Jonah Goldberg Is Completely Correct

I am in 100 percent agreement with this proposal for the future of Meet The Press:

So why not have the best of both worlds? Russert was many things, but he wasn't a "moderator." Moderators balance and direct debates. Russert, to his credit, was a prosecutor. Why not make Chuck Todd the actual moderator of the show and have him moderate a panel of journalists?

You could a roster of different panelists, of whom two or three might be on any given episode depending on who the guests are and what's big in the news at the moment.

Comments

First question, for talking heads from MSNBC or CNN: why do you always say withdrawal from Iraq is an issue for "liberal Democrats" or "the left wing of the Democratic party" when withdrawl routinely polls at 70% or higher?

Posted by Freddie | June 16, 2008 7:25 PM

why not? because then it would look and feel like what it only sounded like (sometimes) under Russert: an Inquisition. Or worse, To Tell the Truth.

Posted by along | June 16, 2008 7:26 PM

I'm pretty disappointed that Chuck Todd is getting so much favorable mention as a possibility for this on the blogosphere.

Chuck Todd is a punk. He shouldn't be in charge of anything political any more than someone like the babysitter who hits your kids with a wooden spoon when you're out, or takes off with her boyfriend when she's supposed to be watching the kids, should.

Posted by Swan | June 16, 2008 7:27 PM

Why not? Because that's not how TV works. TV thrives on personalities. A show needs a strong personality to give it an identity and attract a loyal following. Name a show on TV -- game show, talk show, news show, reality show -- that has a passive moderator.

Posted by Bloix | June 16, 2008 7:30 PM

It would be nice if liberals were calling for someone kind of, you know, liberal to be the moderator / host.

How about Kevin Drum? How about Steve Benen? Not hacky/shilly enough?

Posted by Swan | June 16, 2008 7:32 PM

If he was a prosecutor, he was a pretty shitty prosecutor. He let people lie to his face and didn't follow up tough questions with more tough questions.

Posted by ben | June 16, 2008 7:32 PM

I'm pretty disappointed that Chuck Todd is getting so much favorable mention as a possibility for this on the blogosphere.

Methinks someone is still angry about the horrible, sexist primary math that Mr. Todd wouldn't stop talking about (during the primary).

Posted by ben | June 16, 2008 7:37 PM

PS- for 45 years, MTP was a roster of panelists with a moderator, just as you and Jonah are proposing. Hence the name. It was dying when Russert took it over 17 years ago and made it into a hit one-man show. So you're proposing a return to the failed format.

Posted by Bloix | June 16, 2008 7:37 PM

"PS- for 45 years, MTP was a roster of panelists with a moderator, just as you and Jonah are proposing. Hence the name. It was dying when Russert took it over 17 years ago and made it into a hit one-man show. So you're proposing a return to the failed format."

And of course what didn't work in 1990 couldn't possibly work now. Give me my Chuck Todd!

Posted by lh | June 16, 2008 7:42 PM

Why not? Because it's boring, that's why. There are a zillion and a half shows like this on YV. Infact, MTP itself was like this at its origin.

Posted by KevDog | June 16, 2008 7:42 PM

Yeah, you have to make someone a Big Media Star, so people who don't give a shit about issues or policy will tune in for the cage fight.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 16, 2008 7:50 PM

Chuck Todd is pretty fantastic and would be a prime choice for just about any top journalistic role. He's one of the best political analysts (his house, gubernatorial, presidential, and senatorial rankings have for years been some of the funniest and savviest out there and it's a shame he's stepped back from them) and the fact that he has basic competencies in mathematics makes him utterly unique in the field (his catch about the Florida delegates that giving half votes and halving the delegation would be different caught just about everyone off guard).

Posted by jbryan | June 16, 2008 7:51 PM

Here's an idea: Even if happens to somehow get something right, how about not quoting, linking to, or referencing Jonah Goldberg in any way which might give him any more legitimacy. He wrote a book which, on its cover, compares Hillary Clinton and liberalism in general to Mussolini and Hitler for fuck's sake. Thanks in advance.

Posted by ed | June 16, 2008 7:56 PM

Name a show on TV -- game show, talk show, news show, reality show -- that has a passive moderator.

Washington Week and The NewsHour spring instantly to mind. Her name has been mentioned before, but Gwen Ifill would be ideal if NBC decides to go with this format; it's basically the job she's already doing.

