The schedule can be grueling. “That’s the hardest part of this,” he said. “I always say it’s more like being a doctor; you’re always on call. I’m mindful of that to the point that I drink less, which is kind of sad. I’m just mindful in general. You’ve got to always be sharp.”
Todd is also mindful of the critics—both reasonable and crazed—who have taken their aim at his rising star. And his response to them belies his idealistic view of politics and the media; and the similarities he is beginning to see between them. “I know that some people are always going to judge me and that’s their business,” he told me. “The sad part of this is that members of the media are now living life the way elected officials live—everything is under scrutiny. I’ve gotten crazy hate mail. My wife’s gotten crazy hate e-mail. There are elements on both sides that are trying to destroy journalism, to destroy elements of the mainstream media—for sport.”
Later, in an e-mail, he elaborated on this point: “The easiest thing to do these days is criticize the media in some sort of ‘collective’ attack. The left and right see it as good politics, or perhaps that the more the so-called MSM is discredited by partisans, the more the partisans will get the ears of the policymakers, and that in turn could lead to more ‘bubble’ elected officials who don’t even engage with anyone other than folks who agree with them.”
The sentiment reminded me of something Todd said the day we met. As our interview wrapped up—and his last long pause of the day came to an end—he stopped to reflect: “I feel like we all know the media has a serious cold, a serious virus. We all know it’s sick, but we’re not sure how and when it’s going to get better.” Whatever you think of Todd, there’s no denying he’s working very hard on his own version of a cure.
With that we say goodbye. Todd heads off to a meeting, and later, to catch the 5 p.m. train back to D.C., to do it all again tomorrow.
My questions would be: when does Chuck Todd ever reflect on his work? When does he ever read a book about politics, or history, getting some context for his often-made assertions about how unprecedented or historic current events are? Often these current events are less dramatic when placed within American political history. It seems that so much of what Todd does is remembered no longer than the less commercial break. In a way, I'm glad he doesn't do what Greenwald would wish because the result would be so shallow and disappointing in its substance.
#1 Posted by jon komatsu, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 10:49 AM
“But ultimately, the blame on ‘process’ coverage lies with the elected officials. It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in. I think the unsatisfied partisan media critics would be wise to spend more time engaging policymakers than those charged with covering them.”
No, Chuck, that's your job as one of the "prominent" journalists. YOU need to get the politicians to talk. YOU need to investigate their claims, their actions, their votes. YOU need to hold their feet to the fire. Politicians will NEVER willingly give you the goods.
#2 Posted by D Lowery, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 10:55 AM
Todd, as always, misses the point on Colbert's testimony. Rather than asking if it was disrespectful to Congress (and I'll bet in Todd's mind, to him and his empty-headed colleagues in the the DC press) he should ask why Colbert was asked to do his schtick -- because it was the only way to get the press to cover the hearings and ultimately, an issue which normally wouldn't get two seconds of "mainstream" media attention.
We don't care if you "miss," Chuck, we can read poll results in any number of places if that's what we're interested in. We'd prefer it if you'd use your access to ask some questions that might provide actual information rather than "who's gonna win?" or "did that electoral strategy work?"
Oh, and stop saying "you know" so much during your stand-ups. It's really annoying.
#3 Posted by Yokel, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 11:27 AM
I'm still somewhat stunned that David Bradley described Todd as "impossibly interesting, and impossibly creative." As Greenwald said, Todd is pretty much just a one-man Beltway cliche/conventional wisdom factory.
As if to prove Greenwald's point, Todd's own self-defense in this article demonstrates precisely that: the tired, constant reference to "the left and the right" and to "partisans," as if critics such as Greenwald are motivated by partisanship. Just further illustrates Todd's inability to see issues as more than scoreboards between parties and partisan "activists," the exact same process-fixation of which he's accused.
I also find it difficult to reconcile Todd's placing Senators "on a pedestal" (again proving one of Greenwald's accusations) with his statement that the cause of process-fixation is not media stars such as himself, but elected officials. Unless, of course, he doesn't see process-fixation as such a bad thing after all.
All in all, a muddled and entirely unconvincing defense from this conveyor belt of conventional wisdom and horserace superficiality, a person whose mercurial rise is yet another pound of proof of the staggering failure of our corporate media.
