With Gregory, Opportunities for Meet the Press

With it all but official that NBC will choose David Gregory as the new moderator of Meet the Press, comes a tremendous opportunity to update the show, and continue to lead the field of Sunday programs. Or, the show could continue doing what it has done since Tim Russert took over the show in 1991, and face a slow decline.

NBC has to recognize a couple of things. First and foremost, my gut says the ratings for Meet the Press for more than a decade were more about brand loyalty to Tim Russert than to the show itself. There's no available data to prove it, but anecdotal evidence points to it being true. The format is really no different than Face the Nation, and yet MTP scored consistently higher. Then there's the fact that many people simply referred to the show as "Russert," as in, "Did you see Russert this weekend?" Who says, "Did you see Schieffer?"

Second, and somewhat related, NBC cannot and should not expect David Gregory to "fill the shoes" of Russert. I suspect David Gregory would tell you the same thing. Gregory's style is completely different than Russert's as a host. Race for the White House / 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue made that very clear. Leaving aside what you think of their analysis and reporting (and I know there's a ton of criticism out there), Russert's style was to use facts and past quotes to throw off politicians and policy makers, which made for great entertainment. Gregory is a much more "Devil's Advocate" type of questioner, relying much more on "what if's" than hard research. Both styles are valid, but very different.

And so, if NBC just keeps the current format, those who were loyal to the Russert brand are extremely likely to be disappointed by Gregory's very different way about him.

Here are three simple things NBC should do, to keep the show fresh, and build a new loyalty to the show itself.

1) Return to the panel format - There's a reason Tim Russert was called the "Moderator," because that was the original role of the host - to moderate a panel of questioners and guests. For any of the single guests, have two reporters sit aside Gregory, who cover the beat the guest comes from. Let them use their expertise and knowledge to play the role Russert did, using past statements and facts against the guest, and allow Gregory to speak to the bigger picture. There are tons of excellent reporters out there who barely make it on TV who could be fantastic panelists. For instance, if Secretary Gates is the guest, call upon New York Times Pentagon reporter Mark Mazzetti and the Washington Post's Tom Ricks to join in the questioning. This takes the pressure off Gregory, and allows for potentially much more interesting segments than just a one-on-one.

2) Include Bloggers from the left and right - On the panel discussion segments, it's far past time to make bloggers a permanent part of the table. First, bloggers are just as important in shaping opinion as most of the "pundits" they have on. Second, bloggers come with a built in fan base which would tune in to see them, keeping ratings up. Third, the phase I hate most on TV is when a reporter says, "Well, the bloggers think...." Like they read the blogs. They almost always have blog opinions way wrong, so why not actually have the bloggers on if they're so interested in their opinions? Fourth, does anyone really care to hear EVERY WEEK what David Broder and David Brooks have to say? Nothing against those guys, but there are other opinions out there, and ones who have their ear to the ground of the respective political bases. So, sure, keep a couple mainstream pundits. But rotate in bloggers from both sides each week.

3) No More Consultants! - I say this as a consultant. Please. It's not that I don't enjoy Bob Shrum tearing apart someone as he usually does. But, there are far more interesting and intelligent people out there who can debate all these issues in a substantive and engaging way, because they don't accept DNC and RNC talking points. How about some folks from outside the Beltway who rarely get the chance to talk on the really big shows? I might be biased because I used to work with him on the Hill, but David Sirota never fails to impress me when he's on with Rachel Maddow. How about getting him on there to represent the left? And, though I don't read enough conservative publications to know, I'm sure there are sharp, young conservatives from outside the Beltway who can be called upon as well. Unless the consultants are on there to represent their campaigns, please spare us all the very predictable "debates" they engage in.

The bottom line here is that now is the time for Meet the Press to shake things up, to recognize that the formula was getting stale, but Russert and the viewers loyal to him kept the show on the top. The 2008 election showed us the electorate is changing, and quick. Now it's time for Meet the Press to give us some "Change We Can Believe In."

Comments

[AJ39]

I applaud the idea of "no more consultants," but other than that you seem merely to be creating "This Week with George S... ."

I don't know how Gregory will do. I'm neither a fan nor a foe. I wasn't a fan of Russert's and would say more except it seems unseemly to speak ill of one who died before his time. However I hope Gregory can change the format to enliven and inform and somehow make it different from all the other talking heads/panel news shows. And not simply paly "got ya" journalism.

[Euranya]

David Gregory doesn't hold a candle to Tim Russert (I hope I'm allowed to say something nice about Tim Russert this time). Tweaking the format of the show won't help: A panel would become just another Sunday yell-fest, and as for including bloggers, well, who cares what bloggers have to say, except other bloggers?

[mvtaylor0487]

Same network that just aired that flop Rosie. What do you expect?

[truthglow]

Gregory, himself, tried that already, too, and it also flopped. He has done his pre-election show on MSNBC, and I who love the network, could not tolerate him. I watched MTP only for Russert. I could not stand Brokaw, and I will not watch Gregory. I predict that the new MTP ratings will drop precipitously in a very short time. This was a very unimaginative choice for moderator.

[capybara1950]

Eric, your advice to NBC is simply perfect. After all, being a panel of informed questioners is what made the program popular originally. You were too polite to mention that the program would benefit NBC limiting Gregory's role to introducing the guests and panelists and their books.

