Today's Meet The Press first featured Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) as opposing views on the automotive bailout, you can easily surmise who is for and against in this duo. And it's easy for a column such as this to sit back, not claim expertise, and just report what the two senators said without taking a stand on this issue. Well, it's put up or shut up here in this space and everywhere in America. Hard decisions are at every turn.
Before we get to that, let's just briefly review some of the details presented by the two men. Senator Shelby's argument is that the Big 3 should not be bailed out and go into bankruptcy because they don't make products that people want, they're not innovative, and bad management abounds. True, true, and true. On the other side, Senator Levin pointed out that 1 in 10 jobs are automotive related and that GM, in particular, is making many innovations. Additionally, if GM files bankruptcy, 175 billion dollars will be lost in tax revenue and the ensuing legal fees.
Right now, there is 25 billion dollars waiting for the Big 3 - this column say use it. As Katty Kay pointed out later in the show, under normal economic circumstances, you could let it go, but these aren't normal circumstances. This column believes that the big three should receive this money with strict conditions. First, it should be taken out of the $700 billion initially allocated -$25 billion is 4%. The Bush Administration is against this idea because that money is strictly for the financial industry. The Bush Administration, we believe, is giving this money to save its corporate cronies and coffers and the vote of no-confidence with their decisions has long been established.
Remember that GM is a global company and leads the way around the world in the auto industry. This is the catalyst for their recovery and it should be invested in. The strict conditions should include but not be limited to the following: the head of GM, Wagoner, has to re-interview for the job. He should come with an action plan and make the case to the government that he is the one that can turn things around. If the Board at GM, who wants Wagoner kept on, can fork over $25 billion then they get the say, but if it's coming from the government, us, then the government has the say. Clear goals need to be set and fuel efficiency has to be the top line of the mandate. These things will be difficult on the American Auto Worker, but here's the choice - lower benefits or no benefits. Most Americans right now, even the ones on Wall Street, are saying at this moment that they just feel lucky to have a job. This is an attitude to be capitalized on. It's about survival and survival is a powerful motivation. Also, messaging on behalf on the Big 3 is vital as well. If GM and the other two U.S. auto companies were to replace every "Escalade" commercial during Sunday football with commercials explaining innovation and change in philosophy and new models that reflect that - people would feel more confident about helping these companies. And that's another why we should let these companies fail. The devastating psychological effect of the loss of that many jobs, essentially all at once, will grind over spending and confidence to a resounding halt. Lastly, some people would argue that if you bailout the auto companies, then why not then Circuit City or DHL? Retailers and Service companies have failed in this country and have been reinvented - it's more of a natural life and death cycle of business. Remember Woolworth's? The autos are absolutely different, manufacturing can not be allowed to fail - if manufacturing forever flees, it will never return. Retail outlets will always spring up anew.
Everything else about the program today was periphery. T Boone Pickens is on his way to getting his wind farms done. It's going to happen. It's the natural gas initiative that needs the scrutiny and support. How fast we act on that is key.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Good choice, it is the number 3 spot in the administration and placates many hard feelings. However, there are two other reasons why it's a good choice. One, she has the experience, savvy, and forthrightness to do the job AND it's true, she doesn't have the much leverage in the Senate as a junior Senator. Clintons are best when they're on the world stage. Andrea Mitchell brought up that they would have to vet Bill Clinton with regard to the donors for his library. Talk about not rehashing the past... the library is built and whoever donated, the result is that it will not be torn down. Hillary Clinton carries a ton of Bill's luggage. At a certain point, we have to let her stop paying the fees to check those bags.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
11.9.08: The Hang Over
Despite the conversations on the program today and the introduction of an Obama central figure, Valerie Jarrett, the hang over is over... The autos are running out of cash, job losses continue to mount in huge chunks, spending at retail is at a stand still, and even the vaunted Warren Buffett is experiencing revenue losses at Berkshire Hathaway. The consolation comes in the form of President-Elect Barack Obama because he understands these dynamics infinitely more than John McCain does - it's just fact. And keep in mind that domestic policy and foreign policy are not mutually exclusive. Why does China have leverage on the world stage? Because they have the cash.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
11.2.08: 48 Hours to Go
With 48 hours to go, the last MTP before the general hosted Obama and McCain mouthpieces - Senator John Kerry and former Senator Fred Thompson respectively. They did not appear together, which is usually the better way to go, but with so little time, the circumstances dictate equal time.
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
11.2.08: Yesterday's New York Times
Here's an article for yesterday's New York Times with regard to Tim Russert's Replacement.... my comments after....
