If it’s Sunday…

June 15, 2008

Mike Allen highlighted today’s episode of “Meet the Press,” coming less than 48 hours after the unexpected death of its host, Tim Russert.

On a memorial edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert was remembered in his studio as a friend of politicians who prepared rigorously for the powerful show and was “offended” when they didn’t do the same.

The show, with just one commercial interruption, consisted of brief highlights of Russert’s tenure, interspersed with loving memories from friends and frequent guests.

With the moderator’s chair and the famous table empty in tribute, the guests gathered around the famous Nebraska Avenue table with Tom Brokaw, the former “Nightly News” anchorman, who began the show by urging them not to cry.

But the show was a largely joyful recollection of wild, loving times with Russert, who passed in his prime on Friday, at the age of 58.

And Michael Calderone reports on the difficult task of finding someone to sit in Russert’s chair.

…NBC is faced with the unenviable task of trying to replace someone who — judging from the heartfelt tributes from political and journalistic luminaries — appears irreplaceable. In addition to “Meet the Press” being the highest-rated Sunday public affairs show, Russert could also boast of being the longest-running host for television’s longest-running program.

“I can’t imagine them going outside NBC,” said Andrew Tyndall, an independent television analyst, who added that he considers the network’s news operation the strongest in television.

Tyndall said that if he were NBC News President Steve Capus, a short list for the position would include White House correspondent David Gregory, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell — both of whom have guest-hosted “Meet the Press” — as well as political director Chuck Todd and “Hardball” host Chris Matthews. Two dark-horse candidates could be “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough or perhaps former “Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw — that is, if he had any interest in returning to such a prominent role.

Given Matthews’ work during the Democratic presidential race — I’d argue no one was quite as misogynistic and inane as he was — it’s hard to imagine him getting a promotion to one of the preeminent gigs in American broadcast journalism, but we’ll see what happens.

Oh, please, not Scarborough!!!!! I know, these days half the pundit class is made up of former politicians and political aides, but come on– everybody knows that Scarborough is incapable of showing objectivity!

And I’m not just saying that because I lean left. If the names of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow were included on that list, I would feel the same way. They are known for their strong opinions and political leanings, and the whole point of Meet The Press is to have an objective, non-partisan forum with no agendas one way or the other, over or covert.

  • I’m sure Russert would be very pleased to know that national and international news were preempted for three days as a tribute to his contribution to modern journalism. We’ve come a long way since Meet the Press was about meeting the newsmakers.

  • Given today’s standards of journalism, it would appear that Matthews should be a shoo-in simply because of his general inaccuracy, fawning man-crushes, sexist attacks (I am no fan of HIllary Clinton, but Matthews was really obnoxious about her), and puerile inanity.

  • We’ve come a long way since Meet the Press was about meeting the newsmakers.

    Oh, we’ve just changed the meaning. “Newsmakers” used to be the politicians and public figures who did things that were newsworthy. Now it just means the people who literally make the news.

    That said, I’d predict Brokaw as a short-term replacement for the rest of the campaign — he has the stature to fill the chair and blunt any comparisons with another successor, and he already hosted the tribute this morning.

    And then David Gregory as the unfortunate choice to replace Russert full-time. Gregory’s current gig on MSNBC is “Road to the White House” or something like that, and it’s already set to expire in November.

  • Most of the “press” on Meet the Press probably think that the show is all about them – the viewing public meeting the “press.” It used to be about the public figures invited there to answer journalists’ questions.

    I’m old enough to remember Lawrence Spivak. Meet the Press has never returned to that quality.

    Unfortunately, my final memory of Tim Russert will be his “moderation” of a presidential debate.

  • Let’s be honest: this is a liberal blog. I don’t expect any unbiased opinions among the blog posts and comments here discussing the news media anymore than I do among those posts and comments in conservative blogs.

    I’ll be back to snipe at conservatives once the mourning period ends.

  • I’m with TR@5:

    “That said, I’d predict Brokaw as a short-term replacement for the rest of the campaign — he has the stature to fill the chair and blunt any comparisons with another successor, and he already hosted the tribute this morning.”

    And then Gregory to take over sometime after the election.

  • I agree. Brokaw as a replacement until they can find someone. Maybe Andrea Mitchell–she has the brains. Scarborough and Matthews are a joke as replacements. My image of John Gregory is of him doing a dance with Karl Rove during one of those correspondents’ dinners. A hack. Chuck Todd might be the most interesting. He is the most grounded in reality, since he deals with numbers as much as his own impressions.