Ella & Annie, I'm with you. I think Maddow & Zakaria do the most intelligent work on our otherwise mediocre networks. Olbermann & Jon Stewart are what I watch instead of sitcoms. I enjoy their smart satire. I'm not sure the deadwood at NBC, CBS, ABC have the capability to catch up with informed, interested viewers. The very type of viewers that watch Sunday political programs.

[lynettema]

NBC 'shirts' are scared to death of the right wing. When the media stops pandering to the right, we may get some interesting and informative programming. Until then we will have David Gregory. It is an insult to Maddow and Olbermann that they could not be a moderator for a Sunday a.m. show. Maddow has had conservatives on her show and she is excellent and certainly not partisan. I say give the ladies a chance.

[trlrdealer]

David Gregory, what a disappointment. It's like we lost Tim again. Wow Tom Brokow is bad enough, couldn't you get O'Rilley, or Pat Buchanan? Sunday is the only day I get up and watch TV news shows. I won't be turning in Gregory. I'll bet the rateings will go way down. Bad move.

[EllaMcC]

First -- I just listened to David Gregory say that the GA runoff was "a tough runoff" -- since WHEN is Georgia "tough" for a Republican incumbent in a runoff? That is idiotic, and unfortunately it is a perfect snapshot of David Gregory. I used to sculpt my entire Sunday around MTP. The only thing I thought they could do that was worse than Brokaw was to install David Gregory. He is simply a lame journalist, and in reality Chuck Todd would have been a MUCH better choice if they felt compelled to stay within the NBC "family." (hee!) I think of Gregory more as a "host." Frankly, unless they take ALL of the emphasis off him -- harkening back to where the show originated like some of the above ideas offer -- the show will fail miserably. While I really liked Tim Russert, it was more about having tons of respect for him as a real journalist who would not allow a shallow show. All Gregory IS is shallow. I can think of several print journalists who would be reasonable choices, but apparently NBC can't think outside the box. They also -- actually -- would do well to use Rachel Maddow on the panel. While she is a partisan voice, she is incredibly well-versed, and she would be a good step toward "the bloggers" (whoever they speak of when they say that.)

[truthglow]

I agree. Chuck Todd is a wealth of information, and he is extremely interesting. David Gregory is BORING and uninspired.

[DebofMD]

David Greogry is BORING. DULL. BLAH.

[NotMcCain]

Gregory a "devil's advocate"? Well, that's one way to characterize the blatant right-wing bias of his questions.

He's biased. He's a poor journalist. And he's more boring than watching paint dry.

If NBC wants to revitalize MTP, they're NOT going to do it with David Gregory.

[newpotusplease]

what does it say about NBC if they allow Gregory, someone who has DISMAL, BAD, LOW ratings on his show on MSNBC, to host MTP? it says NBC is about nepotism and papa brokaw's prints are all over it

how are we supposed to watch David Gregory talk about the economy when we know that his wife Beth Wilkinson headed up Fannie Mae when it collapsed and was taken over by the government?

NBC insults the viewers if they pick Gregory

[truthglow]

They will be repaid by their low ratings! Who cares?

[rhondadavis28]

I'm not a fan of David Gregory. I don't watch his show at all.
I think there are plenty of better choices out there.
Hopefully NBC will find one.

[Clevelander18]

I figured that it would be David all along, especially since its time for him to give up the White House beat with a new president. While I am sure there will some changes, what makes MTP stand out IS the ability of the host to reach back and challenge the person being interviewed with facts from their own closet. That won't and should not change.

[ObamanextPresident]

Your ideas are all wonderful and, especially if Gregory is the choice, it is the only way MTP will survive. We all want and voted for Change We Can Believe In. We want serious discussion over REAL issues. No more spinning and framing. We need full, competent representation of the progressive (David Sirota, good) view on every show. We The People want the TRUTH now. No matter how painful we must now have all the information all the time. Please MSNBC step up to the plate.

[annieR]

Fareed Zakaria would have given MTP the gravity it needs to succeed. There's no sense of "got'cha" with Zakaria, only a deeply intellectual and knowledgeable effort to inform. Even Tim had a got'cha characteristic, which I'm afraid Gregory will intensify.

[NotMcCain]

Yes, Zakaria's "GPS" on CNN has been an unexpected pleasant surprise. MTP should try something different, too (and NOT with the most boring right-wing choice they could find as moderator--David Gregory).

[EllaMcC]

I just love GPS. It has become my "must watch" for Sunday, though I do miss a good US political show on Sunday mornings. It's a shame, since I categorically detest a lot of what CNN offers, but in a time when I can't stand most of the television media, Fareed Zakaria and Rachel Maddow have reaffirmed my faith that there CAN be gravitas and intelligence from both clearly biased figures like Maddow and not-clearly biased like Zakaria. What would be great is if they were the norm rather than wonderful surprises.

[goldnchyl]

game show host? I can see that. Everything else is spot on. This is the worse pick ever.

[dexxjones]

4) dance with karl rove for access
5) pretend that the country is center right.
6) make excuses when this show becomes the same ratings pothole as the daily gregory show on msnbc and pretend that its not because most progressives cannot stand gregory and the conservatives dont like him much either.

he belongs as a game show host. NOT as a moderator on a defining news program. sorry.

[Dustee]

7) Stop using all the rightwing talking points in his interviews.

[truthglow]

Put him on the Today Show.