Skip to main content

When Tim Russert died, he left behind a big legacy as he was the host of Meet the Press for many years.  His journalism is definitely respected by many in both the Democratic and Republican parties and regardless of how partisan you are, one thing is for sure:  When Meet the Press was on in Russert's years, you definitely got hooked.

However, nowadays, Russert's replacement, David Gregory, has tarnished the legacy of Meet the Press and has turned it into a show that doesn't have the same thrill as Russert's Meet the Press used to have.  Sure, you still see notable people like Newt Gingrich, David Brooks, James Carville and others appear on MTP and yes, there are good debates going on but in the end, it isn't the same.

Now a number of people on Daily Kos have characterized David Gregory as a tool, a would-be journalist or even a pawn for the GOP.  Either way you put it, Gregory is not the right person to be anchoring Meet the Press and he must be replaced.

But how?  Will NBC do it?  Maybe, maybe not but it doesn't mean we can't do something ourselves!

Luckily, we've got the perfect person for the job:  Soledad O'Brien.

Now I know what you're thinking: CNN won't let her.  Well, why not?  Soledad O'Brien is an outstanding journalist who is well known for her tough questioning of others she interviews yet at the same time, she's not exactly a partisan.  Sure, O'Brien does criticize the Tea Party and others in the GOP heavily but that doesn't necessarily make her a partisan.  I mean, she's a frickin' journalist.  

On top of that, O'Brien has won awards, many of them.  She's even won more awards than most people hosting MSNBC.  Check out CNN's summary:

http://www.cnn.com/...

In 2011, Soledad won her first Emmy for Crisis in Haiti (Anderson Cooper 360) in the category of Outstanding Live Coverage of a Current News Story – Long Form. O'Brien was part of the coverage teams that earned CNN a George Foster Peabody award for its BP oil spill and Katrina coverage and an Alfred I. duPont Award for its coverage of the Southeast Asia tsunami. The National Association of Black Journalists named O’Brien the Journalist of the Year and Edward R Murrow Awards lauded her with the RTDNA/UNITY award for Latino in America in 2010. She received the 2009 Medallion of Excellence for Leadership and Community Service Award from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. In 2008, she was the first recipient of the Soledad O’Brien Freedom’s Voice Award from the Morehouse School of Medicine for being a catalyst for social change and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Goodermote Humanitarian Award for her efforts while reporting on the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami. Her numerous other awards include a Gracie Allen Award in 2007 for her reporting from Cyprus on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict as well as her reports from the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. The NAACP honored her with its President’s Award in 2007 for her humanitarian efforts and journalistic excellence.
On top of this, Soledad O'Brien is Harvard educated.  And she's also attractive but that isn't the reason why I'm promoting her to replace David Gregory.  She's also a good anchor and definitely has the ability to level the playing field with her guests while at the same time not caving in to either side.  This is something Tim Russert was better at than David Gregory.

Don't take CNN's biography page of O'Brien's word for it.  Here's a video showing why O'Brien is such an asskicker at journalism:

Now how are we going to act to get Soledad O'Brien to become the next host at Meet the Press?

WELL........

Why don't we start a petition?  Is there one out there and is it effective?

I mean, if so many of us pushed Rachel Maddow to anchor her own show on MSNBC, why not do the same thing for Soledad O'Brien in replacing David Gregory?

Seriously, several people on Kos have proposed this but now we need to put this to action.

As far as a petition, if any of you want to comment and put yourself on the list, I suggest you do so!

Of course, any other comments are welcome.  I think we should seriously consider this.

Think about it:  Soledad O'Brien vs. David Gregory.

1:46 PM PT: Just quick:  I understand Soledad O'Brien is under contract at CNN but we all know how CNN can be wishy-washy at times.  If you say O'Brien is giving us a reason to watch CNN, fine.  However, that shouldn't stop us!

2:44 PM PT: Guys, this is a great discussion we're having!  Thanks also for the recommendations.  