    They will have to try to make it a different show. Maybe go back to having the pols meet the press rather than us meeting the press.

  • I think Matthews would be a shoe-in if his contract wasn’t up next year and he wasn’t making noises about running for office. With him off the list, my guess would be Scarborough. No, he doesn’t have the stature or objectivity for the job, but I bet that isn’t how the bosses who choose the new host will feel.

  • Okay so they’ll have a full hour on the four soldiers who died last week in Iraq soon?

    Tim Russert is providing one last dose of inane tv “journalism”.

  • Tim Russert was never my favorite News broadcaster. Actually, there was something in his persona my inner feelings knew that Russert was one of the masters at contextual skills twisting. The concept in using the Public Electromagnetic Domain as a way of framing a guest into a political field of controversy out raged me a long time ago. Now very common, Judge Judy, or the “Verdict with Dan Abrams” and NBC News Chief Legal Correspondent. Or take O’reilly that from time to time paints a guilty picture of some one that might not be true. Here even Olbermann keeps count about that.

    As many say, Russert was a central part of the political corruption propaganda machine that is in motion now. Those loaded specialist with legions of legal minds all crafting or coordinating intent to prove, and market to the public a believe, true or not. The “rat pack” includes scores of cable, paper, and magazine artists that Market News for America’s political power.

    America, we would not be in this uncomfortable situation if News Media did a better job at honest reporting. It is so obvious the complicity with Bush and Company has been the key factor in America’s most horrible time in history.

    Sheesh, just this past year America finds itself in a controversy about a possible endless war in Iraq. A war with hidden torture, unaccountable mercenaries, huge massive corruption in military industrial complex, active army rotated four or five time in combat, uncharted speculating in gas price energy fluctuations, Millions of home foreclosures, instant Federal Reserve loans do to private bungling in banking on wall street, massive legions of unknown aliens, Mexicans or Islamic radicals here in America for decades funding anti-America operations with our tax money. Trillions of dollars in debit. And of course Bush as close business friends with the Bin laden family of which the son Osama Bin Laden is master planner of 911, the primer person America is fighting with. Incredible, absolutely incredible.

  • Scarborough reminds me too much of O’Reilly. I think they should go with a comedian, maybe Jimmie Kimmel or David Letterman. I hear Jay Leno is going to be out of a job soon. Just complete the celebrity chit chat makeover.

  • Tom Brokaw as permanent replacement. Gregory is too inexperienced, Mitchell not touch enough, Scarborough I don’t think so, and as for Matthews. NO FREAKING way, talk about arrogant and a show off (he’d be the epitome of what Russert WASN’T). I know Tom wanted to retire, but this is his. He’s the perfect one for the show. He has experience, and he’s beloved by many.

  • To speculate about Russert’s replacement is surely premature. To hear tell from his admirers, he’ll be rising from the dead sometime later today.

    NBC should just get it over with and hand everything off to Karl Rove.

  • I watched Andrea Mitchell guest host once, and she was AWFUL! In addition, her reporting is frequently wrong (i.e. she either gets her facts wrong or she leaves out information that results in misleading reporting).

    No to Scarborough and Matthews for obvious reasons.

    No to David Gregory. He’s a nice guy, and he means well, but I don’t see it.

    I’d be content with Brokaw for as long as he’d like to stay and/or Chuck Todd, assuming he’ll be as thorough and detail-oriented with issues as he has been with delegate and vote counts.

    Somebody not on the list above is Richard Engel, the correspondent covering Iraq for so long. He seems to be a very serious person, and I admire that.

    Perhaps guest hosts would be a good approach, ala The View or Regis and ___________, until they find the right person.

    Hopefully, the next person will take the issues more seriously, not allow persons to assert basic facts incorrectly or without perspective (e.g. Fred Thompson complained about Bush appointed judges getting voted down resulting in an under-manned judiciary…without Stephanopolis pointing out that Thompson was content not to let dozens of Clinton appointees even get a hearing in Judiciary committee, much less an up or down vote), and as much as possible, get away from polls, the horse race and idol speculation.

