NBC analyzing poor David Gregory to see what makes his show so bad

[DonViejo]

The "Meet the Press" anchor's public humiliations continue

ALEX PAREENE

If it’s Monday, it’s NBC embarrassing itself in front of everyone. Today, the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi brings us the story of a network that can’t figure out why “Meet the Press” isn’t the runaway ratings smash it used to be. (This is not the first piece of this year exploring that subject.) Is the problem host David Gregory? They sent in experts to figure it out:

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.

Well, how absolutely humiliating, to have this reported in the Washington Post. (NBC disputes the use of the word “psychological,” claiming they brought in a “brand consultant.”)

Is there something psychologically wrong with David Gregory? No, besides the usual superhuman vanity of a television professional. He is just not a great host of a news talk show! He is incurious. He asks predictable questions and is not informed enough to ask follow-ups that go beyond the scope of his briefing materials.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/nbc_analyzing_poor_david_gregory_to_see_what_makes_his_show_so_bad/

[SummerSnow]

1. Simple, he sucks. That's why the show is bad.

[BillZBubb]

2. Gregory is a right wing bore.

He's not worth watching. Even media execs should be able to figure that out without a consultant.

[merrily]

3. Also, Gregory is a lot less clever about hiding his rw bias than was Russert the Elder.

Russert at least looked like he relished doing what he was doing. Gregory looks only mildly engaged.

Brand consultants and the mentality that sees them as a fix are probably one of the things wrong with the show to begin with.

Packaging to sell is not everything. The box can't be empty if you want repeat customers.

[BlueStreak]

8. Exactly right. I don't know what all the fawning about Tim Russert was all about. He was a W hack

like the rest of them. He was the quintessential beltway schmuck who understood that he needed the right wingers to some on his show because his audience was mostly conservative old white men and the sponsors are as Big Corporate as you can get. Russert was every bit the unprincipled whore that any of the others have been. But as you say, he had a way of making himself appear a little less smarmy than the others.

Far as I can tell, that was his only talent, but you don't need much more in Big Media.

[merrily]

13. Russert once worked for a Democratic pol. (Moynihan, wasn't it?)

I think that led many on both the right and the left to assume that Russert was a Democrat as well. I've seen both sides react to Russert accordingly.

I don't know what Russert was when a kid working for a Democratic politician, but I knew what he was when I watched him on Meet the Press.

Russert liked to say that he asked the tough questions of everyone. What he really did was ask tough questions of Democrats, not infrequently hammering at them again and again and again. Sometimes, his questions were ludicrous, as when he spent a lot of his interview time with then Presidential hopeful Obama, trying to hold Obama to account for something Harry Belafonte had said the day before or something. (Was that the most interesting thing to ask Senator Obama? And why is Obama supposed to be accountable for what Harry Belafonte says anyway?)

Of Republicans, he asked the tough questions that allowed them to give their answer to negative things that were being said about them or their policies, gave them lots of opportunity to respond as they wished, then he asked either no follow ups or lobbed his Republican subject a meatball.

I am very, very sorry for his untimely death. Among many other more important things, like the loss to his loved ones, I (too) would rather still be watching a show hosted by Russert than one hosted by Gregory. But, I have described Russert's mo accurately. Moreover, he was more than smart enough to know exactly what he was doing, so when he preened about his even handed objectivity, he also knew that was lying through his teeth.

I remember one of the first times I saw Luke as a "youth correspondent." It was during the 2008 primary or election season. Luke was gushing over how much college kids loved McCain because McCain is "just so authentic."

Did Luke, too, know he was lying? I don't know, but the college vote sure wasn't going McCain's way that year.

[BlueStreak]

15. R or D? It barely mattters inside the Beltway. The beltway media all work for the same people.

And they all follow the same agenda.

[merrily]

18. It sure mattered to the way that Russert interviewed them.

[BlueStreak]

24. A minor quibble

Russert (and all the rest) do everything possible to stomp down anything of a progressive nature. But they don't necessarily go after the corporatist Dems with the same zeal.

I mean, Russert wasn't hard on people like Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, Pryor, and the other DINOs, and they most certainly weren't hard on Lieberman.

It is ideology, not party. The corporatists might as well all be in the same party.

[Cirque du So-What]

22. They even live in the same neighborhoods as the politicos

It's harder to remain objective when the party flack you're supposed to be critiquing lives down the street from you.

[Jesus Malverde]

31. Indeed

It like herder of sacred cows. Keeping the wolves from looking over there.

[spanone]

4. it's pretty damned simple. people don't like partisans posing as journalists.

[libodem]

6. Yep

[Jesus Malverde]

32. That there is no journalism is obvious to anyone.

The Colbert bit where he called them stenographers nailed it.

They are there to sell ads and control the national debate. Defining whats acceptable and what's an outlier. Journalism has very little to do with it.

