Mark Whitaker will replace Tim Russert as Washington Bureau chief. We're thinking that it won't be for MTP as well.
Mark Whitaker Named NBC News Washington Bureau Chief
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust
Huffington Post | July 28, 2008 02:18 PM
Mark Whitaker, currently Senior Vice President at NBC News, has been named chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau, a spot that has remained vacant since Tim Russert died on June 13.
Last month, the New York Observer's Felix Gillette wrote that insiders were speculating that Whitaker — who formerly held the top job at Newsweek — would succeed Russert as the head of NBC's D.C. bureau:
Over the past year, according to NBC News sources, Mr. Whitaker has become a popular and well-respected presence at 30 Rockefeller Center. Fellow executives are said to value his judgment, and he is often called in to help out with touchy editorial conflicts--a fairly common occurrence these days as executives have wrestled to merge the just-the-facts culture of NBC News with the more freewheeling sensibilities of MSNBC. Along the way, Mr. Whitaker has earned a reputation as a conscientious manager with a deft touch for diplomacy.
That said, his specific responsibilities at NBC News remain opaque to outsiders and insiders alike. "He sits in on a lot of meetings," said one staffer. "But no one seems to know quite what it is he does."
"He knows how to run a news-gathering operation," one former NBC News senior staffer added. "But he's basically a vice president without a portfolio. He's kind of been floating around."
Assigning him to oversee the Washington bureau, goes the theory, would pin down Mr. Whitaker's talents to a specific challenge. Moreover, it wouldn't cost the news division any additional money at a time when NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker has been clamping down on costs across the board.
Interestingly, when Russert was appointed Washington bureau chief in 1988, he was also the New York-based #2 executive at NBC News with no television experience — just like Whitaker.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
"I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all," Whitaker said. "And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
As Washington bureau chief, Whitaker will oversee both the network's political content — namely "Meet the Press" and NBC News' entire network election and political coverage — and the day-to-day operations of the Washington bureau, where he will oversee management and administration. He will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
Full press release below:
MARK WHITAKER NAMED NBC NEWS D.C. BUREAU CHIEF
Position Includes Executive Oversight of "Meet the Press" and Network Election and Political Coverage
NEW YORK - July 28, 2008 - NBC News announced today that Mark Whitaker has been named Chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau. His appointment fills a vacancy left by the untimely death of Tim Russert in June. Whitaker, a veteran, award-winning journalist who is currently a Senior Vice President at NBC News, will assume his duties immediately. The announcement was made by NBC News President Steve Capus, to whom Whitaker will report.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
Story continues below
advertisement
Whitaker will continue in his role as SVP at NBC News. His day-to-day responsibilities will include executive oversight of "Meet the Press," as well as of all of NBC News' network election and political coverage. As D.C. Bureau Chief, he will oversee all bureau management and administration, as well as work closely with NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, and Deputy Bureau Chiefs Wendy Wilkinson and Brady Daniels. Whitaker will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
"I am looking forward to keeping our coverage of politics and government the best in the business," said Whitaker. "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all. And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
Prior to joining NBC News, Whitaker served as Editor of Newsweek from 1998-2006. During his tenure with the magazine, the newsweekly published its best-selling issues of all time and had years of record profitability. It also received more editorial awards than at any other time in its history. Among these were the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the industry's highest prize, in 2002 for coverage of 9/11, and in 2004 for coverage of the Iraq war.
Whitaker also oversaw the growth of Newsweek's web site, which is affiliated with NBC News' MSNBC.com. Its awards included Editor & Publisher's "EPpy" award for best newsmagazine web site and the MIN "Best of the Web Award" for Best National Magazine-Affiliated Web Site.
From 2006 until 2007, Whitaker served as Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of New Ventures at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, creating new online ventures and multimedia for Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company.
Widely respected in the journalism community, Whitaker served as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 2004 - 2006. He is a current board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Before becoming top editor, Whitaker served as a reporter, writer and editor for Newsweek for two decades. He started his career reporting for Newsweek as a summer intern and stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris while in college and graduate school. He became business editor in 1987. As an assistant managing editor and then managing editor from 1991 to 1998, Whitaker helped oversee coverage that included the first Gulf War and the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.
