Jon Stewart Confirms That NBC Approached Him To Host 'Meet The Press'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The rumors were true.

Jon Stewart has confirmed that he was in fact considered by NBC to take over as host of the Sunday show, "Meet the Press." The "Daily Show" host said in an interview with Rolling Stone that while the talk did happen, he wasn't entirely convinced that the network would follow through.

"I felt like that was one of those situations, where someone says, 'We really like what you do. Why don't you come over here and do something different, maybe something you don't do as well, for us?'" Stewart said. "I can understand notionally where it comes from. News and entertainment have melded in a way. But they would be overcompensating on the entertainment side."

Of course, NBC News wound up going with Chuck Todd to replace former host David Gregory after months of dismal ratings that saw the show fall from first to third place. Still, chief White House correspondent and Comedy Central host are two very different sides of the media spectrum to be courted for the same job, but Stewart has an idea as to why that might have been.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/jon-stewart-meet-the-press-nbc-news-host-confirmed_n_6078034.html

[intheflow]

1. If anything would save that show,

that would do it.

[SoCalDem]

2. Not necessarily..

Jon Stewart would have brought a breath of life to the show, but republicans would not go on the show for fear of being skewered, and having to answer tough questions. That would mean that more dems would go on, but then THEY would be the only ones getting skewered weekly..

The whole format needs to go.. There are plenty of other shows/networks now that have a lot more time. When these Sunday shows started, they were the ONLY venue for 30-60 minutes of political discussion..

The networks keep trying to resuscitate a dinosaur

[merrily]

6. The dinosaur was far better.

The original format was a bunch of journalists,right and left leaning, firing pretty decent questions at a guest that the guest did not know in advance. (Or so it seemed.) It was lively and interesting. It may even have been live in the earliest days. Hard to tell from the grainy clips they show.

They kept the name of the show, so they could keeping say how long MTP has been on, but they changed the entire show. Now, it's as dull, formulaic and right leaning as it can be and even pretend to still pretend to have some connection to real journalism.

Another factor: the politicians interviewed did not have all the handlers and advance people they have today, so you could get a glimpse of the real man. (I don't think I've ever seen a clip of a female guest from back then.)

[AngryOldDem]

11. I'm pretty sure it was live back in the day.

I assume you're talking about the time Lawrence Spivak hosted. That was the beauty of MTP -- it was truly meeting the press. Not a tongue-bath of Chuck's favorite pol followed by a half-hour circle jerk with Chuck's friends.

Interesting Wikipedia article. It's really sad what has happened to it, given its history. I remember my dad watching the show back in the 1960s and 1970s. It was *the* definitive Sunday morning news show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press

[AngryOldDem]

10. I doubt it. It's truly beyond saving.

And these commercials with the upbeat music and flashy graphics that run during the Nightly News are just plain embarrassing. Trying to make Chuck Todd look like a nice, all-American guy isn't working either. NBC can't bring itself to accept the fact that MTP is done. Over. Finis.

Maybe NBC should try a show along the lines of the Daily Show -- couldn't hurt. Otherwise, just give the Sunday time slot back to the affiliates so they can make money showing yet another infomercial.

But MTP has gone long past rigor and is now in mortis.

[Cha]

3. Thanks for this, Yo Mama.. Unreal.. they asked Jon first but they went with Chucky.

[merrily]

7. Makes no kind of sense to me.

Pretend you are an NBC executive. Now, pretend that you think the ideal host for MTP would be Jon Stewart, but, if Stewart turns you down, Chuck Todd

I cannot even imagine those two being entertained as alternatives by the same executive or the same group of executives. "Let's see, shall we go with the guy who is freakishly clever, entertaining and left leaning or the guy who is a dull and unqualified as it gets and who undermines Democrats every chance he gets?"

In what universe would the same mind contemplate that?

I don't know what exactly is fishy, but it just doesn't smell plausible to me. Then again, why do I still try to apply logic?

[JHB]

8. Not so mplausible. One is the guaranteed big draw, and failing that...

...save money and go with the in-house monkey.

[merrily]

9. Rachael Maddow is inhouse as well. So is Ed Shultz. Neither seems as embalmed as Toad.

With television political work being as limited as it is, and the country having a population of 350 million, I cannot believe Todd is the only one they could hire for low dollars. Besides, I don't know what he's making as host of MTP, but I have to think it's more than he made as host of his 9 am MSNBC snoozefest. ("Honey, please put on Todd. I am going to hit the snooze alarm button and catch another few winks and don't want anything on TV that might wake me.&quot

If the show were exciting, the money would not be an issue anyway. Sponsors would be lining up to throw money at it.

[AngryOldDem]

12. Would Maddow and Shultz want to do it?

Given they have a five-day a week show of their own?

[merrily]

18. I take it that is a rhetorical question?

However, they did ask Jon Stewart without knowing if he'd give up his four day a week show or not.

(Old line, maybe from vaudeville: "No thank you, said the lady to the gorilla, but it's always nice to be asked.&quot



Craig Ferguson would, IMO, be perfect, and he comes to mind not because he also hosts a late night show--in his case, very late night.

I happened to tune in one night when he spent his entire show interviewing Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He did a serious, but not boring or overly self-conscious interview. It was so nimble, brilliant and skillful that my jaw was on the ground, even though I had never considered him dumb. Later, I learned he got a Peabody Award for that very show.

He is giving up his show at the same time as Letterman retires. He would have been an outstanding choice.


ETA: In mentioning Rachael and Ed, I was confining myself to MSNBC inhouse staff, because of the post to which I was replying. However, I do not agree at all that there is any reason to limit people under consideration to MSNBC hosts.

America is a huge country with a huge and talented population. MTP is THE plum job of its kind, or was, until NBC bungled its host hiring. I am not buying that Todd is working cheap or that no one in the country with more talent than he has will work for whatever he is making. Or, that, with all the crazy money in TV, making the show #1 of its kind again would not make NBC vastly more rich than allegedly pinching pennies on the host's salary would justify.

So, IMO, there is less than zero reason to limit thinking to current MSNBC personnel.

[JHB]

13. In-house, but not monkeys.

Either one of them would put a stamp on the show that the execs in charge of MTP would not be comfortable with. So would Stewart, but his potential new-audience draw would outweigh that.

I don't think the execs really want to shake up the show, but Gregory was on such a downward trajectory that they had to make a show of doing something.

[merrily]

14. I am not sure about that.

I don't mean that they are monkeys. But, as I said, political TV jobs are not that easy to come by, especially what was once the #1 political TV show in both ratings and respect. Not that they are not monkeys, but that they will see the wisdom of keeping the job.

In any case, Toad will make clown Gregory look good.

And that ain't easy.

[Major Hogwash]

4. NBC will attempt to hire Ronald MacDonald next!

A rather well-known figure in his own right!

[eShirl]

5. They should offer to Martin Bashir.

yeah, I know...

[Gothmog]

15. Jon would be doing a far better job than Todd

[MerryBlooms]

16. I still think Ann Curry would have been great for that job. n/t

[Calista241]

17. I think that would have been a mistake.

The moderators are trying to be non-partisan. Or at least they're trying to appear that way.

I don't think Stewart (or Maddow, Olbermann, Ed or another MSNBC regular) could have pulled that off. Why would they want to anyway? Rachel is far more effective on a daily show.

[merrily]

19. Todd, an MSNBC regular, is a much bigger mistake and doesn't pulling off looking nonpartisan.

His comments are now part of Mitch McConnell's campaign ads. How much worse can it get than that?

I think you are selling Stewart, Maddow and Ed short. For one thing, Ed used to be a Republican, so he should not have a bit of trouble taking a middle road. For another, these people are professionals and intelligent. As evening hosts of MSNBC, Rachael and Ed are supposed to appear pro-Dem and they do; and Stewart is supposed to be doing exactly what he is doing.

If being more of an even handed moderator were the job description and any of them wanted the job, I don't have the least doubt they could pull it off.

I left Obermann out, but he could do it, too. He has not been an MSNBC regular for years and I doubt very much NBC would ask him. However, he got a sports job after Current on the condition that he not be a partisan (something he used to carry into his sports work) and he did just fine.

They're pros and they obviously like working on TV. They'd manage.

[Blue Owl]

20. No way JS would play the lead role in that GOP farce

At least I hope not!