Chuck Todd likely to replace David Gregory on 'Meet the Press'

[FredLeonard]

Does anyone who watches "Meet the Press" tune in because the host is such a scintillating personality?

Not since Russert died. And not between Spivak and Russert.

Possibly that's why a lot of people watch Schieffer and did watch Brinkley.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Does anyone who watches "Meet the Press" tune in because the host is such a scintillating personality?

Very good point. You go to the drugstore lunch counter and.... oops. No longer there. You go to where ever you buy an ice-cream sundae and you buy the sundae because you like the lice cream and the chocolate or the strawberry. Now if they put a dollop of whip cream on top and a Maraschino Cherry, ALL THE BETTER!

But you go for the ice cream! Having a host who handles the conversation the way you think you would if you were sitting in the chair (or the way you WISH you could if you were sitting there) is like getting the cute little cherry on top of the sundae.

 

[FredLeonard]

Very good point. You go to the drugstore lunch counter and.... oops. No longer there. You go to where ever you buy an ice-cream sundae and you buy the sundae because you like the lice cream and the chocolate or the strawberry. Now if they put a dollop of whip cream on top and a Maraschino Cherry, ALL THE BETTER!

But you go for the ice cream! Having a host who handles the conversation the way you think you would if you were sitting in the chair (or the way you WISH you could if you were sitting there) is like getting the cute little cherry on top of the sundae.

This is the dumbest thing you've ever posted. If there were any evidence to support it, hosts would not get the big bucks. But they do.

And if you go for ice cream, the ambiance, the experience and the service is at least as important as the ice cream. In fact, you generally don't fine one without the other.

 

[TheBigA]

I think the mistake they made on MTP was expanding the roundtable chat. Nobody cares about a bunch of reporters pontificating about the news. We tune in these shows to hear the actual newsmakers answer tough questions. They tried to expand the show to an hour without adding any meat. That's where the show lost its way. If they're looking for stuff to fill out a show, get a different guest, a feature guest rather than hard news guest. Or do a produced piece from the field. But cut back the roundtable. Unfortunately, if they focus on Chuck's main credentials, which is polling and statistics, it's going to become duller than dirt. How is Chuck as an interviewer? We'll find out.

 

[FredLeonard]

I think the mistake they made on MTP was expanding the roundtable chat. Nobody cares about a bunch of reporters pontificating about the news. We tune in these shows to hear the actual newsmakers answer tough questions. They tried to expand the show to an hour without adding any meat. That's where the show lost its way. If they're looking for stuff to fill out a show, get a different guest, a feature guest rather than hard news guest. Or do a produced piece from the field. But cut back the roundtable. Unfortunately, if they focus on Chuck's main credentials, which is polling and statistics, it's going to become duller than dirt. How is Chuck as an interviewer? We'll find out.

Agreed. And before it wasn't one TV personality doing an interview, it was a panel of reporters grilling a newsmaker - as opposed to a panel of reporters in a circle jerk. Notice they still call it "Meet The Press." But the guest doesn't meet the press, he or she meets the host. The press meet each other.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

Your kind and affectionate greeting is noted and appreciated!

No, I routinely post some dumb things.... sometimes because I don't know any better, but much more often... just to stir the conversation... which is the goal in THIS instance

If there were any evidence to support it, hosts would not get the big bucks. But they do.

I think it would be a legitimate debate to ponder this question: Is the host important because he/she draws audience because the host is so entertaining, or is the host important primarily because the HOST is the ticket for "GETS". The hard-to-get guests don't want to agree to appear on a Sunday show (and maybe the evening news) unless they are attracted to the host, and feel the host is a worthy debate opponent in some cases, who will behave in a professional manner.

And if you go for ice cream, the ambiance, the experience and the service is at least as important as the ice cream. In fact, you generally don't fine one without the other.

Whether you are one or not, you have spoken here with the disdain and lack of understanding of a northeastern elitist spokesman. Out here in "fly-over country" we often don't have the luxury of doing it the way you just described. My hometown of 3,000 people does not consistently offer an ice cream sundae with the trimmings... much less the ambiance. The ice-cream shops are mom-and-pop no-name shops... an after-thought at the burger-doodle. (Even the lowly Dairy Queen is too expensive a franchise for such a community.)

I make fun of where I live now but it is a couple of flights of stairs removed from my hometown in the Ozarks. Here if I want the kind of 'ice cream sundae ambiance' you described, I've got to haul myself anywhere from 25 to 40 miles down the road toward Atlanta for that kind of experience.


