Tom Brokaw named Meet The Press interim host

[signothetimes53]

Brian Williams just announced at the end of this morning's Meet The Press broadcast that Tom Brokaw has agreed to be the host of the program through this election season.

IMHO, that's the most logical choice they could make. Brokaw has the 'gravitas' and credentials and viewers know him. It buys the network time to find the long-term successor to Russert.

[Steve-oh]

Agreed, it's the best move to have Brokaw host through the election. It gives NBC time to make a (hopefully) good choice for a permanent replacement.

[Evan L]

Yes, an excellent choice.

Evan

[Marty Milton]

During our discussion of Who will succeed Tim Russert, I think a lot of us thought this is what NBC would do. Since this is a presidential election year is was probably important that NBC have someone with a proven track record be the host of MTP until after the elections. I could see NBC announcing the permanent host right before the election and have that person take an important role in the election night coverage.

[Chris C]

While I'm all for one, (dedicated to the cause), person to be the host of "MEET THE PRESS", thru the elections...WHY does it have to be "mumble mouth" Tom Brokaw? I can't understand half of what the guy is saying because he slurs so much, when he speaks. I get paid to do voicework and believe me, if I mumbled through the stuff like Brokaw, (aka, "Broken jaw") does, I'd never get any work. I honestly don't mean to be mean, but in the real world, even as good of a commentator as Tom has proven, doesn't it seem like his speech is getting worse every year he sticks around?

Chris C

[pdenny]

I honestly don't mean to be mean, but in the real world, even as good of a commentator as Tom has proven, doesn't it seem like his speech is getting worse every year he sticks around?
Maybe, but I was moved to tears when he announced the time Gerald Ford was eaten by wolves (he was delicious). :laugh:

[apileocole]

Well that was a surprise.

[thgord]

My choice would have been Chris Matthews. He is a more aggressive interviewer, and gets under his guest's skin (which I like). However, he should learn to let his guests answer his question before interrupting or going on to the next question. Perhaps that's why he was passed over. I just think he is more interesting to watch because the result is more unpredictable.

[coopmv]

My choice would have been Chris Matthews. He is a more aggressive interviewer, and gets under his guest's skin (which I like). However, he should learn to let his guests answer his question before interrupting or going on to the next question. Perhaps that's why he was passed over. I just think he is more interesting to watch because the result is more unpredictable.

Tim Russert was tough but fair and clearly non-partisan. It is not easy to find someone with such quality.

[JRF]

Probably the best choice for the short term.

[deem]

Betcha 5 bucks they end up picking the guy with the goatee after November,

[MilesSmiles]

Probably the best choice for the short term.
+1

[Jose Jones]

I honestly don't mean to be mean, but in the real world, even as good of a commentator as Tom has proven, doesn't it seem like his speech is getting worse every year he sticks around?

Chris C

Is there a reason for his difficulties? You mentioned a broken jaw.....or is it just getting older?

[signothetimes53]

Is there a reason for his difficulties? You mentioned a broken jaw.....or is it just getting older?

I'm certain that someone trained in the anatomy of speech could explain the mechanics of the speech impediment that Brokaw has. It's most obvious when he "swallows" his "r" in certain types of words.

[MikePh]

Betcha 5 bucks they end up picking the guy with the goatee after November,

:righton:

[Chris C]

Is there a reason for his difficulties? You mentioned a broken jaw.....or is it just getting older?

No, I honestly don't have an answer for why he slurs so much when speaking and the "broken jaw" thing, is literally from a joke I heard years ago about Tom (possibly on a radio bit that I heard on one of those professional, "morning show" comedy CD's?), that had a person impersonating Tom and instead of calling himself, Tom Brokaw, he called himself, Tom "Broken Jaw". That gag has always stuck with me and now, everytime I listen to him speak, it screams volumes. A little sidebar, but the same folks that joked about Tom Brokaw, also did a bit about a fake Stevie Nicks Greatest Hits album, in which they said that, instead of it being "digitally remastered", it was, "digitally remumbled", which I thought was pure brilliance! There is no doubt that Tom Brokaw is getting worse with the slurring, every year, but WHY, I can't say?

