“Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” Matthew Dowd said on MSNBC. “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place.”
It didn’t take long for MSNBC to act. By the end of the day, the network had fired Dowd, saying his remarks following the murder of Charlie Kirk were over the line. Top Comcast executives Brian Roberts, Mike Cavanaugh, and Mark Lazarus issued a rare joint statement criticizing Dowd’s comments and vowing to steer the network in a different direction.
“That coverage was at odds with fostering civil dialogue and being willing to listen to the points of view of those who have differing opinions,” they wrote. “We should be able to disagree, robustly and passionately, but, ultimately, with respect. We need to do better.”
So how does MSNBC ensure that this doesn’t happen again?
The answer isn’t found in a new HR policy or a mandatory training seminar. The solution is found in a lesson from Robert Sutton’s 2004 book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. Sutton’s thesis was simple: if someone has a track record of being difficult, cruel, or unnecessarily abrasive, don’t bring them into your workplace.
By extension, if you know someone has a reputation for pushing the limits of civility on television, don’t put them in a high-profile chair where a single sentence can define your network’s brand. Or, more simply put: don’t hire assholes.
MSNBC didn’t fire Matthew Dowd because they were surprised by who he was. They fired him because he said what many already suspected he might say. The network put him in a spot where his words carried maximum consequence — live television, in the wake of one of the most polarizing political murders in American history. What exactly did MSNBC expect him to do? Offer calm and measured analysis when his career has been built on blunt commentary?
Hiring someone like Dowd in the first place is where MSNBC failed. Networks often fall into the trap of valuing “a voice” over responsibility. Producers want panelists who can cut through the noise, say something memorable, and generate social media attention. The problem comes when that attention isn’t flattering, and the executive team is suddenly scrambling to distance themselves from the very personality they once promoted.
This is where Sutton’s “rule” comes into play. If your gut tells you a potential hire is going to create more headaches than they’re worth, listen to it. If you’re worried that, under pressure, a contributor will default to a line that sounds like a personal attack instead of a measured critique, don’t put them in front of a camera. It’s not censorship. It’s common sense.
The joint statement from Roberts, Cavanaugh, and Lazarus framed Dowd’s firing as part of a broader effort to foster “civil dialogue.” But it rings hollow if MSNBC continues to staff its programming with commentators whose entire appeal is based on being sharp-tongued and combative. Civil dialogue isn’t just about what you say when things are calm—it’s about how you behave in the most heated moments.
And make no mistake: the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was one of those moments. The country was on edge, emotions were raw, and plenty of viewers were watching. Millions more would eventually see the comments made by Dowd. That’s precisely the time when you need people who can handle the spotlight responsibly. Instead, MSNBC handed the microphone to Dowd, who predictably connected “hateful thoughts” and “hateful words” to “hateful actions,” leaving no room for nuance or respect for the dead.
Was Dowd’s analysis wrong? That’s debatable and up for your interpretation. But was it the right time, the right place, and the right tone? Absolutely not. And MSNBC’s leadership knows it.
Here’s where the network has an opportunity to make a real change. Don’t just fire someone after they cross the line. Build a culture where you don’t hire them in the first place. Create standards for who sits on your panels and anchors your shows. Stop rewarding the loudest, snarkiest voice simply because it drives quick attention.
Cable news is in a credibility crisis. Viewers are cynical about motives, tone, and even basic facts. Every time a network allows someone to say something that feels like a cheap shot — especially in the wake of tragedy— it deepens the distrust. MSNBC has a choice: keep repeating the same cycle of controversy and firings, or set clear expectations for conduct before someone ever goes on air.
The executives’ statement said, “We need to do better.” Doing better means taking Sutton’s rule seriously. A newsroom doesn’t need to be filled with saints, but it can’t thrive if it knowingly employs people who can’t be trusted in pivotal moments. If you suspect a commentator will cause chaos, don’t bring them on. If you’re worried a contributor is more interested in scoring points than fostering dialogue, find someone else.
MSNBC can talk all it wants about civil dialogue. The only way to prove it’s serious is to hire people who embody it — not people who undermine it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing daily news stories, features, and opinion columns. He joined Barrett Media in 2022 after a decade leading several radio brands in several formats, as well as a 5-year stint working in local television. In addition to his work with Barrett Media, he is a radio and TV play-by-play broadcaster. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
By your reasoning that MSBNC was right to fire Dowd, then I guess you think Fox should fire Brian Kilmeade over his statement that homeless people should be killed, which he has since apologized for, just as as Dowd did for his statement.
I take this a step further. By the reasoning in this article, fox should fire, Jesse Waters, Laura Ingram, and Sean Hannity. Because those people say inflammatory things during difficult and non-difficult times on a nightly basis. So is it OK for them to do it because it’s fox that gins up the audience, but MSNBC needs to be more circumspect about these issues?
Call me confused.