan paella. I watched the programme with an anonymous media source whose mind I wouldn't seek to read but, if I did, I would bet that the whole thing acted as a salutary reminder to eat your rack of lamb and be grateful for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, even a vegan one; as Tina Fey observes, 'Even in a throuple, somebody's got to clean the air fryer.' I can't read your mind either, and I'm probably not even as smart as a smartphone, but I enjoyed this series as much as anything I've seen all year.

Telegraph

25 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'

Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.

The Guardian

26 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Six great reads: tradwives v radwives, hollowed-out London and the last musical genius?

'Like many people, reaching the age of 40 inspired Matt to do some self-reflection. He had achieved many hallmarks of adulthood: a college degree, a career he enjoyed, and two beloved dogs. But he'd never had a relationship, or even a sexual partner.' Scores of Christian men in the United States have been raised on ideas of abstinence and 'purity' – what, asked Jessica Bateman, does that mean for their sex lives later on? Read more The Prince Charles Cinema is beloved by film-lovers and counts the like of Christopher Nolan as a fan. But its future is at risk due to a David v Goliath battle with its billionaire owner. Writes Will Coldwell: 'To many, what was happening to the Prince Charles Cinema was about something bigger than a negotiation over rent. It was about the persistent threat of closure that so many cultural and community spaces in London face, the impact of rampant commercialism on the city's cultural diversity, and the seemingly unchecked power that developers wield.' Read more In pop, which equates genius with innovation, recent artists have not pioneered new forms like those from the 60s. Has, asks Rachel Areosti, the digital age sidelined invention and promoted the derivative for ever? Read more 'Height is often seen as a dealbreaker when it comes to romance, particularly within heterosexual relationships. But when Tinder recently said that it was trialling a feature that allows some premium users to filter potential matches by height, it quickly proved controversial. 'Oh God. They added a height filter,' lamented one Reddit thread, while an X user claimed: 'It's over for short men.'' What is behind the '6ft fixation' in dating – and could it be scuppering the chance of true connection? Leah Harper set out to find out. Read more Slick Rick, writes Alexis Petridis, 'remains the rapper's rapper, the most-sampled hip-hop artist in history'. In this brilliant interview the British-born artists explains why it's been more than quarter of a century since his last album and why he was inspired by the production techniques of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Read more 'For the uninitiated: the tradwife is a married woman, usually conservative and/or Christian, usually white (though not always), of the belief that her place is in the home. She is feminine, usually kempt, often dressed like Betty Draper, but increasingly workout gear in neutral tones too. Though at home, she is not a stay-at-home mother, rather someone who performs as if she is, documenting her life in dizzying, up-close fashion for us to wonder: who's doing the potty training?' Morwenna Ferrier isn't, she writes, the first wrung-out mother to take umbrage with this sort of performance. But, as the cost of living crisis squeezes, the fantasy of escaping into being a wife and mother becomes more vivid and, for realistic mothers whose life is a delicate balance between task and failure, app-reliance and guilt, maybe we should lean in to the term 'radwife'. Read more