Showing posts with label David Gregory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Gregory. Show all posts

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Romney calls talk of him making another presidential bid ‘silly’

Romneycallstalkofhimmakinganotherpresidential

Romney calls talk of him making another presidential bid ‘silly’

posted at 5:01 pm on June 15, 2014 by Noah Rothman

The talk of the town on the Sunday morning talk shows was Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) loss to his Republican primary opponent and the fracturing of the GOP. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday where he was asked about that dynamic within the party, and talk by some that Romney should consider making another run for the White House. Romney said he was not interested in mounting a third presidential bid and called talk of drafting him to run “silly.”

Romney said that the narrative that the party is split along establishment and tea party lines is undermined by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) winning his primary race over at least five competitive challengers.

“Is the tea party populism driving the Republican Party?” host David Gregory asked.

“It certainly didn’t drive what happened in South Carolina,” Romney replied.

“Would you be a candidate in 2016,” Gregory pressed. “If you were drafted, if the conditions were right, would you consider another run?”

“I’m not running for president,” Romney laughed. “I’ve said that so many times.”

Romney reminded Gregory that he recently held a conference of Republican officeholders where they discussed the GOP’s evolving messaging heading into 2016. The former presidential candidate noted that one of the primary reasons to hold that conference was to introduce prospective presidential candidates to his fundraising network. “Had I been running, I wouldn’t be doing that,” he said.

“I’m convinced that the field of Republican candidates that I’m seeing is in a lot better position to do that than I am,” Romney said. “Talk of draft is kind of silly.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, May 2, 2014

Another blow to David Gregory at “Meet The Press” as producer quits

AnotherblowtoDavidGregoryat“MeetThe

Another blow to David Gregory at “Meet The Press” as producer quits

posted at 4:21 pm on May 2, 2014 by Jeff Dunetz

The spring has not been kind to David Gregory, host of Meet The Press. Three weeks ago the Washington Post reported that NBC hired a Psychological consultant to interview his friends and his wife in an attempt to get insight from people who know him best and solve the falling ratings of his Sunday news program.  Today’s news is the show’s long-standing producer, Chris Donovan, quit after a dozen years and the job and is going to work for ABC ‘s Sunday News program This Week.

According to the New York Post’s ”Page Six” :

Donovan, who started at ABC last week, was fed up with embattled Gregory and the direction of “Meet the Press,” sources tell Page Six, which has sunk to third place in the ratings, behind CBS’ “Face the Nation” and ABC’s “This Week.”

One source said, “There is a tense atmosphere at ‘Meet the Press.’ Gregory is dismissive of the staff, and is often hard to reach or approach.

“He is famously the only host on Sunday morning TV who won’t pick up the phone to seal the deal to get a big guest. There’s nobody else on TV, and certainly on Sunday mornings, who thinks they are too important to do that. It is tough on the producers.”

Another source insisted that well-respected Donovan left for ABC for an opportunity to work as a senior producer across George’s shows “This Week” and “GMA,” plus news specials.

Of course the public statements were all “love and flowers”:

Donovan said, “I had an incredible run at ‘Meet the Press,’ and left only because I was given an amazing opportunity at ABC News. Any suggestion that I was mistreated is not true. I have a great relationship with David.”

Gregory also told Page Six, “I think the world of Chris Donovan, and I know, having spoken to him today, that he did not say nor does he feel what is being attributed to him.

(…) NBC News President Deborah Turness also criticized the media “chatter” as “vindictive, personal and, above all, untrue.

Granted, when Gregory took over from Tim Russert he had huge shoes to fill. In his 17 years of moderating Meet the Press, the last ten as the top Sunday news program in the ratingsRussert  proved himself to be an unbiased interviewer who was just as tough on all sides of the political spectrum.

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out Meet the Press slide from first to third in the ratings by talking to Gregory’s friends and family, or worrying about the producer, NBC would be much better served to work with their host and train him to be just as unbiased as his predecessor. That one change will make their program more appealing to a broader spectrum of political views resulting in an audience increase.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, April 21, 2014

NBC wonders: What makes David Gregory tick?

NBCwonders:WhatmakesDavidGregorytick?

NBC wonders: What makes David Gregory tick?

posted at 9:21 am on April 21, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Meet the Press has aired for nearly 70 years on NBC (since 1947), and has spent most of that time as the top-rated Sunday interview show. Since Tim Russert’s untimely death and David Gregory’s succession, however, the venerable show has declined considerably, falling behind CBS’ Face the Nation in terms of overall ratings and the key 25-50 demo, even though host Bob Schieffer is far older than Gregory. Any network facing these circumstances would undertake some serious probing to discover the problem.

But does that include psychological screening for a man whose been at the network for almost two decades? The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi says yes:

The Sunday shows — which comprise what Schieffer calls “the smartest morning on TV” — are more than just prestige projects for the networks; the relatively large and affluent audiences they attract make them magnets for corporate image advertisers that pay premium prices for airtime. Russert’s dominating position helped NBC earn a reported $60 million from “Meet the Press” in 2007.

