The Problem is Probably "Meet the Press" Itself

 

Above you see an example of the level of the discussion on Meet the Press. The goofballery of David Brooks has been amply covered, from my colleague at Rumproast, Bette Noir, to Charles P. Pierce at Esquire, to the premier internet Brooks scholar, Driftglass. But much as it bears repeating that Brooks is a man of dubious authority to speak in love with his own voice, a man whose discussion of the Obama Administration's "manhood" with respects to foreign policy is redolent of personal hang-ups not the least of which is a definition of masculinity dependent upon aggression (a bluntness, you'll note, he preemptively apologized for--nota bene, Maureen Dowd would never apologize for the same) but whose remarks also occur when, in the War on Terror which still ongoing, another handful of people, this time in Yemen, were smoked by drones because, apparently, that's the not-aggressive way we're doing things, now--did ya notice this is a discussion on Meet the Press?

Meeting the press via Meet the Press is kind of awful. Not to fully exculpate the blandness of David Gregory's helming of the Sunday staple, but if NBC wants to get to the bottom of the low ratings for this show--uh, have they tried watching it? Because they might find a little more to worry about than whether Gregory is...psychologically in the game? (Seriously, is this a thing?) Hm:

Last year, the network undertook an unusual assessment of the 43-year-old journalist, commissioning a psychological consultant to interview his friends and even his wife. The idea, according to a network spokeswoman, Meghan Pianta, was “to get perspective and insight from people who know him best.” But the research project struck some at NBC as odd, given that Gregory has been employed there for nearly 20 years.

 Huh? Maybe David Gregory has had some challenges in his role at Meet the Press, not in the least following in the footsteps of Tim Russert, who, having passed tragically too young, was, perforce, a bit hagiographized. And that may have left him wondered a tad if he was just a space-warmer, a regent over the show until the dauphin Luke Russert was installed or until the MTP powers that be gave up entirely and just let Sen. John McCain host the damn show. But for crying out loud, if he can show his face on television as a journalist after being MC Rove's back-up dancer, then what can't he live down? Maybe he isn't the greatest interviewer. Maybe he is lackluster, underprepared, and doesn't challenge his guests sufficiently.  So--granted.  Maybe some of us lefties are accurate in supposing he leans a little right--but you know what? Chris Wallace does also IMHO, but I like him better as an interviewer.

No, David Gregory is not the sole problem. Tim Russert is fondly remembered, but during his tenure, the program had many of the same flaws.  Politicians and pundits seek out this kind of clique-y, access-y venue not to be exposed, but to...expose themselves?  And unless there is value added to that, I'm afraid the program gets old.

We have Met the Press, and they are banal.