Before you know it the republicans and democrats with be neck and neck, because a blow out doesn't attract eyeballs or sell ads. Best thing for you get rid of the BOOB tube.


Nothing is sadder than seeing my parents upset about some inconsequential issue from watching the news. They will actually yell at the TV as if someone is listening. Inside they are furious because the idiot box got them riled up.

[winter is coming]

5. Bet they'll conclude that he should be replace with a thinly-disguised spokesmodel,

when he really needs to be replaced with a journalist.

[backscatter712]

7. Easy. The viewers want journalism, not propaganda.

Gregory's nothing but a whore. He's spewing the oligarchic line, and trying to dress it up to look like actual journalism, but viewers aren't buying the bullshit.

[Hekate]

9. In a nutshell: "He is incurious. He asks predictable questions and is not informed enough..."

"He is incurious. He asks predictable questions and is not informed enough to ask follow-ups that go beyond the scope of his briefing materials."

Also don't let me forget to mention the persistent MSM assumption, which he shares, that the default party in this country is the Republican Party, against which all other parties and policies shall be measured no matter who occupies the Oval Office and no matter who has the majority in the Senate.

[uponit7771]

10. Allowing Wingers to claim the Earth is flat and ask questions as if the position is viable is what

... makes him horrible

[Spazito]

11. LOL, even without out a psychology degree I can say with certainty....

the problem IS David "dancing with Rove" Gregory. He is a repub tool, has no integrity and is boring to boot. Damn, now I want the money they paid the "consultant", bet it was a pretty penny.

[The Midway Rebel]

12. Change the name of the show. Call it what it actually is.

"Bash the Left"

[kairos12]

14. I always preferred Depress the Meet or Meet the Depressed.

[KamaAina]

19. Or "Press the Meat".

[pacalo]

23. "Meet the Republicans".

[Jamaal510]

25. "Meet the 'Pubbies". nt

[Shoulders of Giants]

16. I don't know enough about David Gregory to have anything against him.

However, he always looks like the type of kiss ass you'd want to avoid at the office, so I never watched his show. I don't know if this is a fair evaluation, but maybe I'm shallow.

[Boomerproud]

20. No more shallow than David Gregory.

n/t

[notadmblnd]

29. As long as shallowness is allowed

he looks like Lurch from the Adam's Family

[Jesus Malverde]

33. Google Karl roves dancing monkey boy...nt

[KurtNYC]

17. Corporate mangement is famous for making decisions and then fixing the facts around them

So they may be out to replace Gregory or can the show and they bring in consultants to do fake research and then reach the conclusion they are paid to reach.

Probably some PowerPoint slides being generated out there somewhere that say MTP:
- needs to be pro-active
- think outside the box
- needs to leverage assets, innovate in real time,
- calibrate expectation and align them with client-centric goals
- replace with dynamic, sustainable, next generation host

[BillZBubb]

21. That is funny!

You got in all the buzz-word-babble.

[Cha]

26. They don't sound to bright at nbc.. Wondering why MTP isn't a success like it use to be?..

It doesn't take a genius to know.. it's the bookings and the shallow host.

[tarheelsunc]

27. And conservatives have the audacity to claim this shill has a liberal bias!

There are a lot of blatantly conservative commentators and journalists in the MSM. David Gregory is definitely one of the more obvious. Between his guest list and his line of "questioning," it's like he's not even trying to hide it.

You gotta hand it to the conservatives though, they're smart. They've taken over most of the media in this country, yet they've somehow managed to perpetuate the belief that the media is biased against them and many people just accept that belief with no evidence being provided to them.

[Marr]

28. I can save them a lot of time and sum it up with one image:

MTP's unpopularity is just one tiny reaction to our political/business establishment's increasing disregard for even maintaining the *illusion* of democracy in this country. In the last fifteen years or so, we've seen a rapid expansion of the divide between the haves and have-nots, and the haves seem completely unconcerned about it.

MTP's ratings suck because it's basically just "The World According to the 1%" now. You can fund a show like that, but you can't get many people to watch it.

[Jesus Malverde]

34. So backward looking....only forward my friend, like a workhorse with blinders

Peripheral vision is for the man with the whip.

[Enthusiast]

30. Meet the Press and Gregory are nothing more

than a conduit for right wing lies. Gregory is even Rove's bud.

I am amazed that anyone watches Meet the Press. They should have zero viewers.

[Squinch]

35. To see why your show doesn't go over well with the public, you don't ask the public and instead

you psychoanalyze the actors?

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

[CK_John]

36. It's his voice, monotone, no hint of anger, joy, ho hum, whatever.

[Arkana]

37. Because Gregory is a weak-kneed hack and a suck-up

to those in Congress as perceived "authority figures"?