What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
73 Comments
- Fallout911, on 12/03/2008, -5/+34I can't stand Gregory.
Wrong move MSNBC - markgl, on 12/02/2008, -9/+30well so long meet the press. another show butchered.
- trotskyist, on 12/03/2008, -4/+22I'd have preferred Chuck Todd.
- Autodidaddict, on 12/03/2008, -3/+18Meet the Press was one of the few main stream media programs that I used to still trust and watch. But it was because of Russert.
You want to make Meet the Press legit? Bring in Charlie Rose. The man is smart, a great conversationalist, and asks really intelligent questions.
But he wouldn't do it for a million bucks. And I don't blame him. ***** the networks and corporate for-profit news. ***** the main stream media. - spaceman84, on 12/03/2008, -3/+15David Gregory sucks. I've yet to hear a "hard question" come out of his mouth. He also repeats a lot of the current administration's ***** as if it were fact. They should have chosen someone who has a fully functional brain.
- insomniac8400, on 12/03/2008, -0/+9Although Gregory is an idiot and just about as interesting as watching paint dry, I think it's safe to say that when you are spouting out lies on behalf of the Bush administration any questions coming your way are going to be considered biased against Bush.
- L0NER, on 12/03/2008, -3/+12Chuck Todd please!
- binky79, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10I liked Brian Williams for the job. He did one right after Russert died, and i though he did an OK job.
- Dawggoneit, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6David Gregory sucks. Not because he's biased, but because he doesn't have integrity; he doesn't do real research; and he presents himself through republican and democratic talking points instead of present his own independent analysis of a topic. He was given a chance to show his political hutzbah with his show "Road to the White House," and the only time it was watchable was when he wasn't hosting it.
Rachael Maddow would have been biased, but at least it would have been intelligent. Why couldn't they have picked Ted Koppel? Sure he's old, but he cut his teeth in a time when journalists had integrity; David Gregory cut his teeth in a time when media integrity meant presenting the republican and democratic lies side by side and never telling the public what was actually true for fear of being called biased.
Way to screw things up NBC. - insomniac8400, on 12/03/2008, -2/+8I bet you watch fox news. Olberman may rave and rant, but he always tells the truth. O'reilly makes everything up and pretends its the truth. And Gregory is hardly a left wing lunatic. But I do commend you on saying left, instead of liberal. At least you understand that liberal applies to republicans.
- trotskyist, on 12/03/2008, -3/+9Chuck Todd
- TheJimid, on 12/03/2008, -5/+11Well we knew it wasn't going to be Olbermann...... He spits to much hot fire for the AM.
- MetalliTooL, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5He looks like an ape.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6No. She is not ready for that job yet. I have been a bit disappointed with her job on MSNBC.
- TheManikin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5And the era of watching politicians squirm on Meet the Press ends now.
- MelvinSchlubman, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5Whom would you prefer (from NBC or any other network)?
Genuinely asking - I don't watch enuf TV news to have a strong opinion on many of the candidates. - IanCube, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4Charlie Rose would be an interesting catch, but his own show is great as it is.
I wanted Gregory from the day after Tim died (as mentioned above). I watched his 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. program tonight, and he did a good job. He'll just need to go back to his journalism-mentality (watch some old videos of him in the press room, he was tough) and not the standard broadcaster-mentality. - PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4How could you miss?
- Grym11, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4The crazy thing is they already let David Gregory do an episode for Meet The Press and he COMPLETELY bombed. It was horrible. He never asked a difficult question, never challenged his guests' *****, and when he had two guests on at the same time he was a complete fly-on-the-wall as they talked past eachother and never had to address the others' points. At the time, I honestly thought that his poor performance was on purpose because the Tim Russert memorial show was the following week and he was purposely being bad to play up how good Tim Russert was. I hope I was right or there's going to be one less podcast in my subscriptions.
What boggles my mind is that Tim Russert's shtick is such an easy thing to do. You look up in previous interviews or statements statements or actions which contradict the guest's current batch of *****. You then read aloud or play a video of this contradicting point and ask them to explain themselves. When the get completely off-topic you press them for answers. Rinse. Repeat. It's honestly stuff that every journalist should be doing. The fact that it has become notable and unique to the point where people were comparing Tim Russert to Walter Cronkite is pretty depressing. - hobgobbler, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6yeah, why not chuck todd
david gregory is okay when he sticks to asking questions but he's still one of the biggest douche bags on tv
but whatever, who the ***** cares anyway - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -5/+8Wow talk about putting the biggest douch bag possible as host. Might as well watch Fox and Friends...
On second thought, I will now just have one less Sunday program that I watch and spend more time online.
Nice job NBC. - Thumper13, on 12/03/2008, -4/+7Is anyone else creeped out by this guy?
In a like, he was just found molesting little boys and I'm not very surprised sort of way?
Just wondering. - vat0r, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4FAIL
- untreadatom, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I am surprised that this many people agree with me that Gregory is a freakin tool
- NyteStarNyne, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4Rachel Maddow is just about the only reason I watch MSNBC these days, or as Jon Stewart calls it, the New Fox News.
- cuoops, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2This show has survived since 1947 with 10 different moderators. It's not going anywhere. I'm sure they'll change if this guy doesn't do good.
- cadmiumpaint, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4nope. please try again.
its a tough seat to fill, but you'd think they would have tried a little harder. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4This is NBC positioning themselves for the next 4-8 years of Democratic government.
The media does this. Thus the unquestioning support for the Iraq War (at least before it started, and during the first few months) from the mass media.
Now the same dicks are bemoaning the "liberal media". Get a clue. - KyleGoetz, on 12/03/2008, -3/+5Bob Costas. Hear me out: He guest hosted a few times and was always excellent. Rumor has it he was offered the job and turned it down.
- TheManikin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Gregory WILL NOT make politicians look foolish like Russert did. I miss that man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66bTshO1jM - whatthefu, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3You cannot possibly make an argument that Olbermann is any better than Bill O'Reilly. MSNBC has responded to Fox News by becoming increasingly liberal. This is a mistake, and demonstrates one of the many flaws of cable news networks. Keith Olbermann is a pundit. There are plenty of people out there who think pundits like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity "always tell the truth." Obviously, you would disagree. They and Olbermann speak their opinions. Opinions are opinions. These men are nothing but pundits, and considering them journalists (or comparing them to the great Edward R. Murrow for that matter) is a big mistake.
- ProKid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I thought for sure he was gonna get it
- BlackApple, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3Now that Obama won I have no need to watch Meet the Press. Gregory isn't great but they don't have that many talking heads to choose from. Russert was special he truly loved it, I hope his son Luke someday hosts the show.
- SSPink, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2You don't remember all the times he held Scott McClellan's chubby little feet to the fire? Or his run ins with Tony Snow?
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1And Matthews wouldn't let anybody get a word in edgewise.
- coopersanborn, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Gregory moving to MTP opens up 6:00 on MSNBC, which I think is now Todd’s to lose.
That means we get Chuck every weekday instead of just every Sunday. I'll take that! - liquisoft, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3I wish I could have an opinion on this, but I honestly didn't know who Gregory was until I googled him. I imagine this is true for a lot of people.
Now, there are comments here implying that Gregory is an obvious partisan. I can't comment on those because, like I said, I don't know anything about this guy. One thing I DO know is that the show never stood a chance of being "the same as it always was" after Russert died. His name became synonymous with Meet the Press, and he was pretty much loved by everybody who knew him. Those are big shoes to fill, and I don't think any replacement would've been considered good enough.
In other words, the show is never going to be the same, but maybe it can become something else that is positive. We'll see. - IanCube, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Chuck Todd, followed by Luke Russert. That is all.
- MonumentMan, on 12/03/2008, -3/+4I have been a politics junkie for a decade, and have never warmed up to David Gregory.
Doubtful I'll watch the show. - deema1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1This guy's 38?!?!?!?!?!
- scout29c, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1If you are far enough to the right, the center looks left to you.
Conservatives would love to rid the world of all liberals. On the other hand, those insufferable liberals’ hearts bleed for everyone and everything whether it is the most insignificant little creature to even conservatives. While there’s no room for liberals in the conservatives’ world, everyone has a right to a place in the liberal world.
It's enough to make you puke. - AndySavage, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I'm still so upset that I never got to see McCain get ZOMGPWNED by Tim Russert in the heat of the general election campaign.
- insomniac8400, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Where have you been in the last 8 years. Liberal is a term for Republicans. They are more liberal than any other political party. All they do is spend spend spend. And even worse a lot of their spending is overseas, rather than to support our own country. And conservative is a word that can only be used to describe republicans only if you precede it by the word "religious". The modern republican party can therefore be described as Liberal Religious Conservatives.
- r00fus, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Listen/Watch Gregory's hosting of "Race to the Whitehouse 2008"... he's sounds like a complete tool.
There were times where all of his "analysts" (both right and left) were pretty much telling him he was an idiot because he continued to spew the same old talking points that were clearly outdated or invalidated by current events. - pintomp3, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1i think she's doing a great job, and the ratings show it. she's amazingly well informed but not bullish or confrontational. she brings more light than heat. her jovial style sometimes takes away from the seriousness of the topics she is covering but can also be disarming. much better than the heated rants by most other pundits. i think she would have been quite refreshing on a sunday morning. much more so than the shoutfest over at mclaughlin. maddow and some mcds breakfast on a sunday morning. beat that.
- untreadatom, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I want to grow up to be charlie rose. Unfortunately though, I don't think NBC or any of the major networks for that matter would allow it. People would get too much actual information and the powers that be cannot have people being to educated.
- bonius, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I like watching her, shes cute and witty, only reason I look at DNBC
- insomniac8400, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I think some of you mistake Olberman's opinions as complete truth. They are based on the truth, but opinion is really just an educated guess. So it's not a fact. When he reports things as truth, they are true. Olbermann's special comments are not played as hard fact, they are his opinion. O'Reilly doesn't give "opinion" on his show. That guy claims everything he says is a fact. And worse yet, he contradicts himself with his own "facts" all the time. Olbermann and O'Reilly are both politically charged, but Olbermann has opinions, while O'Reilly tries to pass everything he says as fact. There is a huge difference in the two. Sean Hannity does the same thing. He makes crap up and reports it as fact. His coverage of Obama scandals was ridiculous.
- Sizzor, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Chuck Todd.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is