The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: chuck todd
Chuck Todd

'Impossible Situation': Chuck Todd Assails NBC Brass Over McDaniel Hire

Two days after NBC News' Friday, March 22 announcement that former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel had been hired by the network as a political analyst, NBC's Meet the Press host Kristen Welker interviewed the ex-GOP leader Sunday, grilling McDaniel about past statements she's made disregarding the 2020 presidential election results.

After years of pushing ex-President Donald Trump's Big Lie that the election was stolen from him by President Joe Biden and the Democrats, the former RNC chair told Welker. "The reality is Joe Biden won." CNN reports McDaniel has "has repeatedly attacked the network and its journalists, assailed the news media as 'fake news' and promoted false claims around the 2020 vote, as an on-air commentator ahead of the 2024 presidential election."

Following her conversation with McDaniel, Welker sat down with former Meet the Press host and NBC News veteran Chuck Todd, asking him to share his "takeaways" from the interview.

"Look, let me deal with the elephant in the room," Todd said, telling Welker, "I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBC News. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to mess up her contract."

The former NBC host continued, "She wants us to believe she was speaking for the RNC, when the RNC was paying for her. So she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who is paying her? Once at the RNC she did say that, Hey I'm speaking for her party, I get that, that's part of the job. So, what about here?"

Todd added, "I will say this: I think your interview did a good job at exposing many of the contradictions. And look, there's a reason why a lot of journalists at NBC are uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination. So, that's where you begin here. And so, when NBC made the decision to give her NBC News' credibility, you gotta ask yourself what does she bring NBC News?"

"And when we make deals like this — and I've been at this company a long time — you're doing it for access. Access to audience. Sometimes it's access to an individual. And we can have a journalistic ethics debate about that. I'm willing to have that debate. If you told me we were hiring her as a technical adviser to the Republican convention, I think that would be certainly defensible. If you told me, 'we're talking to her, but let's see how she does in some interviews,' and maybe vet her with actual journalists inside the network.

Todd emphasized, "I do think, unfortunately this interview is always gonna be looked through the prism of, 'who is she speaking for?'" I think you did everything you could do," Todd told Welker. "You got put into an impossible situation. Booking this interview, and then all of a sudden the rug is pulled out from under you, and you find out she's being paid to show up?"

"It's unfortunate for this program, but I am glad that you did the best that you could," he added.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Chuck Todd

Chuck Todd And The Myth Of Liberal Media Bias

Reprinted with permission from Press Run

Surveying the media landscape and seeing a Beltway press corps that's constantly on the run from Republican attacks, Meet The Press moderator Chuck Todd this week urged his colleagues to stand up to the right-wing bullies, who have spent decades demonizing journalists.

"We should have fought back better in the mainstream media. We shouldn't [have] accepted the premise that there was liberal bias. We should have defended," Todd told The Verge. "We ended up in this both-sides trope. We bought into the idea that, 'Oh my God, we're perceived as having a liberal bias.'"

He added: "Where we did get lost in this, and this sort of happened to mainstream media in particular, is that we did let Republican critics get in our heads, right? The Republicans have been running on, "There's a liberal bias in the media." This has been a 45-year campaign."

Technically, it's been a 52-year campaign, with Vice President Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" attack on the press in 1969 often cited as the launching point of the choreographed crusade.

The good news is that every 12 or 24 months Todd emerges and makes these types of welcomed, clear-eyed pronouncements about the press, calling out right-wing lies, and urging his colleagues to do better in fighting against dishonest GOP attacks.

The bad news is Todd then goes back to work at NBC and rarely follows his own advice. He makes no structural changes to the programs he oversees to make sure they don't fall prey to GOP tactics. It's easy to view his pronouncements as performative, directed at those who are concerned about journalism and about the state of our democracy in the face of a Republican Party that broke its pact with common sense and instead now worships at the altar of a Mar-a-Lago retiree.

Todd refuses to follow his own lead and produce consistently clear, aggressive journalism, while not fretting about potential GOP pushback.

A quick example.

During Trump's second impeachment trial, Todd introduced a Meet The Press segment in which voters from a toss-up district in Michigan were interviewed about the House proceedings. Touted as a way to take the temperature of everyday voters outside of the "Beltway," the sit-down with six voters from Kent County, Michigan, offered a chance to hear if heartland denizens "cared" about impeachment. Except there was a problem: Every voter interviewed was a Republican, and every voter interviewed opposed impeachment. ("I don't even care. It's just noise.")

This makes no sense. If you wanted anecdotal evidence of the nation's response to impeachment, you'd interview a wide cross-section of voters. Instead, Todd only talked to Republicans even though the Michigan district he focused on is evenly split among Democrats and Republicans. What would explain this type of illogical press behavior other than a fear of upsetting conservatives — of being tagged with the Liberal Media Bias charge?

