Who Should Succeed Russert? (Updated)

Dave Winer, the father of the blogosphere, asks who should be the new host of Meet the Press. He offers as likely candidates, in preferential order: Keith Olberman, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, and Tom Brokaw. Winer notes that while it might be awkward if not callous to think about this question so soon, when a politician dies, the MSM itself is quick to consider succession issues. Indeed, when Senator Byrd recently went to the hospital with an illness, MSNBC was quick to note that West Virginia has a Democratic governor (immediately addressing, indirectly, the political consequences of his death if his illness became terminal).

I have a different take than Winer.

First, for context, as head of the Washington Bureau since 1988, Russert has built a team of folks in front and behind the camera at NBC, and a unique approach in presenting the news. Russert had a lot of fans in the executive ranks. The person who steps in the MTP slot is likely to be someone who could continue the system that Russert built. Note also that both the Washington Bureau Chief and the MTP host slots are open — and Tim’s considerable authority behind the camera was the secret to his success. It’s likely that the successor could ideally assume both slots. I could imagine the network asking Tom Brokaw to fill in temporarily as MTP host — he has the gravitas to make it work and everyone would understand it was only temporary. But ultimately, NBC wants someone who can keep the system Tim built running for a long time. It would be like when Bill Walsh retired as head coach of the San Francisco 49ers — an enormously successful and visionary leader who had built a great team, strategy and organization (many of his assistants went on to become great head coaches elsewhere). Walsh was replaced by one of his assistants, George Seifert, who followed the same system and won two Superbowls.

With that background, Chuck Todd should be his successor. He was personally recruited by Russert, and has a similar background (scrappy guy who never finished his undergraduate degree while working on the Hill). He has a contagious passion politics, including the Russert-like ability to find the human drama in the otherwise mind-numbing details of the process (e.g., the superdelegate battle). He has natural political instincts and consistently offers valuable insights. He is smart, humble, exudes sincerity and comes across as a regular guy. What Todd doesn’t have is Russert’s legal training that he brought to his interviewing style. In fact, I’ve never seen Chuck interview anyone — he’s always getting interviewed by others or simply presenting his own thoughts. As for his age, he’s around the same age Russert was when he took over as bureau chief (which is a good thing if you want to keep the franchise going for decades longer).

After Chuck, the pickings get slim at NBC.

The shining star at MSNBC right now is Keith Olbermann. His calling card is his own entertaining and highly rated Countdown show. Would MSNBC really want to mess that up? I don’t think it’s feasible for him to do both Countdown every night and MTP (and be bureau chief), and his own show is incompatible with being the head of the nonpartisan MTP. He’s not nearly as effective as the straight man when he handles election night coverage. When he’s restrained from offering his own opinion, he becomes far less interesting. I also think he’s too tainted as an unabashed progressive, reputationally, to assume the MTP mantle.

The next most likely suspect is Chris Matthews. But while Chris shares Tim’s passion and enthusiasm for politics, he can be an intemperate and self-aggrandizing loose cannon. Despite the fact he’s been auditioning for years with Hardball and his own sober Sunday morning show, I don’t think he’d get the call. The recent NY Times Sunday Magazine story on him suggested that NBC might not even renew his contract when it expires at the end of this year.

Probably the next most likely guy is Dan Abrams. He’s had a management position at MSNBC, so he could theoretically be Washington Bureau Chief. He has a law degree. He’s had his own prime time show for years. Despite these factors, he’s no Tim Russert and would be awful. While he may have a law degree, even from a much fancier school than Russert’s, he apparently didn’t digest it because he doesn’t interview or even think like a lawyer analytically on his show. Russert listened to his guests like a litigator and anticipated his next question based on their answer, all with the goal of uncovering something that Russert believed was newsworthy (and often Russert’s instincts were right). Dan doesn’t interview this way. He offers predictably whiny leading questions often to get his own point reaffirmed by his guests. This style was on display when he was holding nightly vigils for Hillary’s dying campaign in its final months. He doesn’t intimidate peddlers of political talking points. Please, don’t let it be Dan Abrams.

Andrea Mitchell has an impressive resume and a great rolodex. She has also had an audition of sorts hosting the 1pm hour on MSNBC on weekdays. I don’t know what the ratings are, but I’m willing to wager they’ve been terrible. The show is almost unwatchable, even though the bar is pretty low — the format is essentially a slightly more substance-infused version of the regular daytime fare on MSNBC — lots of talking heads, video clips and breaking news that isn’t newsworthy. She seems to lack a killer instinct in interviewing. I don’t know if it’s because she often knows the public figures she’s interviewing personally and doesn’t want to offend them, or she lacks the confidence to be a pit bull. In any event, I don’t think she can carry MTP.

Joe Scarborough is the conservative version of Keith Olbermann for this purpose — he’s too tainted to assume the MTP mantle. He’s also not particularly insightful – unless you’re really impressed by frat boy towel-snapping. He rarely wavers from GOP talking points — if he does, it seems to be only when the issue or timing isn’t particularly critical to the GOP. For example, he spoke effusively about Obama after his very early wins, in part because there was joy in the GOP to see Hillary take some hits. But when Obama was looking like a tougher challenger than Hillary, suddenly Joe went negative on Obama and became Hillary’s champion. He always has an agenda and that’s poison for the host of MTP.

David Gregory has also had an audition of sorts with his 6pm show on MSNBC, sandwiched between the live and taped versions of Hardball. But like Andrea Mitchell, he’s been fairly unwatchable when hosting a show, and worse, he rarely offers any strikingly original insights. His comments are typically a predictable brew of tepid Beltway conventional wisdom.

Brian Williams has been permanently glued to the chair at the NBC Nightly News. If they picked him, that may create a vacancy in the nightly news. In addition, Brian’s style is similar to Keith Olbermann’s election coverage — too restrained and uninteresting. Even when he seemingly offers his off the cuff analysis, it’s too timid and predictably within the confines of Beltway conventional wisdom.

Those are the likely in-house suspects. NBC could recruit from the outside (e.g., Gwen Ifel, Al Hunt, Katie Couric), but that may be too disruptive a step for NBC to take.

UPDATE: All of the above is premised on NBC trying to continue the Russert franchise by following a similar model. But as the NY Times noted this morning, the media world has radically changed since Russert became bureau chief in 1988. It’s gone from three broadcast television networks to four, from one dry cable network to three constantly babbling 24/7 cable news networks (plus CNBC, CNN Headline News, Bloomberg, BBC America, etc.) and the near complete decentralization of power brought by the power of independent blogs, YouTube and other online phenomena. In some ways, Russert’s MTP was stubbornly fighting against a larger current that was destined to overtake it. Russert successfully bridged a gap from the old era of television when the news was delivered from Mount Olympus reflecting a largely sanitized and limited “objective” point of view on a silver platter to a willing and compliant viewing audience. He updated and refreshed the model, and certainly dominated the medium during its transition, but whether any one person continue what he built and dominate in the same way is fairly unlikely. Not when the nature of the media distribution has changed so much. There will always remain a demand for the accurate and timely delivery of newsworthy facts, but today the audience is much more comfortable with hearing a speaker’s particular opinion as well — and in fact increasingly prefer to hear news delivered from someone with a similar point of view as their own. This is the secret to the success of FOX News and Olbermann. In the current New Yorker profile on Olbermann, Russert acknowledged this change. He noted, with a sense of confidence that stems from his power, that it’s not what he did. And it wasn’t, but it is what has happened to the industry. And today’s audience is much more inclined to seek an interactive experience — to participate in a discussion about newsworthy events — rather than passively chew and swallow whatever is served. The change reflects the revolution brought by independent online media. The online world feeds the MSM, and the MSM feeds the online world. The days of America standing by and waiting for the wisdom and authority of one trusted voice like Russert to call an election likely ended with Russert. His successor will likely be numerous successors rather than just one person — part of a new world of many voices.