So for some of us, I propose that my post was far, far from the dumbest thing I have ever done. I kind of see it as what a fisherman refers to as a "keeper"***. (That's fisherman-talk)

Which reminds me of a late-night "let's-drink-til-the-coffee-pot is empty" conversations I had with my late brother-in-law 35 years ago sitting in my mother-in-law's kitchen while the women folk conversed somewhere else. The discussion was whether the local economy would ever make it feasible for us to move back home. His response: "Sure you can. Living here is cheap and entertainment is even cheaper. Membership is the Bass Club is only $5 per year, and entertainment doesn't get any less expensive than the wife-swapping."

But the reason I never moved back: They have a city ordinance that prohibits the viewing of Sunday morning TV Talk shows.

 

[Avid Listener]

I think it would be a legitimate debate to ponder this question: Is the host important because he/she draws audience because the host is so entertaining, or is the host important primarily because the HOST is the ticket for "GETS". The hard-to-get guests don't want to agree to appear on a Sunday show (and maybe the evening news) unless they are attracted to the host, and feel the host is a worthy debate opponent in some cases, who will behave in a professional manner.

That makes a great deal of sense. More sense, in fact, than anything else that has been said in either of the two threads on this topic. A host's ability to turn a "no" into a "yes" for the guests who normally wouldn't do a Sunday morning talk show is probably the single most important attribute a host can possess. The same goes for producers and other staff.

 

[FredLeonard]

That makes a great deal of sense. More sense, in fact, than anything else that has been said in either of the two threads on this topic. A host's ability to turn a "no" into a "yes" for the guests who normally wouldn't do a Sunday morning talk show is probably the single most important attribute a host can possess. The same goes for producers and other staff.

You are assuming that hosts play a role - any role - in booking guests. Wrong. Read the credits. That's why they have producers (including executive and associate). Bookers are highly valued for Sunday shows, for morning shows, for late night shows and for any show that depends on guest. Hosts are air talent. Not schmoozers. To the extent they schmooze and sell, they lose their independence as interviewers.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You are assuming that hosts play a role - any role - in booking guests. Wrong. Read the credits. That's why they have producers (including executive and associate). Bookers are highly valued for Sunday shows, for morning shows, for late night shows and for any show that depends on guest.

Are you trying to convince me that when a booker calls a target, the target never asks "who is the host" or never asks "Will Arthur be hosting this week as usual?"

 

[TheBigA]

Hosts are air talent. Not schmoozers. To the extent they schmooze and sell, they lose their independence as interviewers.

I thought you said NBC wanted an insider. If so, then they don't want just another air talent who depends on his staff to do all the work.

Some hosts make phone calls to land the big interview.

 

[FredLeonard]

I thought you said NBC wanted an insider. If so, then they don't want just another air talent who depends on his staff to do all the work.

Some hosts make phone calls to land the big interview.

Again, Birkenstock, you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe hosts make calls in small markets but that's not what we are talking about here.

Besides the person to whom the host is talking is not the potential guest, it's one of their flunkies and that person knows who is hosting, knows who is producing the interview and knows from their track record what questions will be asked. The key issue is whether the show wants the guest more than the guest wants to be on.

And what they said they wanted was "insider cred."

 

[TheBigA]

Again, Birkenstock, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm just asking you to clarify an earlier statement.

However, your favorite Barbara Walters did say in her book that SHE made calls herself.

 

[FredLeonard]

I'm just asking you to clarify an earlier statement.

However, your favorite Barbara Walters did say in her book that SHE made calls herself.

And news readers say they write their own copy, too. She didn't make calls for "The View." Or the "Today Show." Or "20/20." For her some really big name on one of her specials, who was resistant and whom they very much wanted, she may have gotten on the phone at some point to try to close the deal.

 

[Avid Listener]

Please note, earlier in the thread, before it turned into a pissing contest, someone noted, "The hard-to-get guests don't want to agree to appear on a Sunday show (and maybe the evening news) unless they are attracted to the host, and feel the host is a worthy debate opponent in some cases, who will behave in a professional manner." Now, it should be noted that most of the guests on the Sunday morning news shows have their staffers begging to get them exposure on the shows. It's free campaign face-time for candidates, and politicians are ALWAYS running for re-election. For other experts, it's exposure to get more bookings on the lecture circuit or to sell more books. But there are some guests that just don't want to be bothered going on TV. For those "hard-to-get guests" (please note, that a specialized and very specific small subset of the total universe of guests), the host can make a difference. Personally, I don't think it's so much a question of the host's skills or talents. But I do think that a phone call from the host, especially a celebrity host, can make the difference on those "hard-to-get guests". If a host can increase the close rate on "hard-to-get-guests" from 20% close rate to a 60% close rate, that's an accomplishment. And, that's what helps make the host seem to be worth big bucks.

 

[FredLeonard]

Boy, you guys are making stuff up.

(1) First off, an interviewer is not a "debate opponent."
(2) What makes you think politicians and bureaucrats don't want to get as much "face time" on TV as they can? Notice how often, when a guest is hot, they manage to show up on multiple shows.
(3) What makes you think somebody "hard to get" is going to take phone calls from some Sunday morning Ted Baxter type? That's why they have staff? They know why the TelePrompTer reader is calling. They have flacks, PR people, media liaison or whatever you want to call them to deal with these people. And they are not so impressed if air talent calls. These people go on TV when they want to go on TV, not a second sooner. They didn't get where they are by being easily seduced by a "name."
(4) Chuck Todd has zero track record as a guest booker. Or as a "debate opponent." This is show biz.
(5) Gregory did not get canned because the show didn't get the hot guests (and the other shows did). He was not fired because of the quality of his interviews. Maybe some of the stunts he pulled (like the bit with the gun) did play a role but mostly he was fired because the show wan't getting the audience numbers it did with Russert.
(6) Russert got the job because he was an engaging personality. Otherwise, he would have stayed an off-camera bureau chief, maybe occasional on-camera guest or as a highly paid campaign consultant.

Repeat: This is show biz. I suppose some of you think superior acting ability is what makes some people movie stars.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Boy, you guys are making stuff up.

Fred, you fit in with the rest of us quite well. Yes, sometimes we "blow some smoke" in what we say. Welcome to our club. It is really hard to tell when someone has just posted something "you can take to the bank" and when someone has just handed us what they hauled away when they cleaned out the chicken house.

(1) First off, an interviewer is not a "debate opponent."

In a perfect world that is true. But with some regularity there are Sunday mornings when an interviewer and a guest are not dancing to the same music. I would suggest that some interviewers are more likely than others to drop the mask and revert to a debate style interview.

(2) What makes you think politicians and bureaucrats don't want to get as much "face time" on TV as they can? Notice how often, when a guest is hot, they manage to show up on multiple shows.

Yes, there are some "regulars" who show up over and over and over. I suspect the quid-pro-quo is: "I'm always available when the hot-shot you were trying to get as a guest bails out at the last minute. And what I want in return is: when my favorite issues are hot and ***I*** want on this week, YOU WILL ACCOMODATE ME! Do we understand each other?" Other desired guests seem to operate on the concept that these shows make it too easy to ad-lib something unscripted that I will regret later, so I avoid them most of the time. Getting that person when you want that person is the struggle.

(3) What makes you think somebody "hard to get" is going to take phone calls from some Sunday morning Ted Baxter type? That's why they have staff? They know why the TelePrompTer reader is calling. They have flacks, PR people, media liaison or whatever you want to call them to deal with these people. And they are not so impressed if air talent calls. These people go on TV when they want to go on TV, not a second sooner. They didn't get where they are by being easily seduced by a "name."

Me thinks you are trying to paint an entire back-yard fence with a little can of paint that is true now and then but not a general everyday event.

(4) Chuck Todd has zero track record as a guest booker. Or as a "debate opponent." This is show biz.

But we have no idea what he can do when he is thrown into the pool, "Sink or swim, Buddy." I don't what what your experience is but I have this rag-tag resume where I moved from one industry to another, from one occupational skill to another. I did a few things in life no one knew or thought I could do, I had a few failures that still leave me breathing heavy late and night when I dwell on them. Just because he has (in your knowledge and opinion) zero track record does not mean he is incapable of learning and doing.)

Repeat: This is show biz. I suppose some of you think superior acting ability is what makes some people movie stars.

Which may be the best supporting logic to any concept that Chuck Todd may do very well in this assignment. It's not all about the skills and abilities of Mr. Todd. Whether it's the movies, Broadway, a singing career or broadcasting, there is the boiling of the witches' brew for which there is no single proven recipe.

Break a Leg, Chuck. (Maybe it is that snarky little wisp of a grin that makes him look like a junior-hi boy just caught with his hand in the cookie jar that will make him a winner.)

 

[FredLeonard]

Break a Leg, Chuck. (Maybe it is that snarky little wisp of a grin that makes him look like a junior-hi boy just caught with his hand in the cookie jar that will make him a winner.)

Well, it worked for Johnny.

 

[Avid Listener]

Looks like NBC is paying Gregory to not rock the boat with bad publicity.

 

[FredLeonard]

Oh, my! A duplicate post!

Here is the correct link:
http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?669713-NBC-to-DG-Here-s-4M-Shut-Your-Mouth-Go-Away

This was posted 11 hours earlier. And Avis Listener complained about it almost at once. Now he's just being petty.

 

[Avid Listener]

Oh, my! A duplicate post!

Here is the correct link:
http://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?669713-NBC-to-DG-Here-s-4M-Shut-Your-Mouth-Go-Away

This was posted 11 hours earlier. And Avis Listener complained about it almost at once. Now he's just being petty.

No, I was attempting to provide a service to my fellow participants by putting the information in a thread with a clear and unambiguous title, instead of a cryptic click bait title that makes no sense.