Meet the Press. Hmph.

I know it's kind of trivial, and I don't really watch Sunday talking-head shows that much anyway, but when it comes to where Americans (mostly) get their views on the issues of the day, our stalwart folks in the television medium, I kind of shudder. I do. One of the things I like about blogging, and the Internet in general, is that while there are troll-ish people who are happy to spread mindless disinfo, you can get good stories if you develop a sense of where to look; you begin to find sources of information that you trust, and while there are many partisan or biased writers out there (yours truly included), you have the luxury of listening to different voices and comparing and contrasting ideas--being an active editor of your own newsfeed. That ability kind of stimulates me in a way that being a passive consumer of tv news doesn't.

(Well, my family would attest that I'm not an all that actually passive television news consumer, what with the yelling at the poor electronic device that sends me images of dumb people saying dumb things and the occasionally expressive hand gestures. Ahem. But I do kind of dislike feeling my news is predigested for me, especially if I think I'm receiving it from the...ultimate point of digested material extraction.)

My thoughts on the replacement of David Gregory with Chuck Todd is that this is a bit of an improvement in that I think Todd is a more enthusiastic and curious personality. But I still have my reservations, to the effect that I think I'll somehow not like Meet the Press any more than I do now, and might end up liking Todd a hair less. The fault lies with the Meet the Press format, though, as I've said before.

Although speaking of things I've said before, I said then:

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 wondering 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.

And wouldn't you know it? We're getting graced with Luke Russert, who is like the "Fetch" of journalism. Why are they trying to make him happen, I wonder? (Hint--it's not because he knows stuff.) And Joe Scarborough, who makes occasional sense (I enjoyed one of his books that, incidentally, conservatives hated) but is a MSNBC shouty-head, will also be lending his opinions, for what they are worth.

The Powers that Be at NBC kind of really thought the problem was that the show wasn't insider-y enough. Hello? Unless they are willing to actually have political figures meet working journalists who ask questions, even hard ones, we don't have what the label says: "Meeting the Press".

And no, most other Sunday news talking heads shows are not any better. This Week with George Stephanopoulos is going to let Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Peter King, and Rep. Adam Smith be shouty, and then have some insider journos and strategists chat about shit tomorrow. That is the number one show in the ratings right now. I do not know if any of this is intended to be informative. And I frankly doubt it.