#4 Posted by Chris M., CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 12:15 PM
Leaving the bickering to Greenwald and Todd and their partisans, I'll only note that Joel Meares . . . forgot . . . to mention Todd's work on the Tom Harkin presidential campaign of 1992. You all remember Tom Harkin's run for the White House, I'm sure, unless you were blinking sometime in early 1992. Not a lot of time, didn't last long - but it helps provide some Chuck Todd context.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 12:22 PM
Todd is completely unconcerned with policy and the implications of policy decisions. Isn't the entire purpose of government to govern? Rather than explain how our public officials govern, Todd would rather prognosticate on implications for an election 2 years away, as though his predictions carry any more merit than anyone else's, all while ignoring that in making assertions as to the implications of a certain story he is not actually predicting public reaction but rather setting the narrative. Todd describes his job as one who informs the public, and he presumably sees himself as simply an outside observer; but, in reality, he plays as big a role in setting narratives as any politician. He influences much more than he observes.
Politics is not a sporting event. It affects real people's lives and has implications of paramount importance. Mr. Todd should probably get a job covering sports, as that's all he appears to see politics as.
#6 Posted by Egan, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:04 PM
Chuck Todd claims he read "Profiles in Courage," but missed the boat.
There's nothing courageous about putting Senators on pedastals and kissing the arses of powerful elites.
For a purportedly professional journalist, that's a profile in cowardice.
#7 Posted by Mickey Dugan, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:33 PM
few thoughts;
i just can't imagine Chuck Todd being in charge or heavily involved in the The Atlantic Wire
I'm not sure using Savannah Guthrie as a barometer was the best way to illustrate his vast political knowledge...i've watched their show bunch of times and no matter what the subject matter, even in non-political areas, he seems to know much more than her.
i found Todd a curio and inoffensive until his appearance on Real Time a year or so ago when Jeremy Scahill put the screws to him and asked: Why weren't you guys digging up half this stuff on Blackwater with all your resources? The answer was forgettable and not sufficient
#8 Posted by Jim, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 01:49 PM
I am a regular reader and contributer to Chuck Todd's First Read blog.
Although I agree with much of the criticism leveled, I will also say that First Read is one of the few places where the media's role is discussed and there is an awareness that much of what is covered are "shiny objects" or "media catnip" as Chuck likes to say.
I found this article interesting because it gave a little background about Chuck the man, and despite everything, Chuck is not just a "talking head". He is a person and I give him credit for being willing to defend the stuff he says and not just duck and hide.
We might not agree with Chuck much, but at least now we have a fuller picture of his "perspective".
I respect Chuck's political knowledge and polling insights. I just don't think that those things are the most important issues facing us right now.
But, Chuck is the POLITICAL director, so perhaps the problem is that the "Tim Russert" bit is sorely lacking, and maybe it is unfair to expect that from Chuck.
He is doing what he is getting paid to do . . . David Gregory on the other hand . . . but that's a topic for another time.
#9 Posted by Media critic, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 02:27 PM
I don't want to jump in on the Chuck-bashing. Although your piece was a bit hagiographic, it did contain some nuggets of interest.
I'm okay with Chuck Todd as a political reporter of the broadcast type. Print reporters are the standard by which, generally, journalists are held, but TV reporters are really a different breed, and they aren't really journalists in the conventional sense. Their bosses aren't editors and publishers but producers who often, or usually, have no journalism background. So they don't hew to the conventional standards of journalism.
So you get this:
"We also have constraints that I wish we didn’t have, including the issue of being a business so we can’t delve as deep into some policy debates as many of us would like, because someone has decided it’s not good for ratings."
Chuck's first priority is not good journalism but good ratings. And his bosses like it that way. That makes for an entirely different animal than a print reporter. Different focus. Different priorities. Yes, print reporters often fashion headlines in order to get more clicks, but the good print journalists are first and foremost about the reporting of news. Chuck's bosses are about the ratings: infotainment. That's the culture in which Chuck operates. Although he mouths the standards of journalism, he probably isn't even aware of the difference.
I think Chuck Todd is an honest and hardworking broker of the "news," which to him is the horserace. He is immersed in the beltway culture and not the world at large. And the beltway views politics as game; it's like one big revolving sports bar, the participants obsessed with teams and strategy and point-making, and not reality.