Whitaker graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 and studied international relations at Oxford University's Balliol College as a Marshall Scholar. He is married to Alexis Gelber, Newsweek's director of special projects. They have two children.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
7.26.08: Barack Obama in London
Let's first start with an overarching point: This interview was conducted at the tail end of a trip, in which Senator Obama was in a different country everyday having multiples meetings with various political leaders. Off the plane to the Middle East continuing on to the heart of Europe, the man didn't stop. Throw in a speech in front of 200,000 Germans and all that would wear on anyone. However, what I noticed about this interview was that Senator Obama didn't make one gaffe or misstatement where he confused facts.
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
Sunday, July 20, 2008
7.20.08: Al Gore's Time Has Passed
He's still a bit pompous, but he's still right when it comes to energy and the environment. Mr. Gore can rattle off frightening statement after another and they simply get brushed aside for a reason that David Gregory and Chuck Todd both agreed with, which was that since Vice President Gore is still such a polarizing figure to the right, that his barking shouldn't be taken seriously. 'Look how much energy this man personally uses...' But when you know that for every degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes become ten times as likely, and when you know that the northern polar ice cap is shrinking at an alarming rate and could be 75% gone in five years, then aren't you inclined to speak at the top of your lungs?
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
7.13.08: The Dog Days
The first thing that should be said of this week's show is that Carly Fiorina, chair of the McCain/RNC Victory campaign, is not ready for prime time. Her name has been thrown around a bit as a possible Vice Presidential candidate, but judging by today's performance on MTP, she would be eaten alive by in a debate with anyone who has a name like Biden, Richardson, Clinton, Edwards, et al. Tom Brokaw posed a hypothetical Democratic campaign ad containing a laundry list of problems for McCain and she really just sat there and took it. (A hypothetical campaign ad-type question would have never been asked by Mr. Russert. Additionally, questions like this are leading and lower the MTP standard. Mr. Brokaw should embrace his more conversational style without lowering the standard so arduously set by the late Mr. Russert.) She does not have a tone that she speaks with authority. After all, Ms. Fiorina is a deposed CEO of Hewlett Packard. Which brings up a question: What was her compensation package upon her firing? Answer: Mostly likely 5 times more than I (an average American) will make in a lifetime.
Another question that Ms. Fiorina brought up, vis a vis the Iraq Occupation, involves troop presence. She stated that we have troops in places where we have to protect our interests and that we've had troops in Japan for over 60 years. So the question is: In a time when our troops levels around the world are stretched beyond their limit and we need to prioritize, why do we still have troops in Japan? Is this ally of our still under military threat? Ms. Fiorina stated that no one objects to this. This column objects to troops in Japan and permanent bases in Iraq. Some would dismiss that statement as naive, but this column would argue that military presence is not our best tool in wielding influence, our economic and innovative might (what fuels the military strength anyway) is the most effective way to gain leverage around the world. However, what we've done during the Bush Administration is put military first and now we can see the result.
And speaking of innovation, that brings us to the brief debate on education. Senator McCaskill smartly stated that Ms. Fiorina's statement about giving choice to parents in the children's education was code for school vouchers.
As a former teacher, this is what I can tell you:
No Child Left Behind does not work. One size does not fit all as both guests stated. But why? Because people learn in different ways. Some are better auditory learners, some better with visual aids, some need strict construction and instruction - dictation if you will, and some need a combination of all of the above. By that rationale alone, you can not expect the same results from individuals teaching all the same way.
School Vouchers would cripple public education into ineffectiveness. Remember, something, anything, is only as strong as its weakest link. If we diminish public education, all the links get weaker. We're putting the funds for public education in the hands of parents, who are supposed to do the best thing for their kids. This column guarantees that when this is the case, you'll hear stories of adults being irresponsible and/or selfish with those funds ultimately depriving their children. What we don't put any importance is that public education is a pillar of this country and we should work to strengthen and expand, not diminish.
Fun Fact: Cuba has public education and also has 99% national literacy.
Lastly, having been a Union Representative for the UFT, I believe that the union should be held in tact, but needs to be overhauled greatly. I fundamental problem with the way the union is set at present is that ultimately it rewards loyalty of its teachers much more than the ability of its teachers. There are other issues of course, but this one is a fundamental easily digestible distinction.