Todd lamented to The Verge that the press has fallen into a "both sides trope," where journalists strain to place blame on Republicans and Democrats even when it should not be distributed that way. Yet earlier this year, after another deadly gun rampage in America, and after the Republican Party once again categorically refused to support any possible gun safety legislation, Todd went on Meet the Press and blamed Congress — Both Sides — for not doing anything to stop the deadly plague.

In response to my media critiques, PRESS RUN readers often ask, why? Why does the press behave the way it does? Why does it engage in Both Sides nonsense in an effort to water down irresponsible GOP behavior? Why does it view so many news cycles through the prism of Republican talking points? Without question, the overriding cultural reason is the fear of being hit with the Liberal Media Bias label.

I don't mean that's what's driving journalists on an hourly, granular level, or that before filing a story or going on the air they consciously think about GOP attacks. But it does remain the dominant ethos and it's been ingrained in newsrooms for decades. (Being the target of right-wing smear campaigns is no fun and it can damage journalism careers.) Consequently, the press spends an inordinate amount of time trying to prove it's not guilty of Liberal Media Bias.

That institutional fear helps explain the inexplicable, like why so many news organizations refused to call Trump a liar for four years, even as they documented his thousands of lies. That was a deliberate decision to turn away from the truth —and from accurate language — while covering the most dangerous president in American history. Afraid that calling Trump a "liar" in straight news reports would spark cries of Liberal Media Bias, the press capitulated. In the process, Trump used his avalanche of untruths to chip away at our democratic institutions.

Eric Alterman wrote an entire, must-read book in 2003 expertly debunking the bias myth, What Liberal Media? Conservatives "know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across–or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs," he wrote. I made a similar effort with my book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, where I focused on the media's failure during the run-up to the Iraq War: "To oppose the invasion vocally was to be outside the media mainstream and to invite scorn. Like some nervous Democratic members of Congress right before the war, mainstream media journalists seemed to scramble for political cover so as to not subject themselves to conservative catcalls."

Still, the Liberal Media Bias myth persists and remains a driving engine of the conservative movement. It's arguably more potent today because Trump made it a centerpiece of his political appeal to hate the press. It would be helpful if journalists like Chuck Todd actually took their own advice and combated the fiction head on.

Media Won't Face Truth About Republicans' Impeachment Cowardice

Media Won't Face Truth About Republicans' Impeachment Cowardice

Reprinted with permission from Press Run

Following a day of gut-wrenching surveillance videos depicting a violent, deadly mob teeming into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, some journalists covering Trump's impeachment trial expressed bewilderment at how Republican senators serving as jurors would be able to vote to dismiss the charges.

"How will they justify acquitting the man who sent a mob for them to stop the counting of electoral votes?" asked CNN, wondering if, "Republican senators will find their conscience changed, or vote the way Trump wants them to"?

On NBC, Chuck Todd stressed that Republicans faced a difficult choice because, "History is not going to look kindly on this acquittal vote." Specifically, he mentioned how Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was an traditionalist who cares "about these institutions," and that he's "keeping an open mind" about impeachment.

This is GOP mythology. McConnell has already voted twice to stop the impeachment trial. The idea the Beltway press keeps pushing that he might suddenly turn on Trump with a dramatic flurry and vote to convict seems like pure fantasy. And McConnell supposedly cares so much about "institutions" that he rammed through a U.S. Supreme Court nominee days before the 2020 election, four years after refusing to even hold hearings on President Barack Obama's Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

McConnell is reportedly telling his GOP colleagues that the decision to convict or not should be a vote of conscience. But what if there's little or no conscience left inside the Republican caucus? How does the press adequately relate that defining feature in its impeachment news coverage?

Republicans who vote to acquit a remorseless Trump will sleep just fine at night. These are the same group of Republicans who advanced the Big Lie all winter that Trump may have won the election, after having lost by seven million votes. It's the same collection that stood by while the White House unleashed the most vicious and sustained attack on U.S. election integrity in the last century, and who said nothing while Trump demanded his political enemies be jailed, as well as pressured Georgia elections officials in January to go "find" him enough votes (11,780) to swing that state's election tally.

Why on earth do D.C. journalists think that voting "No" on impeachment would change the equation and create an ethical dilemma for Republicans? Why are reporters so committed to the myth that a GOP tipping point exists?

The wayward assumption continues to be, that of course Republicans support free and fair elections. Of course they oppose white supremacy. And of course they want to help families that have been devastated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Those claims have no basis in fact today. Yet that remains the Beltway media's starting point. Specifically, that the GOP has been torn apart by Trump and there's a burning desire to "move on" from his erratic and hateful ways. That a "reckoning" awaits.

That's the story the Beltway press likes to tell. It's just not true.

I'm with Esquire'sCharles Pierce: "The other state of being for which I no longer have time is mystification. As in, "How can Republicans still essentially vote in favor of the mob that came after the Congress with blood in its eyes?""

CNN reported this week, "For most Republican senators, Wednesday's presentation did not seem to affect how they'll vote." But why? Why after seeing intangible proof that the Trump mob set out to murder members of Congress, including Republicans, why are Republican senators overwhelmingly going to sign off on acquittal? In other words, what is wrong with the Republican Party? That's the simple, central question that does not get asked. Instead, we see punditry about how Trump still maintains political control over the party, and GOP members are concerned about a backlash.

Analyzing why Republican Florida senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott can't be swayed, Politico noted, "Rubio is on a clear path for re-election, but he would invite a GOP challenger if he doesn't stand with the former president…Scott, now running the campaign arm of Senate Republicans, remains on a track that could make him a contender in 2024."

That's how the GOP's radical, unethical nature continues to be normalized — empowering Trump's lawbreaking is presented as simply being smart politics.

When Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) did surprise the GOP this week by becoming the sixth member to vote in favor of the impeachment trial continuing, the New York Times headline read, "A Louisiana Senator's Turn Towards the Political Middle." That suggests that only players in the political middle (and on the left) are concerned by Trump's inciting of a mob. That framing absolves those on the right, despite the fact that anyone with a conscience ought to be concerned.

Remember that this is the same press corps that slow-walked Trump's months-long attempted coup, until it broke out into horrific violence on January 6, catching the media completely off guard.

Instead of accurately describing his post-election, authoritarian attempt to steal an election by invalidating millions of votes, for weeks and months we saw news updates about Trump's "tactics," his vague "moves" and "chicanery"; his legal "strategy" and "power play" while "sulking" and "brooding" inside the White House. Early on, Politico dismissed Trump's ongoing rampage as nothing more than "performance art" and "bad sportsmanship."

The Republican Party under Trump has morphed into something sinister and dangerous. The model that the press used for decades to cover the GOP is now clearly obsolete.

Trump Describes His Chaotic Decision-Making On Iran Airstrike

Trump Describes His Chaotic Decision-Making On Iran Airstrike

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

In a new interview with Chuck Todd of NBC News, President Donald Trump gave extensive details about the process that led him to abort airstrikes against Iran that were on the brink of being launched Thursday night.

Reports broke late Thursday night that Trump has ordered the attack in response to Iran’s destruction of a U.S. drone on Wednesday. Those reports indicated that Trump had given the go-ahead for the attack, but then changed his mind. In the interview with Todd, Trump suggested he had never officially given the order to go ahead.

“Nothing is green-lighted until the very end, because things change,” Trump said. “But we had something ready to go, subject to my approval. And they came in, they came in about a half an hour before, they said ‘Sir, we’re about ready to go.’ I said, ‘I want a better definition…’”

“Planes in the air?” asked Todd.

“No, no, we’re about ready to go,” Trump said. “No, but they would have been pretty soon. And things would have happened to a point where you wouldn’t turn back or couldn’t turn back, so they came and they said, ‘Sir, we’re ready to go, we’d like your decision.’ I said, “I want to know something before you go. How many people will be killed?’ In this case, Iranians. I said, ‘How many people are going to be killed?’ Uh, ‘Sir, I’d like to get back to you on that.’ Great people, these generals. They came back, said, ‘Sir, approximately 150.’ And I thought about it for a second, and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, a plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said, ‘Go ahead.’ And I didn’t like it. I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

Now, since Trump is an unrepentant liar, it’s always important to treat his stories with high levels of skepticism. It’s hard to know how accurate this story is. And on the one hand, if it is relatively accurate, it shows welcome restraint and discretion from a president who genuinely does seem to want to avoid a disastrous war with Iran, despite his top advisers’ clear inclinations to escalate conflict.

But as national security lawyer Bradley Moss pointed out, the process Trump described sounds haphazard and reckless, leaving the ultimate momentous decision up to instinct or luck. So either Trump is overseeing an amazingly ill-conceived decision-making process, or he’s outright lying about a moment of global significance. Since the Pentagon is currently in transition between two unconfirmed acting secretaries of defense, and the country hasn’t had a Senate-confirmed defense secretary since the beginning of the year, it’s not hard to imagine that the military decision-making process is warped.

“That we were this close to the final ‘go order’ and Trump claims that he had never previously been told of an anticipated casualty figure reflects either a total breakdown in the briefing process or Trump is actively misleading people on what he knew and when,” Moss said on Twitter.

Watch the clip below: