MSNBC’s Controversial Rebrand to MS NOW Sparks Mockery, Confusion, and Outrage

What happens when a legacy cable news brand tries to reinvent itself with a new name that nobody seems to like? For MSNBC, the answer may be a branding nightmare unfolding in real time.

This week, the left-leaning network announced it would rebrand itself as MS NOW—a move that has ignited ridicule across social media, sparked skepticism from industry insiders, and left viewers and critics alike scratching their heads.

The network’s new moniker, officially standing for “My Source News Opinion World,” was meant to signal independence from its parent NBCUniversal as part of a $7 billion spinoff into a new publicly traded company called Versant.

Instead, it has been branded online as “one of the worst rebrands in media history.” From mock acronyms like “Most Surely No One Watching” to jokes comparing it to a 1990s bargain computer company, the rollout of MS NOW has been anything but smooth.

So what’s behind this rebrand, and why has it struck such a nerve? The story reveals more than a new name.

It exposes the fragile state of cable news in 2025, the risks of corporate restructuring, and the challenges networks face when trying to adapt to a rapidly shifting media landscape.

The Name That Nobody Asked For

The decision to strip away the NBC brand and the iconic Peacock symbol shocked employees and industry observers alike.

Just months earlier, Versant’s incoming CEO, Mark Lazarus, had assured MSNBC staffers that their network’s identity would remain intact.

His January message seemed clear:

“I know there was some discussion with the MSNBC name, so you can take that off of your worry list.”

But the “worry list” is back with a vengeance.

When the official announcement dropped Monday morning, MSNBC President Rebbeca Kutler confirmed that the rebrand was not only happening but would be backed by what she described as a “massive marketing campaign unlike anything we have done in recent memory.”

The reaction was swift and merciless.

On X (formerly Twitter), conservative activist Robby Starbuck mocked the rebrand with a cutting observation:

“I just want to meet the absolute bandit who got MSNBC execs to fork over tons of $$$ for this logo and a name that reminds you of multiple sclerosis.”

Others weren’t any kinder.

Critics reinterpreted MS NOW’s acronym to stand for everything from “Majorly Skewed News Overly Woke” to “Most Surely No One Watching.” One particularly viral jab rebranded it simply as “BS NOW.”

The accompanying logo—a red-and-white striped flag on a blue background—also came under fire.

Detractors called it cheap, outdated, and more fitting for a budget electronics brand than a serious news outlet.

Why the Sudden Change?

The rebrand wasn’t a spontaneous experiment.

It was a direct result of Comcast’s decision to spin off MSNBC into a separate publicly traded company, Versant, as part of a restructuring effort.

The move was designed to create a more independent entity—one not tethered to the broader NBCUniversal portfolio or the Peacock streaming brand.

By shedding the NBC name, executives argued, MS NOW would have the freedom to define itself in the crowded and evolving news ecosystem.

Kutler framed it optimistically:

“During this time of transition, it has become clear that our brands need separation.

This rebrand allows us to set our own course and assert our independence.”

But critics point out that the decision may do more harm than good.

For decades, MSNBC benefited from the credibility, infrastructure, and brand recognition of NBC News.

Stripping away the Peacock not only weakens that legacy but risks confusing viewers who may already struggle to distinguish between the network’s many digital and cable offerings.

“It doesn’t set a great precedent for management to change the name after promising staffers it wouldn’t,” one insider told The New York Post.

“It’s not a way to boost trust in the new company and its leadership.”

The Problem With “NOW”

The biggest source of mockery, however, is the name itself.

Branding experts argue that acronyms can be powerful—when they’re simple, clear, and intuitive.

Think CNN (Cable News Network) or ESPN (Entertainment and Sports Programming Network).

But My Source News Opinion World?

“It’s a branding disaster,” one former media executive said bluntly.

“Whoever came up with these names deserves to be shown the door.”

The choice of “NOW” also carries unintended baggage.

For many, the name evokes the 1990s NOW That’s What I Call Music! compilation albums or even multiple sclerosis (commonly abbreviated MS).

Others joked about the odd spacing between “MS” and “NOW,” leading one user to claim it stood for “Martin Scorsese ‘n’ Olivia Wilde.”

Even the digital footprint seems poorly planned.

The domain msnow.com currently belongs to a Korean snowmobile company, while ms-now.com redirects to Martha Stewart’s Marley Spoon meal-delivery service.

Securing the right digital real estate for the brand could prove both costly and complicated.

A Crisis of Identity

The backlash to MS NOW underscores a deeper issue: MSNBC has long struggled with its identity.

Originally launched in 1996 as a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC, the channel leaned into the digital age before shifting sharply into partisan commentary during the Bush and Obama years.

By the 2010s, it had fully embraced its image as the liberal counterweight to Fox News.

That positioning brought in viewers during the Trump era, with Rachel Maddow becoming one of the most-watched figures in cable news.

But by 2025, MSNBC has been losing ground, particularly among younger audiences who consume political content via podcasts, YouTube, and TikTok rather than traditional cable.

The rebrand to MS NOW was intended to solve this problem—modernizing the channel and appealing to a new generation.

Instead, it risks alienating the core audience that still tunes in for Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and other familiar faces.

The Larger Struggle of Cable News

MS NOW’s turbulent debut comes at a time when the entire cable news industry is under pressure.

Ratings have been steadily declining across networks as viewers migrate to streaming, social media, and on-demand platforms.

Fox News remains dominant in primetime, with Greg Gutfeld’s late-night program consistently beating its rivals.

CNN, meanwhile, has been through multiple leadership shake-ups in the past five years, struggling to define its post-Trump identity.

Against this backdrop, MSNBC’s decision to rebrand seems both risky and desperate.

“Cable news is facing an existential crisis,” said one industry analyst.

“Viewers don’t have the same loyalty to these brands that they did in the 1990s or early 2000s.

Rebranding may make sense on paper, but if the new identity doesn’t resonate, you’re in even bigger trouble.”

Can MS NOW Survive the Mockery?

Despite the ridicule, MSNBC’s leadership insists that MS NOW will carve out a stronger, more independent presence.

The network has already been building out its own newsroom operations separate from NBCUniversal, hiring journalists from CNN, Bloomberg, Politico, and The Washington Post.

Rebecca Kutler has promised staffers that the rebrand is part of a broader strategy to ensure relevance in a changing media landscape.

She has emphasized investments in digital platforms, streaming partnerships, and social media engagement.

But will that be enough to overcome a shaky start?

Branding disasters are not always fatal—consider how Meta managed to reframe Facebook’s corporate image despite initial mockery, or how HBO Max successfully rebranded to Max after a messy rollout.

Yet in the cutthroat world of cable news, first impressions matter, and MS NOW’s first impression has been brutal.

Final Thoughts

In theory, MS NOW was supposed to represent a fresh chapter for MSNBC, a chance to break free from corporate entanglements and assert independence.

In practice, it has become a case study in how not to launch a media rebrand.

The criticism—mockery of the name, confusion about the acronym, skepticism about the logo—reflects more than just bad marketing.

It reflects the fragile trust between media companies and their audiences, as well as the growing cynicism toward corporate decision-making in journalism.

If MSNBC wants MS NOW to succeed, it will need more than a shiny new logo and a $7 billion corporate shuffle.

It will need to prove to viewers that the rebrand isn’t just cosmetic—that it reflects a genuine commitment to journalism, innovation, and credibility.

Otherwise, the punchlines may stick, and “Most Surely No One Watching” could become more than just a meme.