As for the panel of Rep. Ford, Mr. Mike Murphy, and Andrea Mitchell, they seemed to all agree that Presidential polls means little right now and this is no more true right now. It's the deepest part of summer and most of the public is concerned with their finances so to the average American, there are other things taking priority over who is saying what in the campaign. That's why you can have an incredible amount of politically foolish statements in one week and get away with it. If this past week were to have occurred in September, heads would truly be rolling.
Another question that Ms. Fiorina brought up, vis a vis the Iraq Occupation, involves troop presence. She stated that we have troops in places where we have to protect our interests and that we've had troops in Japan for over 60 years. So the question is: In a time when our troops levels around the world are stretched beyond their limit and we need to prioritize, why do we still have troops in Japan? Is this ally of our still under military threat? Ms. Fiorina stated that no one objects to this. This column objects to troops in Japan and permanent bases in Iraq. Some would dismiss that statement as naive, but this column would argue that military presence is not our best tool in wielding influence, our economic and innovative might (what fuels the military strength anyway) is the most effective way to gain leverage around the world. However, what we've done during the Bush Administration is put military first and now we can see the result.
And speaking of innovation, that brings us to the brief debate on education. Senator McCaskill smartly stated that Ms. Fiorina's statement about giving choice to parents in the children's education was code for school vouchers.
As a former teacher, this is what I can tell you:
No Child Left Behind does not work. One size does not fit all as both guests stated. But why? Because people learn in different ways. Some are better auditory learners, some better with visual aids, some need strict construction and instruction - dictation if you will, and some need a combination of all of the above. By that rationale alone, you can not expect the same results from individuals teaching all the same way.
School Vouchers would cripple public education into ineffectiveness. Remember, something, anything, is only as strong as its weakest link. If we diminish public education, all the links get weaker. We're putting the funds for public education in the hands of parents, who are supposed to do the best thing for their kids. This column guarantees that when this is the case, you'll hear stories of adults being irresponsible and/or selfish with those funds ultimately depriving their children. What we don't put any importance is that public education is a pillar of this country and we should work to strengthen and expand, not diminish.
Fun Fact: Cuba has public education and also has 99% national literacy.
Lastly, having been a Union Representative for the UFT, I believe that the union should be held in tact, but needs to be overhauled greatly. I fundamental problem with the way the union is set at present is that ultimately it rewards loyalty of its teachers much more than the ability of its teachers. There are other issues of course, but this one is a fundamental easily digestible distinction.
As for the panel of Rep. Ford, Mr. Mike Murphy, and Andrea Mitchell, they seemed to all agree that Presidential polls means little right now and this is no more true right now. It's the deepest part of summer and most of the public is concerned with their finances so to the average American, there are other things taking priority over who is saying what in the campaign. That's why you can have an incredible amount of politically foolish statements in one week and get away with it. If this past week were to have occurred in September, heads would truly be rolling.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
6.29.08: Tom Brokaw Steering the Ship
The decision to initially keep Tom Brokaw away from the desk is a good idea for a few reasons. One, Mr. Brokaw is not at his best as an interviewer when in a setting that would be considered 'the traditional MTP setting,' in other words. It would just be too powerful on a reminder that Mr. Russert is no longer there. Three, Mr. Brokaw can not, in fact, hold the chair even despite his legendary resume. This week's interviews with western-state governors was a safe transition.... Interviewing western governors IN THE WEST! The glaring issue with this decision is that there isn't that urgency or spontaneity of the live interview, which was a key reason why you watched Mr. Russert and MTP in the first place.
And before we get into a look at the statements by these governors, there is one more thing that should be stated. Chuck Todd, after the November election, actually after the new year, will take over the chair of Meet The Press. Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Todd is still sometimes a little too sure of his own opinions, but but it's not overbearing. Mr. Todd is the logical choice because, one, he's a Russert disciple. Mr. Russert brought him in. Two, unlike the other prospective NBC News anchors for the permanent spot, Mr. Todd accumulated any baggage of opinion with viewers. I.E. Chris Matthews is a blowhard - some people would argue... etc. Lastly, at first, ratings won't be great with Mr. Todd, but eventually that will turn around and the commitment to him taking over the show will create stability. He's young enough to have a long run at the desk, which is exactly what has to happen.
[Last week, Brian Williams was not up to the task. Every good point that he made, he delivered in a fast rambling mumble so no, it won't be Mr. Williams. However, last week he did get a great quote (opinion) from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware about running as Vice President. If you watch the show, you know the quote - see link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314965#25314965]
Now, onto the substance....
