Daily Beast-MTP: Give it to Rachel Maddow, Josh Marshall or Glenn Greenwald?

[Ichingcarpenter]

How is it Obama can fill a Cabinet faster than NBC can replace Tim Russert?


NBC seems to be paralyzed by the sense that whomever they chose has to be another Russert. Not so. Russert defined an era, but that era is over. It’s as if in the months since he died the hands of the clock have spun with accelerated speed, leaving us all with a desire for reinvention. There's been an Obama effect in every sphere of business from General Motors to network TV.

Meet the Press has to change not just the host but the show itself. It may be successful now, but the winds of change could suddenly engulf it as they have the giants of print.

Brokaw’s interview yesterday with Laura Bush—flanked as a safety measure by Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S., Said Jawad—was exhibit A in a form of TV whose day has passed. The only things viewers wanted to know from the First Lady were (a) what medication got her through the last eight years, (b) how it felt being married to a walking catastrophe, and (c) what she really thought about Michelle Obama when she came to the White House. If we really want to know about Afghanistan, is Laura Bush the first name that springs to mind? Wouldn't we rather hear from someone steeped in knowledge of the place who could advance our comprehension?

The Meet the Press panel needs fewer David Broders and more Christopher Hitchenses—irresponsible wits who can challenge the B-list senators and warhorse commentators who trundle on and download all that sonorous received wisdom. It needs fewer "Washington insiders" and more genuinely informed outsiders. (Fareed Zakaria last week did an electric interview on his CNN foreign affairs show with the young Brit historian Niall Ferguson on the financial meltdown which was better than any slog round the course with Chris Dodd.) And for the top spot, how about going way outside the box? How about bringing in the cool forensic skills of a David Boies? Or the fresh intelligence of a web star like Josh Marshall or Glenn Greenwald? Or the political/policy smarts of a journalistic intellectual like the Guardian’s Michael Tomasky?

Or how about… a woman? Since NBC has not heeded my last suggestion to appoint either the unsung cable Rottweiler Greta Van Susteren or a reinvented, post-Palin Katie Couric, I say give Meet the Press to Rachel Maddow. She’s smart. She’s quick. She’s witty. She does her homework. And she listens to what the person she’s talking to is saying. She doesn't just go to the next question on her list.
If Obama is post-racial, Maddow is post-gender—divested of hair-frosted femininity in the anchor genre and more appealing because of it. Like him, she’s a calm, unflappable new era phenomenon. Sure, she’s a lefty, and in the past week she's been swinging away at Obama's cabinet choices, but I suspect she's ambitious enough to dial it back if she had to. (She also has that weird TV gene that’s so hungry for air time she’d probably insist on keeping her five-day job at MSNBC. Russert himself was on every show except Project Runway.)

>>>>>>>>>>>Snip
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-01/washingtons-other-transition/


I really liked this article which surprised me since it came from the Daily Beast.
I was also surprised at some of her choices.

[hlthe2b]

1. This one's like Politico-- sprung up over night and the "cool kids"

seem to be telling us we must read it? It might be TIna Brown, but I'm guessing she'll have as much impact on a GE-NBC decision as we would have petitioning Hannity for a true progressive to replace Colmes on Faux News... :shrug:

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Yeah, I know but I was surprised at the choices she exposed

They are the same ones many at DU have advocated. I also like her take
on the Laura Bush interview. The Daily Beast is where many conservatives have
fled after the purge at the Weekly Standard and National Review.

I was surprised by the author's rational take on the Meet the Press debacle, although
my opinion of Brokejaw is much lower than hers.

[hlthe2b]

4. I don't think TIna Brown is a conservative...

She used to publish Talk Magazine and was an editor of Vanity Fair earlier.... Isn't she a liberal? Looks like she's rounded up some conservative contributors, but.... :shrug:

[me b zola]

2. In my ideal world Amy Goodman would get the job

I agreed with the author about members of the MTP round table:

The Meet the Press panel needs fewer David Broders and more Christopher Hitchenses—irresponsible wits who can challenge the B-list senators and warhorse commentators who trundle on and download all that sonorous received wisdom. It needs fewer "Washington insiders" and more genuinely informed outsiders.

Of course I would like to see a better balance on the panel, Liberals and Progressives to balance the rw and libertarian voices.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Sure...And How About Kos Doing A Show On Faux?

I'm still surprised that a major network would give a lesbian a prime time political show. Add to that she's very liberal and you wouldn't have believed this would be the case just a couple years ago. It's a change in an industry where change usually comes through desperation, not choice.

The Sunday food fights are a lot of noise and zero substance. It's the video equivelent of the beltway old boys (and now a few girls) network that is more about status than it is about what's said. Above all, it's the "franchise" for these networks to suck up to the powers that be...they get used in return for using...not a place Rachel is comfortable or any other progressive or liberal journalist. These shows aren't about rocking the boat but the modern equivelent of the Soviet leaders standing on the Kremlin Wall...you look to see whose in and who isn't this week.

The corporates at General Electric, Viacom, Disney and Faux aren't ready to rock boats...I see them replacing Brokaw with yet another corporate sockpuppet and the network is loaded with them.