Thus, “MTP’s” meltdown has sounded alarm bells inside NBC News and attracted the attention of its new president, Deborah Turness, who arrived from Britain’s ITV News in August. Gregory’s job does not appear to be in any immediate jeopardy, but there are plenty of signs of concern.

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.

Around the same time, the network appointed a new executive producer at “MTP,” Rob Yarin, a veteran media consultant. Yarin, who had worked with Gregory on an MSNBC show, “Race for the White House,” during the 2008 campaign, succeeded Betsy Fischer Martin, who reigned over “MTP” for 11 years. Fischer Martin had helped Russert soar to glory, but had disagreed with Gregory over matters of style and substance (she was promoted to oversee all of NBC’s political coverage).

Two points should be made about the above, even apart from personal tastes over the style of the shows. First, conducting a psychological screening of their host is just, well, insaneMaybe the exercise will help Gregory get in touch with his inner child, or something. However, the nature of television isn’t a therapy session, and viewers could care less about Gregory’s psyche when they tune in for interviews. If NBC execs have questions about Gregory’s mental structure in relation to his job, then maybe they should just look for another host. Gregory seems to have taken it in stride, but it’s difficult to understand why. If my employer was unhappy with my work, the last thing I’d expect is for them to start talking to my wife and my friends about it.

Second, the issue seems to have begun when Gregory took the job, not when Betty Fischer Martin began working on the show. She helped Russert dominate Sunday mornings, so why did NBC push her out last year for opposing Gregory’s “style and substance”? Even NBC questioned that to the point of doing psychological screening. Why get rid of a proven success to revamp the show to meet mediocrity?

One change already made is to use shorter and punchier interviews:

The overall effect is that the program now bears only a vague resemblance to the one over which Russert presided. Whereas Russert would spend multiple segments grilling a single newsmaker, Gregory now barely goes more than six or seven minutes on any interview or topic.

Scott Johnson scoffs:

Here’s a thought. It’s the audience that needs to be assessed. Why does it turn away from Gregory? Maybe they’ve done the research on that, but Farhi doesn’t have the goods.

According to Farhi, NBC thinks that the remedy might be segments in smaller doses. If the idea is smaller doses of Gregory, they might be getting warm. Less Gregory just might be the ticket.

Shorter, punchier, and less depth — sounds more like the weekday breakfast shows than the traditional Meet the Press model. That leads us to this unfortunate metaphor, from Gregory himself and noted by Scott:

Gregory says the new look “delivers on the core of what ‘Meet the Press’ is” but “widens the aperture . . .”

A question for Paul Farhi: Do you really want to quote Gregory on “widening the aperture” here? Are you sure that’s the metaphor you want to use in this context?

Even amateur photographers know that widening the aperture reduces the depth. It captures only the central image itself. The idea of the Sunday talk shows is to reach that depth by deep dives with its subjects, not quick hits filled with sound bites and segues, and especially on important topics rather than entertainment and fluff. If this is an experiment in television, it appears to have already failed. Everyone at NBC is flailing here, and not just Gregory.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, December 23, 2013

Gibbs: Yeah, 2013 was Obama’s worst yet

Gibbs:Yeah,2013wasObama’sworstyet

Gibbs: Yeah, 2013 was Obama’s worst yet

posted at 12:01 pm on December 23, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

At this point, what use is there in denying it? Barack Obama’s polls amply demonstrate that 2013 was his annus horribilis — so far, a thought to which we’ll get return shortly.  It’s not just Obama who’s had a bad year, either, as Meet the Press host David Gregory notes in framing this question for Robert Gibbs. The progressive argument that government does it better had its worst year, too, which the former Obama press secretary can’t deny:

CBS’ Bob Schieffer extended that theme on Face the Nation, proposing that this was actually the worst year that Washington DC has had since Watergate:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk about the year in Washington. I must say I find– I can’t think of a worse year that Washington has gone through, with the possible exception of Watergate, of course, which is kind of off by itself. What is going to happen on Obamacare now, Nancy? Is– is this program going to finally happen? I mean is it– is it going to– are people going to be enrolled or there are still problems?

NANCY CORDES: Well, I think our first test will be January first when people have their new insurance programs that they go to the hospital, if they go to their doctor, are they going to be able to get reimbursed, are they going to be able to see the doctor that they want to see and it’s really still an open question. And this is really a challenge I think, in particular, it’s an understatement for Democrats who are really in a bind. I mean– they have supported this, they have taken the slings and arrows on Obamacare for four years now. So they can’t turn their backs on it, you know, it’s– their main accomplishment, and it’s the President’s main accomplishment. On the other hand they do need to show that they think the program needs to be fixed. And going into an election year, every single one of them at some point in the past few years has said, if you like your doctor, you can keep him. If you like your plan, you can keep it. And you have to know that every Republican has found them saying that they’ve got the tape and they’re going to be turning that into ads come this fall.

That’s why Glenn Reynolds thinks that 2013 will be viewed in hindsight as an “average” year — and that 2014 will make it look rosy in comparison:

Unless something turns around, Obama’s 2013 is likely to be similarly “average”: Worse than 2012, but better than 2014.

