Can MSNBC recover from its post-election cratering in viewership? Comcast answered this morning: who cares? It's not their problem any more.

As rumored for weeks ahead of the election, Comcast has decided to get out of the cable-TV market. This impacts more than just MSNBC, but none of the other cable properties Comcast will shed in this spinoff has the credibility and viewer issues that their progressive-bubble service has at the moment. One has to wonder whether Comcast or its spinoff would look more attractive to investors without MSNBC as part of its package:

Comcast said Wednesday that it will spin off its cable networks, including MSNBC and CNBC, in a bid to unshackle its movie studio and theme parks from the waning fortunes of traditional television.

NBCUniversal, Comcast’s media division, is set to cleave off a bundle of cable channels that generate roughly $7 billion in revenue annually, including USA, Oxygen, E!, Syfy and Golf Channel, into a new public company. Comcast will keep the NBC broadcast network under NBCUniversal, along with Bravo, home to reality TV programs like “Top Chef,” the company’s theme parks and its Universal studio. ... 

Cable television, once a juggernaut that propelled the share prices of traditional media companies, has become a financial albatross. Though they remain enormously profitable, cable TV channels are in long-term decline as viewers replace subscriptions with streaming services like Netflix or YouTube TV.

MSNBC hasn't suffered a "long-term decline" as much as it has a sudden plummet. Having gone all in on Kamala Harris to the point of self-delusion, the election of Donald Trump to a second non-consecutive term as president has its viewers stampeding for the exits. Overall viewership has dropped 53% in the wake of the election, and that's not the worst of it:

On Tuesday, Nov. 11, one week after the election, MSNBC attracted its lowest 25-54 demo ratings in 23 years. Over on CNN, the demo number was the lowest it has seen since June 27, 2000 — when Bill Clinton was president.

For the overall week of Nov. 6 through 13, Fox News averaged 2.23 million viewers, while MSNBC attracted a paltry 557,000 and CNN just 399,000.

Even when one of its shows tried to do a (long overdue) reset with reality, it backfired. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski got ridiculed for their Kneel Before Zod meeting at Mar-a-Lago, and for good reason after their year-long WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE shrieking over Trump. But at least that was a rational marketing decision, and a recognition of reality of the kind any new investor will demand from MSNBC's programs in the future.

How did that work out for Morning Joe? Er ... 

Nielsen data shows that 56 minutes after the hosts began explaining their trip to the Trump residence, viewing figures began to tumble.

Between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m., they had fallen 17 percent from 839,000 to 694,000. Among the 25- to 54-year-old age group, viewing figures plummeted by 38 percent.

During the 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. hour, the show briefly bounced back with 775,000 viewers but, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., the numbers dropped slightly again to 770,000.

The program’s X channel has also turned off all its comments, although it is not clear whether this is related to the announcement of the meeting.

What other reason would they have for turning off the comments?

It's not just the ratings that investors will question, now that MSNBC has to survive in the market on its own. MSNBC and its division NBCUniversal are facing an ethics scandal involving host/contributor Al Sharpton and his infomercial-esque interview of Kamala Harris. Harris' campaign gave $500,000 to Sharpton's non-profit before Sharpton offered her a tongue bath on MSNBC, an undisclosed benefit to Sharpton that arguably meets the legal definition of payola -- which is still an actual crime under federal law for broadcast stations. Even on non-broadcast news platforms, it's a serious ethical violation.

Megyn Kelly was aghast last week over the brazen fraud (via PJ Media):

“I’m dying from the conflict of interest. I’m dead… The bias is coming out of the ears. This is so irresponsible, unethical, and not allowed. It is so egregious… You cannot make a donation to an anchor’s charity on the side of $500,000 as a presidential candidate, then go sit with the anchor and he didn’t disclose it… This is not a news organization, but they continue to masquerade as one."

On that point, Comcast seems to agree. They aren't a news organization, and they're not even worth keeping around. The big question is why anyone would want them at all at this point, even as a freebie bundled with USA and Golf Channel. 

Update: Payola is an actual crime, with potential jail time, but it applies to "broadcast" shows. Technically speaking, cable channels are not "broadcasts." The FCC and the Communications Act of 1934 mainly apply to over-the-air shows, on the basis of regulating the airwaves held in common by the people. I don't believe the FCC or the relevant payola laws apply to over-wire shows, and the language at the FCC does specify "broadcasts":

Section 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 508, requires that, when anyone provides or promises to provide money, services or other consideration to someone to include program matter in a broadcast, that fact must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast, ultimately to the station over which the matter is to be aired.  Both the person providing or promising to provide the money, services or other consideration and the recipient are obligated to make this disclosure so that the station may broadcast the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Communications Act.  Failure to disclose such payment or the providing of services or other consideration, or promise to provide them, is commonly referred to as ``payola'' and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice.

Thus, for example, if a record company or its agent pays a broadcaster to play records on the air, those payments do not violate these provisions of the law if the required sponsorship identification information is timely aired by the broadcast station. If it is not aired as required by the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, the station and others are subject to enforcement action.

If record companies, or their agents, are paying persons other than the broadcast licensee (such as the station's Music Director or its on-air personality) to have records aired, and fail to disclose that fact to the licensee, the person making such payments, and the recipient, are also subject to criminal fine, imprisonment or both, for violation of the disclosure requirements contained in Section 507.

When I first started in radio, the licensee insisted on briefing me enthusiastically about this law, and for good reason. Even if the law itself doesn't apply to MSNBC -- and I'm not entirely sure it doesn't -- what Sharpton and Harris did was blatantly corrupt.