ADVICE For "Meet the Press"

[Segami]

"..NBC host David Gregory was forced to issue a correction at the end of his weekly "Meet the Press" program last month after a United Nations official confronted him for using an unconfirmed Israeli video that allegedly showed Hamas shooting rockets from a UN school..."

It's time to bring back a Washington institution. Yesterday, Politico's Mike Allen broke the news that Chuck Todd, NBC's political director and chief White House correspondent, is the favorite to replace David Gregory and take over the helm at "Meet The Press." An official announcement on the switch is expected to be made in the next few weeks according to Allen. Of course, this news doesn't really come as a surprise to anyone who's been watching "Meet The Press" of late. Ever since the death of Tim Russert in 2008, "Meet the Press" has floundered, often finding itself at the bottom of the Sunday news show ratings. In fact, the show has seen some of its worst ratings ever under David Gregory.


As a change looms at "Meet the Press," it's worth taking a look at how this once great pillar of political news television has ended up at the bottom of the ratings barrel, and how it can be made great again. And to be fair, it's not all David Gregory's fault. Simply swapping him out for Chuck Todd won't right the ship. One of the major problems with "Meet The Press" of late is that the show assumes that its audience is not following the news, and has no clue about the week's events. But, as Jason Linkins points out over at The Huffington Post, the majority of the people that tune into "Meet the Press" are "well-versed in the stories of the week," and have, "already absorbed the talking points of the major players, availed themselves of a wealth of insight and expertise, and have even participated in their own discussions on current events." Basically, the show's producers appear to think its viewers are a lot dumber and a lot more uninformed than they actually are.


So, when people tune in on Sundays and hear the same old talking points from the same old pundits and politicos, they get bored and change the channel. As Linkins puts it, "One doesn't get the sense that the producers of 'Meet The Press' have in any way accounted for the sophistication of the show's potential audience." And, since the show underestimates its audience, it brings on guests who really can't contribute much to serious debates. Similarly, the show rarely brings on experts on individual issues. Instead, it relies on political pundits, strategists, and analysts who are just reciting either bumper stickers or conventional wisdom. That leads to a lot more "spin" on the issues, and fewer insightful discussions and debates. The result is that big-name guests are thrown softball questions, instead of the hard-hitting grillings that the show was known for back in its early days. Believe it or not, there was a time on "Meet The Press" when lawmakers who went on the show weren't given the red-carpet treatment. Instead, regardless of their political affiliations, they were barraged with questions, and often made to feel uncomfortable, all in the name of enlightening the American people. So, those are some of the major problems that have dragged "Meet the Press" down in recent years.




cont'

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25536-advice-for-meet-the-press

[Segami]

1. "..Going on "Meet the Press" shouldn't be a walk in the park...

....Lawmakers and guests should be grilled, and if they feel uncomfortable, that's a good thing. Guests should be challenged on their beliefs and stances, so that the American people can have a well-rounded view of what's really going on...."

[MADem]

2. Chuck TAWD???? He'll be no better.

They should go back to the old system--let the politicians actually MEET the damn PRESS. Bring in a rotating panel of reporters from print/electronic and television media, make sure they're well represented across the political spectrum so that everyone has someone to hate, and install a MODERATOR who is also a good interviewer. The moderator can do a brief interview, and then "the panel" can take turns bombarding the person with real questions as opposed to softballs.

Hell, if they're going to give it to Chuck TAWD, they might as well just give it to that worthless Pelosi-insulting Luke Russert.

[tularetom]

3. Gregory is awful but this makes it sound like MTP was great when Russert was on

He sucked. He was fond of springing "gotcha" moments on his Democratic guests while lobbed softball after softball at the republicans who appeared frequently and repeatedly.

MTP has been in the crapper for 20 years, ever since the suits at NBC allowed it to become a medium to promote the republican agenda. It doesn't only need a new host. It needs a new mindset and perhaps a change of format.

[winter is coming]

4. +1. The people who watch the Sunday talk shows aren't trying to catch up on the news.

They've got the internet for that. They're looking for something more than the same soundbytes from the same talking heads: background, context, meaningful questions and followup questions.