NBC wanted Jon Stewart for Meet The Press

Posting commentary here, in short it does a good job summing up the problems with Sunday morning political talk shows, and what NBC was willing to do to rock the boat. Again, bloggy commentary, but imbedded with plenty of hot links.

So, any thoughts? I completely agree that the model is dead, and nothing short of a full reboot could change it. Should we expect faux neutrality, or do people want some bias and perspective to pepper their news? I used to listen to G Gordon Liddy on the radio, just for his reading of the news for twenty minutes every hour, yeah he offered commentary, but pre twitter that was a pretty useful service. Anthony Bourdain is CNN's ratings leader, and his show is hardly unbiased.

Would Sunday morning politics be more interesting with Stewart on Meet The Press, and Limbaugh over at This Week on AND.

Please no. We have enough "News for dummies" type shows in this country. The Sunday morning shows are really all that's left of real news and discussion without the bloviating nonsense that makes up cable news these days.

I agree with T.R. regarding the substance goal, but also agree with the blog post, that the current format is useless. I'd like to see these shows do some in depth reporting and less commentary. PBS' News Hour should be the template.

I would've been fine with Stewart hosting that show. Crom knows they need to shake things up if they want to stay in business.

And, hell, he's at least as qualified as fucking Stephanapoulos was when he went to work for ABC. Moreso, in fact, because Stewart is already a teevee guy.


I love the NewsHour for it's information, but jebus it's like they go out of their way to make the stories as boring as humanly possible.

I listen more than I watch because watching it hurts my eyes.

NPR is actually less boring to me because they go out of their way to gather natural sound and moments to bring you into the story. The NewsHour people apparently go out of their way to avoid things like that.

Its a nice idea to have Stewart on MtP, but it'd never work. The reason Stewart is able to do what he does (besides the $40 million/yr paycheck, only Judge Judy makes more than him) is because he doesn't have a network news division to answer to. Put Stewart on MtP, have him excoriate a member of Congress for saying something stupid, and the response of the members of that congressman's party will be to cut off access to NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and anyone else owned by Comcast. They'll give their exclusives, tips, leaks, etc., to everyone else, until NBC fires Stewart. What NBC's should do in that situation, but they won't, is not to fire Stewart, but tell their reporters, "Okay, they won't give us access, then start digging for dirt on them, and let's get as many of them voted out or kicked out as we possibly can."

They wouldn't even have to go for the tawdry stories like Senator Horndog banging one of his staffers, there's plenty of questionable dealings that they could hang the guys with. They won't do it, and we're suffering as a nation for it. The old saw is, "If it bleeds, it leads," and I'm fairly sure if you poked into how some of those guys are financing their campaigns, you'll find plenty of "blood."

I would have to agree with Tuckerfan. Network news are puppets. Network and cable news are not hard hitting or informative. They tell you what they want you to know, and they pull the strings of the networks to make sure they are not fully exposed.

One other problem I see is that the old sunday news programs are dying due to their timeslot. It is like trying to revamp AM radio. Put some cartoons on and some preliminary football shown in season. The present sunday morning demo is litterally dying. Let it go, and if you want to save the show try it in another time slot. Or actually promote it on the internet as something you could watch anytime. It is still going to flop out there, but at least you are pretending to have an actual net presence with a name.

Or get some damned balls, actually start playing the bully network and start demanding access and do some real investigative reporting and protect your FCC license with access on the internet. You know, take the obvious future by the horns and be in it instead of being part of a dying network culture of propaganda and omission. Yes, it would suck for those who have started to make internet news an option, but they could advance it a hell of a lot further and offer up something good. But do not worry that will never happen because I am insane and that idea is fucking nuts.

One other reason it wouldn't have worked:

Who really believes that the demographic that watches Stewart at night while laughing at his show would watch him on Sunday morning having serious interviews?

Stewart made the right call to avoid that trap.

Given that Comcast owns NBC and is a part owner in Hulu, I think that its safe to say, Stewart's fans wouldn't have had trouble watching him whenever they wanted.

Actually, one of the reasons people enjoy stewart is that he informs himself and has the wit to make a good argument on the spot and do a strong interview. The daily show could go on without him as they have a number of good writers and there is talent there. I think many would love to see him in a tough interview role. I am sure there would be a drop of dimwitted potheads and hipster morons, but I think he would actually gain a bigger mainstream audience if he went more serious. Unfortunately there is no mainstream outlet that would provide a more open audience for his serious interviews. He would not be able to break into the area of serious political interviews because I do not think he would be restrained by their leash.