Meet Russert’s Replacement? Not Yet
By JACQUES STEINBERG
It is probably the second-most-pressing question circulating in the salons of Washington’s media elite: Who will be the permanent host, or hosts, of the NBC program “Meet the Press”?
It could be Chuck Todd, whose profile as political director of NBC News has risen noticeably during the network’s coverage of the presidential campaign, but whose low-key, conversational style doesn’t quite “crack the screen,” as one television executive put it this week. It could be David Gregory, a correspondent who has long been familiar to NBC viewers, but who has had trouble attracting viewers to his own program, “Race for the White House,” on MSNBC.
It could be both, as part of an ensemble, or it could be neither. Gwen Ifill, a former NBC correspondent who went on to PBS, has been approached by the president of NBC News to gauge her interest. And some at NBC still pine for Katie Couric, who, if many planets were somehow to align, could be back on a top-rated NBC morning show, albeit one that is broadcast just once a week.
Meanwhile, the names of the candidates’ backers and antagonists are as intriguing as those of the potential hosts themselves. Tom Brokaw has told some colleagues that he has been impressed with Mr. Todd. Mr. Gregory has struggled to get critical air time on “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” — in part, some colleagues say, because he can be as combative off camera as he can be at a White House press briefing.
NBC is expected to announce its decision sometime between Election Day and the end of the year, when Mr. Brokaw is scheduled to end his tour as interim host, a role he has played since shortly after the death of the program’s longtime moderator Tim Russert in June. The network has said little publicly about its deliberations, which have been set against the backdrop of the election — with the stock of some potential hosts rising, and others falling.
Those inside and outside the network who have been briefed on portions of the process said this week that it had been understandably difficult, given the oversize shoes being filled. As of yet, no obvious candidate has emerged from what in effect has been an unwieldy bake-off, with some of the leading candidates playing prominent roles in the network’s political coverage.
A spokeswoman for NBC News, Allison Gollust, said on Friday, “No decision has been made about the future of ‘Meet the Press,’ and any speculation by alleged insiders is nothing more than idle chitchat.”
The rough list of journalists who are receiving scrutiny within NBC emerged from conversations this week with people who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because not one was a direct decision maker. Among the other names being bandied about the hallways and suites of NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, and its Washington bureau on Nebraska Avenue, are those of Andrea Mitchell, a longtime reporter who could play a supporting role, and a dark horse, Chris Matthews, the outspoken MSNBC host whose ratings have climbed during the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
Some NBC executives are intrigued by the possibility of hiring an established star to replace Mr. Russert. Near the top of that short list is Ms. Couric, the former “Today” co-host, who has had at times an unhappy experience as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” And there is always Ted Koppel, who would bring the heft of more than two decades spent hosting “Nightline.”
That the decision to replace Mr. Russert has been protracted is not just a reflection of the degree to which he made “Meet the Press” his own. The program, which has its 61st anniversary on Thursday, is a tremendously important showcase for NBC. With an average weekly audience of nearly four million, according to Nielsen Media Research, it has actually increased its viewership and its margin of victory over its two main competitors — “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, and “Face the Nation” on CBS — in the months since Mr. Russert’s death.
The program also generates millions of dollars in annual advertising revenue for NBC. While Betsy Fischer, the longtime executive producer of “Meet the Press,” and Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, will have much to say about the next moderator, the ultimate decision will most likely rest with Jeff Zucker, the president and chief executive of NBC Universal, in consultation with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the network’s parent company.
NBC has drawn some criticism for not having more minority journalists in prominent roles. Ms. Ifill, the host of “Washington Week” on PBS and a regular on “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” is black. She also has a résumé long on jobs covering Washington politics, not just over the last nine years at PBS but also before that at NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Reached this week, Ms. Ifill would neither confirm nor deny any contact with NBC executives. “I have one of the best jobs in journalism right now,” she said, “but I never rule anything out.”
Asked how long she was committed to PBS, Ms. Ifill said, “I’m still under contract.”
Of the inside candidates, Mr. Todd has drawn praise for his sober election analysis. And yet he has logged far more time as a print journalist than as a television host, including six years as the editor of The Hotline, a publication of National Journal. Moreover, the job of presiding over “Meet the Press” in an election year, which plays to Mr. Todd’s strengths as a political analyst, is different from what it will be during the early months of a new administration, in which the topics will hopscotch from the economy to international affairs.
For these reasons the network has thought seriously about placing Mr. Todd at the helm of an ensemble, perhaps a rotating one, that could include Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory still might get the “Meet the Press” job outright.
Then there is Ms. Couric, whose widely seen conversations with Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, were fresh reminders of her interviewing skills. Even if Ms. Couric were interested, which is not clear, she would have to be let out of her contract with CBS, which is to run for more than two more years.
On the other hand, CBS executives acknowledged earlier this year that Ms. Couric and the network had discussed the possibility of her leaving, perhaps between the election and the inauguration in January.
Asked in an interview last month if the attention she received for her Palin interview had her thinking about what it would be like to lead the “CBS Evening News” in a new administration, Ms. Couric demurred, saying, “I haven’t really been able to look beyond Nov. 4, in terms of how things are going to shake out.”
As for Mr. Koppel, he declined an opportunity to take over “This Week” when he concluded his tenure on “Nightline” in 2005. At the time it was noted that he had done an interview program of his own for 26 years and was loath to interrupt time with his family to lash himself to an anchor desk in Washington each Sunday.
And yet when asked this week about whether Mr. Koppel might have changed his mind in the intervening years, someone close to him emphasized that his three-year contract with the Discovery Channel was winding down, and that Mr. Koppel was open to a new challenge. As of yet, though, no one from NBC is believed to have called.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/arts/television/01meet.html?ref=television
The names thrown around in the article are all viable with the exception of Katie Couric. That's not intended to be a dig, but the reason Ms. Couric does so well with political interviews is that she doesn't do them often. She has a wide range when it comes to interviews and stories. It's this wide range that keeps the odd political interview fresh. And limiting her to political topics only takes away from her greatest strength as a journalist - her ability to switch gears.
This column has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both Mr. Todd and Mr. Gregory respectively and the better choice here is Mr. Todd. However, we've never seen Mr. Todd hit a power broker over the head with a tough question. And hosting by committee, as mentioned in the article, is a bad idea. The essential element with Mr. Russert was that we trusted him in his consistency. This is something that grows over time and establishing a long-running host is the way to create the trust. Therefore, Mr. Todd could grow nicely into the position. He was Mr. Russert's protege, without question.
The other outsider names mentioned - Gwen Ifill and Ted Kopple - are stacked with viable experience. However, with Mr. Kopple, you create the same situation in three years that you have now... who is the replacement? Gwen Ifill, on the other hand, is very well respected and could take over for some time. She is a candidate that this column will consider more. Her substantive questions would due a true service to the longest running television program in history.
More to come....
Meet Russert’s Replacement? Not Yet
By JACQUES STEINBERG
It is probably the second-most-pressing question circulating in the salons of Washington’s media elite: Who will be the permanent host, or hosts, of the NBC program “Meet the Press”?
It could be Chuck Todd, whose profile as political director of NBC News has risen noticeably during the network’s coverage of the presidential campaign, but whose low-key, conversational style doesn’t quite “crack the screen,” as one television executive put it this week. It could be David Gregory, a correspondent who has long been familiar to NBC viewers, but who has had trouble attracting viewers to his own program, “Race for the White House,” on MSNBC.
It could be both, as part of an ensemble, or it could be neither. Gwen Ifill, a former NBC correspondent who went on to PBS, has been approached by the president of NBC News to gauge her interest. And some at NBC still pine for Katie Couric, who, if many planets were somehow to align, could be back on a top-rated NBC morning show, albeit one that is broadcast just once a week.
Meanwhile, the names of the candidates’ backers and antagonists are as intriguing as those of the potential hosts themselves. Tom Brokaw has told some colleagues that he has been impressed with Mr. Todd. Mr. Gregory has struggled to get critical air time on “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” — in part, some colleagues say, because he can be as combative off camera as he can be at a White House press briefing.
NBC is expected to announce its decision sometime between Election Day and the end of the year, when Mr. Brokaw is scheduled to end his tour as interim host, a role he has played since shortly after the death of the program’s longtime moderator Tim Russert in June. The network has said little publicly about its deliberations, which have been set against the backdrop of the election — with the stock of some potential hosts rising, and others falling.
Those inside and outside the network who have been briefed on portions of the process said this week that it had been understandably difficult, given the oversize shoes being filled. As of yet, no obvious candidate has emerged from what in effect has been an unwieldy bake-off, with some of the leading candidates playing prominent roles in the network’s political coverage.
A spokeswoman for NBC News, Allison Gollust, said on Friday, “No decision has been made about the future of ‘Meet the Press,’ and any speculation by alleged insiders is nothing more than idle chitchat.”
The rough list of journalists who are receiving scrutiny within NBC emerged from conversations this week with people who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because not one was a direct decision maker. Among the other names being bandied about the hallways and suites of NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, and its Washington bureau on Nebraska Avenue, are those of Andrea Mitchell, a longtime reporter who could play a supporting role, and a dark horse, Chris Matthews, the outspoken MSNBC host whose ratings have climbed during the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
Some NBC executives are intrigued by the possibility of hiring an established star to replace Mr. Russert. Near the top of that short list is Ms. Couric, the former “Today” co-host, who has had at times an unhappy experience as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” And there is always Ted Koppel, who would bring the heft of more than two decades spent hosting “Nightline.”
That the decision to replace Mr. Russert has been protracted is not just a reflection of the degree to which he made “Meet the Press” his own. The program, which has its 61st anniversary on Thursday, is a tremendously important showcase for NBC. With an average weekly audience of nearly four million, according to Nielsen Media Research, it has actually increased its viewership and its margin of victory over its two main competitors — “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, and “Face the Nation” on CBS — in the months since Mr. Russert’s death.
The program also generates millions of dollars in annual advertising revenue for NBC. While Betsy Fischer, the longtime executive producer of “Meet the Press,” and Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, will have much to say about the next moderator, the ultimate decision will most likely rest with Jeff Zucker, the president and chief executive of NBC Universal, in consultation with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the network’s parent company.
NBC has drawn some criticism for not having more minority journalists in prominent roles. Ms. Ifill, the host of “Washington Week” on PBS and a regular on “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” is black. She also has a résumé long on jobs covering Washington politics, not just over the last nine years at PBS but also before that at NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Reached this week, Ms. Ifill would neither confirm nor deny any contact with NBC executives. “I have one of the best jobs in journalism right now,” she said, “but I never rule anything out.”
Asked how long she was committed to PBS, Ms. Ifill said, “I’m still under contract.”
Of the inside candidates, Mr. Todd has drawn praise for his sober election analysis. And yet he has logged far more time as a print journalist than as a television host, including six years as the editor of The Hotline, a publication of National Journal. Moreover, the job of presiding over “Meet the Press” in an election year, which plays to Mr. Todd’s strengths as a political analyst, is different from what it will be during the early months of a new administration, in which the topics will hopscotch from the economy to international affairs.
For these reasons the network has thought seriously about placing Mr. Todd at the helm of an ensemble, perhaps a rotating one, that could include Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory still might get the “Meet the Press” job outright.
Then there is Ms. Couric, whose widely seen conversations with Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, were fresh reminders of her interviewing skills. Even if Ms. Couric were interested, which is not clear, she would have to be let out of her contract with CBS, which is to run for more than two more years.
On the other hand, CBS executives acknowledged earlier this year that Ms. Couric and the network had discussed the possibility of her leaving, perhaps between the election and the inauguration in January.
Asked in an interview last month if the attention she received for her Palin interview had her thinking about what it would be like to lead the “CBS Evening News” in a new administration, Ms. Couric demurred, saying, “I haven’t really been able to look beyond Nov. 4, in terms of how things are going to shake out.”
As for Mr. Koppel, he declined an opportunity to take over “This Week” when he concluded his tenure on “Nightline” in 2005. At the time it was noted that he had done an interview program of his own for 26 years and was loath to interrupt time with his family to lash himself to an anchor desk in Washington each Sunday.
And yet when asked this week about whether Mr. Koppel might have changed his mind in the intervening years, someone close to him emphasized that his three-year contract with the Discovery Channel was winding down, and that Mr. Koppel was open to a new challenge. As of yet, though, no one from NBC is believed to have called.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/arts/television/01meet.html?ref=television
The names thrown around in the article are all viable with the exception of Katie Couric. That's not intended to be a dig, but the reason Ms. Couric does so well with political interviews is that she doesn't do them often. She has a wide range when it comes to interviews and stories. It's this wide range that keeps the odd political interview fresh. And limiting her to political topics only takes away from her greatest strength as a journalist - her ability to switch gears.
This column has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both Mr. Todd and Mr. Gregory respectively and the better choice here is Mr. Todd. However, we've never seen Mr. Todd hit a power broker over the head with a tough question. And hosting by committee, as mentioned in the article, is a bad idea. The essential element with Mr. Russert was that we trusted him in his consistency. This is something that grows over time and establishing a long-running host is the way to create the trust. Therefore, Mr. Todd could grow nicely into the position. He was Mr. Russert's protege, without question.
The other outsider names mentioned - Gwen Ifill and Ted Kopple - are stacked with viable experience. However, with Mr. Kopple, you create the same situation in three years that you have now... who is the replacement? Gwen Ifill, on the other hand, is very well respected and could take over for some time. She is a candidate that this column will consider more. Her substantive questions would due a true service to the longest running television program in history.
More to come....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)