Meet the Press, NBC's venerable (six decades!) political affairs news program and a staple of Sunday morning TV, has been in flux ever since the untimely death of Tim Russert. Tom Brokaw has been sitting in the big chair, brought out of semi-retirement and keeping the show together in Tim's stead. But NBC has confirmed that Brokaw is leaving on December 7. They have not confirmed who will become the new face of Meet the Press. Last week, Bob speculated about Ted Koppel joining NBC to anchor the show, and he was certainly be a credible choice. Tina Brown at The Daily Beast web site has another idea; she says that Rachel Maddow should take over Meet the Press.
My first reaction to Brown's idea was, "No, not Rachel." But that was just because I wouldn't want Rachel to give up The Rachel Maddow Show, her prime time MSNBC show. I enjoy her daily take on the world of politics. She's smart, insightful, a good interviewer, and despite her liberal leanings, surprisingly critical of the left. She could bring all the critical thinking to MTP.
But would she be able to do five prime time hours a week, and Meet the Press, too? That would seem to be the question, and considering her youth and energy, she might be game.
From NBC's point of view, Brown is right that Rachel would be an inspired choice. Not just because she's a woman; Gwen Ifill could meet that criteria, and why should gender matter anyway? No, Rachel would be inspiring because she has charisma. She's not just another talking head. She has star power and could really keep Meet the Press at the top of the heap among the Sunday shows, a position it's held for quite a while.
If not Maddow, NBC will kick around the names David Gregory, Chuck Todd, maybe even Andrea Mitchell. All are qualified, but does even one of them generate the enthusiasm of Rachel Maddow? For a network sorely in need of keeping the successes they have -- like in the news division -- it might be wise to heed Tina Brown's unsolicited advice.
The TV Squad Podcast: The Prisoner, '80s TV, soap news and more
Let's talk about spoilers ...
The Prisoner -- An early look
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-01-2008 @ 12:22PM
Jessica said...
If Rachel Maddow took over Meet the Press, I'd imagine she'd give up her radio show, and I honestly don't think that's all too likely. She's been doing that for years and I think radio is how she got her start.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 1:48PM
cherries said...
Oh, please, if there is a Supreme Being, I hope this comes to pass. Matter of fact, I tried to make this suggestion back a couple of weeks ago but it didn't go through. I think -- no, I KNOW -- that this is Rachel's time, and that it would be the absolutely smartest thing MTP could do to make her the moderator of MTP. I truly feel she is the most worthy successor to Tim's chair -- at least until Luke attains the stature and gravitas to reclaim it for the Russert Team. GO RACHEL!!!!!!!!
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 1:50PM
Amy said...
I love this suggestion!
What I loved about Tim Russert was that he lived/breathed politics, asked the hard questions to those in both parties, and had his own star wattage to show it wasn't just another stage for the politicians.
I think Rachel Maddow could step up to the plate and do a great job in filling that role.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 2:05PM
Gloria said...
I think she would be a perfect fit for the show. She is intelligent, forthright, and even Tim would be smiling down. Come on NBC, give it the green light!!!
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 2:17PM
Rassi said...
I don't think she's a good choice. I believe she's to partisan to hold a position as Moderator on MTP. Even Brokaw has a hard time keeping his liberal leanings in check, and he's not nearly as far to the left as she is.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 2:24PM
Scott said...
I like Rachel and would also hate for her to give up her MSNBC program. But she would be a good choice. Koppel, or at least the Koppel of 10 years ago, when he was an aggressive interviewer, would be excellent. I don't know if he still has the "eye of the tiger" to be tough with the guests. Brokaw clearly doesn't, and never has. The show has gotten staid and boring with him. His leisurely chat with Ted Turner yesterday was pretty much the last straw. Just two good ol' boys chewin' the fat. What a waste of airtime that was. They need someone who will do justice to the memory of Russert, and make the show what it once was. Chuck Todd knows politics, and maybe could learn to be more aggressive as an interviewer. David Gregory would also be a good choice, although his time anchoring his MSNBC show hasn't helped him--I'm going by his record as the only White House reporter who dared to ask real questions of Bush and his many lying press secretaries.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 3:31PM
Greg W. said...
My "sleeper" candidate was Bryant Gumbel until I heard about this, Maddow would be great in this role. But it would piss off just about every NBC newsman who's been there over one year. It would be fun.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 2:35PM
cpost916 said...
Are you kidding me? That would be a horrible decision and would discredit this show's incredible non-partisan history. Let her have her show on MS-DNC and keep MTP the way it is. You might as well have O'Reilly take over the job, that would be the equivalent of suggesting Rachel take the reins. Give the job to Chuck Todd and call it a day, all the other NBC/MS-DNC clowns would be a disaster especially David Gregory or Andrea Mitchell.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 2:50PM
Craig said...
As much as I agree with her viewpoint, you have to have someone who gives the appearance at least of being impartial. Horrible idea.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 3:00PM
Garrett said...
She is only critical of the left when they don't go left enough. I agree with Craig. Got to be someone that at least appears impartial. Sounds like this is just a liberal bloggers fantasy.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 6:26PM
No1Dad said...
Agreed. Rachel is intellectually honest which is very refreshing, but politically she's Keith Olbermann without all the hyperbole and hysterics. She gives very little to the middle. It'd be like a righty suggesting Sean Hannity.
12-01-2008 @ 4:42PM
GrrrlRomeo said...
Rachel as a moderator? She never has more than one guest at a time on her show, which I find less stressful. I can absorb more info when only one person is talking at a time.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 5:38PM
1iPete said...
Personally I think Maddow has the skills, knowledge and charisma to do a fine job but I just don't see her as a likely pick. After the NBC/MSNBC feud this year over MSNBC's election coverage, I don't think the NBC news division would find her a palatable choice since they view MSNBC as a non-objective entity that is diluting the NBC News name.
Further, the RNC could view her as a really biased choice and urge GOP members not to book MTP as they conflate Maddow with her positions on issues on her Air America and MSNBC shows.
I just don't think NBC News wants MTP to become controversial and seen as non-objective.
Reply
12-02-2008 @ 12:51AM
chantal said...
My guts tell me Rachel would get the highest ratings for MTP - she certainly has star quality - hot looks, intelligence, charm - I have never been into politics much but I've watched her show every day lately and I love it !!
Reply
12-02-2008 @ 1:56PM
Joe D said...
I think Rachel would be a good choice. For the poster that suggested that they might as well give it to Billo because he is as right as she is left, you forgetting a key point. O'Reilly is basically an entertainer/reporter. He has no political background having worked at Inside Edition and at television stations.
Meanwhile Rachel has a Doctorate in Political Science and was a Rhodes Scholar. Yes, she leans (ok, tilts) very left, but whose to say she could not be bipartisan on the MTP? Intelligence wise, Rachel would definitely be the top choice.
Out of all the talking heads, how many have even an undergrad degree in Poly Sci? Most probably have just journalism degrees. For example, Billo was a history major and then got a masters in broadcast journalism.
Reply
12-03-2008 @ 1:20AM
cpost916 said...
So I guess Peter Jennings would have been a horrible choice based on your interpretation of needing a college degree in Poly Sci (he was a high school drop-out and was not even born an American Citizen). I majored in business and minored in philosophy but knew more about politics then my college roommate (poli sci major), point being that your major does not really matter (kind of like the math major who is a math whiz but can't teach math because they are socially awkward) . On top of that you say Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainment reporter and no political background which discounts the fact he has had the number one news and politics show on cable television for years - Keith Olberman does NFL broadcasting but I am sure he gets a pass because he is on the left. Taking it to another medium your analysis would say Rush Limbaugh is a bad talking head since he barely even attended college and, political views aside, he is the most successful talking head out of all talking heads.
Rachel is just another academia liberal, which is just fine, but that stance does not work for this television show or what it stands (stood?) for (at least in my humble opinion).
12-03-2008 @ 11:17AM
Thom said...
But Rachel doesn't fantasize about putting falafel on genitalia or has an addiction to painkillers that makes her a slurring, bumbling idiot, cpost916.
Reply
12-06-2008 @ 3:19PM
Phil said...
I dig Rachel. She's very good. I could see also Bill Moyers who is one of the fairest interviewers around. But I think a different kind of program should be envisioned for MTP. I think the panel format asking questions would be best. After all it's called "Meet the Press" and that's not exactly singular. Part of the program could be where the panelists have a conversation about the issues raised. Also have a segment where viewers responses and questions from the previous week are dealt with. The journalists can be from all segments of the media.
Reply