Chris C

[rburly]

I'm certain that someone trained in the anatomy of speech could explain the mechanics of the speech impediment that Brokaw has. It's most obvious when he "swallows" his "r" in certain types of words.

A speech therapist would know what it's called.

I picked up on one TV personality years ago who had a speech impediment and asked my parents what it was, but they said they sisn't hear it. I've heard soooo many news people, especially, who have some type of speech impediment and I always thought it was funny in a certain way. Listen to news people (not as much today) but a lot of them have the 'R' and/or 'L' troubles.

[signothetimes53]

I've heard soooo many news people, especially, who have some type of speech impediment and I always thought it was funny in a certain way.

You make a very interesting point.

There's a superb news reporter on all-news WBZ-AM in Boston (which is a great radio station), and he absolutely can not pronounce the letter "W" properly in the station call letters, except when he forces himself. And he's gotten much worse over the years. It is something of a nervous 'tic' of sorts that on some days just drives me up a wall.

Brokaw's impediment doesn't drive me to those extremes, but it is annoying.

[Chris A]

I will not be watching the program until they replace Brokaw--I find his voice and delivery unbearable. Ditto Matthews.

[deem]

Geez, I thought everybody loved Brokaw's voice.

All those network guys from 10-15 years ago, Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Koppel, Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather... they all had strange and distinctive voices. And I like 'em all!

[Chris C]

Geez, I thought everybody loved Brokaw's voice.

All those network guys from 10-15 years ago, Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Koppel, Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather... they all had strange and distinctive voices. And I like 'em all!

Instead of using the word "like", as you did, I now use the word, "liked". All of the guys that you mentioned were all credible anchors and all of them did have distinctive voices, but that was THEN and this is NOW and Tom Brokaw, while still on top of his game, reporter wise, has lost his skill of speaking clearly and he sounds like a mouth full of cotton. I have decided that it's easier to understand comedian, Craig Ferguson and believe me, that's no real picnic to explore through either. I don't want the guy I trust to be a mumble mouth, I shouldn't have to go back and re-listen to what an anchor says, just to be sure of it. That's too much like work and I'll have NONE of that! :laugh:

Chris C

[Dr. Pepper]

Betcha 5 bucks they end up picking the guy with the goatee after November,

You mean Chuck Todd? If so I think he would be a perfect choice, and I would be so their! He reminds me of Tim!

[theoxrox]

Brokaw and Mathews NON-PARTISAN???

Get real!!

[emkay]

By using familiar old Tom Brokaw through the election, NBC are insuring themselves against lost audience during the all-important election season. They do so, however, at the risk of mortgaging their future. Alot of eyes will be on the program because of the election this year, and they have an excellent opportunity to expose a new moderator during a time of increased viewership.

I would have much preferred if they had used Brokaw as, perhaps, a host along with a moderator being groomed for the chair. As for who that moderator would be, cablers like Matthews and Olbermann are often brought up -- but I believe they are non-starters. To much of the public, they are more columnist/commentator than journalists and conservatives would tag MTP and the rest of the network as too liberal (not that they don't say that now :sigh:).

I think NBC has some excellent talent that are prepared for this type of role -- the question is whether the network is ready to roll the dice. Brokaw is a safe choice -- and don't be surprised if he becomes a permanent replacement. That's too bad, though -- because they could use somebody younger and build a following for the long-term.

My own personal choice would be David Gregory -- he's young, smart, tough and he's covered the Washington beat. Conservatives may not like that he was tough with the White House -- but at least he was reporting news and not offering Special Comments or the like. Another good one would be the often forgotten Lester Holt -- he's on weekend today but he's got real news chops and comes across with real gravity. Many of the cable talent at MSNBC come across as shrill and are accused of being partisan by their detractors -- and some of those accusations have begun to stick. Besides -- they have more value to NBC in their capacity as commentators. There is one possible exception, though. Despite his conservative history, Joe Scarborough can be a good watch and he has a good rapport with the DC types that guest on MTP. And I'm betting he could keep his personal political views in check, too!

[chilab17]

Brokaw and Mathews NON-PARTISAN???

Get real!!

:righton: