|
NYTV
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
MORE
NYTV
On the morning of Sunday, July 20, NBC News paterfamilias Tom Brokaw was wrapping up Meet the Press, where he has been anchor since the sudden and untimely death of Tim Russert.
The weekly round table had ended, and it was time to say goodbye to his guests, NBC political director Chuck Todd and NBC White House correspondent David Gregory.
When the segment ended, both reporters sat with their hands neatly folded in front of them and awaited the frugally dispensed approval of Mr. Brokaw.
“Thank you very much, David Gregory, our NBC White House correspondent and, of course, star of MSNBC’s The Road to the White House,” said Mr. Brokaw.
Mr. Gregory managed not to grimace. His show is called Race for the White House.
“Chuck Todd, our political director,” continued Mr. Brokaw. “We’ll be seeing a lot more of you, here, on Meet the Press … in the weeks to come,” Mr. Brokaw said, it seemed, to Mr. Todd.
Mr. Gregory kept smiling as the credits rolled. But if deep inside his mind there was a momentary flicker of career anxiety, the ambitious newsman could be forgiven. Since Russert’s death, speculation about the future anchor of Meet the Press has tended to favor the 36-year-old Mr. Todd and Mr. Gregory, 37. And it was Mr. Todd who got the public invitation to return.
Of course, it’s not Mr. Brokaw’s decision. But the slip was a reminder that nobody in Washington seems to be paying attention to Mr. Gregory’s new show.
Created when the network liquidated Tucker Carlson’s evening program, Mr. Gregory’s show was a fitting placement for the man who is arguably the most famous current White House correspondent. Over the past seven years, Mr. Gregory has become master of the dark art of theatrical confrontation, and the perfect whip-smart, self-important foil to Mr. Bush’s aw-shucks anti-elitism. For a long time, when the president was hot, so too was “Stretch.”
Along the way, he racked up more face time on the evening news than any other reporter in broadcast journalism. His blustery dust-ups with Mr. Bush and a succession of White House press secretaries became YouTube classics, heroic to those on the left, more proof of liberal bias to those on the right.
“He was that guy for the Bush administration,” said Mark Leibovich, a Washington-based reporter at The New York Times. “In a sense, he was the perfect Bush foil. Everything you hear about how George Bush felt alienated at Andover and Yale, and how he felt aggressively anti-elitist towards the people he thought were full of themselves, well, David Gregory would certainly fit that mold.”
But lame-duck presidents create lame-duck White House correspondents. And so identifying the silver-haired heartthrob with the big political story of the day was a blessing from the network.
From the moment the show kicked off on March 17, things looked grim. The format was essentially a high-tech version of, say, The McLaughlin Group, with various journalists sitting around debating topics of Mr. Gregory’s choosing.
There was one innovation: Instead of sitting around a table, the heads of the various guests appeared in boxes. An unfavorable review of the show in The New Republic promptly described the look as “intergalactic Nancy Grace.”
The show was minimally staffed. In the absence of an experienced, aggressive booker, the decision was made to cull each evening’s guests from the long roster of NBC and MSNBC political contributors. As a result, on each day’s show, Mr. Gregory spends much of the hour debriefing fellow reporters and pundits such as Michael Smerconish, Eugene Robinson, Harold Ford Jr., Tony Blankley, John Harwood, Michelle Bernard and on and on.
“It’s not particularly good practice for Meet the Press, where you’re having formal interviews with newsmakers,” encyclopedic TV news analyst Andrew Tyndall recently told NYTV. “I don’t think he ever has newsmakers on there. The function of the show is to showcase NBC’s in-house political analysts. There’s not much heavy lifting there for him to do. His current job is merely debriefing. The good debriefers are actually rather self-effacing. Couric was very good at that on the Today show. When she had the big ego political people come in, she would be a patient listener. And not really show off by asking too many questions. That sort of style—O.K., tell me about this, and then sort of shutting up and letting the person do their bit—it doesn’t fit his special skills.
“Add all those things together and he’s getting the face time, but he’s not getting the opportunity to display his journalistic skills,” added Mr. Tyndall. “On the other hand, if you’re a White House correspondent with this president and this White House, you’re just happy for any bone they’ll throw you.” Next Page >
Yuk! Is Gregory STILL on? Puhleassse! I tried it for more than a month. He's nothing but an arrogant joke for a newsman. And his guests are the pits. They can do better surely. He is definitely NOT Tim Russert and Meet The Press material. If they do that, it's good-by to Meet The Press ratings, I betcha! Just like Chris Matthews, Gregory couldn't even get a job on any other network.
I like his show. I am freelance print reporter in Chicago and have been glued to MSNBC's political reporting. But the music in the background of Gregory's show is beyond annoying and at times is so distracting that I can't watch. It's Rachel Maddow that stands out - this show has really showcased her talent.
Not a good article on Gregory. And you list all the political analysts and don't even mention Rachel Maddow. She is next in line to get a show on MSNBC and subs for Olberman on a regular basis. She is fabulous. What is your deal here.
he will never get past his dance with karl rove. every time his name comes up, that "MC ROVE" schtick does him in. it was as if, oh its all ok and rove is just another politico. rove is a despicable human being and to see Gregory kissing his buttocks on that stage effectively killed his career. more rachel maddow, less david MCROVE gregory.
When you dance with Karl Roves your career dies with Karl Roves, David is a Hack.
MAY GOD ALWAYS BLESS YOU, because you are so right on.
Don't worry about Gregory. He'll get MTP (and at least is better than Mitchell). Then Maddow will get a show following Matthews.
It's a win-win, actually.
Gregory always argues the case for the Republicans on his new show. He doesn't appear objective to me at all.
I am not a reporter or one of the media elites--just a viewer and I find David Gregory's show boring. It doesn't help that he comes off as a little too slick, and as an under-the-radar McCain apologist.
David Gregory is not a hack, he's just a tall guy trying to make a living. He does a credble job as a reporter, he fills in for Matt Lauer nicely, he isn't angry like Keith Olbermann, folksy like Chris Matthews or gay like Rachel. And he's a helluva lot smarter than Tucker. Cut him some slack.
If there is one professional who should move into the seat held by Tim Russert it is Keith Olbermann and why would there be speculation recently on the Huffington Post on Rachael Maddow being the possible heir to take over Olbermann's show. If Olbermann takes over Meet the Press it will be the most trust news source left on commercial media--the rest hacks.
Race to the White House is a flawed program, but tons more entertaining than the whining of Tucker Carlson. Mr Gregory should not be considered an investigative reporter, nor does he have the charisma to host MTP. The rising stars on MSNBC are definitely Rachel Maddow and David Schuster. David Gregory has been in bed with the Bush Administration for years, not going public with the Ari Fleischer outing of Valerie Plame, and arguing that the media was plenty tough on the White House in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Gregory is passe and should depart the scene when BushCo does. No one will miss him.
What are they thinking? DG is the least likable, least charismatic, least informed newscaster they have got. It's like they have bought into the robo-plastic version of reality with this guy big time. Promoted for what he looks like, who his connections are, and where he was educated probably- but just a big fat zero overall.
David Gregory is a hack.
What does tallness have to do with anything?
As for your points: Matt Lauer on Today..all fluff, Matt is an apologist-in-training. Mr. Olbermann angry? Isn't it about time someone is? Chris Matthews folksy is hard for me to imagine. Oh and what does "gay like Rachel" have to do with her performance on the job?
I lie awake nights, trying to think of at least one
memorial moment from his show. Or, just one memorial
comment he's ever made on TV.
I'm still thinking...
You're giving him way too much credit. Other then those staged spats he'd have with say-nothing McClellen, Gregory is an inside-the-beltway guy with no guts to ask the real questions. He lets misinformation slide right past him so he can keep those DC cocktail weenie invites coming.
Thank goodness...he is the worst!!!
David Gregory is just fine. America is so fickel about who "in" this week or next week. David Gregory is a talented journalist. Maybe Gregory is too good for the shlock MSNBC put out for the most part! His show is stupid no matter who hosts it!
Brokow is one of those make it big snobs!
I lost ALL repsect for David Gregory as a reporter once he did the "Happy Dance" with Karl Rove at the White House Press dinner!
The show isn't doing well because David Gregory is boring. His face is also not very appealing. Not ugly, just featureless. And, he may be a good reporter, but he seems out-of-his-element in keeping a roundtable discussion going.
Also not worth watching is Andrea Mitchell on that mess in the afternoon. She is a lot less smart than people think. She has trouble ad-libbing and seems incredibly uncomfortable talking to people.
Of course, neither are as worthless as The View, which is a disaster. Take about inane chatter - when you can hear what they're saying. That Sheri is truly dumb and that bumbling Elizabeth has a hideous voice that bores holes in my brain.
"Gay" is a reporting style? I don't think most people tune in to Maddow because of her sexual orientation...
Is there something somehow wrong with mentioning the obvious (i.e. Rachel Maddow is gay) and assuming that it is pejorative? It is what it is...she's terrific, and her lifestyle preferences have nothing to do with her journalistic abilities, any more than David Gregory filling in for Matt Lauer makes him implicitly a lightweight. Which, by the way, is also not true of Matt Lauer. He's on a morning show with the mass audience to gain favor with, which is why he is on NBC, not MSNBC. Also, Chuck Todd is a lot more interesting and more of a rising star than David Shuster. Shuster stubbed his toe early on with his nasty remark about the Clintons' pimping out Chelsea.
Well, one good thing about David from my standpoint - - he is NOT Chris Matthews, the self-aggrandizing motor mouth who can never seem to let his guests answer his very long winded, and frequently convoluted questions. He thinks he is an intellectual, and he acts like a jerk. Go watch his appearance on The Daily Show. Terrible, just terrible.
But, sadly, neither are worthy of NBC (MTP) and are barely passable at MSNBC where nobody watches them. I quit watching either one (used to Tivo to get past bad parts), and now only Tivo and watch the former sports announcer Keith.
Dick totally flubbed the last presidential debate.
Also, after Brokaw's interview with Al Gore (Broakw's personal worst), Gregory repeatedly said Al Gore was "too divisive" on the subject of climate change and that Gore more or less needs to step aside to let unemployed GOP hacks like Newt take over for him. Yikes!
David Gregory, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarbrough...MSNBC is filled with idiots who should never have had their own shows. More often than not, the guest host (David Schuster, Rachael Maddow, David Gergen)is a hell of a lot smarter than they are. And can we all agree that we have seen enough of Pat Bucanhan on all of these shows?
Re: "gay like Rachel." Don't understand that at all. What does that mean? Is she gay? Who knew, who cares!. If she is, what does her being gay have to do with anything? She's genius, which is all that counts. Olbermann is also genius. I love Dan Abrams intelligence and feistiness. I try never to miss Olbermann and Maddow and Abrams. However, I do not ever watch Gregory, after giving him a brief chance. He's dreadful on the air and has a creepy demeanor.
I also agree that Andrea Mitchell is stiff, and that The View is a hopeless mess. Does anybody still watch it?
I want MSNBC's Chuck Todd to replace Tim Russert. I hope he's given a chance to do Meet The Press during the summer.
I appreciate the way Gregory stood up to the subhumans in the shrub administration -- unlike the rest of the spineless mainstream press (Helen Thomas excepted) -- but the bottom line is, he has a solid rep as a first-class a*hole. Ergo, I have no interest in seeing his face on MTP or any other show. Give me Maddow any day.
To wit:
http://www.jossip.com/david-gregory-mouthed-off-to-a-waitress-got-scolde...
No matter what you think of David Gregory he's head and shoulders above Tucker Carlson the guy he replaced.
DG comes across to me as an apologist for the Bush administration. Any positives toward the Obama campaign are
quickly refuted & replaced with a positive toward a Republican.
I'm very impressed, however, with Rachel Maddow & have enjoyed seeing her on Olbermann - she can hold her own with anyone.
Gregory is not the right choice for MTP. His style is way too opinionated. He comes of as a grandstander. Russert was much more analytical, lawyerly. Rachel Maddow, by the way is the smartest individual on that network right now. If it weren't for the shameful fact that there would be unwarrented attention paid to her sexual orientation as opposed to her ability, she would be the ideal choice.