NBC Wanted to Hire Jon Stewart As Host of Meet the Press

[Mister Nightowl]

Source: Daily Intelligencer (New York Magazine)

October 8, 2014 4:26 p.m.

This Sunday marks Chuck Todd’s one-month anniversary in the anchor chair at Meet the Press. Despite an opening-week ratings spike from his exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, the Todd-helmed show has settled back into third place behind ABC's This Week and CBS's Face the Nation. This has been frustrating to NBC News executives, who at one point had considered going in a radically different direction with the show.

Before choosing Todd, NBC News president Deborah Turness held negotiations with Jon Stewart about hosting Meet the Press, according to three senior television sources with knowledge of the talks. One source explained that NBC was prepared to offer Stewart virtually “anything" to bring him over. "They were ready to back the Brink's truck up," the source said. A spokesperson for NBC declined to comment. James Dixon, Stewart's agent, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

It makes sense that NBC would make a run at Stewart. The comedian-cum-media-critic possesses something that broadcast executives covet: a loyal, young audience. And it's not the first time NBC tried recruiting him. According to sources, NBC Entertainment courted Stewart several years ago for a 10 p.m. variety show (the slot ultimately went to Jay Leno). This April, CBS announced Stewart's Comedy Central colleague Stephen Colbert will replace David Letterman next year.

Read more: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/jon-stewart-might-have-been-meet-the-press-host.html

---

I'm actually not a huge fan of The Daily Show, but Jon certainly would have done a better job than Chuckles!

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. And I hope the POTUS never sits down with that asshole EVER again. n/t

[roomtomove]

2. a better choice would have beem

Rachel Maddow. She would bring a much larger knowledge base and gravitas to the show.

[Rebl]

36. I so

agree. They made a big mistake by not putting her on MTP.

[AwakeAtLast]

55. Oh, to be able to Rec a reply

On edit: changed wording

[Adrahil]

69. Stewart knows a LOT and has plenty of gravitas....

But I'm with you. Rachel would have been the best choice for MTP.

[Botany]

3. ATTN NBC

[on point]

7. Even better -Keith Olbermann

[abakan]

11. I agree...nt

[Cleita]

18. He would have been great. n/t

[AwakeAtLast]

56. Another good choice

Although NBC would have to buy stock in Depends for their higher-ups....

[YOHABLO]

45. Jon Stewart and Rachael have the same hair.

[dsc]

4. ironically Stewart is at his weakest in his interviewing but it still vastly better than Gregory or

Todd at that.

[candelista]

13. I disagree.

I think Stewart does a great interview. He is able to ask some very probing questions without ever making his guests feel uncomfortable.

[AngryAmish]

27. His interviews are highly edited mostly.

[rhett o rick]

37. Is that bad or good? Aren't all shows "highly edited"? nm

[AngryAmish]

43. Monday Night Raw is not.

But then again, Monday Night Raw has more intellectual honesty and people on the show have more personal dignity than the people on Meet The Press.

[rhett o rick]

44. LOL. I get it, but I still bet it's highly edited.

[2banon]

64. That's a problem. Political Guests should be unconfortable

[eggplant]

21. If you're basing this on his interviews on The Daily Show...

...then you are naïve. Like Colbert, his on-screen persona isn't who he really is. Watch his spot as a guest on Crossfire -- he singlehandedly killed that show dead. He's much more than what you see on TDS.

[csziggy]

31. Yes, here is why Crossfire went off the air

[eggplant]

49. I never tire of watching that. n/t

[csziggy]

51. The only problem - Mainstream Media is still hurting this country

It has accelerated the damage rather than stopping or slowing down. At least Jon Stewart tried.

[eggplant]

52. True, but I'm not sure there is anything on these days like Crossfire.

Most of the (undeniably worse) terrible mainstream media today isn't left vs right screaming at each other. It's one or the other. Or at least it seems to me -- I stopped watching anything on TV even vaguely about current events other than TDS and Colbert, and I DVR those to watch in a batch at the end of the week. Beyond that, it's DVDs, movie channels, or streaming Netflix or Prime.

And man, am I a lot happier. If I only had quality internet service with reasonable bandwidth, I'd drop my dish altogether and switch to pure streaming. Thankfully (really!) the population density here is low enough that there isn't even cable on our street.