Stewart has a massive liberal and democrat audience, but that is sort of coincidental as he got real famous during the Bush years. The guy can eviscerate Obama and other dems like Hillary and congressional morons. I would actrually like to see him hit a more neutral demographic because I am sure there is some hold back on ripping on dems due to audience concerns. Stewart would really be considered more independent given his views. It just happens that GWB was comedy gold, an d his supporters are easily butthurt.

I liked Tim Russert. I really can't think of anyone to fill his shoes that would be.....impartial?

I love Stewart, but detailed fact-based interviews aren't his strong suit. It's fine for 8 or even 20 minutes as part of a general discussion, but clearing up the facts of weekly political issues is something he does best as a presenter for a good researching staff, not so much in an interview.

Yeah, as kid in college he tended bar in one of the toughest punk clubs in Jersey (there was at least one murder in the bar, IIRC) and as a stand up comic he would have had to deal with hecklers on many nights. Handling the bullshit from a politician is nothing compared to that.

Deadly?

Oh, I see.

Are you shitting me? Jon Stewart was a liberal before he came on the Daily Show. He didn't just happen to make fun of Bush, he directly went after Bush and Cheney. I grew up with Jon Stewart from his time on MTV. I've watched the Daily Show since day one and was a Democrat up until 2009. Jon Stewart has always gone after Republicans more than Democrats. Yeah every once in a while Stewart will go after Harry Reid or Nanny Pelosi, but he hyperfocuses on Republicans. Is that because Republicans do more crazy shit than Democrats or is it out of bias. Stewart follows Obama's cues when it comes to talking about the "do nothing Congress that won't cooperate", yet never points out the fact the Harry Reid is often the reason nothing gets done in the Senate. He never points out the fact that the House offers bills all the time, but the Senate refuses to take them up. It's easier and funnier to just blame Republicans. You really think Jon Stewart is going to ask Harry Reid about any of this:

?

You think Jon Stewart would ask Nanny Pelosi about where in the Constitution she would find the authority for Obamacare? Jon Stewart would not be any different than any of the other hacks at MSNBC except he would be funny and not pretend to be unbiased.

While the guy is overall liberal and I don't find his schlick particularly funny, he has been hitting it out the park in a few segments I've seen regarding health care. One interview he had on about nine months back addressed a big sticking point about the mandated health coverage has done fuck all to drop prices on medical care (of course not when one can use Uncle Sam's platinum card?) and how ridiculous it is that one prescription of a cancer treatment costs as much as my car. I gsined more respect for the guy after that.

I've got better things to do with my Sunday mornings than listen to political bloviating of any stripe, so I wasn't interested in this thread until this caught my eye:

Haven't seen every single episode, but hadn't noticed any "bias" in those I have watched.

So what's the contention here? "He should focus on Murican food; we don't need all that furrin stuff"? Or just a more general "Cooking shows [unless it's Paula Deen the Cholesterol Queen] have a librul bias"?

I was confused by that comment to, is he a political commentator?

Celebrity chef who travels the globe sampling various cuisines and highlighting the customs, languages, and culture of the people he visits.

Go figure.

Yup. Pansy-ass bleeding heart librul

Don't tell garamet that.

That healthcare costs have been spiraling out of control ever since for-profit insurers were allowed into the market during the Truman administration? Anyone who doesn't still live with his parents knows that.

Of course, you believe the reform was enacted solely to annoy you, so the following will be wasted on you:

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...x/2007/03/a_short_history_of_health_care.html

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40834.pdf

Please don't bother reading them.

Doesn't FF have you on ignore.

Nah, that was yesterday. I don't think he actually does put anyone on Ignore; it's just his way of backing out of yet another untenable position.

So, let's see how 'flow defines "bias":

"Bias"? Sounds like something 'flow would subscribe to.

Also something you'd think 'flow could get behind.

What else?

Strong opinions, but I don't recall 'flow ever singing the praises of any of these guys.

So what's the problem? Ah, here we go:

Bad, bad Bourdain. He hurted 'flow's feelings that time. Thou shalt not speak ill of the Tea Party. And yet, on another occasion Bourdain seems to have softened his view:

Beer and barbecue, yeah. But bias?

All clear, cut and dry evidence he's an evil librul, garamet

Not surprising as NBC News is basically regarded as a joke anyway.

Die in a fire.

Why don't you go first, and then based on what happens, I will advise TLS to either follow or abstain.

Shoot your mom.