Posted by urbino | June 16, 2008 7:58 PM

Jonah Goldberg Is Completely Correct

Completely?

Posted by southpaw | June 16, 2008 8:02 PM

So you're proposing a return to the failed format.

Failed? "Sagging in the ratings during the late 80s/early 90s era of David Brinkley dominance" does not constitute failure. They just went through a ratings slump -- after very considerable successes in earlier times. Doesn't mean a return to that format couldn't work (doesn't mean it will work, either). It may well be worth a try. My guess, though, is they won't want to mess with what had been working during the Russert era. My hunch is Brokaw takes the reins as an interim host while they contemplate their options.

Posted by Jasper | June 16, 2008 8:08 PM

Wow.

His Russert/MTP post really is a thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Posted by Jacqueline Passey | June 16, 2008 8:11 PM

I'd hire Bryant Gumbel. He was one of the best interviewers on TV. Was consistently well prepared with thoughtful questions and piercing follow-ups. He's a no BS guy, who doesn't suffer fools, charlatans and blow-hards with grace...a needed attribute for that show. He can hold his own against anyone and makes the vapid Williams, Gibson, Matthews and their ilk look like morons. Let me ask you Senator Obama, how can you expect to be president if you insist on drinking orange juice instead of coffee in a diner? My GOD it's an outrage! Idiots.

Posted by Mark | June 16, 2008 8:20 PM

Although that seems like a good way to facilitate policy discussion it would probably strike any news executive as a disaster. The coronation of a new host of MTP is a chance for NBC to create a new trademark face for the network. Little chance they would undermine that new star by making him or her Meet the Press' Kaga, the stable master of a rotating band of journalists.

Also, if anyone on TV has earned the right to be considered by their work over these past months, it's Jeff Van Gundy.

Posted by WBYR | June 16, 2008 8:27 PM

Another great, non-establishment idea from MattY. Gosh knows that journalists are constantly digging for the truth and are willing to ask real questions, armed as they are with their in-depth knowledge of policy matters.

Meanwhile, everyone but MattY should suggest a format like this. Obviously, such a format would be as vigorously opposed since it would reveal just how bad politicians and journalists are.

Posted by TLB | June 16, 2008 8:32 PM

This is the guy I want hosting Meet the Press:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Francisco_%28television_host%29

Posted by blah | June 16, 2008 8:37 PM

GwenIfill would indeed be a great choice, just as long as you think there are only one sides in each debate.

Posted by TLB | June 16, 2008 8:42 PM

TLB: Your link includes this quote:

"One solution is a series of policy debates.

In these debates a panel of policy experts will ask each candidate a series of questions about the details of their plans. They'll try to find out the pluses and minuses of their plans and what they'll do if things don't work out as planned."

That's exactly what I'm doing when I ask Matt my two questions on Iran. And that's exactly what I did in my posts criticizing Obama's foreign policies.

You see how well that went over...

Of course, on a TV show, there would be no place to hide, as Matt does in his little blog by ignoring the questions.

Which is why such a show will never exist.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 16, 2008 9:03 PM

Even if happens to somehow get something right, how about not quoting, linking to, or referencing Jonah Goldberg in any way which might give him any more legitimacy.

You don't understand. He made it into the punditocracy and his membership card can never be revoked - never. Most rational people, on the other hand, when they hear someone making the most ignorant, stupid arguments on earth..well, they tend to ignore that person in the future. It is a concept called "credibility." That concept has no application in the media universe.

Posted by jim | June 16, 2008 9:29 PM

How about we bust out a ouija board and use the spirit of Murrow?

Posted by Kyle | June 16, 2008 9:32 PM

Richard Steven Hack, someday Matt will acknowledge you,

Someday ... he will. If you have faith; if you believe.

If you will it it, it is no dream.

Posted by Everybody | June 16, 2008 9:34 PM

Richard Steven Hack, someday Matt will acknowledge you,

Someday ... he will. If you have faith; if you believe.

If you will it it, it is no dream.

Posted by Everybody | June 16, 2008 9:34 PM

No, he won't. That would require him to have some balls.

And no amount of belief on my part can give him that. I'm afraid that's something he'll have to deal with.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 16, 2008 9:56 PM

You know, the format "moderator/ringmaster plus three people with opinions" has done pretty well recently under the name "American Idol". And it builds TV personalities as well.

Posted by DonBoy | June 16, 2008 10:06 PM

I don't care who the star/entertainer/host is, as long as at least one question per show comes from Helen Thomas or Seymour Hersh. You know, reporters. Who work for the press.

Posted by joel hanes | June 16, 2008 10:14 PM

I think Chuck Todd would be a great choice. Cerebral, likeable, not overtly ideological, not a blowhard, projects competence. I like Chris Matthews, but I'm not sure he has the level of gravitas NBC is probably looking for (also, he can't help but constantly piss people off). I think Gwen Ifil is unlikely, in part because I don't think NBC will pick a black woman to host its flagship political show. I think David Gregory is sort of vapid.

Posted by Will | June 16, 2008 10:23 PM

Easy on the nerves Jim Warren is William Powell's 'Thin Man' sans booze. He should at least do something on the Chicago Tribune's website. Subtle, intelligent, amusing low-key sophistication.

Nick Charles: The important thing is the rhythm. Always have rhythm in your shaking. Now a Manhattan you shake to fox-trot time, a Bronx to two-step time, a dry martini you always shake to waltz time.

Posted by Asta | June 16, 2008 10:31 PM

Chuck Todd is a horrible, horrible idea. The guy has zero charisma and would be the kind of push over that any good politician would eat alive. As a political mind, the guy might be aces. But the host of Meet the Press needs gravitas.

The thing that people liked about Meet the Press before it became too much of a gotcha game was that it was where politician's went to get asked the hard questions. It's where they would not be able to hide, or throw the question off - because Russert would simply ask it again. And if they prevaricated, he almost always had evidence. Hypocrites would be drawn out into the open on Meet the Press.

For now, the best move is clearly to convince Brokaw to sit in for Russert until November. Brokaw is universally respected, more than qualified, and has the requisite gravitas to hold down the fort while NBC comes up with some better ideas than Chuck Todd.

Posted by Barackalounger | June 16, 2008 10:49 PM

Jonah Goldberg probably likes Chuck Todd because he relates to him: fat bastard, meet fat bastard.

Posted by Swan | June 17, 2008 1:33 AM

Ben at 7:37 PM, Chuck Todd is the same thing as Russert was: a Nazi doing a nice-guy impression. Any liberal who likes him is only fooled by a soothing tone of voice and a smattering of cherry-picked facts here and there. Todd is no apolitical professional. He is a Media Matters repeat offender.

Here are a few headlines and links to stories on their page dedicated to him:

NBC's Todd touted McCain as a "moderate," but McCain's own words and record tell a different story

In "[s]eriously stunning" critique of Media Matters "debate 'don'ts,' " NBC's Chuck Todd left out all those referring to NBC's Russert

Will NBC ask Todd about prediction that Bush approval would top 50 percent by July 4?

There are 18 other Media Matters articles tagged with his name!

As for me, I was never as much of a Hillary supporter as you imply, and I don't let stuff like that bleed over into completely unrelated stuff like this, anyway. Chuck Todd falls based on his own failings.

Posted by Swan | June 17, 2008 1:47 AM

People have gotten sick of the 23-odd other politics shows that are set up with a moderator and a panel of "distinguished journalists" discussing something they have no background in - the political sector. Same results when the "panel of journalists" debate military tactics, the economy, educational performance woes compared to Europe and Asia...they don't know. They pull shit out their asses and others as ignorant argue with them about what they think or worse - what they feel, and the moderator sees that each yapping mouth gets about the same time.

Better a good interviewer with no personal agenda or pre-written narrative interview the subject of interest. I don't care what cleaning lady Gwen Ifill or hack Sean Hnnnity "feel" about Petraeus - I'd like to hear Petreaus himself answer those questions with the interviewer seeing him or herself as being where Joe Public would ask but calling the interviewee on Inside DC or Inside Corporate BS or spin. Mike Wallace, Bill Moyers were really good at times, but surrendered to becoming a vehicle for a pre-set narrative.

I'd say that Charlie Rose gets viewers to a better idea of who each interview subject is. And is reasonably free of PBS Lefty PC and having a hidden agenda. Browkaw is good.

Posted by chris ford | June 17, 2008 1:47 AM

People have gotten sick of the 23-odd other politics shows that are set up with a moderator and a panel of "distinguished journalists" discussing something they have no background in - the political sector. Same results when the "panel of journalists" debate military tactics, the economy, educational performance woes compared to Europe and Asia...they don't know. They pull shit out their asses and others as ignorant argue with them about what they think or worse - what they feel, and the moderator sees that each yapping mouth gets about the same time.

Better a good interviewer with no personal agenda or pre-written narrative interview the subject of interest. I don't care what cleaning lady Gwen Ifill or hack Sean Hnnnity "feel" about Petraeus - I'd like to hear Petreaus himself answer those questions with the interviewer seeing him or herself as being where Joe Public would ask but calling the interviewee on Inside DC or Inside Corporate BS or spin. Mike Wallace, Bill Moyers were really good at times, but surrendered to becoming a vehicle for a pre-set narrative.

I'd say that Charlie Rose gets viewers to a better idea of who each interview subject is. And is reasonably free of PBS Lefty PC and having a hidden agenda. Browkaw is good.

Posted by chris ford | June 17, 2008 1:47 AM

Chuck Todd would be a great choice. I did model UN with him at Harvard and he always very solid -- tough but fair. I won't tell the story of the time he had one too many Scorpion Bowls at the Hong Kong.

Posted by DougJ | June 17, 2008 2:23 AM

Chuck Todd? What an awful idea. What's wrong with hiring an actual journalist instead of a political hack who plays one on TV? MTP used to be such a great show. It lost stature when Russert took over, but now I fear an even bigger descent into nothingness. Just what we need: another program featuring a bunch of nitwits sitting around discussing Washington gossip.

Maybe you youngins should visit a broadcast library and watch old episodes of MTP so you can see what real journalism looks like. Maybe then you will realize what we've lost, and why we have such poor leaders today.

Posted by Julie1 | June 17, 2008 2:56 AM

I second the idea of Don Francisco, or, if he's not available, Mark Sommers from "Double Dare."

Posted by scythia | June 17, 2008 4:07 AM

The Australian version of MTP is a lot like this. Three journos who get to question the politician who is present. It tends to work ok,

Posted by Umesh | June 17, 2008 5:07 AM

Format: Moderator + 3 panelists that change on a weekly basis depending on the news issues of the week = Washington Week with Gwen Ifill on PBS.

Posted by Shala Howell | June 17, 2008 6:36 AM

Why not have guests meet the press, i.e. print journalists. Otherwise, it's really Meet the Talking Heads.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 17, 2008 9:29 AM

Chuck Todd is a terrific numbers wonk and can break down and analyze polling data like nobody's business. But when have you ever seen him interview anyone? When has he ever shown himself to be "prosecutorial"? He's never exhibited any of the skills that one would naturally search for in a potential MTP host.

Posted by Howard, New York City | June 17, 2008 10:13 AM

I agree with Howard. Todd's value is in being the polite, calm voice of mathematical insight and reason. Let him keep doing what he's been doing.

Cancel the stupid "Road to the White House" show at 6 PM and put Gregory on MTP. (Or put Maddow in charge of "Road..." and give her another show when the election is over.) Leave Matthews where he is.
Or if Gregory can't handle MTP, put Brokaw in as a temp until the right successor arrives.

And don't let that moron Brian Williams do anything, because he's liable to ramble on about NASCAR fans and how wonderful they are.

Posted by tinisoli | June 17, 2008 10:39 AM

One think I'm convinced we don't need is more journalists as guests on news shows. Why not have actual experts as guests so we can get away from horse race talk and actually have some in-depth discussions of issues? We need more NGO workers, scientists, professors, writers, etc. on the air and fewer journalists in my opinion.

Posted by Lauren | June 17, 2008 12:09 PM

Isn't this exactly what they already do on ABC's 'This Week' with George Stephanopoulus? They have George moderate a debate/discussion involving George Will, Robert Reich, Donna Brazile, and Sam Donaldson?

Posted by DRinOH | June 17, 2008 2:48 PM

And don't let that moron Brian Williams do anything, because he's liable to ramble on about NASCAR fans and how wonderful they are.

Or just ramble on, period.

Posted by Tom | June 17, 2008 2:57 PM

I want Crispin Glover to take over, because he can kick really high.

Posted by Kyptonite Enema | June 17, 2008 9:05 PM