Like so many people who pass themselves off as political
commentators, Chuck Todd (NBC’s “Political Director”) really isn’t so much a
player as he is an actor. Like the folks
who anchor the “news” on the financial networks, Chuck is really a wannabe
. He’s on TV because he likes being on
TV – just like the financial news folks like to be seen by the titans of
industry they “report” on, and, in many cases, like the guys who anchor sports
coverage (those who aren’t ex-jocks). They’re guys who love sports and the
people who play sports.
Please understand there’s a difference between loving
politics and reporting on it; between loving the financial industry and
reporting on it; and between loving sports and reporting on it. I think today, we’ve got a lot of lovers and
not many reporters.
If ever there was any doubt that Chuck Todd is not a
reporter, it went away last week Wednesday when, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”,
under blistering questioning from fellow guest Ed Rendell, Chuck said it wasn’t
his job to correct misrepresentations about the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a
ObamaCare.
Really? Well, then,
don’t call yourself a reporter or a journalist, Chuck, because people who fit
that job description do their best to get to the TRUTH of any story they’re
covering. Todd said it was the job of
the White House to correct the misinformation being spread about ObamaCare, not
his.
I did my best to teach my two kids that under many
circumstances, “no” actually means “I want more information”. There are clear exceptions to this notion,
particularly when a young lady says “no” to your romantic advances, but often a
“no” means “we can get to yes from here, but I need to know more about what you’re
saying”. The popularity of ObamaCare is
dropping, if you ask me, for two reasons: the White House really is mismanaging
the message, and one of the political parties, which thinks it will benefit
from people not liking ObamaCare, is telling some tall tales about
ObamaCare.
This is to me a classic case of “no means I need more
information”.
If we are to have good information about ObamaCare – or any
other government program at any level, from Washington DC to your own
municipality– we must rely on reporters and journalists to try and ferret out
some TRUTH. It’s no wonder so many have
reservations about ObamaCare – will there be death panels? Will I get to keep
my doctor? Will I still be able to go to my clinic? Will my health insurance
cost go up or down?
Truth is an elusive thing, sometimes, but when you’ve got
one party saying one thing and the other party saying another, it’s hard to
tell where the truth is. Commentators,
like Todd, can say whatever they want.
Reporters have to dig to try and find the truth.
Many people are saying “no” to ObamaCare because they want
more information. They want answers for
their questions. And guys like Todd –
and there are a lot of them on TV – really do more harm than good, because they
love the politics but don’t try to get at the truth.
If you’re a parent, you’ve lived the “more information”
scenario many times. Your child asks for
something and you say no. If the child takes the time to explain more about
what they want, or why it’s important to them, your initial “no” could easily
become a “yes”. In sales training, we
were taught many ways to overcome objections and get to “yes”. And I learned, years ago, peddling radio
advertising to local merchants, that if I did a good enough job answering their
questions, I could get a signed order.
Bottom line: NBC’s job should be to get factual information
to its viewers during its news programs, and that involves fact-checking and
research, and that’s often what separates the reporters from the wannabees. NBC
should let Chuck Todd have all the fun he wants as a commentator, but should
not put him on its evening newscasts unless he decides it IS his responsibility
to try and get at the truth of statements made by politicians.
And NBC shouldn’t have to tell that to Todd. It should understand its responsibility to
the public and keep wannabees off the news without being told.
