« Grand Old party, grand old scare tactics. | tpmgary's Blog | Republicans--the time difference between their bodies and their ideas. »
Top bloggers should broadcast a "real" Meet the Press on Sunday mornings
It seems follow up questions have become obsolete.
On Meet the Press this morning, now hosted by David Gregory, John Boehner recited the following pre-written and widely distributed Republican talking point:
-"there aren't enough tax cuts in Obama's plan and that's what average American families need."
David Gregory didn't follow up with
"Aren't you really talking about giving tax cuts to America's richest 1%? Because the plan already cuts taxes for average American families. It sounds like you're pushing for something similar to former President Bush's economic policy."
This example, and tons of others, should inspire Josh or a panel of top bloggers to broadcast an hour long show just like Meet the Press, but with tough questions. Get the same caliber of guests as most of the Sunday morning talk shows.
Get one of the news networks to carry the program, or do it on the internet and do such a great show that it becomes the first place viewers, bloggers, all over the world go to see how journalism is supposed to be conducted.
Advertisement
I am for this. Shaeffer is 105. Monkey faced Gregory is almost a total waste of time and I will not watch him anymore. ABC was not too bad this AM but I can't watch Cokie Roberts anymore.
I will not watch Fox except during the last two election nites because I like to watch them weep.
CNN at around 10 or 11 central is kind of a bash the press show that has its good points.
A Sunday talk show set up by Josh, Greenwald, Walsh,
and others would be something I would want to see or read.
January 25, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a great idea. I believe the impact of blogs is actually underestimated. Not so many blog, but those who do also talk about what they read and it's the talk that gets repeated over and over again that spreads to a much wider audience.
January 25, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell: Agreed. That's the reason the GOP slime machine failed to get anything to stick in 2008. The truth went viral thanks to bloggers, youtube, and education about the MSM's failings.
January 25, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, a roundtable with, say, Josh Marshall, Markos Moulitsas and Glenn Greenwald?
Below is a list of Republican leaders. Next to the name are the odds I'll lay on said person appearing on such a program.
John McCain - 1:2
John Cornyn - 100:1
Eric Cantor - 25:1
John Boehner - 50:1
Mitch McConnell - 50:1
Arlen Specter - 1:1
Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin - off the board
Which is to say, the program is a great idea, but I pity the executive producer trying to get a "MTP"-quality lineup out of the loyal opposition.
January 25, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than offering no prop, I should offer King, Bachmann and Palin as a group. I'd still say they're 1000-1 for any of them to go on this proposed show, though. :-)
January 25, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why give that trio more face time? I hope I never have to see any of them again. Besides, such a forum would not be informative; it would just have ghoul value. I would like to see a real discussion.
I don't suppose anyone would ask Senator Boner why "borrowing and spending" is fine if it pays for a bogus war, and for enriching his party's friends like Halliburton and Black Water. He just seems to dislike spending in our own country.
Or how about this: What new jobs have the top 1% created with their previous tax cuts? List a few, John. They have not gone to job creation; they have paid for mergers, which end up eliminating jobs; they have paid for planes, cars, and houses as well as other toys.
January 25, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why give them more face time? For the same reason I'm sure Chris Matthews would kill to have Michele Bachmann back on his show, and the same reason why Olbermann and Maddow all but begged Palin to come on their shows during the election. They make for must-see TV - even if what you're seeing is an intellectual train wreck.
I agree that the discussions wouldn't be terribly substantive, but the lack of substance (especially with the panel I suggested) would be the fault of the guests.
There are about 10 good follow-up questions for Boehner. I would give Gregory credit for being able to think of most of them. However, he lacks the cojones to actually ask them, lest he not get that high-profile guest back on his show.
MTP, from what I've seen so far, is now basically a free ride, and that does a grave disservice to Tim Russert's legacy, regardless of who the guests are.
January 25, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drivers who make $250,000 a year.
January 25, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? They will do anything to get on the tee vee! Especially that oily Eric Canter (from my state, sorry to say). His mug shows up bobbing and weaving every time a camera comes near him. He is inarticulate and not at all smart, but you wouldn't notice because he gets to say a talking point which has nothing to do with the question he was just asked, and then the talking head says, "Thank you. That was Eric Canter, minority whip." as if he didn't even realize he had been blown off.
I don't think it would be hard to find people; I think it would be hard to make them accountable with good questions and follow-up, because it is something they have NEVER been faced with before.
January 25, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with you about Repubs wanting TV time. However, you have to remember the spirit of Gary's original proposal, and then I believe you'll see why it would be so hard to put together a "Meet The Press"-type guest list with top Republicans.
There's a difference between being on TV, and being on TV facing a lineup that you know is (a) opposed to you on most issues, and (b) smart enough to ask you the toughest possible follow-up questions.
Would Cantor go on MTP with Gregory? In a heartbeat. Would he go on a show like the one I proposed, with Marshall, Moulitsas and Greenwald as his questioners? I find that a much less assured proposition - and, if he did, I feel pretty certain he wouldn't have an encore.
January 25, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might be right, but with their egos, I think they would consider it just another glam moment. Maybe after some experience with these guys they would demur. Are you sure that our guys would do the kind of job you're talking about? Oh, if wishes were Tee Vee shows!
ps: Canter is too dumb to know better.
January 25, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need more "fair and balanced". We need "smart and sassy". "This Week's" roundtable would have been great if Steph had just had on Paul Krugman, Carly Fiorina, and then a leftie journalist like William Greider or Robert Kuttner.. We have to retire Cokie, Sam, George Will, Bob Shrum, Tom Friedman, David Broder, etc etc.
When we've got such great new stars like Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald, David Sirota, Naomi Klein, Nomi Prins, Arianna, Thom Hartmann, Dave Marsh, Mark Thompson, Bill Fletcher, we could have a new cool smart program. But the Fat Cats do not want such a show. Like the Israeli official that told Richard Engel that they had to "control the image" in Gaza so they refused to allow reporters in, the Fat Cats also want to control the image and message here in the U.S. This is part of keeping the myth of democracy going.
Start an internet show for sure. And Do like I did and get a local radio station to give you some time. We have a weekly show that is the only alternative to right wing radio. We have built our audience over 4 years. We are now the most listened to of the local shows. Probably because we were right about the economy. We had Dean Baker on almost two years ago. Last week we had on Rick Perlstein. And now we are streaming live every Saturday from 2-5PM Mountain Time on kmmsam.com. Go to the enemy and see if you can get a slot. They are trying to cut back staff,so if you offer to do it for free, you might get a gig.
January 25, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam, Cokie and George have an audience of people over age 70, i.e., their peers. No one is actually taking them seriously.
January 25, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot about your radio show. I hope it is going well and I want you to do your own post on it.
With the long hours driving and sitting in front of a microphone, I realize you have enough to do. But free advertising aint bad.
January 25, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea in general (especially with the proposed panel of Josh Marshall, Markos Moulitsas and Glenn Greenwald), but on principal I can't support anything that gives that airhead Arianna Huffington any more face time.
January 25, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arianna has a degree in Economics from Cambridge. She's written 12 books and Huffington Post is one of the first online newspapers that is successful.
Agree with her on not, but she's not an airhead.
January 25, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ann Colture cum laude from Cornell, received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School where was also an editor of the Michigan Law Review. She is the author of seven books.
On principal I also can't support anything that gives that airhead Ann Coulter any more face time.
January 25, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be: Ann Coulter graduated cum laude from Cornell
dammit.
January 25, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
KGB, I think you have an inordinate focus on Coulter. Have you been having those dreams about her, as she enters the hotel room with one of those low cut dresses and.....
Wait a minute, that was my dream last night.
January 26, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole communications model is changing and the more interesting up to the minute journalism generally shows up on the blogs first. Television broadcasts can't keep up with the pace in which information flows on the internet.
By the time Sunday morning rolls around, there's nothing anyone says that's new--that I haven't heard parroted by others throughout the week. News is never made on these Sunday shows.
Television is merely a PR platform for politics.
The kind of show I'm proposing shouldn't allow PR. I mean, the Sunday shows aren't supposed to be a press junket for politicians. This new Sunday show should ask credible tough questions, piercing questions, of both Democrats and Republicans. So the panel would have to be bipartisan. I can see Josh or Glenn asking Obama about the ethics waiver for Bill Lynn with equal persistence as I can see them asking John Boehner about demanding tax cuts for the rich in the new stimulus package.
Sunday shows review news of the week.
The Sunday show I'm proposing would make news.
I would make it a point to get politicians to respond as individuals, not as representatives of their party's talking points.
In other words, if you're interviewing Kitt Bond, don't ask him questions that any Republican can answer. Speak directly to his own record, his own state, his own lobbyist contributors.
Same with someone like Jay Rockefeller. It seems he's appalled at how far the NSA wiretapping went, snooping on journalists. Appalled at how our telecommunications were intercepted so easily, without deference to constitutional protections. Yet he was the number one advocate for telecom immunity.
How does he reconcile that?
More and more people are turning to the internet for news and if the show gets enough publicity, word of mouth, grass roots, etc., if it becomes the number one destination for this kind of stuff, (as MTP once was for television), the Republicans can avoid going on it at their own peril.
January 25, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your points. News instead of rehash. That is what has happened. When I review what I liked today, it all had to do with what I learned and not how many gotcha's did we score today.
Moyers is fun for an old man like me to watch.
The guest is on point with the issue at hand even though he or she is in a different time zone politically. But the guest is presenting research of some kind. Videos are shown.
What is happening in Argentina. What do you propose to help those people or trade with those people or just talk to those people?
January 25, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm unsure if bloggers would be the best candidates, but someone needs to do a real 'meet the press'.
When Russert interviewed any of the democrat leadership so many days had been spent editing, revising, and rehearsing the scripts that often the subjects were no longer topical.
David Gregory doesn't seem to want to break that tradition at least.
January 25, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think the internet should be the medium, though. Because corporate media is too interwoven in the old boy's network.
Public television does well, but not enough young people watch or support it.
Going on a tangent here, but the two most influential areas of government at this point in history are the FCC and Department of Energy.
By influential, I mean, these two areas, communications and energy, will evolve or devolve, depending on political influence.
Protecting the freedom of the internet and protecting diversity and independence in communications across all media are critically important to the survival of our democracy
January 25, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, and it wouldn't hurt to allow the energy industry their independence by lifting a lot of restrictive and inane regulations. Especially like allowing them to develop domestic oil production. Wherever it's at.
January 25, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, a lot of those regulations were lifted in September, when Congress failed to renew them.
We can debate the pros and cons of expanding domestic oil production. It is a fallacy to think that we have enough of an untapped supply to make even a tiny bit of difference. If, say ANWR were produced, or any other off-shore "mini-supply", the primary beneficiary would be the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of oil.
There's a relationship between our addiction to war and our addiction to oil. And I don't favor either.
January 25, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate the creative take of your blog. Long enough to make your point, but not so long as to make for tedious reading.
January 25, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink