POLITICO Playbook (“Ronna strikes back“):
The ramifications of NBC’s decision yesterday to part ways with contributor RONNA McDANIEL just two days after her paid network debut on “Meet the Press” are just starting to shake out. But they could be expensive.
McDaniel expects to be fully paid out for her contract, two years at $300,000 annually, since she did not breach its terms, we’re told — meaning that her single, not-quite-20-minute interview Sunday could cost the Peacock more than $30,000 per minute, or $500 per second.
That’s just one tidbit we’ve picked up from McDaniel’s side of things following yesterday’s announcement from NBCUniversal News Group Chair CESAR CONDE, and it might be just the beginning of the fallout. McDaniel spoke yesterday with BRYAN FREEDMAN, renowned lawyer to the estranged cable-news stars, to discuss legal options even beyond recouping the dollar value of her original contract.
While no arrangement is final, a person close to McDaniel tells us, Freedman would be an obvious choice: He represented MEGYN KELLY in her own acrimonious parting with NBC, as well as ousted anchors CHRIS CUOMO, DON LEMON and TUCKER CARLSON in disputes with their respective former networks.
McDaniel, we’re told, is exploring potential defamation and hostile work environment torts after MSNBC’s top talent — momentarily her colleagues — took turns Monday blasting her on air. (NBC declined to comment about the $600,000 figure or her potential claims.)
McDaniel was silent yesterday as the fallout from the internal network revolt mounted, and her perspective and role in the deal was largely lost as it unraveled in real time. She and her allies are, unsurprisingly, furious about how everything went down, believing she was misled about how much she’d be welcomed into the fold by executives who had aggressively recruited her. They blame the same NBC brass for botching the situation by not having her meet with top network talent ahead of the rollout, then caving to internal pressure from liberal-leaning hosts.
Most of all, they’re furious that the network did little to push back on a multi-day campaign against their new hire on their own airwaves. Host after host cast McDaniel as an enemy of democracy for, among other things, participating in a November 2020 phone call where then-President DONALD TRUMP sought to convince Michigan GOP elections officials not to certify election results.
“The part that pisses me off most about this is not necessarily that they folded; it’s [that] they allowed their talent to drag Ronna through the mud and make it seem like they were innocent bystanders,” the person close to McDaniel said.
I’m not privy to the terms of McDaniel’s contract and have little expertise in employment law in any case. While there are ongoing efforts to change it, New York (where I presume the contract is based) is an at-will state, meaning employment can usually be terminated for any reason that doesn’t defy public policy. But, since she wasn’t fired for cause, NBC would presumably owe her the contracted amount.
The main example I’m familiar with on these matters is that of athletic coaches, both at the college and pro levels. Most of those contracts require fired coaches to be paid either the full amount due or some specified lower amount. Most also require them to mitigate by finding suitable employment in the field with some sort of offset. I would guess that something like this is in McDaniel’s contract.
NBC absolutely should have anticipated the reaction to her hiring. I find it astounding that they allowed their talent—particularly non-commentators—to go on their air and trash the hire. It’s just a bad look for the network all around.
That said, I don’t know on what basis McDaniel would have a case for additional damages. She is a known liar, repeatedly claiming that the 2020 election was stolen despite no evidence for that and dozens of court findings and other evidence to the contrary. That various NBC and MSNBC hosts found it outrageous that she was hired on the grounds that it diminished their journalistic reputation is certainly defensible and, indeed, would seem to be protected speech.