The reorganization of western state gubernatorial leader is quite stunning - more Democratic governors in the west than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The reason for this is that the Bush Administration, from the outset, has left states to fend for themselves and financially cope on their own. Without necessarily articulating it, the American people realize this and elected Democratic governors who are more prone to consider the overall financial safety of the state and its individuals.
By most standards, all three governors interviewed today are conservative. However, Governors Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) and Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyoming) are social conservatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the otherhand, is a Republican, but is socially liberal. If there is one thing for sure, President Bush has really shaken up the playing field. Everything that seems straight, is bent. And everything that is bent is actually straight - meaning that where people should be in lock step with the President and the party's national agenda, it's just not happening. Officials are striking out with their own opinions with the White House unable to employ any persuasion.
Both Governors, who were interviewed in Wyoming, illustrated on key point respectively and that they are so solely focused on their own states, that while they can opine about the Presidential contest, the plight of the state is a grave concern, with energy being at the top of the list. Mr. Bush's sole solution of drilling more holes in the ground is simply not flying with anyone and seems transparently pathetic in the face of a one-thought agenda - more oil.
In Arnold's defense, California has been saddled with incredible debt so if in fact, he is paying down the debt, it is a great thing and will only be recognized until after he leaves office. It's the most thankless, but vital thing a Governor can do for his/her state - alleviate the debt. But of course as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger says something that makes sense, he digresses into an anecdote that makes you reconsider the wisdom of him in office. Those dinner table conversations he was recanting were.... let's just say 'worrisome.' Mr. Schwarzenegger, even if the amendment were not in place, should never be considered an option for the office of the President.
So we have begun the new age of Meet The Press and no matter what, this column will be watching.
And before we get into a look at the statements by these governors, there is one more thing that should be stated. Chuck Todd, after the November election, actually after the new year, will take over the chair of Meet The Press. Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Todd is still sometimes a little too sure of his own opinions, but but it's not overbearing. Mr. Todd is the logical choice because, one, he's a Russert disciple. Mr. Russert brought him in. Two, unlike the other prospective NBC News anchors for the permanent spot, Mr. Todd accumulated any baggage of opinion with viewers. I.E. Chris Matthews is a blowhard - some people would argue... etc. Lastly, at first, ratings won't be great with Mr. Todd, but eventually that will turn around and the commitment to him taking over the show will create stability. He's young enough to have a long run at the desk, which is exactly what has to happen.
[Last week, Brian Williams was not up to the task. Every good point that he made, he delivered in a fast rambling mumble so no, it won't be Mr. Williams. However, last week he did get a great quote (opinion) from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware about running as Vice President. If you watch the show, you know the quote - see link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314965#25314965]
Now, onto the substance....
The reorganization of western state gubernatorial leader is quite stunning - more Democratic governors in the west than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The reason for this is that the Bush Administration, from the outset, has left states to fend for themselves and financially cope on their own. Without necessarily articulating it, the American people realize this and elected Democratic governors who are more prone to consider the overall financial safety of the state and its individuals.
By most standards, all three governors interviewed today are conservative. However, Governors Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) and Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyoming) are social conservatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the otherhand, is a Republican, but is socially liberal. If there is one thing for sure, President Bush has really shaken up the playing field. Everything that seems straight, is bent. And everything that is bent is actually straight - meaning that where people should be in lock step with the President and the party's national agenda, it's just not happening. Officials are striking out with their own opinions with the White House unable to employ any persuasion.
Both Governors, who were interviewed in Wyoming, illustrated on key point respectively and that they are so solely focused on their own states, that while they can opine about the Presidential contest, the plight of the state is a grave concern, with energy being at the top of the list. Mr. Bush's sole solution of drilling more holes in the ground is simply not flying with anyone and seems transparently pathetic in the face of a one-thought agenda - more oil.
In Arnold's defense, California has been saddled with incredible debt so if in fact, he is paying down the debt, it is a great thing and will only be recognized until after he leaves office. It's the most thankless, but vital thing a Governor can do for his/her state - alleviate the debt. But of course as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger says something that makes sense, he digresses into an anecdote that makes you reconsider the wisdom of him in office. Those dinner table conversations he was recanting were.... let's just say 'worrisome.' Mr. Schwarzenegger, even if the amendment were not in place, should never be considered an option for the office of the President.