[csziggy]

53. Crossfire sucked for a very long time

My husband gets upset when I get mad at the news shows for bringing up the "other side" - he says their whole reason for living is the same as kids on the playing ground yelling "Fight, fight, fight!" when two kids get into an argument.

I am so tired of MSNBC running clips out of Limbaugh and the other right wingers I now just change the channel. Usually I don't change back . It's so much better for my blood pressure and my outlook on life!

[JustAnotherGen]

78. I don't even need to watch it to know it!

Epiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiic smack down!

[Orsino]

72. But he's a guest there rather than an interviewer.

I agree that he is a little weak in grilling guests, but he is very practiced and far better than most MSM talking heads.

He even prepares ahead of time.

[eggplant]

73. My point is that TDS isn't a news show.

It's a comedy show. The interviews are supposed to be funny, as opposed to deep. It is impressive that he's able to get as much depth out of them as he does. The Crossfire piece is notable, because he *wasn't* being a comedian there ("I'm not your monkey.&quot but rather had a serious message to make; namely, that partisan scream fests are divisive and harmful. And his criticism was deep, coherent, and delivered in a calm, yet firm manner. And it led (quickly) to the demise of the show.

Everyone seems to agree that he is a thoughtful person who prepares for his interviews. People seem to get lost somewhere between that and his current on-air persona. For the same effort, one could complain that his TDS performances aren't as funny as his stand-up work. Or that his later books like "America" (co-written with TDS writing staff) isn't as good as his earlier solo writing. They're all different contexts.

I suspect his movie won't be very funny. Is that a valid criticism. given that he is a comedian?

[Orsino]

76. My point is that has never interviewed anyone for a news show.

He is, as you say, a comedian.

I know about as much about his punditry skills as I do about that movie we haven't seen yet.

[eggplant]

79. Sorry, I didn't mean to say that he's *only* a comedian.

I meant that *on TDS* he's a comedian. But his body of work shows that he is an intellectual. And the undertone of TDS shows that he is capable of digging in to the actual meat of a topic (via irony). He has shown the ability to have a reasoned discourse with people he immensely disagrees with, without pandering.

In my eye, he'd make an excellent MTP host. I'm sure he wouldn't do it without total editorial control. And the audience he would draw would make for a ratings bonanza.

Regardless, this is all a hypothetical issue. People can disagree on possible or likely outcomes, without anyone being wrong.

[Orsino]

80. I also suspect he'd be great.

Too great, perhaps, and no doubt the network would do its best to neuter him. I'm surprised that Maddow wasn't openly courted; she's proven somewhat amenable to corporate dumb.

I guess I have to think better of NBC for having not only campaigned for Stewart, but with big money.

[2banon]

63. I agree. on both points. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Hiring Stewart for MTP would've neutralized his effectiveness

But I suppose that was the point.

[Mister Nightowl]

6. That's why I'm pissed about Colbert (who I AM a big fan of) going to TLS

[RufusTFirefly]

9. Agreed. Colbert has basically been bought off. n/t

[Justice]

19. That is unfair.

Colbert will not go to the dark side, he will always present honestly. He will not allow Republicans to bloviate.

He may just take a break from outright making them look foolish for a while.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. In other words, he will engage in self-censorship. I rest my case.

Hey, on one level, I don't blame him one bit. (Gotta pay the rent, feed the family, etc.) It's our loss, not his. And he doesn't really owe us anything.

In our society, most people who speak the truth are bought off, marginalized, or outright destroyed. Given the alternatives, I can see why the first option would be quite appealing.

Colbert can still be funny, I'm sure. But his humor will be sanitized of any meaningful political impact. Granted, it will still titillate some people, just as the sight of an exposed ankle used to arouse some Victorian gentlemen.

[Zen Democrat]

54. Colbert is brilliant. The Late Show will expose him to an immense audience.

I'm excited about it. This is the guy with the titaniums who did his most brutal comedy right in the faces of Bush, Scalia and a full cast of Neocons at the WHCD.

[eggplant]

74. Agreed.

The idea that he has been bought off is just silly. His persona on The Colbert Report *isn't* who he is. It's a character that he plays. There are clips available of him talking to guests before the show making sure they understand exactly that.