It’s true that Obamacare has been a debacle, wrapped in a catastrophe, shrouded in a disaster. But it’s also become clear that it was founded upon a lie: Obama’s “if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it” statement was named by PolitiFact its lie of the year for 2013. Many Americans have already learned that their individual plans are being cancelledbecause they don’t live up to Obamacare, causing enough chaos that the Obama administration has had to give certain people a last-minute “waiver” of the mandate that they buy insurance. But many more problems have just been kicked down the road — into 2014 — by Obama’s unilateral decision. Ironically, the White House and Democrats were, just a couple of months ago, calling Republicans who wanted to delay the mandate anarchists and terrorists, and loudly proclaiming that Obamacare was “the law of the land.

Regardless, the mandate delay doesn’t solve problems, it just kicks the can down the road. And, as Bloomberg‘s Megan McArdle notes, the White House seems to be reacting to short-term political problems, rather than shoring up the system in ways that will make it work better:

However incoherent these fixes may seem, they send two messages, loud and clear. The first is that although liberal pundits may think that the law is a done deal, impossible to repeal, the administration does not believe that. … This is at best, damage control. Which suggests that the administration is expecting a fair amount of damage.

I think that’s right, and the damage will come in 2014. What we’ve seen so far, most likely, isn’t the worst of it.

The panic from red-state Democrats like Joe Manchin is a clear signal that they think 2014 is likely to be a lot worse, too.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, October 25, 2013

Video: ObamaCare meltdown raises serious questions about being unmanageable, says … David Gregory

Video:ObamaCaremeltdownraisesseriousquestionsaboutbeing

Video: ObamaCare meltdown raises serious questions about being unmanageable, says … David Gregory

posted at 12:01 pm on October 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Why should CBS have all the fun of pointing out the many facets of the ObamaCare disaster? Meet the Press host David Gregory tells Morning Joe that the epic faceplant of the rollout raises much larger questions than just whether a web portal can or will get fixed.  Republican predictions of disaster didn’t even include the incompetence in producing a $400 million website failure, Gregory says with a laugh.  Republicans predicted that the federal government was too incompetent to run the health-care sector — and this tends to prove they were right all along, and that proof gets stronger the longer the incompetence continues (via The Corner):

The bungled launch of Obamacare’s federal exchanges may be confirming Republicans’ various warnings about the health-care laws, says Meet the Press host David Gregory. He also said that Obamacare’s “caricature of incompetence” thus far may doom the law if the administration doesn’t address the problems soon.

Because of the website’s issues, Gregory said, the Obama administration may also miss out on the window to enroll younger people, who are crucial to the law’s success. “The question I think you’ll see more and more going into next year is, ‘Is this too big, too complicated for the federal government to administer?’” he said on Morning Joe on Friday.

The incompetence turns into dishonesty and opacity, which frustrates ACA supporter Josh Barro at Business Insider.  Barro participated in a CMS conference call yesterday, and came away with more questions and worry than when he started:

  • Battaille claimed not to know how many of those applications came from the 36 states that do not operate their own exchanges (meaning consumers are supposed to buy coverage by navigating HealthCare.gov). How is CMS figuring out a total number of applications if not by adding together reports from state exchanges and information from the federal exchange? If they won’t disclose the federal-only number, it’s presumably because it’s embarrassingly low and they don’t want it publicly known.
  • Battaille wouldn’t say who, aside from Jeff Zients, is involved in the “tech surge” that is supposed to bring in bright private sector tech talents to help fix the exchange. Ezra Klein noted yesterday the administration’s silence on this question, leading him to wonder whether “the scope of the surge is less impressive, and more insider-focused, than the administration is implying.” Is the tech surge just a PR strategy to demonstrate action on the website’s problems without having to give out more detail about them?
  • She wouldn’t say when CMS expects that the site will be working properly.
  • Twice, she declined to answer a question about whether Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was aware of the system’s problems before launch.
  • She continued to emphasize website problems related to traffic (and therefore, vast consumer demand that demonstrates how great Obamacare’s benefits are) when reports in many outlets, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, have relied on anonymous insurance industry sources to suggest that there are major problems in the exchange system’s backend, including providing incorrect application information to insurers, that aren’t related to traffic.

Barro concluded:

There’s no reason not to level with the public right now, unless the truth is so horrible and the website is so un-fixable that Obama administration officials can’t bring themselves to discuss the matter publicly. I suspect that’s not the case.

I’m not sure why Barro would suspect that other than wishful thinking, after the litany of spin he got from the conference call. The only reason not to level with the public would be because they don’t want people to know how bad this really is. If the truth was better than popular perception, CMS and the White House would be bombarding us with that data; after all, this isn’t an administration that gets shy about leaking data that makes them look good.  And if they didn’t share data that refutes the perception of disaster, that also speaks to incompetence, does it not?

Wishful thinking eventually meets reality. That moment is now upon the media, and Barro’s bright enough to recognize it soon.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair