Geez, can we at least wait until after the funeral ?
Discussion has already turned to who should replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press
The sudden death of Tim Russert has left the management of NBC News, for the moment at least, at a loss to contemplate how to replace him.
Mr. Russert was not only the moderator of “Meet the Press,” television’s most successful political talk show, he was also the chief of NBC’s Washington bureau, responsible for the hiring of staff members and directing its operations. More significantly, he was NBC’s public face on politics, appearing regularly on the network’s full range of programs, including the “Today” show, NBC’s “Nightly News,” and on its cable news channel MSNBC.
“It’s going to take four or five people to replace Tim,” said Bob Schieffer, Mr. Russert’s competitor for two decades on CBS’s Sunday program, “Face the Nation,” in a telephone interview from a barge in the Burgundy region of France, where he was vacationing.
“They’ve got to find a moderator for ‘Meet the Press.’ They’ve got to find a manager for that bureau. They’ve got to find someone who understands as much about politics as Tim does and there aren’t many people who do. They’ve got to find someone who is willing to get up in the morning and go on the ‘Today’ show and do the ‘Nightly News’ and then stay up late to go on MSNBC.”
Jeff Zucker, the president of NBC Universal, the parent company of NBC News, said the network was well aware of the issues it faced going into a pivotal presidential election.
“Nobody should even think about replacing Tim Russert,” he said in a telephone interview on Sunday. “What someone will need to do is find the next way to do ‘Meet the Press’ and provide political analysis. Anybody who thinks they can replace Tim Russert is kidding themselves.”
Part of the problem is that NBC News doesn’t really have that deep a bench of good political reporter/analysts because, for the most part, Russert was the bench. That’s the main reason I was always a fan of NBC’s election night coverage, even before 2008; Russert was so good that he made it possible to ignore the blather coming from the other members of whatever panel it was on, and stood as a contrast to blowhards like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Pat Buchanan and non-entities like Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinski. Other than Russert, the only other person that NBC used regularly that was worth watching was The Politico’s Chuck Todd, who Russert himself had brought onto the team before the primaries started this year.
The idea that any of those people could replace Russert is laughable, and one of the reasons I’ll probably be looking for another network to watch on Election Night in November.
But what about Meet The Press itself, well of everything I’ve read on that particular subject over the past three days, Jonah Goldberg’s suggestion makes the most sense of all:
I think the show should return to a panel, at least for the time being. What’s wrong with bringing three or four hard-hitting journalists to ask questions the way they used to? This is not only the best way to get a more diverse line of questioning (I would love to see Byron York or Steve Hayes on there asking questions no one else would ask), but it would help forestall some truly awful choices that seem to be in the hopper.
Andrea Mitchell would be fine as a caretaker for the role, I suppose. But David Gregory seems like a terrible choice for among other reasons, he’s not very likable on TV (Russert’s likeability was a huge asset). Keith Olbermann would be a complete disaster, but I assume everyone not sniffing glue knows that. Chris Matthews would require changing the show to “Meet Chris Matthews’s Ego.” Katie Couric? Come now.
The best choice on the list of possibilities is Chuck Todd. I know Chuck a little, but friendship isn’t my motivation. I think he’s the only person on the inside track who’d actually consider the show to be more important than his TV career. Russert famously considered himself a “custodian” of MTP. I’d bet that Chuck would hold the same devotion, if not even more intensely. And with the exception of Matthews, Chuck knows more about politics than all of the other contenders combined.
So why not have the best of both worlds? Russert was many things, but he wasn’t a “moderator.” Moderators balance and direct debates. Russert, to his credit, was a prosecutor. Why not make Chuck Todd the actual moderator of the show and have him moderate a panel of journalists?
Given that I became something of a Chuck Todd fan during NBC’s primary coverage, I agree 100%
Tim Russert surely can never be replaced. Someone once said, you should just be yourself as the other guy is already taken. I do agree that a panel seems to be the correct answer. It would take the combined talent for the hard questions, the political knowledge, the moderating and all else that Russert did so artfully. Mickey Mouse would do a better job than the blithering blathering Chris Matthews. Anyone that says that Obama sends chills down his leg should only be on a news channel called Radical Liberal Agendas!
Sany
I agree that Chuck Todd should be considered, or maybe even bring over Brit Hume from Fox News, or even Chris Matthews wouldn’t be bad.
However, I think Keith Olbermann is the likely replacement to Tim Russert because well, NBC loves him so much.
Kevin,
Brit Hume would be good for a show like that. Frankly, I wish he’d gotten Tony Snow’s job on Fox News Sunday instead of the insipidly boring Chris Wallace, but I’ve got to disagree on one point….
Chris Matthews ? Dear God, if there are two people who don’t need a bigger media platform they are Olbermann and Matthews. They’re both hacks and blowhards.
The only reason I doubt Chuck Todd would get the shot right now is because he hasn’t been with NBC that long.
Chuck Todd is in the tank for the Dems. He is incredibly biased and uses his positions to advance the candidates whom his Democratic operative wife works for and supports. Todd is the one who helped launch “macaca” into the mainstream media via The Hotline while he worked for National Journal and his wife was a Webb campaign staffer.
What I liked about MTP and Russert in particular was how he stuck to facts and quotes rather than opinion and asked tough questions and follow-ups to guests no matter which side of the ideological divide they were on.
Oblbermann and Matthews like to hear themselves talk too much to either ask good questions or listen well enough for a good follow-up. Either would kill the show.
I’d like to see someone serious like Gwen Ifill who does a good job on PBS with Washington Week and was a frequent guest on MTP.
Another
Paul,
I agree
What I liked, and respected about Russert is the fact that he seldom, if ever, let his personal political beliefs interfere with his job as a journalist. We all know that he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo (the later being perhaps the worst person ever suggested for the office of President of the United States in American history), and you can gather from that what his political beliefs were.
But, he was equally hard on Democrats and Republicans, and when he had a comment panel on it was, for the most part, fairly balanced and, just as important, actually interesting to listen to.
The problem with Olbermann and Matthews is that we already know that neither of them are capable of keeping their personal political prejudices out of their so-called journalism.
I mean, seriously, does anyone believe that Chris Matthews would have a hard-hitting interview with Barack Obama, the man who he admitted sent shivers up his leg, or that Olbermann would even deign to have a balanced and respectful interview with any member of the Republican Party ?
The replacement of Tim Russert will be a big test for NBC News.
If the screw it up, it could mean that a Sunday morning talk show that Russert pretty much brought back from the dead will fade into irrelevance.
Kevin- I just know you are being sarcastic, I just know you are with suggesting Chris Matthews! He wouldn’t be bad? He is an Obama shrill, so then in my reasoning, you are an Obama shrill also. I really was abhorent to the fact that another Clinton would entertain us once again, but Obama really is the worst of the 2 evils of the Dems. Unfortunately, we have 2 current socialistic candidates with both Obama and McCain. Quite frankly at this point, I would be tempted to vote for a moderate Dem. rather than to have to choose between 2 radical candidates, one really from the Dem. party, and one trying to campaign as though he really wants to be a Dem.
Sandy