When word emerged yesterday that NBC had named Chuck Todd, currently the Editor-in-Chief of National Journal's "The Hotline," as its new political director, my curiosity as to his personal politics was naturally aroused. I found a MediaBistro article that included this intriguing sentence:"Before coming to the world of political reporting and analysis, Todd earned practical political experience on initiative campaigns in Florida and various national campaigns based in Washington, D.C."
That in turn naturally raised the question: on just whose national campaigns and which Florida initiatives did Todd work? Deciding to go right to the source, I sent an email to Todd that resulted in an interesting exchange.
Todd responded by indicating that in 1991 he had worked on the presidential campaign of Tom Harkin, the liberal Democratic senator from Iowa, later mentioning that as a youth in 1984 he had also worked casually with his grandfather on Ronald Reagan's campaign. The Florida initiatives were ones concerning a bottle bill and off-shore drilling, Todd having worked on the "green" side of both issues. At the same time, the new political director made these points:
- "I am a fan of the Media Research Center and of Mr. Bozell [MRC founder and president] and am aware of your mission."
- "I only ask that you and your readers before drawing conclusions, judge me on my work over my 15-year career covering politics. I'm an analyst; I don't have an agenda other than making politics interesting and sharing my passion for the subject in a way that will draw more folks into the arena."
- "My politics really is as neutral as it comes; I've gotten so engrossed in the game of campaigns that I don't pigeon-hole anyone. For those familiar with The Hotline, they can vouch for that. I view my job as an analyst. Who's up and who's down and why are they up and why are they down."
As I responded to Todd: "from my perspective it would be nice if, once in a while, someone in your position would have to explain that they don't have an agenda despite having worked for Republican politicians or conservatively-oriented initiatives. Instead, we're asked to accept that neither Chris Matthews nor Tim Russert -- and now you --- have an agenda despite having all worked for liberal Democrats."
By the same token, Chuck Todd's willingness to engage with NewsBusters, his admiration for MRC and Brent Bozell, his long tenure out of partisan politics and in reporting at Hotline, and his avowal of neutral-as-can-be politics, are encouraging. Todd will have a much higher profile than his predecessor as NBC political director, Liz Wilner. In addition to his behind-the-scenes duties, Todd will serve as NBC News' on-air political analyst for "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams," "Today," "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" and MSNBC, including "Hardball with Chris Matthews."
We'll be watching!
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Talk about a recipe for disas
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:06 ET by BruzillaTalk about a recipe for disaster! The political director is going to also be "starring" on shows that are dominated by the opinions of very ego-driven folks like Russert and Mathews??? We know well how their views run, so what is Todd going to do on these shows? Is he going to have the moxie to stand up and challenge the slanted views of Chris Mathews, while trying to maintain a stance of being impartial as the political director? That's about as realistic as me finding Jessica Simpson in my bed tonight (I can always hope.)
What's more likely to happen is that he's going to have to let a lot of sins slide on those shows in order to placate the egos of the hosts, and once he starts doing that his Liberal side will come shining through. If Todd wants to be successful he should focus on being the political director and leave the on-air debates and discussions to someone else.
Sorry
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:08 ET by iveseenitallSorry. I, for one, don't trust him. If he weren't a liberal, he'd never have been hired. Besides, liberals lie, bigtime.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
How left is Chuck Todd ?
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:09 ET by SportPoliticsHow left is Chuck Todd ?
He never could understand the blind rage of republicans.
John McCain is here to save the day.
ROFLMAO - only a flaming liberal could possibly come up with this.
[ Bottom line: Those who want to lead the GOP in the future had better view 2006 as a defeat and not just an unlucky break.
Plenty of wise GOP strategists are coming to grips with what really happened last week -- that the Republicans got killed by the middle. Self-described independents and moderates tipped just about every close election to the Democrats.
The result seems to run counter to the recent Republican argument that close elections are won by the base.
But as sullen as some are in the GOP about the party's problems with the center heading into '08, I've got good news: John McCain is here to save the day.
Now, before clicking away under the assumption that this is another typical MSM lovefest for the maverick Arizona senator, hear me out.
