David Gregory’s Bad Press Gets Worse
19 April 2010 9:01 am by Taylor Marsh
The Sunday talk shows long ago became a talking point oasis for both Democrats and Republicans. A place where big shots come in to spin. Jay Rosen is pushing them to do better by allowing St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact to fact check what guests say. Interim host of “This Week,” Jake Tapper, has already met the challenge. David Gregory has refused, saying simply “People can fact-check Meet the Press every week on their own terms.”
David Gregory evidently feels that after watching “Meet the Press” his audience is supposed to Google what’s been said to see if lies were spread. He doesn’t feel he has any responsibility but to ask questions, and that it’s not his job to call his guests on spin or out right hyperbole being used in place of truth. After all, wouldn’t want to upset the chumminess he has with the big shots that are booked.
I’ve been on David Gregory for his horrendous booking practices, which began with the late Tim Russert. Women were always scarce with Tim, though he did have his favorite conservatives; but for instance, he rarely had women on his show to talk about abortion or religion, always an all male event, with foreign policy treated the same. His producer, Betsy Fisher, isn’t much interested in women being front and center regularly either. It’s nothing new for “Meet the Press,” though at least they started inviting Rachel Maddow on the show occasionally, because even if she’s not strong on political analysis, she’s terrific at issue politics, always able to strip the bark off of any Republican yielding fables instead of facts on the topic at hand, something that doesn’t interest Mr. Gregory.
Twitter has been abuzz over Rosen challenging Jake Tapper to fact check his guests since it began. Lots of people reading the tweets, also commending Tapper, including myself. I’ve exchanged several back and forth tweets with Tapper on other subjects finding him open and responsive. Not so with David Gregory who obviously believes he’s above talking to critics, especially if they’re outside his upper circle.
From Jay Rosen:
I see two other possibilities for his refusal to adopt the fact check: one banal, the other more troubling. The banal: He’s too proud to adopt something that a competitor picked up on first; it would look like a “me too” response and he is the market leader, first in the ratings and heir to the chair that Tim Russert held. The more disturbing possibility is that he thinks Tapper’s policy may give Meet the Press a competitive edge in booking guests who won’t want to be checked so vigorously. (As opposed to competing with an even better fact check, which would probably cause Bob Schieffer at Face the Nation to adopt the same policy, forcing the guests to accept the new rules or flee to cable, which has a fraction of the viewers.)
Look at it this way: the Washington politician who’s been on Meet the Press more than any other is John McCain. On April 6, Politifact’s truth-o-meter rated McCain a pants-on-fire liar for claiming that he never called himself a maverick. See what I mean?
Just recently Politico began interviewing the Sunday talkers about what’s happening on their shows, with David Gregory declining to be interviewed. He’s too big too bother, after all he is the moderator of “Meet the Press.”
As for Gregory being unwilling to fact checking his guests, coziness breeds collaboration. It’s also part of how we ended up in Iraq. The press wasn’t willing to do their jobs and challenge the lawmakers leading us into that mess. Dig for facts and challenge the lies. Evidently Mr. Gregory has forgotten that his job isn’t to simply book big guests, but it’s also to get information to the people that is actually the truth.
“Evidently Mr. Gregory has forgotten that his job isn’t to simply book big guests …”
I think it’s even scarier than “forgetting,” and not only with Mr. Gregory. And probably even beyond not knowing that the job is “to get information to the people that is actually the truth.” It’s quite deliberate — the really important piece is nicely summed up in your phrase, “coziness breeds collaboration.” Yep, and collaboration breeds coziness, a perfect circle of mutual back-scratching.
The purpose of the very important “talkers” is to accomodate the very important guests and their agendas. Of course, I know this is far from a new or unique observation.
David Gregory and MTP are simply irrelevant. No one but DC beltway types even watch this boring snugglefest anymore.
It’s the echo chamber effect of creating news. Somebody says something and somebody reports on what they said. The next thing you know it becomes the “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Facts are not required just the emotional response that’s been generated. Peace
I’ve stopped watching MTP. Russert drove me nuts for the reasons Taylor has pointed out and because he played the “gotcha” game with Pols who were not in favor and I always thought the way he played the game gave people no room to grow or evolve. It appeared to be “fact checking” but really it was another game altogether.During the Scooter Libby trial he was exposed as the Administration mouthpiece he was.
Gregory on the other hand insists on having old irrevelent out of power former big wigs.Who cares what they think? He also cannot conceive of a question that does not protect the upper class status quo. He appears to worry most that his set’s taxes might be raised.
Tapper is good but for some reason he is only temporary in the gig. For my money Candy Crowley is the best on Sunday.Her interview with Mitch McConnell made me laugh. She did everything but roll her eyes when he was lying out his you know what.
David Gregory is a big disappointment but then again, Saint Tim Russert was too. I really have a hard time watching Gregory because I ended up talking back at the television and I start to sound a bit batty but it is infuriating how Gregory never follows up or challenges his guests, whether Democrats or Republicans. It’s obvious that he is more interested in ingratiating himself to the Washington elites that he interviews than with providing any real factual analysis or government accountability. Even when he does the ‘ole Russert “gotcha” video clip of some past statement, it hardly qualifies as grilling his guests.
By the way, I don’t want to be the ant at the picnic and I am truly empathetic with/towards the Russert family, as I am with anyone who has a family member die suddenly, but why is Luke Russert interviewing President Clinton? Exactly what does Luke Russert have on his resume which makes him more qualified than anyone else to be jettisoned into the top ranks of pundit-journalism?
A question I have asked myself many times.
Jenna Bush also interviewed Clinton. I dunno.
Well, I guess I’d ask the same question about her too.