The Shift: Mehdi Hasan out at MSNBC

Bringing you an extra Shift this week to hit a couple notable media moments.

 Mehdi Hasan

Let’s start with Mehdi Hasan. MSNBC recently announced that his Sunday night show will be nixed, although they’re keeping him on as on-air commentator and he’ll occasional guest host.

Hasan has been a consistent critic of Israel, one of the only ones you’ll find working for a mainstream network. MSNBC has (anonymously) stated that his firing had nothing to do with his politics and that the move was made because his ratings were low.

Hasan didn’t pull in a massive viewing audience, but no one in cable news really does outside the GOP’s Ministry of Propaganda. If you look at the numbers, he basically had the same viewership as Anderson Cooper. That’s pretty impressive when you consider the fact that his show was consistently devoted to substantive political issues, in a way that Cooper’s often is not.

Hasan developed a reputation as a dogged interviewer for good reason. Hosts generally allow lawmakers and state officials to claim any number of fantastical things without much pushback. In a recent newsletter I wrote about a Jonathan Greenblatt appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. The Anti-Defamation League head claimed that 300,000 people had showed up in Washington to participate in the March for Israel. It was actually more like 25,000 people, but he wasn’t challenged on the point. He also was not asked why an organization ostensibly focused on combatting antisemitism was touting a rally where antisemitic Pastor John Hagee gave a speech.

Hasan didn’t allow his guests to change the subject or filibuster when he was looking for an answer to a specific question. This commitment has been especially refreshing in recent weeks, while supporters of Israel have trotted out any number of justifications for the unspeakable carnage.

Many have publicly questioned the decision to can Hasan during the current Israeli assault.

“It is bad optics for MSNBC to cancel Mehdi Hasan’s show right at a time when he is vocal for human rights in Gaza with the war ongoing,” tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna. “As a strong supporter of free speech, MSNBC owes the public an explanation for this decision. Why would they choose to do this now?”

IfNotNow spokesperson Eva Borgwardt said it was “impossible to not see this cancellation as part of the sharp rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate over the last two months” and called Hasan “a vital voice holding those in power to account, providing a space for those questioning unconditional US support for Israel, and rigorously reporting on the news.”

“The idea that MSNBC canceled Mehdi Hasan because of ‘ratings’ is risible,” tweeted journalist Jeremy Scahill. “This is a clear political move.”

In a Washington Post op-ed Perry Bacon Jr. says moves like this are “pushing the network in the direction of being the television arm of the Democratic Party leadership, as opposed to a news outlet that upholds left-wing values and perspectives.”

Last month, a Hasan interview with senior Netanyahu adviser Mark Regev went viral. I recommend watching the entire thing, but here’s some of the exchange.

Mehdi Hasan: “I have seen lots of children with my own lying eyes being pulled from the rubble. So” —

Mark Regev: “Now, because they’re the pictures Hamas wants you to see. Exactly my point, Mehdi.”

Mehdi Hasan: “And also because they’re dead, Mark. Also” —

Mark Regev: “They’re the pictures Hamas wants — no.”

Mehdi Hasan: “But they’re also people your government has killed. You accept that, right? You’ve killed children? Or do you deny that?”

Mark Regev: “No, I do not. I do not. I do not. First of all, you don’t know how those people died, those children.”

Mehdi Hasan: “Oh wow.”

We obviously need more of this energy on cable news these days, not less.

AIPAC segment

One of the other MSNBC hosts who has questioned the U.S. line on Israel is Ali Velshi.

Over the weekend Velshi ran the kind of segment you very rarely see in the mainstream: a clear and concise appraisal of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) impact on our democratic process.

During his show Velshi briefly explained the history of AIPAC to his viewers and how they began funneling millions into elections a couple years ago via their newly created PAC. He also points out that every other lobbying group that spends like AIPAC focuses on domestic issues.

Velshi details how the group helped defeat Donna Edwards and Andy Levin. He also points out that most of the Democrats who joined Republicans in the Tlaib censure vote have taken campaign contributions from AIPAC.

Finally, he cites a recent Slate piece which estimates that AIPAC might spend $100 million to take down progressive incumbents this election cycle.

The Velshi segment coincides with a Daily Beast article that details the “existential threat” that AIPAC poses for lawmakers who are critical of Israel.

In the piece Sam Brodey speaks with a number of Democratic incumbents, including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (D-NY):

Jayapal said she and fellow CPC leaders have spoken multiple times with Jeffries and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), chair of the party’s House campaign arm, to impress upon them the need to “protect all incumbents.” While Jayapal said “they’ve been receptive,” she also had an ominous caveat: “It’s not all very public and it’s not all very clear.”

“It’s just a big waste of money for the Democratic Party,” Jayapal said of the AIPAC-fueled primaries. “It’s a big problem and our leadership needs to strongly speak out on it, and publicly be clear.”

Ocasio-Cortez was more blunt, saying it would be “destabilizing” if Democratic leadership did not come to the defense of incumbents.

“These members are going to have to be defended by our party leadership, and they need to be defended as vociferously as incumbents that have been primaried from other elements of the party,” she said.

Brodey notes that the war on Gaza could end up having an impact on how this spending shakes out in one way or another.

“To be sure, there are bright spots in the left’s 2024 outlook. Progressives expect that donors motivated by their opposition to the war in Gaza will step up their contributions to the few Democratic politicians who reflect those views.” he writes. “And many believe that scrutiny of AIPAC and its role in primaries will finally reach a point in 2024 where the candidates it supports will have to answer for the group’s backing…Even if 2024 turns out better for progressives than expected, however, some are already thinking about how high the cost could be just to survive.”