  • I don’t watch TV, so my opinion isn’t well informed but, from what everyone is saying, it sounds as if Tim Russert became “Meet the Press” and as such, might indeed be irreplaceable. It would probably be best to re-do the whole show. That is, change the title and the format, rather than try to find a new anchor to step into Russert’s shoes. Otherwise, whoever the anchor is will always be compared to Russert and always found wanting.

  • Not to speak ill of Russert but I just didn’t find his brand of journalism “trail-blazing.” He confronted his guests with MSM reports contradicting officials talking points. IMO, that’s not good journalism. That’s research. And government officials knew how to work Russert. He couldn’t get them to unspin or get them to move away from cokkie cutter talking points.

    Who can forget the time he explained his failure to verify the Bush administration’s prewar claims with other government officials by lamenting, “I wish my phone had rung.”
    I didn’t really care for his moderation of the debates.”Dennis… have you seen a UFO” ring a bell? How about the time he pressed Obama about Louis Farrakhan? There was a reason government officials kept going back to Meet the Press (Cheney anyone?). They knew he wouldn’t press them and they could get away with their cookie-cutter talking points. I saw that a lot on MTP. To his credit he did allow some voices of dissent on his show, like Nader and Feingold. But not often. Then there was his shameless defense for Don Imus. Nuff said. For more on Russert click here.

    Look, my heart goes out to his colleagues and family. I really mean it. But we’re kidding ourselves that Russert exemplified a tough, no holds barred style of journalism. Personally, he is not the kind of journalist I want to aspire to. My idea of good journalism comes from the likes of Amy Goodman, I.F. Stone, Seymour Hersh, Helen Thomas, Jeremy Scahill, Upton Sinclair, Mohammed Omer, Dahr Jamail, and Robert Fisk, my personal favorite. They hold/held officials feet to the fire. Russert cared more about his access.

  • 14. On June 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm, Dale said:
    Okay so they’ll have a full hour on the four soldiers who died last week in Iraq soon?
    ~~~
    Bingo. Wouldn’t that be nice… not holding my breath.

  • Irreplaceable? Charles De Gaulle once said that the cemeteries are filled with men who thought they were indispensable.

  • He can’t be replaced. And as someone has already pointed out, Spivak’s “Meet the Press” doesn’t exist anymore. Perhaps the most fitting comment on the loss of Russert would be to retire the show.

  • Somewhere like Media Matters or Glenn Greenwald’s site there were statistics showing the predominance of right wing conservative guests with few and never equal liberal presence and apparently the “caped composer” watched a very different MTP than I did. It got to a point I couldn’t even watch the propaganda show anymore which was used (as Cheney’s secretary referred to it) as the best means to “control the message”. That along with the fact that Russert claimed he would not publicly say anything without getting approval from his source first (great investigative journalism). Russert became a “media darling” especially because of his “cooperation” with republican neocon conservatives.

    I find it interesting that a media figure dies and the media suggests “all of America” misses…and his insight…and blah blah blah without considering only a small portion of the population ever watched the show and of those that did did not consider the king of “gothcha journalism” insightful or anything more than a Washington spokesman.

    It’s tragic when anyone suddenly dies unexpectedly at such a young age but that is the man and not his work.

    To me Russert was one of those public spokesmen responsible for the sad state of affairs of modern journalism that our vapid press represents, you know, where it’s more important to see each other socially and get personally chummy just to ensure continued access so you can then say you’ve got insider connections while pretending to be investigative journalists with an “approved” inside story. If you dance with Rove and party with him how can you say anything bad about him. If you bring flowers to McCain’s wife and party with him and his family how objective can you be covering him? The same is true with those Washington insiders with direct lines to the WH…like Russert.

    To those TV journalists that think themselves so very important here’s a hint…If it’s Sunday…time to turn off the TV because all that’s on are those pathetic “news” propaganda shows where “journalists”? and politicians jerk each other off.

  • a short list for the position would include White House correspondent David Gregory, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell — both of whom have guest-hosted “Meet the Press” — as well as political director Chuck Todd and “Hardball” host Chris Matthews. Two dark-horse candidates could be “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough or perhaps former “Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw

    David Gregory – Karl Rove’s dance partner at the White House Press Corpse dinner, where he was savaged by Colbert. A demonstrable moron.

    Andrea Mitchell – the Bitch of Belsen. Doesn’t she have a gig pleasuring her husband alan Greenspan and singing the praises of his failed policies?

    Christ Matthews – Tweetybird. ‘Nuff said.

    Joe Scarborough – a totally worthless piece of shit who hasn’t had an actual thought since he was born.

    What a Nightmare Gallery of “usual suspects.”

    Brokaw would be the only one who could do it and he won’t.

    Meet the Press will become even more a handjobber of the high and the mighty than it was under Russert – remember his testimony at the Libby trial that he always thought phone conversations with the rich and powerful were “off the record.”????

    Tim Russert was no example of “good journalism.” He was, rather, an example of everything wrong with the MSM. I do give him props for having admitted that fact a few weeks ago, but past that – politically – his passing is just a good example of how the Press Corpse and those they’re supposed to hold accountable are all publicly blowing each other. And telling the rest of us to “bend over and spread ’em.”

  • I concur with the suggestion of Tom Brokaw for an interim gig. Common sense and rationality through to the end of the year

  • Tom Brokaw for the rest of this year.
    No David Gregroy (Karl Rove’s dance partner.)
    Chuck Todd could be the long term answer. Or someone mentioned Richard Engel – that sounds good.

  • I was out of town and missed the original thread the day Punkinhead kicked the bucket, but when I went back and read it today I was stunned by the handwringing and sobs over the likes of Russert. Thought maybe I’d entered Bizarro World for a minute. It was like when Nixon died, all of a sudden he was the greatest guy since sliced bread. All the praise for what a balanced journalist he was and such tripe. I call bullshit.

    Punkinhead was the king of gotcha journalism, which is nothing to be proud of. And spare me the praise for him as being as tough on Rs as he was on Ds. For the last time I will be happy to provide some commentary from a couple of years back regarding Jack Welch’s view of Punkinhead and Tweety:

    “In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.”

    Nothing like dying prematurely to get people to put lipstick on a pig. Someone here made the comment: “Meet the Press will never be the same.” Is that a promise?

    I vote for Olbermann. Too liberal? Well, for one thing it would take a dozen Olbermanns to even begin to balance out the news and commentary on the MSM. Even so, I’d bet money that Olbermann would take plenty of Dems to task as the new Dem administration enters the driver’s seat. I’d love to see him get the gig, though the chances are about nil. Too bad. As for Punkinhead, I for one won’t miss him in the least. A worthless tool of the reigning powers.

  • I’d nominate Rachel Maddow as a replacement – she has the most incisive mind of the regular correspondents on NBC political programs and is very quick on her feet. Gregory is boring and has tarnished himself by playing along with the Bush misadministration at the White House Correspondents Dinner.Matthews has his ups and downs, but he goes off on too many tangents, which are usually the times he hurts himself. Brokaw would only be an interim host.

  • They need someone from the press (It’s in the name of the show, after all) who has no perceived biases and can do an in-depth interview.

    If NBC’s willing to go outside, Ted Koppel would be a natural.

    Otherwise, David Gregory. His show won’t be the same show as Russert’s, but we’ll get used to it.

  • Jon Stewart is the best interviewer they could find. Of course, he’s fabulous where he is.

  • Given Matthews’ work during the Democratic presidential race — I’d argue no one was quite as misogynistic and inane as he was — it’s hard to imagine him getting a promotion to one of the preeminent gigs in American broadcast journalism…

    And now, if Tweety gets hit by a bus, we’ll all sit around and talk about the three times that Tweety didn’t act like a flaming moron.
    ————————
    Some tinfoil, but how much tinfoil has turned out to be solid metal so far?…

    Personally I think Timmeh might have been getting ready to pull a “Cronkite” on BushCo, and they capped his ass. I got nothing but circumstantial evidence* to support that, so it should be enough to get it sold to the American people (by Russert’s standards). Now if any of the bobbleheads get all journalistic, Rove can call them up and ask how their hearts are doing.

    *
    1) Rlease of the damning phase 2 report
    2) McClellan’s tell-all and upming testimony

  • If they are going to stay with MTP being primaily an interview of newsmakers, I think Chuck Todd could be great. He’s one of the brightest, most informed people out there and can probably ask better questions than any of the others.

    If it devolves into another roundtable opinion show like This Week, they’ll probably go with the personality. Someone like David Gregory or Mitchell. I can’t see Scarborough, Matthews or Olbermann. Too identified with particular positions and they wouldn’t be able to get a number of newsmakers to appear.

    • Comments are closed.