who would you like the MTP host?

[srican69]

If I had my way it would be - BRIAN LEHRER from WNYC.... He isn't partisan, extremely smart, well informed & most importantly very balanced.

But whom would you pick?

[Orsino]

1. Randi Rhodes.

She would call out lies.

[Atman]

4. Exactly the WRONG choice. As would be Rachel or even Chris Hayes.

Rhodes, Maddow, etc, would be viewed as no more "credible" by anyone on the right as we "lefties" now view Chuck Toad or David Gregory. NBC doesn't need to turn MTP into just another partisan showcase -- just favoring different partisans -- it needs to find a REAL impartial host. Of course, we all have our own politics, but a real profession would be able to leave their politics at home. And while Rhodes, Maddow and Hayes are all "real professionals" in my book, there is no way they'd be taken seriously by a large part of MTP's audience, and that would just makes things even worse for the show. Just picking a rabid left-winger is NOT the answer to what is so wrong with MTP.

[Orsino]

13. Not a wrong choice at all.

Just one as unlikely as any real journalist or actual nonpartisan.

What we really need are new producers, or a different show.

[Atman]

19. I guess we disagree on what is wrong with the show.

Yes, the producers are a problem. But look back through the gazillion threads about MTP. We (DUers and other intelligent people) can't stand the show because it totally panders to the right. It is a just an infomercial for RW talking points, with no challenges. That is why they get so many RW guests. They get sound bytes out of it, they get stuff to use in press releases, etc. But the viewers don't get facts or anything to challenge their intellect.

If Maddow or Hayes or MHP were to host the show, the GOP guests would disappear. Personally, I relish the idea! But it is not good for the show itself. It would just turn it into a left-wing version of what it is now. That doesn't help anyone. NBC has managed to turn the show into a platform for its corporate masters' political agenda and that is why it is no longer trusted nor respected -- except by the GOP. With Maddow, Hayes or MHP as host, DUers might tune in, but the GOP would abandon the show en masse, and then it would no better than it is now. It would still be preaching to the choir, only the choir would change.

That is the point of having an unknown, or a pure journalist, as moderator. I don't want to just be told everything I already agree with (maybe you do). I want some insight and serious questioning of motives, regardless of party affiliation. Driving away half the electorate by putting Maddow, Hayes or MHP at the helm would serve no purpose other than to turn the show into another version of what is already on MSNBC on weekend mornings.

Yeah...that will work. Not.

[Orsino]

35. I guess.

I think that the corporate slant is much more the result of corporate ownership than of the leanings of particular hosts. A non-partisan host would therefore be just as much of a pipe dream as, say, a Randi.

[SaltyBro]

2. Melissa Harris-Perry

gets my vote. We need a little diversity on Sunday morning talk shows.

[JCMach1]

29. MHP or Rachel Maddow please

[The Magistrate]

3. They Ought To Give It To Ms. Maddow, Sir

Our Rachel would do a superb job of it, and could step into the show without breaking stride.

[SaltyBro]

8. Rachel would be great, but

I think adding diversity to the Sunday morning chat shows would be even better.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. Charlie Rose, Craig Ferguson, David Letterman, Jon Stewart

[LloydS of New London]

6. Chris Matthews

[alsame]

7. Ideally, I would like an unknown

journalist, not a media personality. A real journalist who deals with only facts and doesn't inject their opinion into every discussion. It would be great if this person was so objective that we'd have no idea if she or he leaned left or right.

Someone who is knowledgeable about issues and policy rather than Beltway politics and the horse races of each election cycle.

I don't even know if those journalists even exist any more.

[NuclearDem]

9. Rachel Maddow/Lewis Black tag team.

Anyone who says they wouldn't watch that is lying.

[spinbaby]

23. +1

I'd watch that every weeki.

[FSogol]

10. NPR's Kojo Nnamdi or CBS (WUSA-DC)'s Derek McGinty. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. Michael Eric Dyson

the fill-in on the Ed Show when Ed's on vacation. I like this guy. I think he's a good interviewer who doesn't let questionable statements by guests get past him. He's an intellectual, a professor of sociology at Georgetown and the author of 18 books. Cenk Uygur is also a guy who would keep the guests honest, unlike the previous hosts on the show.

[RoverSuswade]

12. How about dual hosts?

Rachel Maddow and Michael Schmerkonish?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

44. A revolving panel would be good

A middle of the road "journalist" with no strong feelings is what we've got now. Same with David Gregory. We can't tell what party or philosophy either Gregory or Mr. Toad has. It's seems more to me that they're stepping on eggs in their interviews with concern for their own careers first and foremost and not making waves. And I don't even know if I would dignify David Gregory or Mr. Toad by calling them members of the press that their guests are meeting. We need people with the intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity to ask the tough questions of both dems and reps. I agree that more than one member of the press should be asking the questions. For me, ideally we'd see new fresh faces every week of every political stripe. But just questions and follow ups from the panel; no shouting at each other like Crossfire or other similar confrontational shows. Keep it dignified but hard-hitting. Also, depending on the issue at hand and the guest, such as the middle east or economics, ask journalists to appear that week who have special expertise in covering that area in the press, so that the guests know they can't sling bs. I'd watch that kind of show. I won't watch guys like Mr. Toad who put me to sleep. Hypotoad as others above have coined is a perfect name.