He isn't the only beltway journo who believes this:
"It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in. I think the unsatisfied partisan media critics would be wise to spend more time engaging policymakers than those charged with covering them."
I would say to Chuck -- That's supposed to be your job! You are supposed to engage policymakers, for your audience, those of us who aren't in the position to engage them! That's what "charged with covering them means! You are supposed to engage policymakers in substance! If not, what the hell are you doing there?
#10 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 02:31 PM
chuck todd is a light-weight who is afraid to engage conservatives. his interviewing is softball style and his analysis is suspect because he doesn't challenge obviously flawed views that do not serve the common interests of the country. paired with savannah guthrie they come off like two high school reporters. i don't like george stephanoupolas, but todd is even worse.
#11 Posted by conrad, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:16 PM
I thought the job title was "reporter," not "repeater."
#12 Posted by Jon88, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:43 PM
Chuck "Prosecuting people for torture is political cat nip" Todd. That's all I'm ever gonna remember about this joke of a journalist.
#13 Posted by Rick, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:27 PM
@jon komatsu & others make excellent points.
comes down to this:
Todd's a great stenographer. Greenwald's a great journalist.
#14 Posted by JayUSA, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 06:30 PM
Politics is sports without the balls.
#15 Posted by Paul S., CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 08:41 AM
In Todd We Trust!
Tyndall Report gives Chuck top marks for Campaign 2010 coverage on the network nightly newscasts.
#16 Posted by Andrew Tyndall, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 12:42 PM
When Todd appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher, Jeremy Scahill called him out for not investigating the obviously corrupt Blackwater fiasco. Todd's weak comeback was "It wouldn't have done any good," which explains, I suppose, the depth of Todd's journalistic integrity. Rather than simply and accurately reporting the facts, Todd determines which information will "do any good," and saves us the trouble of making up our own minds.
Todd's investigative skills are thinner than his comb-over (or comb-forward, if you will).
#17 Posted by Tom Elvis Brown, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 04:39 PM
Todd doesn't get 'out' much ~ it's like getting a weather report from a slot poker addict in Las Vegas and 12 PM "Yeah, it's warm and dark out here"
#18 Posted by mommadona, CJR on Sun 31 Oct 2010 at 06:19 PM
Todd says that "It’s amazing to me how little substance most elected officials will engage in."
So how about instead of transcribing, er, reporting their fluff, real journalists simply reported that the politician refused to say anything substantive. How about calling the politicians on that? How about fact-checking them.
And if by "business" Todd means keeping in the good graces of politicians in order to have access to them, then that's a business with no value to the public. That "business" should end.
#19 Posted by John Tomlinson, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:53 PM
He needs a break. Since he's been mr. everything at msnbc, his work has become more conventional and less relevant and significant. It's like he tries to find a catchy little twist to a story, and that's good enough... then he moves on. During the election, he seemed to be one of the few that really had an accurate perspective as far as the national mood and what was driving issues. You could tell he put alot of thought into it. Now he's totally caught up in the 24-hour beltway politics game and his analysis has suffered. He said it himself, its not about "what does this mean"... its about "what's going to happen today". This is where he's wrong... its the long term view that matters in government, nothing happens overnight... but as long as our media acts like that, it prevents us from ever making sound long term decisions.
#20 Posted by Blake, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 06:00 PM
And here I thought it was just me. The comments here about Todd and his brain-dead brand of political reporting restore my faith that journalistic standards aren't lost so much as covered by a layer of idiocy. Todd is to political reporting what Howard Kurtz is to media criticism -- a lazy, incurious conformist with an inexcusably narrow perspective.
#21 Posted by dandelion1028, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 06:55 PM
Visit Now Free Blogger XML Templates Download
#22 Posted by Visit Now Free Blogger XML Templates Download, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 06:57 AM
Shallow Chuck at best from one who is 67 years old and have observed and read the best over the years.. Of course with his generation repeating what you have heard or been told at Manhattna & DC Partys is not news. Same with the Mika's of MSNBC as Mathews is dead wood. Same with Baby Russert as they insult viewers out side their ZipCodes. Political gossip and personal opinons is not knowledge. But then Brian Williams is also a social skateboarder at NBC so NEWS from the camp of 30 Rocke is the choir singing to each other. NBC to MSNBC Obama Glee Club. No substance !
#23 Posted by David l Davis, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 06:56 PM