Of course he won't be doing the same show under The Late Show moniker. It's a completely different venue with a different category of guests and a completely different format. That doesn't mean he's a sell-out.

It's like complaining that Patrick Stewart sold out when he did Star Trek. He's still Patrick Stewart, and he is still a Shakespearian actor. And he still puts on lobster costumes and plays in a bathtub in order to amuse his wife. And does voice work for National Car Rental. Does that diminish the serious work he does to stop domestic violence? Not a whit.

Colbert is a brilliant intellectual with comedic timing. I can't think of a better person to replace Dave.

[Orsino]

77. I'll hope to see his Colbert character appear again. n/t

[Hotler]

70. +1......n/t

[rhett o rick]

38. While I might agree that it would dilute his effectiveness, it would be better than Todd.

Someone else can step in behind him and be "effective" on the Daily Show. We have to get progressives on Corp-Media even if they are restrained some. I think he would push the envelope and that's what we need. Steven Colbert is very smart, I don't think he will be "neutralized."

[RufusTFirefly]

46. Your point is well taken

And although I certainly don't think that Colbert will be left toothless by his promotion, I would be greatly surprised if he doesn't lose much of his political bite.

I hope I'm wrong, rhett o rick!

Nonetheless, Rufus's Law says "All artists ultimately become satires of themselves."

Or as Randy Newman once explained, "It's money that matters. In the USA."

[rhett o rick]

60. Granted that our society idolizes wealth, but there are some good people out there.

We have to take a chance with some like Stewart and Colbert. I don't think they will sell out but may influence as much as possible.

[gopiscrap]

8. I would be happy with either Stewart or Maddow

[colsohlibgal]

10. I Think Jon Would Have Been a Quantum Upgrade Over Todd

It looks though that he wants to ride it out with "The Daily Show".

I think Colbert will do quite well taking over for Letterman, he'll still be witty and coming from the same place - and the same place really as Dave.

I hope the new guy, Larry Wilmore, hits it off bit like John Oliver did filling in for Stewart, but I was kind of hoping they'd give a female a shot and give it to Samantha Bee.

[davidpdx]

12. Interesting

Stewart wouldn't have been a good fit for a serious show. He needs to stay on cable so he can mock Bill O'Reilly and Todd

[wheniwasincongress]

14. hahahahaha

these reports about MTP are killing me, I love it! I'm expecting them to dubstep their theme song and have Chuck Todd in baggy pants and sneakers. So desperate.

But wouldn't Republicans refuse to go on MTP with Jon Stewart was the host? (not a bad thing but I want their feet held to the fire) What is John McCain supposed to do on Sundays? Spend them with his family?!

[Earth_First]

15. To which Stewart responded:

[calimary]

16. Since chuck hasn't done squat to improve the ratings, I wonder how long they'll let him stay there.

Hope not for long. He brings nothing to "Meet the Press" except yet another in a tiresome and never-ending series of GOP-leaning panelists, talking heads, and hosts with political agendas, and the ongoing subtitle "The john mccain again show".

[global1]

24. Is There A Pool Going To Bet On How Long Chucky Toad Will Last As Host Of MTP?.....

If not there should be.

[calimary]

61. Well, it used to be they gave you 13 weeks - one quarter to make your mark.

Who knows. But I'd bet on him being gone. Just because I WANT him to be gone.

They'll give him a few ratings cycles to pull the show out of third place, but only a few. I'm kinda doubtful about these being more of the days when one host was anointed and allowed to settle in and become an institution. I doubt they'll let fuck turd sustain for too long if he can't get the ratings up.

I would love to see him shown the door. I've seen suggestions among the comments on a couple of these links - people suggesting Rachel Maddow, or Keith Olbermann (DAYUM, that would be COOL! That would be "Must-See TV" on a Sunday morning FOR SURE!!!). It would have been a kick-and-a-half to see Jon Stewart remake that slot in his own image and likeness - it would have been a real lurch off the conventional tracks in network TV. Especially in that big Establishment Sunday Newsblock. It'd make a HUGE amount of noise, press-wise and publicity-wise. And it would hook the target (younger) demos, too.

I can also see why Jon Stewart would pass it up to stay put where he is. But it would be like they used to say in the candy bar commercials: indescribably delicious!

[Cleita]

17. Goes to show how clueless and off the rails NBC is.

Jon is not a journalist but a comedian who does political humor. Even Jon realizes that, which is why he probably has refused. If they want a good host, they have one sitting under their nose Rachel Maddow.

[Chemisse]

20. I agree. Rachel would be perfect.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Your mistake lies in believing that they care about journalism.

Now that networks no longer have any FCC obligations to produce programs in the public interest, it's all about ratings and revenue. Journalism is just a flimsy pretext.

[Cleita]

26. I can't disagree with you. n/t

[toddwv]

34. They fact that they gave Chucky MTP should be indication enough...

The man has zero charisma.

[rhett o rick]

39. Jon is closer to a journalist than anyone in Corp-Media. He probably has trouble

getting them to commit to letting him be himself.

[valerief]

25. I think Daniel Tosh would be fun as MTP host. nt

[northoftheborder]

28. Rachel Maddow would be WONDERfUL as host of MTP. She's a serious, smart, personable,

....Knowledgeable, person, who can be entertaining, but is not a comedian. She does excellent interviews, if that is what they want the show to be.

[rhett o rick]

41. MTP gets most of it's interviews from the conservative side. They are willing guests because they

know they will be treated as royalty. None of them would be on a show with Rachel. I doubt that MTP wants to alienate all their conservative regulars.

[IkeRepublican]

29. During this entire thread....

Nobody has mentioned John Stewart, even once.

[underpants]

30. Long time Stewart fan - from before his MTv show days

Jon would be great at anything he does.

[rhett o rick]

42. I agree. nm

[AngryAmish]

32. If NBC hired Jon Stewart for MTP, they would have killed the canard that big media is run by Jewish

Stewart is an English name. I hate antisemitism.

[Shrike47]

35. Was this a joke?

[AngryAmish]

40. I am dead serious.

There is a recurrent, ugly trope that Jewish people are disproportionately represented in media and newsmedia especially.

Hiring Stewart would help put that ugly thought to bed.

[genxlib]

48. You do know he's Jewish right?

His real name is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz so i can't tell when people are joking anymore

[AngryAmish]

50. What? If that was true why wouldn't he use his name.

You are wrong.

[AwakeAtLast]

57. Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz

Is his real name.

Jon Stewart - Biography - Writer, Talk Show Host, Comedian - Biography.com
http://www.biography.com/people/jon-stewart-16242282


edit: Typo

[eggplant]

75. Um, no.

[2banon]

65. Jon Stewart is Jewish.

Why he took on a Scottish surname is puzzling. but that's what he did for his tv personality identity.. lot's of people do that. He could have taken a classic Anglo name, like Davis, Allen, or Brown etc that so many in the industry have done, but he chose a Scottish name, which I find interesting.

[2banon]

66. Actually "Stewart" is a Scottish name, which has it's roots in Gael. (Not Anglo)

[Shrike47]

33. I might have watched MTP with Stewart. Sure won't with Todd.

[YOHABLO]

47. What is the point in watching any of these Sunday talk shows?

Jon Stewart has too much integrity to take on a venture that would require too much suppression by Big Corporate. He's also way too funny to waste.

[yurbud]

58. What the hell would the DC crowd do when asked a real question or when Stewart

laughed in their faces when they gave bullshit talking point answers?

The emperor has no clothes, and Stewart is the kid would love to point that out to their faces, week after week.

If he had been hired for that job, the suit who thought it was a good idea would end up working the fry station at McDonald's for the rest of his life.

[supercats]

59. Stewart Would Have Been Great, If And Only If....

He was given full autonomy and final say. Allowed to pick ALL his guests and run the show how he wanted . Otherwise he would have not only failed but would have lost a tremendous amount of stature.

[2banon]

62. I actually posted that recommendation here on du. Rather amusing to read but

I don't buy they were seriously considering him.

[mackerel]

67. I find it amazing that there are no Tim Russert's out there

[AngryOldDem]

68. I really like the commercials they're running....

...all hip and upbeat, showing that MTP still has relevance to today's world, what with its flashy new set and all.

I think the show is in its death throes...FINALLY.

[sendero]

71. Anyone they put there..

... would have to have editorial freedom, and I don't see that happening.

Why do those folks HAVE a good youth audience? Because they come closer to telling the truth about things than the scripted talking heads on the conventional news programs. Take away the truth and you've got nothing.