David Gregory: The Expected, But Nonetheless Mediocre Choice

When Tim Russert suddenly passed away, I exchanged some emails with friends on his likely replacement. At the time, I had little doubt who it would be: David Gregory. This is not because I have any smart insight, but because I believed at the time that Gregory was the safest choice for NBC network suits, and as a result, his selection was almost a foregone conclusion. When his hiring as the host of Meet the Press was made official this week, it should have shocked no one. That being said, just because Gregory was the obvious choice does not mean he was a good choice.

The elevation of Gregory to the head of the storied Sunday morning talk show can be explained in one word: gravitas; or perhaps two words: perceived gravitas. David Gregory looks every bit the part of a serious journalist and newsman. He's covered politics and the White House for a major network for some time. He has been a notable jouster with President Bush at numerous press conferences. With his gray and white hair (but not advanced age; he's just 38) he looks like a serious, important political person. Heck, even his name, "David Gregory", sounds esteemed. And make no mistake, all of these factors were critical in his selection.

NBC has a lot of pride in Meet the Press. It likes to tout it as not only the highest-rated news program on Sunday morning, but perhaps the most influential news show in all media. Every Sunday, its rich political history is highlighted once more so we can all bask in the heady position the show has enjoyed for decades. In other words, NBC likes to remind us all how important and relevant the show is. That's all well and good, and I can readily acknowledge that Meet the Press has been popular for some time. Given the high regard NBC holds for ones its signature products, Gregory was the natural heir when Russert passed on. After all, he has the gravitas that NBC thinks befits the show.

However, I for one think it was a mediocre, uninspired choice. Remind me again why Meet the Press has been so popular in recent years? Oh yeah, it was Tim Russert, and Russert was anything but the stuffy scribe that I think Gregory embodies. Russert was not of Washington, a fact he liked to highlight proudly every single show. He was from Buffalo, and in the field of politics, he embodied unique character and a regular person more than anyone else around. His friendly, boisterous personality coupled with his unassuming manner made him beloved by many people, and his impeccable work and tough-but-fair and always respectful questioning of participants on his show earned him near-universal respect. Really, Russert was simply a political junkie and he covered politics in a way that made you realize that right away. And nothing seemed contrived.

Russert was successful precisely because he was not someone like David Gregory or others like him; in many ways, he was the exact opposite. And if NBC's corporate suits think that Gregory can tap into Russert's success even a little bit, they're nuts. Any continued success of Meet the Press will be based solely on its brand, until proven otherwise. People watched Russert, listened to him, and respected him because he was so different from endless litany of boring, phony, carbon-copy hosts and pundits you can catch on any other channel at basically any time of day, seven days a week droning on about politics.

I realize that someone like Russert is irreplaceable, and I am not suggesting that NBC should have based its search for a new host on finding the new Russert (though, I don't there was ever a search as I think Gregory was the choice for the job immediately). Such a thing would have been impossible and foolish. What I am suggesting is that in deciding a new host, NBC should have better considered why Russert made Meet the Press so successful, and in turn influential. He was liked because he was real and because he was different from the other indistinguishable rabble.

Was there a clearly better choice out there than David Gregory? I am not positive, but I think the answer is 'probably.' Personally, I would have tapped Chuck Todd for the job. Todd, NBC's political director made his bones as the head of the Hotline, the well known daily (and incredibly exhaustive) politics broadsheet that is read on Capitol Hill and by politics junkies everywhere. Anyway who has ever worked for Hotline is an unquestioned junkie, and if you've watched Todd, you know he is too, in much the same way Russert was, though minus the latter's personal and sunny exuberance. And also like Russert, Todd has never been a White House reporter, which was a knock invoked against him. However, I think that attack was silly since Todd has been on tv about 10 billion times in his life as an analyst, and I don't think him being in front of a camera was a big deal.

Of course, Todd did not get the job because he doesn't have Gregory's perceived gravitas. Todd does not look like the man who should be hosting the self-described gold standard of political journalism. He has red hair and a goatee, he's kind of chubby, and has a boyish appearance. All stark contrasts to Gregory and others. Also, in fairness, he is not as off-the-cuff and capable of fresh witty banter as Russert was; though to be equally fair, I've never seen any indication that Gregory is capable of showing that side. But again, Gregory is all about outward appearances, and that's why I think he was picked. Tell me: did Tim Russert look like he should have been hosting Meet the Press?

I'm sure part of me wants to duplicate Russert in some way, even though that's impossible. You can't recreate perfectly things like that. All I know is that Todd would have been an interesting choice, and David Gregory is a mediocre choice, no matter what the ratings tell me later. Gregory was just the safe choice to corporate suits who don't like to be different. That's a shame, because starting soon, Meet the Press will be like all the other political talk shows.