Chuck Todd Gives Up the Game

Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press and one of the worst “journalists” in the media, just admitted to what anyone else who has worked in journalism already knew, that the reason why the big networks won’t really do their job is because they know they won’t get interviews if they’re too tough on politicians.

The Daily Show‘s Lewis Black said that it was unfair to blame comedy for cynicism when many Americans were even more angry than comedians.

“I have watched you and everybody else,” he told Todd, “where somebody comes on, and I don’t know how you do it because I’d be barking at them.”

“We all sit there because we know the first time we bark is the last time we do the show,” Todd explained. “There’s something where all of the sudden nobody will come on your show.”

Which is why no one should take you or your fellow hacks seriously. The only real journalism going on is in print, either in newspapers or the internet. If you are failing to ask tough questions and do real investigative journalism because you’re afraid of not getting access, you’re no longer a journalist, you’re a lapdog.

"I think it's pretty obvious that Pence is already de facto president, has been since ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"No can do, er, bonobo. The only guarantee is that they are sinfully delicious. Even ..."

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Heeeey . . . that gives me a great idea!I'll put a cherry on top!Mmmmm! ..."

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Pure is for water and heroin. When it comes to women a lack of purity ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    Oh for the good old days when questioners like Lawrence E. Spivak weren’t afraid to serve up good brush back pitches, rather then the gopher balls that pantywaists like Todd serve up.

  • davidworthington

    Used to be that if politicians wanted national exposure there were 3 channels available. But now, with tons of cable, the internet, and all the other little sites, the networks no longer have a monopoly and have to pander in order to keep people coming to their shows. More voices get heard, but nobody has to be able to defend difficult positions because Todd is ultimately correct on this. It shouldn’t be that way, and I wish tough questions would be asked, but there is a reason that so few politicians are/were willing to go on Stewart and Colbert.

  • zmidponk

    Love him or hate him, one thing you can say about Jeremy Paxman is that he is most certainly not afraid to ask hard questions, and keep asking until he either gets an answer or it becomes abundantly clear no answer will be forthcoming, for example:

    Maybe I’m not understanding something, but, if people like Paxman can do that over here and still get interviews with prominent people in politics, why can’t others do things like that on your side of the pond? I mean, even if it’s the case that they simply would refuse to appear, all you have to do is report the story, then say ‘we extended an invitation to [relevant person/organisation/party/whatever] for an interview on this matter, but they declined to appear’.

  • justsomeguy


    The difference is in the standards of the consumers. American politicians get away with what they do because American voters and media consumers *allow* it. Americans are willing to accept deflection as an actual answer. Americans are willing to accept he-said-she-said stenographer reporting in place of actual journalism. Americans are more interested in spectacle than substance, and that’s reflected in our for-profit media machine that’s built for getting and keeping attention more than it is for reporting facts.

  • Taz

    I wonder how Mr. Todd explains the fact that he and his colleagues are perfectly willing to play hardball, to keep pressing for answers, when the subject is something titillating like a sex scandal. In that case, nothing stops them from getting at the truth.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Americans also don’t have anything equivalent to Question Time. Say what you will of it, Question Time creates the expectation that politicians, right up to the PM, can’t just dodge an issue.

  • royandale

    I’ve always thought we ought to have Question Time in Congress, with the Pres in attendance and on the spot, too. But since no one would attend, from any branch of government, we’d be staring at an empty chamber on C-SPAN.

  •!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    But what’s the point in having them come to your show if you aren’t going to ask hard questions? “Journalists” today worry so much about access, but what’s the access for if they’re not going to be journalists?