So we have begun the new age of Meet The Press and no matter what, this column will be watching.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
6.19.08: Sometimes, We're All Like One Another
This column is posting this picture to illustrate a little point that in politics is often forgotten. That no matter what side of the aisle you prefer and/or oppose, however vehemently, we all grieve as one people, as the collective America. It's the culture of this country, unfortunately, that we're so ready to kick the other side when it's down. Maybe for once we should pick each other up and fix the clear and terribly present ills that face this nation.
See you on Sunday.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
6.17.08: Eugene Robinson's Russert Column
This column considers Eugene Robinson one of the foremost common sense makers in journalism. His insights never seem forced and the continually reek of sensibility, always begging the question - why didn't I think of that.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
6.15.08: Farewell Father Tim
It is most important to include the word 'father' in the title of today's column. Literally and figuratively, Tim Russert was a great father. It seems like a statement that could only be made by someone who knew the man personally and not some anonymous writer of some blog. But from listening to the testimonials of today's guests and knowing what we already know, the man loved his son and his family, mentored and set the standard for so many journalists, represented us in the face of power, and educated everyone who knew his name. To that point, Mr. Russert was one of this individual's political fathers. He provided a young idealistic man, fresh from the Peace Corps a reason to stay engaged in what what happening in the world; that what the leaders of this country said mattered to all of us as individuals; that people from 'little' places can do the most amazing things.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
5.25.08; What's the Meaning of June?
Paraphrasing Maureen Dowd, Hilly Clinton is acting creepy. This is essentially where the conversation started and then eventually came full circle in the first half of the program. This seems to be becoming a loose trend; Senator Clinton makes a statement and then at the very least later has to explain the context. This is it was invoking the June '68 assassination of Robert Kennedy in relation to her campaign. Ms. Dowd continued that Mrs. Clinton doesn't hope for any bodily harm to Senator Obama, but she is waiting for something dreadful to befall him.
Ruth Marcus did not see it as calculated a comment as the others. She attributed it to exhaustion and self-pity, and this combination results in political gaffes. The self-pity stems from what the Clintons claim is sexism and gender-bias in the campaign. Before we leap into that, just a note on self-pity. A person may have self-pity but showing it attempts to invoke sympathy for the person. Hillary Clinton asking us for our sympathy is sad and she's not going to get it. So this column respectfully disagrees with Ms. Marcus.
The Clintons' invocations are always carefully calculated. Apologists would explain that bringing RFK was a mistake and that she could have used the Reagan-Ford primary race for example. Well, why didn't she? With regard to sexism, Ms. Dowd opined that Senator Clinton's statements, while using words like misogyny, actually do a disservice to feminism. She went on to explain that when as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton made this same argument when her health care plan failed and now that her campaign is failing, we're seeing this argument again. She called it Sharptonism - constantly wrapping oneself into side of the victim. And now that her campaign has faltered, she is doing it again. But as pointed out, it was her shortsighted strategy that was her downfall. The race didn't end on February 5th as she counted on.
[Usually when Maureen Dowd appears on the program, more times then not, the rest of the panel adopts her opinion. Mr. Russert mentioned that it was a special edition of MTP and, indeed, it was. Maureen Dowd's wit coupled with Jon Meacham's astuteness, augmented with Gwen Ifill's intuition, and put into perspective by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a two-fold success - entertaining and insightful.]
So will Senator Clinton get out of the race in June and what is she angling to get? As Jon Meacham succinctly put it, What's the meaning of June? At this point, the media and Clinton surrogates are chattering about the V.P. Office. Hasn't this column said this before - Senator Hillary Clinton will not be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party in November 2008. What does make sense is Hillary Clinton being the President of Senate. Now, this is one of the roles of the V.P., but The Clinton's in that office reeks of subversion of the Presidency. The best she is going to get is a sweet cabinet post. However, the problem with this is that Madame Albright and Madame Rice, pretty much have spoiled the Secretary of State role so what's left? Secretary of Defense? Hillary Clinton doing her best Margaret Thatcher routine could work. The irony that the Democrats, traditionally viewed as weak on defense, would put a woman in the top war post. Senator Clinton is hawkish - this is common knowledge so why not employ it to a positive result?
