MyDD :: Maddow For Meet The Press

Maddow For Meet The Press

by Josh Orton, Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST

As NBC searches for a permanent replacement host (or hosts) to anchor its top-rated Sunday morning show, most of the floated suggestions seem not just conventional, but nearly regressive. Tim Russert's Meet The Press was known as the gold standard for Sunday shows - the toughest interviews and the hour most likely to break news. When politicians didn't want to face Russert, they defaulted to Blitzer or Stephanopoulos for a softer ride.

But there's one name mentioned today that would rise to Meet's reputation:

I say give Meet the Press to Rachel Maddow. She's smart. She's quick. She's witty. She does her homework. And she listens to what the person she's talking to is saying. She doesn't just go to the next question on her list.

If Obama is post-racial, Maddow is post-gender--divested of hair-frosted femininity in the anchor genre and more appealing because of it. Like him, she's a calm, unflappable new era phenomenon. Sure, she's a lefty, and in the past week she's been swinging away at Obama's cabinet choices, but I suspect she's ambitious enough to dial it back if she had to.

Maddow wouldn't be a Russert replacement - she'd be better, in part because I'm sure she wouldn't "dial it back." Russert conducted "tough" interviews, but they were often "tough" in a process-focused way that was almost as likely to ferret-out an inconsequential truth as a substantive one.

But as we saw with Maddow's interview with Barack Obama, she's unwilling to use conventional wisdom (i.e. "left vs. Obama") as prep material, relying instead on the substance of specific concerns and issues.

I'm sure that any of names already mentioned to replace Russert (Gregory, Ifill, Couric, Todd, Mitchell) would be fine. But Meet the Press shouldn't settle.

Tags: Rachel Maddow (all tags)

Permalink :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (none / 0)

Right. Maddow simply does not have the experience and she is far too left to ever host Meet the Press.

Will not happen....

by obama4presidente on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:40:02 PM EST

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (none / 0)

I love Rachel Maddow, but MTP is not the place for a partisan. Maddow, like most of us here, revels in our wins and despairs in our losses. I love her for that but Meet the Press isn't the place for it.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST

Russert wasn't partisan? Really? (none / 0)

How about Stephanopoulos? I agree that Maddow is an unlikely choice, but not because she's partisan. Every talking head on teevee is partisan. NBC won't pick Maddow because she's too liberal and independent for NBC's corporate masters.

Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven? Not yet. We're still in Purgatory.

by NM Ward Chair on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ugh. (2.00 / 2)

Considering that Clinton as Secretary of State, do we really want Stephanopoulous in the position where he'll be asking his ex-boss's wife tough foreign policy questions?

Plus, I lost respect for his journalistic integrity after that hack-job of a primary debate.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ugh. (none / 0)

I am pretty confident that Hillary would be able to handle Stephanopoulous notwithstanding whatever bad blood exists there.

In any event, maybe there are hundreds of reasons he shouldn't get the job, but the fact that there is one person in the new administration who he might be too tough on (or maybe you're suggesting he would be too soft, but same point) doesn't seem particularly compelling.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too tough? (none / 0)

I'm thinking not tough enough, which is the issue here. We can't have the biggest foreign policy person in the Obama administration getting softballs or being allowed to wiggle out of corners.

Regardless, you're right. There's a much more compelling reason not to hire George for this: he's got no seniority at NBC, and I can't see them shopping this position around.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (2.00 / 1)

Maddow is a professional. If she were given a show like MTP, she would be more than fair. From what I've seen, she's every bit as tough on Democrats, if not sometimes moreso.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (none / 0)

Maddow is insanely partisan. She'd be a lousy pick. May as well just suggest Olbermann.

by RichardFlatts on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (2.00 / 4)

I assume from this post and the three above it that the CW that a Sunday morning host must ALWAYS take the conservative meme as gospel and work from there is alive and well at MyDD.

Maddow has opinion, but would be able to critically interview ANYONE. I don't think Keith could, but Rachel certainly could.

She could even work using the current requirement that 3/4 of the guests must be from the GOP.

As for Chuck Todd, I like his election work, but have we seen any evidence that he could interview anyone yet?

by howie14 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (2.00 / 2)

All that partisan means is opinionated. Anyone would fall within that territory. Real journalists know how to separate that opinion from their craft, and I think she'd be able to.

That said, perhaps she'd fit better in a similar show done for MSNBC. All other cable news shows have one, hers would be amazing and would probably draw a large audience as well.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rahm Emanuel for Meet the Press! (none / 0)

just kidding.

by lorax on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST

I love Maddow, but... (2.00 / 1)

...for crying out loud, just give it to Chuck Todd already.