Conservative ire for McCain is real. The question, of course, is: Are there enough of these conservatives to stop McCain from getting the GOP nomination? Apparently, it's a question both Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are determined to find out.
I've never fully understood the blind rage conservatives have for McCain. }
//election.nationaljournal.com/todd/111506.htm
I Don't Buy It
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:21 ET by emjem24Mark, while I understand you're giving Todd the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure I can buy his "I'm totally neutral" stance. No one, especially in the media is "neutral." It's like saying a politician is "neutral." Now, by nature I'm a suspicious person but I think you're giving this guy a little too much credit. I'm sure if there's even a hint of common sense, conservative "whimsy" they'll turn him in a heartbeat. That's how they are. There is always inherent bias in anyone, especially those in the media, and for Todd to deny it is disingenuous.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
I was reporting Todd's sta
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:25 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI was reporting Todd's statements, not endorsing them. You'll note I stated that it would nice not to have rely on claims of neutrality from folks with liberal backgrounds. I also mentioned that "we'll be watching," meaning we'll be monitoring to see whether Todd's claims to neutrality are borne out in his work at NBC.
Mark, if you're able/willin
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:56 ET by sarcasmoMark, if you're able/willing, might you send Todd this quiz. If he's truly-neutral then he should score somewhere near dead-center, or at least that's been the goal over the past few decades of lots of work developing the thing. (I'm curious in part because I've found that while some people score centrist, very few people who've previously claimed to be centrists actually-score that way!)
JMR
If Mr. Todd is indeed neutral
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:22 ET by MikeBIf Mr. Todd is indeed neutral in his politics, and maintains that neutrality in his on-air political analysis, that is, provides a balanced analysis that gives the pro and con of the positions on both sides of an issue, he will be accused in the most vitriolic of terms of right-wing bias. Mr. Todd, I predict one of two things will happen: you will either provide only that analysis that is favorable to the left, or you will be fired after only a short time.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mark, Your response about i
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 13:37 ET by Wineguy13Mark,
Your response about it being refreshing to, just once, have to swallow a ex-conservative becoming an important media figure is spot-on. That having been said, I have seen Chuck on C-SPAN et al and he seems pretty straight down the middle.
There is one exception to t
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:29 ET by Matthew SheffieldThere is one exception to that rule and it's at Fox. Everywhere else, it seems people with past conservative political activism do not get any kind of power in the MSM.
How can you work for NBC as a
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:15 ET by rimskyHow can you work for NBC as a political director and be neutral? I could see being neutral if you were a technician, or a receptionist, but political director? Yes, we should watch closely.
Mark, what exactly does a political director at a large network do? The fact that they even have a position such as this, IMO, loudly implies that there is an agenda.
The Guy Is liberal
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:25 ET by Eagle OneThe guy has been on that sissy Chrissy's show a number of times, and he always agrees with the sissy Chrissy.
If your a liberal your a nut!
You Guys are missing the Poin
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:25 ET by JayTeeYou Guys are missing the Point....WHY oh WHY does a media station need a Political Director ? Report the News, Give equal time to both sides, cover the Politics.....we don't need no stinking NBC director of Politics...we need news/reporting/coverage, not Direction !!
How about a NEWS director ? Geez.....NBC ratings are in the tank, Fox is at the Top....it's like a chevy and a Toyota....Look at what is successful, and COPY IT...!! (add Ted K. "hellooo" here)
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
President Abraham Lincoln
JT, I was just thinking th
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:40 ET by Dave RJT,
I was just thinking the same thing. It sort of reminds me of the old Soviet Navy placing "political officers" on all of their ships to keep people in line. Seems almost a little ominous to me.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Political neutrality at NBC
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:28 ET by seabreezePolitical neutrality at NBC? Interesting, especially since they have made a hard move to the left over the last year. NBC is approaching CNN status as a lefty mouthpiece.
Hope, but cautious
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:53 ET by KC MulvilleTodd claims to be neutral, but that's not what we want. There's a big difference between being neutral and being objective. We want objectivity.
"Neutral" means that you don't care about the result. Now is it realistic to think that someone chooses a career but remains "neutral" about it? As if he was in it simply for the fun of it? That's like saying that you want to be a surgeon, but you don't care if the patient lives or dies. That may sound equitable but it makes the surgeon blind and stupid. A journalist, instead, is supposed to be objective. You can be as partisan as you want, so long as you're objective. The problem with the mainstream media is not that they're all Democrat; the problem is that they distort the news. It's the distortion, not the voting record.
If you claim to be neutral (not just by using that word, but pretending to be unconcerned about the result), then you're either deliberately lying or you just don't understand the difference ... in which case, you shouldn't be in the job in the first place.
Your point is well-made, KC
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 14:55 ET by Matthew SheffieldYour point is well-made, KC. I think most any intelligent person is capable of objectivity (or at least trying to be so) but only apathetic people are capable of neutrality in everything.
Hence sarcasmo pulls world's
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:06 ET by sarcasmoHence sarcasmo pulls world's smallest political quiz from libertarian arsenal... http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html again, but links aren't workin' at the moment on NB.
JMR
I shut off the WYSIWYG editor
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:13 ET by Matthew SheffieldI shut off the WYSIWYG editor to test things out. You can still make links by doing the following:
<a href="http://website.com">Click here</a>
Yeah, I'm just too-lazy today
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:17 ET by sarcasmoYeah, I'm just too-lazy today, and there's a real linky above anyway. BTW, NB seems to be one of the only sites (along with a poker site I'm now not-allowed to use anymore -- thank you for "protecting" me, big government!) that can occasionally actually-crash Firefox 1.5.0.9 on a Mac. Considering the probable size of the affected audience (me) I doubt you'd want to do anything about it, though...
JMR
I use FF on a Mac often actua
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 15:49 ET by Matthew SheffieldI use FF on a Mac often actually. Never had a problem with it crashing. Try upgrading it to version 2.0.
I was under the impression th
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 16:00 ET by sarcasmoI was under the impression this is the latest version, as I think I have it set to auto-upgrade (a security no-no, but I like the Mozilla project so I feel I can trust those guys). I can't wait 'till the new MacOS and new long-range WiFi specs come-out/solidify so I can finally buy another notebook, because I did the conservative thing and bought the VERY LAST PPC-chipped 15 inch notebook version last time in fear of the new Intel chips. This strategy has served me very well in the past (Apple does their beta testing on other users this way, rather than me) but it leaves me waiting whenever we see these tech-leaps. Anyway, once they get good at them and put out new stuff, which will hopefully be soon, I'll be thrilled to get new speedy one EXCEPT (and this is annoying, dammit!) that Jobs took-away the phone jack -- an unforgivable hacker-sin IMO!! Of course, that just gives me an excuse to wait longer in case they put it back...
JMR
The auto-upgrade only works f
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 16:18 ET by Matthew SheffieldThe auto-upgrade only works for minor version increases (1.5.2 to 1.5.3 for instance). For more major increases, you have to manually upgrade.
Mr. Sheffield, one would imag
Fri, 02/16/2007 - 07:49 ET by UnsaneMr. Sheffield, one would imagine that if a reporter truly was a slavish devotee of whichever party, that said reporter would be much harder on the party he/she supports, if only to ensure that his/her cause is adequately and competently represented. Make sense?
I'm not saying there is not a Leftist bias in the media; rather, I am pointing out that because there is such a bias, the quality of the political debate has atrophied. I can't figure out why reporters haven't turned up the heat massively on Leftist politicians AND Rightist ones, if only to make sure the most competent ones on both sides get a "hearing".
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Prior to the 2004 presidentia
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 19:17 ET by TEPrior to the 2004 presidential election, Chuck Todd orgasmically declared that John Kerry would win the election. Exhibit No. 1,000,000,001 of Todd's wishful thinking.
Put 'er in neutral
Thu, 02/15/2007 - 21:05 ET by acumen"I only ask that you and your readers before drawing conclusions...."
How could we possibly draw conclusions on someone that is supposedly neutral? Interesting.....
We know you by what you produ
Fri, 02/16/2007 - 05:23 ET by Andrew H.We know you by what you produce. And that is bad stuff. Liberals can't help themselves--your thinking comes through and we dial out.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.