[Brother Buzz]

14. The Reverend Al Sharpton

[Samantha]

15. Ezra Klein

I do agree with The Magistrate that Rachel is the obvious choice, but I do believe the conservative element at COMCAST for its own nefarious reasons would not support her selection. I do not believe Comcast would award that spot to anyone Republicans would object to. Just my opinion, and a painful one at that....

Ezra Klein is my next choice. It is not a partisan and is on top of the facts. He also does not allow misstatements to fly by without reacting.

Sam

[TransitJohn]

16. Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart eom

n/t

[BainsBane]

17. Ted Koppel

[me b zola]

18. Amy Goodman

[phylny]

20. Thom Hartmann n/t

[Lint Head]

21. Rachel Maddow hands down.

A Rhodes Scholar studying at Lincoln College, Oxford. Won an international Rhodes Scholarship in 2001. She also earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics at Oxford University.

More than qualified for MTP and the Presidency.

[femmocrat]

22. Steve Kornacki. nt

[Va Lefty]

24. Dan Rather

and bring back the original format with a rotating panel of three newspaper reporters.

[SidDithers]

25. Glenn Greenwald...nt

Sid

[larkrake]

26. Eliot Spitzer or Dan Rather are equal choices

It doesnt matter if there is a left bent to the show, as the other Sunday shows are right leaning. Right now, I have nothing to watch on Sundays other than UP .

[fredamae]

27. Leave the Toad there and Add

Olbermann or Maddow, or Hartmann etc. That way...a counter balance....plus it wouldn't hurt to have ordinary citizens every week to share their experiences from "main street" on whatever subject matter is at hand for the week.

[KamaAina]

28. Jon Stewart

srsly, he's one of the better interviewers out there. And he never, ever lets up on hammering Wall Street!

[Atman]

31. You guys don't seem to get the point.

Jon Stewart would be no better than David Gregory. YES, he'd be a much better interviewer, and the show would be entertaining. But he's viewed by the right as just another leftist partisan. The point isn't to just re-make the show into a left-wing version of what it is now. It is to make it an actual news and opinion program that BOTH sides of the aisle can watch, and understand that no one will receive special treatment. Given all of the warring between Fox and Stewart and Colbert, how on Earth does anyone thing MTP will re-gain "credibility" by changing formats to resemble an MSNBC evening program?

[srican69]

33. I hear you

The funny thing is that the right would fear a non-partisan ( or seen by all to be) , incisive & probing interviewer far more that they would anyone from MSNBC or comedy central.

[Volaris]

39. In that spirit, I would take Bill Moyers, or anyone who has ever worked at Frontline.

When Frontline starts digging, sunshine gets put where it needs to be, even just by stating "here's where the sunshine ISNT today."...
Anyone of those people would be masterful at the gig, let the Professional Idiot Politicians run scared, it's what they deserve, Right OR Left.

[JCMach1]

30. How about Jon Stewart

Of course, I think he would blow a gasket some time during year one...

[NightWatcher]

32. The last thing I want to do on a Sunday morning is listen to politicians spin.

[Atman]

34. Well, good thing.

Because those programs are all on FIRST THING. The last thing is "LockUp" and more Wolfe Blitzer.

[NightWatcher]

36. Missed my point. On Sundays I prefer a laid back breakfast or brunch

not a bunch of talking heads on tv spinning political bullshit.

Obama was right when he said all of the tv news shows are like watching professional wrestling. It's faked. If I want a ____ spin, I can turn to watch ______. If I want to see it spun towards the _____, I can watch_____.

It's all rightwing BS on the network shows. Look at the guestlist and guess what you'll get. You don't even have to watch the show, you can tell what they are going to say just based on who it is.

But hey, if that's the way you want to spend a Sunday morning, feel free.

[Atman]

42. I didn't miss your point.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I was just playing off the wording of your sub-line.

I totally agree with you, which is why I don't watch ANY of them anymore, not NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX...none of them. BBC World (not BBC America, which is little better than the aforementioned group) is still a pretty good source of what is going on. They're much more informative about what is going on in the U.S. than most of our media come close to being.

[conservaphobe]

37. I like to take Sunday off from politics.

Short of a major breaking news story, just end all of the Sunday news programming and run documentaries.

[yurbud]

38. Anyone who doesn't just tee up BS talking points for politicians

Dies their homework, and asks questions that get to the root of issues.

Foe example, if you gave a guest on talking about foreign policy, and you don't ask whuch business interests want to destabilize, overthrow another government, or invade another country, then that host is a coward, a shill, or a fucking idiot.

Networks that pretend doing PR work for the wealthy is actually news should pay a he'll of a lot more for their licenses

[irisblue]

40. thrilled it will not be Lil Luke

he is such a jerk

[lpbk2713]

41. Eugene Robinson

Although he spends most of his time on MSNBC with a left leaning viewpoint,
I think he could be a fair minded host of MTP. But this could never be simply
because he DOES appear on MSNBC so much.

Another one I'd like to see more of is Sam Seder.

[RockaFowler]

43. Will McAvoy type

From The Newsroom

[MinM]

45. Cenk Uygur & Co.

@TYTNetwork