He's the guy, and they all know it.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST

Re: I love Maddow, but... (none / 0)

Not sure Chuck has the interview skills or the charisma to pull it off. Top notch political mind for sure.

by RichardFlatts on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He has the demeanor and the impartiality (2.00 / 1)

The interviewing skills will grow in time. He's a sharp guy.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russert was hardly (2.00 / 3)

Mr. Charisma either. If the interviewer looms too large, the guest's responses get drowned out.

I'm not sure how Todd would perform as an interviewer either. He does seem to understand the important parts of any political issue. Whether he can draw out substantive responses from guests is another mattter.

by corph on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ANYONE BUT ANDREA MITCHELL (2.00 / 1)

i immediately switch the channel everytime she's "interviewing" someone. she is terrible.

by highgrade on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (1.00 / 3)

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

Maddow is not the way to go for a show that requires credibility and unbiased, tough questioning.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST

What? (2.00 / 3)

"Biased" I'll give you, but Rachel isn't weak or non-credible.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (none / 0)

I never said she was weak, I said she lacks the credibility and I stand by that. It is beyond me that people would put Russert and Maddow on the same page. It is beyond me people would put Maddow and Gregory on the same page.

BTW, if people want to hide rate me because they dislike what I have to say, please read the rules and terms of the rating system before you rate again.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gregory? Really? (2.00 / 1)

I've yet to see solid journalism from David Gregory. He bought into the Bush press smoke machine for years and his show is just people yelling at each other. It's a high-tech Crossfire.

Anyways, you did imply that she was weak by suggesting that she wouldn't fit the bill for "tough" questioning.

Maddow doesn't have the pedigree of Tim Russert, but, then again, neither did Tim Russert when he took the reigns of the show 17 years ago.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm guessing (2.00 / 2)

Mitchell will get it. Everybody seems to like her and the press are an incestuous lot (see Russert, ad nauseum tributes to).

Maddow would be good, but I actually think Chuck Todd could be better. She does her homework, but she's a little too tempted to be snarky when it's not called for. Todd is one of the few journalists who is incisive enough to challenge my way of thinking. I believe he tries harder to be fair to his interviewees and is better at forecasting what will actually happen.

by corph on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST

David Gregory (none / 0)

You just know it's going to be him. He's a hack, but he's been a dutiful corporate manservant, lending credence to every idiotic talking point required by the run sheet.

I think they'd LIKE to give it to Andrea Mitchell, but they realize she's even more inept and grating, oftentimes fumbling through her correspondences with other anchors (to say nothing of the shoddy reporting).

Then again, they could surprise us with vanilla: Lester Holt or perhaps a John Siegenthaler return.

John McCain: The kids aren't alright, my friends.

by differance on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:00:17 PM EST

Re: David Gregory (2.00 / 1)

Yuck. Gregory is, in fact, a tool. As you said.

They've been talking Mitchell up a lot lately, crowing that she "broke" the Clinton SoS thing. I hope that's not precurser to her taking the premeir slot in news hours.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (2.00 / 1)

I would not equate "tough" with "gotcha." Actually, "tough" involves knowing the material, the direct issue, and the macro situation as well. What I learned during my days as an enforcement attorney was that there was a lot to be gained by varieties of open-ended questions. The "did you--didn't you" stuff is a bit obvious; and, the responder often closes down. The result: Noone really learns anything or gets the measure of a person from the posturing interview. (By the by, IMHO, Russert occasionally fell into the attack-dog motif and trap in later years. Just saying....) Think about what you want to know from the responder...and the many ways, methods to elicit that info. I'd vote for the even-tempered, somewhat self-effacing style over the bark anytime.

by christinep on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (2.00 / 2)

I love Rachel's show.

Which is why I wouldn't want her on MTP.

Yawn.

by spacemanspiff on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM EST

Re: Maddow For Meet The Press (none / 0)

Just because some blogger throws out an idea doesn't mean anybody is, or should be, taking it seriously. Rachel is perfect where she is.

by markjay on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST

As long as she puts her partisanship aside... (none / 0)

..she would be one of the best (if not the best) MTP anchor in history. She consistently brings up issues forgotten by the rest of the press and delves deeper into them than the rest of the press.

Personally, I'd rather have Amy Goodman, but that's just a daydream!

www.ni4d.us - vote for real direct democracy, vote for yourself

by rossl on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 06:25:15 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.