Who should replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press?

[Doc Howl]

It's too hard to script the questions, that way.

 

[bhkad]

It's too hard to script the questions, that way.

That kind of cryptic ambiguity doesn't really contribute to the discussion unless you'd have us take it at face value.

And in that case my response is, "I disagree."

 

[Doc Howl]

That kind of cryptic ambiguity doesn't really contribute to the discussion unless you'd have us take it at face value.

And in that case my response is, "I disagree."

You're suggesting that questions aren't scripted?

 

[niftydrifty]

I've seen Blitzer show some balls a few times, but he's WAY too content with bull**** answers to even stand in the same room that Russert did.

Blitzer might be content with BS answers, but they all are. Russert's problem started before that. he was way too content to ask BS questions:

russert site:dailyhowler.com - Google Search

I think Blitzer in some ways would be an improvement. he knows something about the ME.

 

[Kali]

I think they should pick someone unknown and go from there.

 

[bhkad]

You're suggesting that questions aren't scripted?

Exchanges like this reveal the way a person thinks.

You said that having multiple journalists interviewing a single newsmaker would make it "too hard to script the questions, that way."

I disagreed.

From that you drew the inference that I don't think questions are scripted.

:shock:

:no:

 

[RedAkston]

I think the relevancy of these kinds of shows is diminishing.

I don't ever, ever, EVER watch political shows on TV. I'd gnaw my own leg off too avoid pundit shows.

I know MTP wasn't as awful as Cross Fire, but I just don't think my generation gets its political coverage from the TV. We use the internet.

This explains a lot about why you are misinformed 99% of the time. MTP wasn't a pundit show. Many of us watched it every week because it was the complete opposite (at least the first half of the show). The second half of the show allowed some "punditry" on behalf of the members of the media who would discuss the topics of the day. But when Russert was performing an interview, there wasn't a firmer or fairer interviewer out there - anywhere. MTP changed to a show worth watching and was the Holy Grail of the Washington political scene. If you're just getting your political news from the internet, you aren't getting things like context, you're getting someone opinion thrown into the article most of the time.

And I didn't want to mention this in the original Russert thread, but how can anyone take 1069 seriously? 1069 didn't even know who Tim Russert was! How on earth you can post on a political forum and not know who Tim Russert was should be a clear sign of someone who is misinformed and living under a rock.

 

[Curious George]

And I didn't want to mention this in the original Russert thread, but how can anyone take 1069 seriously? 1069 didn't even know who Tim Russert was! How on earth you can post on a political forum and not know who Tim Russert was should be a clear sign of someone who is misinformed and living under a rock.

I was thinking about this at dinner today when my brother in law asked "Who's Tim Russert?" I'd like to say I was surprised by the question but when dealing with someone who spends all his time watching Pimp My Ride and Mind of Mencia it's something I've come to expect. Anyway, I got to thinking that there must be plenty of people like him, even some of whom are completely normal, well-adjusted members of society, who simply have very little interest in politics. I was wondering what it must've been like for them to flip on the TV and see a special report about the death of somebody they've never heard of on every channel. If that happened to me I'd feel kind of... I don't know... out of the loop or something.

 

[American]

I voted a bit quickly, and should have picked David Gregory. He has asked some hard question of the Bush administration, but nevertheless has been invited on important trips with the Prez and VP who have praised him. So I figure they must consider him fair, regardless of how it benefits them.

 

[niftydrifty]

But when Russert was performing an interview, there wasn't a firmer or fairer interviewer out there - anywhere.

"....these were the headlines in the New York Daily News and across the country on Saturday. Here it is, the “109 Million-Dollar Couple: Bill and Hill make more than $15 million a year since leaving the White House.” Fifteen million dollars a year—$109 million in seven years. How is that going to play in Lancaster, Altoona, Erie, PA?" - Tim Russert, April 7, 2008

It would've been a fair question if he asked it about everyone. Has Russert ever asked this kind of a question about McCain? If so, post it here. He was only selectively firm. And rarely fair.

 

[niftydrifty]

I'll throw Bill Moyers into the discussion though.

this is interesting. in 2007, Moyers asked this question to Russert:

What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

Russert's answer:

It's important that you have an opposition party. That's our system of government.

Moyers also asked about MTP specifically:

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

 

[Navy Pride]

:lol:

Like I said, he was the chief softball pitcher for the Bush Administrator.

And outrageous statement by a Bush hater..........You do know you are losing what little creditability you have in this forum by statements like that........I can remember when Russert interviewed GWB he had him squirming ail over his seat.........

 

[Navy Pride]

I voted a bit quickly, and should have picked David Gregory. He has asked some hard question of the Bush administration, but nevertheless has been invited on important trips with the Prez and VP who have praised him. So I figure they must consider him fair, regardless of how it benefits them.

Gregory is far to bias.........

 

[Navy Pride]

I've seen Blitzer show some balls a few times, but he's WAY too content with bull**** answers to even stand in the same room that Russert did.

Galen, Russert set the bar so high that it is almost impossible to replace him...........

 

[Navy Pride]

You're suggesting that questions aren't scripted?

Russert would never allow it..........

 

[Thorgasm]

Russert would never allow it..........

Are you saying that Russert put all that work into researching his guests and he didn't have a predetermined list of questions? Sure, followup questions wouldn't be scripted as they are dependent upon the answers to the original questions. I think you may be wrong about this. I seem to remember him having notes in front of him when doing interviews. Oftentimes he would read an exact quote to someone. Do you think he googled it during responses? It was planned and scripted.

 

[Navy Pride]

Are you saying that Russert put all that work into researching his guests and he didn't have a predetermined list of questions? Sure, followup questions wouldn't be scripted as they are dependent upon the answers to the original questions. I think you may be wrong about this. I seem to remember him having notes in front of him when doing interviews. Oftentimes he would read an exact quote to someone. Do you think he googled it during responses? It was planned and scripted.

I am saying the people being questioned did not know the answers in advance...That is why the squirmed so much be they democrat or republican.......

 

[Thorgasm]

I am saying the people being questioned did not know the answers in advance...That is why the squirmed so much be they democrat or republican.......

Oh, I see, you meant that the guests didn't know what would be asked. Yes, this it probably true.

 

[RedAkston]

"....these were the headlines in the New York Daily News and across the country on Saturday. Here it is, the “109 Million-Dollar Couple: Bill and Hill make more than $15 million a year since leaving the White House.” Fifteen million dollars a year—$109 million in seven years. How is that going to play in Lancaster, Altoona, Erie, PA?" - Tim Russert, April 7, 2008

It would've been a fair question if he asked it about everyone. Has Russert ever asked this kind of a question about McCain? If so, post it here. He was only selectively firm. And rarely fair.

Did McCain serve in the White House for 8 years? Is he making more than 15 million a year since never serving in the White House for 8 years? Kind of tough to ask a question that isn't a valid question now isn't it? :roll:

 

[niftydrifty]

Did McCain serve in the White House for 8 years? Is he making more than 15 million a year since never serving in the White House for 8 years? Kind of tough to ask a question that isn't a valid question now isn't it? :roll:

It's about scrutiny of the candidates this year. McCain is quite loaded. What do po' folks think about McCain's millions? Russert gave McCain a pass.

Just look at all the righties that love Russert in this, that, and the other threads. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Gipper]

Please be insinuating that Russert is a right-winger so I can laugh at you.

 

[bhkad]

Russert would never allow it..........

In the Book TV interview he did with Brian Lamb in 1997 or so, he said:

LAMB: As you know, the Sunday shows have all changed over the last 10
years. Your show used to have four reporters and a moderator, a
guest. And now it could be just Tim Russert for the first 45 minutes
or so. Why did you change it?


Mr. RUSSERT: Well, we--first we expanded to an hour. And we have
flexibility in our format, which is what I really treasure. We
have--we found that trying to do a moderator and four questioners,
five people questioning, gave the news maker an unfair advantage in
the following way.


When the program began in 1947, people were not schooled in
television. They would appear on the set of "Meet the Press" and
regularly tell the truth in simple and plain language. Many of
the political leaders now are seasoned and trained and coached by
media advisers, some would say even manipulators. And it's very hard
to get beyond the boilerplate, and it sometimes takes the fourth or
fifth or sixth question--follow-up question on one particular area to
find out what the news maker is really thinking or what his plans
really are for the country. And if you have five people asking
questions on five different subjects, you never get beyond the
boilerplate.


And so we decided to step back and have some flexibility with the
format, and we think it's paid off.

Booknotes

Some questions are scripted but he listened to what the respondent said and his follow up questions were based on the respondent's answers and so they could not be scripted.

By the way, this is a terrific intereview and you can read the entire transcript and/or watch the show at the link.

 

[bhkad]

It's about scrutiny of the candidates this year. McCain is quite loaded. What do po' folks think about McCain's millions? Russert gave McCain a pass.

Just look at all the righties that love Russert in this, that, and the other threads. Gee, I wonder why.

Virtually everyone loved him. Everyone who watched his shows for any length of time. Anyone who knew him or worked with him loved him.

Feared being on his wrong side. (Ask David Duke.) And respected him.

 

[niftydrifty]

Virtually everyone loved him. Everyone who watched his shows for any length of time. Anyone who knew him or worked with him loved him.

Feared being on his wrong side. (Ask David Duke.) And respected him.

you've just made an appeal to popularity.

I never said he wasn't a nice guy. people love nice guys. but nice guys can also give politicians a pass, rarely challenge conventional wisdom, be biased, allow Cheney to pimp falsehoods on his show, and tend to be generally unobjective.

just look at what the reaction is when a journalist tells the truth. "he's not nice." "he's a jerk." and so on.

 

[Navy Pride]

It's about scrutiny of the candidates this year. McCain is quite loaded. What do po' folks think about McCain's millions? Russert gave McCain a pass.

Just look at all the righties that love Russert in this, that, and the other threads. Gee, I wonder why.

Russert is a democrat who worked for Daniel Mornihan.....Get a frigging clue........