The other irony touched on during today's program is the discussion about how Senator Barack Obama is inaccurately portrayed, especially with regard to race and religion. It's ironic that so many cast Mr. Obama as un-American when in reality he is the ultimate American. He is the first one who is most like a mix of all of us to get this close to the office of Presidency. In this country, every child at one point or another is told that anything is possible and you can be what ever you want to be. Now, we see the fruition of generation after generation telling their kids that, happening right in front of us, we should be pinching ourselves, but instead the focus revolves around the others who harbor more insidious intentions.
This all brings us back to Mrs. Clinton's creepiness. Misconceptions about Barack Obama become difficult to completely defend by the campaign when the candidate is fighting battles on two fronts - McCain to the starboard and Clinton to port (well, pretty much starboard as well, but for the sake of the nautical analogy...). Is Mrs. Clinton hoping that on one of the fronts, the Obama defense will crack? They said on today's program that in politics you should neither invoke assassinations or The Nazis. Ok, but in WWII, there was this big military power fighting a war on two fronts and they lost. The difference is that that was a good thing.
Ruth Marcus did not see it as calculated a comment as the others. She attributed it to exhaustion and self-pity, and this combination results in political gaffes. The self-pity stems from what the Clintons claim is sexism and gender-bias in the campaign. Before we leap into that, just a note on self-pity. A person may have self-pity but showing it attempts to invoke sympathy for the person. Hillary Clinton asking us for our sympathy is sad and she's not going to get it. So this column respectfully disagrees with Ms. Marcus.
The Clintons' invocations are always carefully calculated. Apologists would explain that bringing RFK was a mistake and that she could have used the Reagan-Ford primary race for example. Well, why didn't she? With regard to sexism, Ms. Dowd opined that Senator Clinton's statements, while using words like misogyny, actually do a disservice to feminism. She went on to explain that when as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton made this same argument when her health care plan failed and now that her campaign is failing, we're seeing this argument again. She called it Sharptonism - constantly wrapping oneself into side of the victim. And now that her campaign has faltered, she is doing it again. But as pointed out, it was her shortsighted strategy that was her downfall. The race didn't end on February 5th as she counted on.
[Usually when Maureen Dowd appears on the program, more times then not, the rest of the panel adopts her opinion. Mr. Russert mentioned that it was a special edition of MTP and, indeed, it was. Maureen Dowd's wit coupled with Jon Meacham's astuteness, augmented with Gwen Ifill's intuition, and put into perspective by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a two-fold success - entertaining and insightful.]
So will Senator Clinton get out of the race in June and what is she angling to get? As Jon Meacham succinctly put it, What's the meaning of June? At this point, the media and Clinton surrogates are chattering about the V.P. Office. Hasn't this column said this before - Senator Hillary Clinton will not be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party in November 2008. What does make sense is Hillary Clinton being the President of Senate. Now, this is one of the roles of the V.P., but The Clinton's in that office reeks of subversion of the Presidency. The best she is going to get is a sweet cabinet post. However, the problem with this is that Madame Albright and Madame Rice, pretty much have spoiled the Secretary of State role so what's left? Secretary of Defense? Hillary Clinton doing her best Margaret Thatcher routine could work. The irony that the Democrats, traditionally viewed as weak on defense, would put a woman in the top war post. Senator Clinton is hawkish - this is common knowledge so why not employ it to a positive result?
The other irony touched on during today's program is the discussion about how Senator Barack Obama is inaccurately portrayed, especially with regard to race and religion. It's ironic that so many cast Mr. Obama as un-American when in reality he is the ultimate American. He is the first one who is most like a mix of all of us to get this close to the office of Presidency. In this country, every child at one point or another is told that anything is possible and you can be what ever you want to be. Now, we see the fruition of generation after generation telling their kids that, happening right in front of us, we should be pinching ourselves, but instead the focus revolves around the others who harbor more insidious intentions.
This all brings us back to Mrs. Clinton's creepiness. Misconceptions about Barack Obama become difficult to completely defend by the campaign when the candidate is fighting battles on two fronts - McCain to the starboard and Clinton to port (well, pretty much starboard as well, but for the sake of the nautical analogy...). Is Mrs. Clinton hoping that on one of the fronts, the Obama defense will crack? They said on today's program that in politics you should neither invoke assassinations or The Nazis. Ok, but in WWII, there was this big military power fighting a war on two fronts and they lost. The difference is that that was a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)