And it only took him twenty years to notice it.
wait a second here, i am an older white person and the only thing i am afraid of is Dumpty and his right wing assholes.
This from the poster boy for bothsidesism? Right message, wrong messenger. Tired of hypocrites.
And yet he claimed that his job wasn’t to determine the truth of any particular situation. When he starts acting differently on tv, perhaps we’ll take him seriously.
Gee, Rumpelstiltskin, glad you finally woke up.
Now what are you gonna do? Go back to being a pollster? Corporate tool? Pick up a another keg for the frat buddies?
He’s useless and a poor replacement for Tim Russert.
Not only is it years too late, but the timing is convenient. Now that Trump is delegitimizing journalists, maybe Chuck is afraid he won’t have a job.
Yes but a tad better them the old white dude he replaced, Can’t think of his name David Gregory
Has anybody read the piece?
Good for you, Chuck. All the critics here seem more bent on dissension than democracy. But that will always happen. Some of them I’m disappointed in, the rest I don’t know or follow.
Why can’t it just be what it is?
Chuck Todd is defending integrity in journalism, there’s no past or future happening here, just NOW, so take for what it is.
Folks, every step towards encouraging the media to stand their ground against the poisonous powers of journalistic falsehood is a step towards a better future for all of us. That is the thread running through this entire opinion piece.
Get a grip, people.
Read this for what is, a relatively young, influential journalist’s plea to his fellows to hold the line against outright lies and deceptive disinformation becoming acceptable in the business of information.
Pretty simple truth here. Don’t fudge it up with personal grudges from yesteryear, take it into tomorrow as something new. Don’t be prejudiced. Judge it for what it represents, not for what you feel about the messenger.
There you go - Quite a collection
https://www.thoughtco.com/list-of-meet-the-press-moderators-3368307
Oh, Chuckles! Don’t you remember that it is not your job as a journalist to point out the lies spread by the politicians you cover? At least I remember a certain both-siderist news host saying that in the past, but perhaps it’s just my nearly 10-year campaign to delegitimatize the journalistic career of Chuck Todd.
When I miss a diagnosis until the patient is on his death bed, I try not to crow about it.
Maybe a call out to liberal bloggers (and Paul Krugman) who have been banging this drum for almost twenty years?
Let me add to my earlier rant, this is an excellent piece of writing,
Chuck’s managed to produce one of the best-written opinion pieces I’ve read in a very long time, and all of my old English and journalism teachers and professors would no doubt agree with me.
He not only made a very meaningful statement about the media as a whole, he did it with some of the most cogent journalism we’ve seen in a while. I have never read any of his critics here write anything as lucid as this journalistic gem…
Very good article. He (Todd) recognizes his own sins of omission.
I started reading with skeptical curiosity and found more and more that it was a thoughtful, insightful piece, with a good bit of nostra culpa going on.
Okay, I don’t disagree with that. But the overall context leaves a sour taste in my mouth and it’s for a simple reason: people in power, most notably white men, keep ignoring the criticisms of other people until the issues they’ve been ignoring start to impact themselves.
So I can be happy he is coming around and also unhappy that it took his own “mortality” to get to that point. It’s akin to the “I care about women’s rights, after all, I have a daughter” spiel we see a lot from conservative men. I’d be a ton more lenient if we gave second chances to everyone instead of primarily to white men. So yes, I’m making this more complicated with extra context. But no, that context doesn’t invalidate my point.
https://www.twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/909573908952518656
I acknowledge your point, but I don’t agree and can’t like it.
It’s never too late, and this is a very good piece of work, worth quoting on more than one front.
I take it for what it is, and want to start from there and go forward with it, rather than question its tardiness somehow.
I would suggest he is certainly qualified to speak for a big family of journalists who have been reticent to go all-in, but he’s done it now and we should appreciate the prose alone, it is excellent.
I think we can do both simultaneously despite any seeming dichotomy. Good on him for what he wrote; but also, screw him. If he becomes a better person and reporter, great; but he’s been riding high by presenting corruption as legitimate argument for quite some time. Both of these things can be true at the same time, and I think both are. And while we need allies, I’m also tired of giving out participation ribbons to white men for bare minimum effort.