Now let's recommend this diary like CRAZY so we can spread the word out and keep the discussion going!

3:34 PM PT: If you want to be apart of the petition, either state so in this diary or send a message to me via Kos using the "Welcome Back" menu on the right hand screen (top right or wherever).

Poll

Do you want Soledad O'Brien to replace David Gregory at Meet the Press?

91%406 votes
8%40 votes

| 446 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Soledad is impressive. Gregory is white bread. (12+ / 0-)

    Enough said.

  •  Wouldn't She Have a No-Compete Clause That (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes

    would require her to stay off the air for a time after leaving?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:28:25 PM PDT

  •  Why not Rachel Maddow? (9+ / 0-)

    I like Soledad, but Rachel is better.

    Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

    by GreenMtnState on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:28:59 PM PDT

    •  Noooooooooooooo! (5+ / 0-)

      Let's leave Rachel right where she is......:o)

      The GOP hate me! I'm black, a woman, disabled veteran, divorced mother and liberal. THEY SUCK!

      by secret38b on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:32:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, and Rachel does a great job (0+ / 0-)

      of doing her homework as well as being very fair and courteous to both sides, even to those folks you know she absolutly disagrees with.

      Gregory is horrible, even Brian Williams would be a million times better than him.

      •  I LOVE Rachel Maddow but... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Illinois IRV, not this time

        She has liberal leaning tendencies and she's a lesbian so that will be a lightning rod for conservatives who want more balance on Meet the Press.

        I'm only being objective here.  Maddow has a very high IQ and is seriously intelligent (much like Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein) but her show doesn't exactly win over conservatives.

        •  Yeah.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peacestpete, dougymi, VTelder
          I'm only being objective here.  Maddow has a very high IQ and is seriously intelligent (much like Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein) but her show doesn't exactly win over conservatives.
          High IQ, seriously intelligent, left leaning but completely open to the truth, unfailingly polite, and gay.  Conservatives couldn't possibly be won over by those qualities....a smart, polite, very politically astute, knowledgeable, gay woman.  All those qualities are seriously scary to the present day conservative mindset.
          BTW, conservatives don't want more balance on MTP, they like the right-leaning useful idiot, David Gregory, just fine.

          I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

          by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:58:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Conservatives don't want balance? (0+ / 0-)

            Well, that's just tough luck for them.  Liberals should be challenged just a much as conservatives should be challenged.  I don't go to Meet the Press to watch one side take over all the time for ideological dominance.  I go for it for debating over FACTS.

            •  Actually, Maddow is not "balanced" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              "Balanced" would be challenging Republicans to respond to progressive arguments, and challenging Democrats to respond to conservative arguments.  

              Conservatives couldn't possibly be won over by those qualities....a smart, polite, very politically astute, knowledgeable, gay woman.
              That's not why conservatives don't watch Maddow.  They don't watch Maddow because she treats their philosophical views -- that the federal government should be limited and not doing many of the things it has undertaken, that Milton Friedman and Hayek have the correct economic views,  that the federal government is spending too much as a % of GDP and needs to cut spending, that social laws should reflect the Judeo-Christian morality, etc. -- as illegitimate and patently "wrong," or not worthy of serious consideration   Just as progressives want shows that treat their views as legitimate, conservatives want shows that treat their views as legitimate.  "Legitimate" does not equal "correct" -- but it does mean asking questions of the opposition based on those views, and not dismissing those views as so patently "wrong" as not to be worthy of discussion.  FNC does that to progressive views -- they put on some has been, no-name supposed "progressive" and then dismiss that person's views as so patently wrong as not being worthy of consideration.  Both sides generally want a show that (1) has legitimate, "name" voices to defend their position; and (2) has a host that treats their viewpoints as legitimate and worthy of consideration, even if the show doesn't necessarily conclude that their views are "correct."  

              That's what the Sunday shows should be trying to do.  Clearly, they don't always do the best job.  But I watch them because that's the goal, at least.  

              •  Right. Maddow has also been on Air America (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                Air America is a liberal leaning radio show.  It also once had Al Franken, who is very bright as well and a cunning satirist (and a very good U.S. Senator) but he's also partisan at the same time.

        •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Illinois IRV, VClib

          Rachel Maddow is very good at what she does -- host a progressive show, with a progressive viewpoint, for a partisan left-leaning audience, and ONLY a partisan left-leaning audience.  

          That is not, however, the kind of host that the network wants for Meet the Press, primarily because that show is not geared only toward a partisan left-leaning audience.

        •  I don't understand why her "liberal leaning (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calfacon

          tendencies" and her sexual orientation should have anything to do with this. Two questions need to be answered, one, can she be fair, and the next is she qualifed?

          She can be fair, and she is qualifed, more than qualified.  Is the purpose of a show like MTP to win over conservatives or to educate the American people. I think that is where we have gone very wrong. Walter Cronkite was also "liberal leaning", however, people still knew what he was reporting was the truth.

          While I like Chris Hayes alot, at times I find him boring. As far as Ezra Klein goes, I like him too, and everytime he is on any show, I feel like I am learing lots.

          As much as I like these two people, I think Rachel is the best at MSNBC, and also the smartest. BTW, I am also liking Matthews alot these days, I appreciate he can not contain his contempt for Romney. I find that refreshing, to say the least.

          •  Define "fair." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            That's the problem.  "Fair" is a nebulous term.  People here think Maddow speaks "the truth" and talks about "facts," but often fail to realize that bias shows not only in WHICH facts you choose to report, but also in whether you treat the opposition's viewpoints as legitimate and worthy of consideration by your audience, even if they are different from yours.  

            Maddow starts from a premise that the core conservative views on the role of the federal government, for example, are not legitimate.  

            •  evidence of your assertion rachel believes (0+ / 0-)

              conservative views on the role of the federal govt aren't legitmate???

              she has stated, time & again, they aren't consistent, i.e. they profess to be in favor of less/smaller govt, yet demand the govt impose its will in insuring every pregnancy be brought to term -- which is not the same thing as claiming they're illegitimate.

              •  Of course it is. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                Look, progressives are just as inconsistent, in claiming that the federal government should stay out of social issues, but in claiming that the federal government should "impose its will" (to use your words) in economic issues.  

                By saying that only conservatives are "inconsistent," without also recognizing the same thing on the left, that's a clear statement that only those views on the right are not legitimate, while those on the left-- which have the same "inconsistency," only in reverse -- are legitimate.  

                If consistency -- imposing the same test of government involvement in BOTH social issues and economic issues -- were paramount to Rachel Maddow, she would recognize Libertarians as the most legitimate political viewpoint, since they believe that the government should -- as much as possible -- stay out of BOTH areas, social areas and economic areas.  Instead, she approaches things from the view of supporting government imposition of more rules and regulations in economic areas, and less in social areas (like abortion).   She makes clear that she believes the progressive approach is intellectually honest and that the conservative approach is intellectually inconsistent.  

                Let me say it again -- that approach is ABSOLUTELY FNE for a show that wants to attract a partisan left-leaning audience.  But that's not what MTP is attempting to be.  

                •  you have chosen to assign your own (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VTelder

                  interpretation to rachel's views & in so doing, claim it must be correct, b/c you said so.

                  common sense & reason, according to you, have no place in rachel's argument about the role of govt -- it's either laissez-faire everything, or nothing -- black or white, with nothing in-between.  how fair & balanced of you.

                  i submit for your consideration the following: "to be always firm must be to be often obstinate; when properly to relax is the trial of judgment"

                  btw, don't know if it's flying under your radar or not, but conservatives have been waging a war against the govt for many decades now, especially so when they're not in power -- so, if, as you say, rachel characterizes conservative views as not legitimate, it seems to me she is only stating the obvious: conservatives are out to deligitimize the govt.  is it supposed to be a secret, or something?

                  •  I understand that you agree with her (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    point of view.  And she does a very very very good job of articulating the progressive point of view.  My point is that some conservatives disagree with the basic, fundamental progressive position of what the federal government was set up to do.  That is a philosophical -- not a factual -- difference.   A show speaking to leftist partisans assumes that the conservative view of what role the federal government should play -- the scope of its powers and authority -- is not legitimate.  That's a philosophical -- not a factual -- conclusion.  That's completely fine and appropriate for a show aimed at partisan leftist viewers.  That's not completely fine and appropriate for a show that is attempting (even if sometimes less than successfully) to be non-partisan or not biased.   That show would ask conservatives whether a more expanded role for  the federal government in the economy would help workers at lower income levels, and would ask progressives whether the federal government's expanded role in the economy hurts the growth of private businesses.  You ask each side questions based on criticisms of that side from the opponents.  

                    But I'll give you another example.  Progressives are generally followers of Keynes and Krugman in economic thought.  Conservatives generally follow Friedman and Hayek.  All are Nobel Prize winners; all are very very smart, very thoughtful, and support their theories with facts, logic, and top-notch analyses (or they wouldn't have won Nobel Prizes).  On Maddow's show, it is a given, however, that they Keynes/Krugman view of economics is the only legitimate view.  That's fine if you have an audience that agrees with that.  A non-biased host, however, would treat the theories of Friedman and Hayek as equally legitimate, question those on the left from a Friedman/Hayek point of view, and question those from the right from a Keynes/Krugman point of view.  On shows speaking only to the partisan left, however, the host's questions assume that the Keynes/Krugman views are the "correct" ones.  

                    •  and your comment is an excellent example of (0+ / 0-)

                      false-equivalency bs.

                      rachel takes great care in building her case for progressive thought/policy based on common sense, not ideology.

                      there comes a time in a discussion where truth & common sense take precedence over giving both sides equal consideration -- otherwise, how would a debating team in school, for instance, ever be declared a winner!

                      history is on the side of progressives/liberals, not conservatives.  if you don't happen to agree, that's your perogative -- but it doesn't automatically mean you are correct.

                      the problem with the sunday morning gasbag shows is the tiny brains of the very serious people who appear on them don't have a clue what the truth even is.

                      •  NBC will never have MTP hosted by anyone (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        nextstep

                        who is a self identified partisan and Rachel self identifies as a progressive.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  umm, that wasn't the point of the discussion (0+ / 0-)

                          between coffee talk & me.  it was whether ct's use of the term "legitimate" was accurate or not.  but thanks for your usual, meaningless blather.  

                          btw, i hear you've been playing the world's smallest violin lately, & you're very good at it.  8-D

            •  But she does do this, she just can not tolerate (0+ / 0-)

              "the crazy". I have seen her with consevative  guests on her show, and she does this all the time, allows them to state their views, and doesn't mock them for holding an opposing position. Please do not forget the show is called "the Rachel Maddow show". MTP would be a much different format, and I think she would do very well on it. I think the most important thing about hosting MTP, is to be informed, and not let people get away with just spouting talking points, which is what this show has evolved into with Gregory as host.

          •  Read my comment again (0+ / 0-)

            I love Rachel Maddow just as much as you do BUT, I'm only thinking in the perspective of a conservative and I'm not one myself.

            "I don't understand why her "liberal leaning tendencies" and her sexual orientation should have anything to do with this. Two questions need to be answered, one, can she be fair, and the next is she qualifed?"

            You don't have to believe me on this.  Talk to some far right or even certain conservatives who support people like Mitt Romney.  I'm not supporting their views or causes BUT, they will go after Rachel Maddow HARD if she's anchoring Meet the Press.  Soledad O'Brien?  The only reason she'd be a target is if she's a woman (which is a stupid reason) and if she questions conservatives hard (which is a lame reason even so).

            Again, I'm not supporting the conservative cause.  I'm just pointing out Maddow as a whole as far as liabilities she'd bring to Meet the Press.  A main reason why many people on Kos and in the liberal community pushed her to be anchor on her own show on MSNBC is because 1) she kicks SERIOUS ass and 2) she's extremely smart and analytical  and 3) She supports liberal causes at the same time.

            Also, Maddow was previously on Air America whereas Soledad wasn't.  Soledad has never been on liberal news outlets and if she was, she was always objective.

            •  Are you talking about attracting conservatives or (0+ / 0-)

              are you talking about attracting far right loons? My husband considers himself conservative, and he likes Rachel, most of the time. I think reasonable people, conservative or not would tune in.

              •  It depends on who you talk to (0+ / 0-)

                I think it's a good thing that your husband, a pro-claimed conservative, tunes in to Rachel Maddow.  That's a good sign.

                However, Maddow is still a lightning rod for the conservative base.  I don't believe your husband may speak for the entire conservative base at large (including both conservatives and right wing conservatives).  Then again, I don't know your husband and his family so I can't be the judge here.

                My mother, for one, is a moderate Republican but she doesn't tune into MSNBC yet she's also pro-choice and pro-gay rights but she's likely to vote for Mitt Romney because she's a loyal Republican.  I think she's an enigma if you're talking about politics but then again, she's still very smart.

                On the other hand, David Brooks, while being still uninformed at times, is still a very intelligent conservative whereas others like William Kristol aren't (actually, Kristol isn't dumb, his ideology SUCKS).

                •  My husband is not a Republican, nor is he (0+ / 0-)

                  a Democrat, he considers himself Independent, but he thinks he might be conservative, and on some issues he is, but on others not so much. The one thing he is, is fair and reasonable, and a crazy man about equal rights for women. It could be we have two daughters and that is the reason for his tilt that way.

                  •  It may be difficult to categorize conservatives (0+ / 0-)

                    My mom says my father is more conservative than I think but the honest truth is, at heart, my father is a humble person who is absolutely fine with whatever decision I make in life.  In addition, he's actually more knowledgeable about history and economics than even I am and points out facts I didn't even consider when I was making my case to support some of my progressive views.  He also is very pro-union and pro-progressive economic views.  I don't know where my mom says my father is conservative other than being fiscally conservative.  Now that I can DEFINITELY accept as reasonable.

          •  Chris Hayes boring? What? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            not this time

            Chris Hayes is incredible!  He offers foresight into issues more than most Democrats talk about.  He's intelligent in the same way that people who study mathematics and astronomy are intelligent.

            I think you're underestimating Mr. Hayes.  He also said in a TV commercial on MSNBC:

            "The energy revolution is just as transformative as the industrial revolution or the digital age.  You can either find it frightening or thrilling"

            I don't have access to the commercial on You Tube or other sources so I don't know if I remember exactly what Hayes said but he's got a SERIOUS brain.

            •  I do like him, and can take him in small doses, (0+ / 0-)

              but sometimes I find my self getting bored, shoot me. Perhaps he is saying thngs I have heard before, I am not sure why, but I seem to tune out after a while.

              •  Hmmmm. (0+ / 0-)

                Do you not doubt he is insightful and perhaps even more informative with a TON of facts and analysis that most Democrats don't even have?

                •  Of course I think he is very bright, and also (0+ / 0-)

                  informative, but perhaps it is me and my attention span, after a while, as I said before, I start to tune out. I also find him quite likable, so it is none of that at all. Sometimes, I think I just reach overload on certian facts. My youngest daughter is a very strong envionmentalist, and I hear much of the same from her, all the time. I love her to death and admire her and her committment, but at times I find it too much for me.

                  •  Yeah, I understand now (0+ / 0-)

                    I think Chris Hayes has a reputation, like I do, over being intense when it comes over talking about facts.  The difference is between me and Mr. Hayes is that Hayes's thoughts come out rapidly while he's on air and he's constantly trying to let them all out and that ends up making him speak faster.  I on the other hand don't have that fault.  I used to but not anymore.

        •  If Leanings disqualify moderators (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VTelder

          Gregory HAS to go

          -approaching Curmudgeonry with pleasure

          by Calfacon on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:22:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Brian is a pompous egotistical fela (0+ / 0-)

        Too slow to host MTP

    •  She's a multi-tasker. I think she could do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VTelder

      both her regular show and MTP. :D

    •  Do you honestly believe that (0+ / 0-)

      Rachel Maddow, who is open about and proud of her partisan bias, would ever be an appropriate host of MTP?

      •  In a word ? Yes. Eom (0+ / 0-)

        -approaching Curmudgeonry with pleasure

        by Calfacon on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:24:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She could do the job very well, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          not this time

          but no politician to the right of joe manchin would ever agree to appear on mtp.  Half the guests would disappear and about half the audience too.  Just can't see it.  O'Brien would have the same problem.  gregory's a massive tool and a primary reason I won't waste my time watching the program, but there's got to be a better solution.  Just not sure the Village media will look for it.

          A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

          by dougymi on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:35:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A much better person for the job would be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    secret38b

    Mike Papantonio, he does not have a contract with CNN like Soledad does and he knows all the ins and outs and could very easy carry the torch of Tim Russert. He is also not afraid to call someone out with the facts and is consistent...Second choice would be Tom Hartmann

  •  Sounds good. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VTelder

    But we don't know what kind of contract O'Brien has with CNN. If it's for several years, NBC may not be willing to pay off both her's and Gregory's contracts. Perhaps NBC has someone in mind if we make a big fuss about Gregory. Also, Russert was a tool as well. It all became very obvious when he was called as a witness for Scooter Libby.

  •  Very nice clip. I hadn't seen that interview. (0+ / 0-)

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 01:34:29 PM PDT

  •  I love the idea. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC, Illinois IRV

    Soledad hasn't taken crap from anyone this cycle. Her interview with Sununu from a couple months ago sticks out as one of my favorites.

    She strikes me as someone who actually takes journalism seriously. Unlike Gregory, who just parrots GOP talking points (lies) and misquotes The President.

    Do it NBC, please... LOL

  •  David "Chevy Chase Club" Gregory is not an... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaintC, OldDragon

    unbiased, objective, DC outsider.  In fact, he's about as interest conflicted as it's possible to get.  Like fellow applicant, Fox's Brett Baier, Gregory might find it a wee bit uncomfortable to report negative stories about his fellow Chevy Chase Club members, no? (emphasis mine)

    David Gregory, host of NBC’s Meet The Press, and Bret Baier, host of Fox News’s Special Report, are among the latest applicants to the Chevy Chase Club, the historic social club that has catered to Washington’s wealthiest for over a century...

    ...a member told me that the initiation fee is $80,000 and that members pay $6,000 in annual dues...

    ...As recently as 1976, it did not accept Jewish or African-American members, according to a report in the New York Times. And despite reforms, some who have visited the club believe it has maintained an atmosphere reminiscent of earlier days...

    “Order a cocktail at the Chevy Chase country-club and you'll step back into ante-bellum Savannah,” one British reporter for The Telegraph observed... “The blacks wait on Wasps, showing all the deference expected of them. You won't find many Cohens either, lounging on the well-kept lawn...”

    Members embrace a shared tradition of congeniality, high standards of personal conduct and continuity of family association...”

    Gregory might just might find himself having as much trouble as fellow member, "Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’s Face The Nation," has in being an impartial but "congenial" journalist.

    So, yes, I think that Soledad O'Brien might just have more ability to remain objective and impartial, like, you know, an actual journalist should be, than does David "Chevy Chase Club" Gregory.

     

    •  When (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurious

      he is interviewing a conservative, he glows like a little girl.  When he interviewed Romney, his body language was just embarrassing for a  journalist.  

      Soledad is very fair and calls out both sides and yet is not threatening.  She would be great.  I wish she would take over the Morning Joe show, actually.  

  •  MTP cannot have a moderator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    who is considered "fair" and mostly impartial by one side and not the other.  I think O'Brien kind of fits that.  The left considers her mostly "fair" and impartial.  The right does not.  

    (I think sometimes that both sides use "fair" to mean "does not give credence or legitimacy to the views of the opposition.")    

    You either have to have a moderator who is considered "fair" and impartial by BOTH sides (almost impossible to find today), or somebody whom both sides think is biased against them.  Gregory kind of fits that bill.  I've heard from conservative friends today about a number of times from today's interview when they thought he was "spouting left-wing talking points."  And remember, Gregory famously was critical of GWB when Gregory was in the White House press corps.  So, for all those here think Gregory is right-leaning, those on the right think he is left-leaning.  If you are MTP, that's about as good a situation as you are going to get.  

    If MTP goes to a moderator that the left considers "fair" and the right does not, it runs the risk of becoming MSNBC, which (during prime time) is a left-leaning network preaching to the choir of  only left-leaning partisans, increasingly unable to expand your audience beyond left-leaning partisans, and increasingly unable to book any "big name" guests from the conservative side of the aisle.  (Fox News Channel does that from the conservative point of view, talking only to a conservative audience, booking only "name" conservatives and -- for the "progressive" view -- has beens or nobodies like Beckel or Juan Williams.)   MTP's stock in trade has been that it gets the "big name" guests from both political sides.  It doesn't want to give that up.  

    •  Reason why the right doesn't consider her fair.... (0+ / 0-)

      They're wimps and they can't defend their views.  They don't like being challenged.

      I was making a point that conservatives like to see liberals challenged as well.  I don't think Soledad would have a problem doing this but remember, she's going after the Tea Party for factual information, not because she's trying to conduct a man hunt to destroy their credibility.

      For instance, take a look at Michelle Malkin.  She criticizes not just liberals but those who might otherwise be minorities and those involved in hot button issues.  She's a mean spirited witch of a woman who is not a real journalist or investigator.  Instead, she's arrogant and quite frankly, filled in a bubble of hate.

      Soledad, on the other hand, isn't filled with hate.  She's filled with questions.

      •  Someone who "goes after" liberals from the left (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        is not someone who is going to be considered "fair" and impartial by BOTH sides.  

        You need someone who goes after progressives from the right (i.e., pressing Democrats to respond to the conservative argument) and goes after conservatives from the left (i.e., pressing Republicans to respond to progressive arguments).  Of course, when that happens, both sides complain that the host is spouting the other side's talking points because that host treats both views as having legitimacy.    

        •  You don't think Soledad can do both? (0+ / 0-)

          Remember, she's a journalist and she's won MANY awards for her journalism.  I don't think Rachel Maddow or David Gregory have that kind of acclaim.

          Also, O'Brien has been a journalist covering MANY topics across the board.  She's done more than even Gregory has.

          •  I don't know, frankly. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            What I'm doing is defining the qualities a MTP host needs to have.  I've seen her challenge guests "from the left."  She also needs to be able to challenge guests "from the right" as well to be a credible host for a show like MTP.

            •  I understand. Your questioning makes sense (0+ / 0-)

              Soledad O'Brien definitely does have to overcome the notion of being a partisan journalist.

              On the other hand, she hasn't hosted Meet the Press yet so we don't know.  O'Brien has not been a partisan journalist before and she's also had experience working as an anchor, more so than even Rachel Maddow.  That in turn will work to O'Brien's favor more than Maddow.

              Besides, I'm sure O'Brien can keep her composure.  She's a tough woman, at least from what I believe.

    •  Fixed (0+ / 0-)
      And remember, Gregory famously was critical of GWB danced with Karl Rove when Gregory was in the White House press corps.
      Conservative "friends"....heh

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

      by justmy2 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 04:43:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Honestly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, VTelder

    As much as I enjoy Soledad and I feel that she is an underused talent (and as much as I loathe David Gregory and I feel that perhaps he should be delivering newspapers somewhere), I don't watch any of the traditional Sunday news shows (and haven't in some time).  My Sunday mornings (and Satuday mornings, for that matter) are generally spent with Chris (Hayes) and Melissa (Harris Perry) and their respective shows on MSNBC.  In my opinion, these are 2 of the best news/information shows on television.

    Yes, Chris and Melissa have a definite political bent (which I happen to agree with) and yes, some of their guests come on with a clear ideology and agenda (did you catch Condelezza Rice's former speech writer this morning?  She is one of my least favorite guests on either show... She is clearly a partisan hack who comes on with a definite set of talking points, but I digress). Nonetheless, I feel like I come away from both shows knowing more than I did prior to the broadcasts.  In some cases, I find my opinions and views reinforced and in other cases, I find myself questioning my perspective and asking whether it is consistent with the facts, logic, etc. or whether I am too tied to ideology and should reconsider my particular position.

    Nonetheless, Soledad would certainly be an improvement for those folks who watch MTP.

  •  NBC Will Only Replace When Ratings Decline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paj1

    They don't care if Gregory asks easy questions or doesn't challenge guests, as long as the show is profitable, the current host stays.

    "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

    by Aspe4 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:04:00 PM PDT

    •  the ratings are down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aspe4

      MTP is  no longer number one it usually is either CBS or ABC this week with Gregory behind. He is unwatchable and they normally have more republicans  on the show.
      I actually think Chris Wallace would be pretty good, he goes after republicans on his Sunday show as well as democrats.
      To be honest your not going to find an impartial host anymore since the media now chooses sides.

      •  Chris Wallace won't leave (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dougymi, VTelder

        With all due respect, I like Chris Wallace a bit, even considering he's the late and great Mike Wallace's son.

        However, Wallace is on Fox News and he has pandered to the right and viewers of Fox News.  He's kind of an enigma sometimes.  He's fierce on questioning guests but also congratulates Paul Ryan with a birthday cake at the same time when NO other anchor does?

  •  Stopped watching MTP shortly after Gregory ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calfacon, Illinois IRV, VTelder, Mr Robert

    took over the show.

    Under Gregory, MTP was no longer a place to get the truth on matters political.

    Instead, it became just another place to get false equivalencies for a full hour on Sunday mornings.

    I'm old enough to remember the original host of Meet the Press, Lawrence Spivak, who was skilled at asking the best political questions that viewers wanted to see get asked.  

    And, he would not tolerate a guest offering up false equivalencies or to allow them to simply 'go on record'.  

    Spivak challenged his guests to defend their positions.

    Gone are the days of Spivak, Morrow, Cronkite, etc.

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:06:02 PM PDT

  •  Not sure (0+ / 0-)

    I can handle 90 minutes of Gregory's 'style'. May have to wait for the transcripts on this coming debate.

    -approaching Curmudgeonry with pleasure

    by Calfacon on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

  •  Nope CNN needs Soledad more (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

  •  Well, she certainly doesn't fit in at CNN. (0+ / 0-)

    But MSNBC seems to like it's shills too.

    “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.” Reference to Paul Ryan showing up uninvited and unwanted at a soup kitchen.

    by reddbierd on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 02:58:43 PM PDT

  •  She left NBC for a reason (0+ / 0-)

    I'm inclined to think she wouldn't want to go back.  

    Perhaps she left for a better opportunity.  Perhaps not.

    But I don't recall the divorce being pretty.

    When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion. - Abraham Lincoln

    by EntrWriter on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 03:33:03 PM PDT

  •  Soledad is under contract to CNN... (0+ / 0-)

    ...why would they let her go, in the unlikely event she wanted the job?

  •  Vodka and tonic for Soledad (0+ / 0-)

    Great interview with Soledad and John Sununu:

    http://www.rawstory.com/...

    Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

    by JamieG from Md on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:41:48 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site