Jay Rosen - "disgusted viewer and longtime critic of the Sunday shows" - interviews Chuck Todd on the problems with "Meet the Press" and how he plans to fix them:
On dealing with the new media environment:
Chuck Todd: [I]n the “good old days,” not reporting a story that didn’t pan out was enough to make sure an untrue story didn’t make it into the eco-system. Now, there are a number of ways untrue stories can go public. We in the so-called MSM should be willing to report what is not true, rather than ignoring and claiming that “well, we didn’t deem it worthy” and therefore don’t have a responsibility for debunking someone else’s rumor....
On “he said, she said” reporting:
Chuck Todd: I think there is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” It’s simply “fair.”...
On how political journalism has become so over-identified with politicians and insiders:
Chuck Todd: The one-two punch of the Iraq War and the recession. Basically two huge things that the folks in charge blew and we in “the media” appeared to go along in only explaining the government’s side of “why.” So Iraq started eroding trust, then the recession nearly finished the job on trust erosion, thanks to the glorification of Wall Street by the media in general over the ’90s and early 21st century. Toss in the fact that we in the media lived in the two areas of the country that did not experience the recession, and it’s a toxic stew....
On the utter uniformity of the Sunday shows, in terms of format, guest list, questions, topics:
Chuck Todd: Well, TV has a history of copying what works. .... Now, the issue of booking has become a lot more complicated.... An amazing number of folks simply are afraid to go out on the Sunday shows, so there’s that.
As for the topics, I am trying to change that. I think there is an expectation (and as a viewer, I would have it) that the Sunday shows delve into the most important issue of the day or week.... But where I’m trying to do things differently is at least have diversity of topics in the middle of the show. Use that space, frankly, to experiment with what works and what doesn’t....
On the over-reliance on insiders — professional operatives, paid manipulators, official mouthpieces, party strategists — as guests:
Chuck Todd: [S]ome are good and plugged in and have information that will help the viewer understand the why. For instance, why a party or a candidate is doing something....I understand your larger complaint, and that is, folks who spout the most predictable answers....
On the possibility of using his show to "bring into legitimate debate people, causes, ideas and problems that have been placed in the 'sphere of deviance' or marginalized by the rest of the political class and by journalists. As in literally never spoken of in power circles":
Chuck Todd: 1,000 percent. I have a list of these issues that I want to get to. It is why I keep bringing up the middle of the show concept. So the show doesn’t change at the top with the important news of the day/week, but [we] use the platform to also introduce topics that haven’t been touched (or dealt with in a while.)....
It takes time to produce the show you want. This is an aircraft carrier. I’m turning it. Come back in six months and let’s assess how I’ve done.
It sounds like he really does want to do something better. But he also sounds like he's too enveloped in the "game" of politics to even think about the content or the real-life impacts of the issues as opposed to how they'll "play" in the political sphere.
I have very little confidence that his "list of issues" would overlap very much with the list of issues important to the average person, or anyone here reading this.
Come back in six months? Maybe. Or maybe not. There are already so many other ways to get the information that shows like MTP used to provide. Their time has come and gone, unless he can get that aircraft carrier turned onto a radically relevant new course.