Meet the Press

I’ve recently become a regular listener to Meet the Press NOW, and it has quickly earned a spot in my daily routine. As the weekday extension of NBC’s long-running Meet the Press franchise, it carries forward a legacy of serious, fact-based political journalism while adapting effectively to a faster, digital-first news cycle.  What stands out is the program’s discipline. In an environment where much of cable and online news leans toward heat over light, Meet the Press NOW delivers concise, balanced reporting without unnecessary theatrics. Its coverage of the current conflict involving Iran, at times framed with careful editorial restraint, has the feel of a steady briefing rather than a spectacle. It reminds me of the clarity and urgency of ABC’s Nightline during the Iranian hostage crisis, when viewers tuned in not for outrage, but for understanding. The interviews are consistently substantive. The program brings in a credible mix of academics, government officials, and on-the-ground reporters, creating a layered view of complex international developments. That structure reflects a traditional public affairs model, but with sharper pacing suited to modern audiences. I primarily listen to the audio podcast, which typically posts in the late afternoon, around 5 p.m. Chicago time. That timing is ideal. It fits naturally into the rhythm of commuting, preparing dinner, or winding down in the evening, making it one of the more practical and usable news products available. In short, Meet the Press NOW succeeds by doing something relatively rare right now: it informs without inflaming. For listeners looking for a disciplined, credible daily briefing on politics and global affairs, it’s worth adding to your rotation.

They hit the major issues and provide just the right amount of detail.

Meet the Press seemed more exceptional when it was only on on Sundays. The daily Meet the Press: Now format seems to hamper the power of the Sunday only production. I like Kirsten Welker, she resists guests talking over her, which is a pet peeve of mine. Another big plus; she points out when an interviewee is sidestepping a probing question and asks again. That’s what I come to see! (Tim Russert must be smiling down). Hopefully, the daily format is a phase, and will go the way of the Dinos (without the massive asteroid hitting the planet of course). Until then, it would be acceptable if the Meet the Press and the Meet the Press: Now podcasts were separated so listeners could download one or the other or both at their preference.

I really wasn’t a fan of Kristen after her interview with Donald Trump. However, I believe she’s gotten stronger in the role. She asks hard questions and won’t let her guests sidestep the questions with clever word play. This may not be appreciated by many listeners, but I want someone who isn’t afraid to get to the truth of the question being asked and get the guest on record. There are many instances where politicians dominate interviews and talk over the interviewer as if they are plugging a product or a new tv show. We’ve become to accustomed to that IMO. The job of a journalist is to get to the truth and hold the politician accountable. Why? Because we elected them and they need to be accountable to the people. I’m not giving a 5 star rating because I still think she’s has done work to do. And by the way, props to Chuck for calling out NBC for their hire of the ex RNC chair.

I’m a big fan of Kristen Walker but have become increasingly disappointed in the layout of the show. The panels used to be such a great way to hear a big picture discussion of the topics raised during the guest interviews. Now, the panel is given a ridiculously small portion of the show with little time for offering any real insights. This portion of the show used to be the reality check for whatever the guests were trying to spin. Please bring back the best of your sharp panel guests. Meet the Press is turning into a real snoozeville. I miss the depth of the past panels with Chuck Todd.

I’m a long time fan of this show and truly have admired Welker for her elegance, intellect and journalism. Lately, however, I’m not sure how much longer I can watch. She asks great questions but after she delivers it with power, there is no push back or questioning. She then allows her guest to say absurd statements and there is just plain nodding on her part. At this point, just place a doll in front of the interviewee.. save some money as all she does now is nod in agreement. If the network is scared about revenge or losing favor, I understand about your worries but if journalists are just going to smile and nod, then just close up shop and stop wasting air time. This “pathetic” new type of journalism for me is worse than just being a Trump follower as it’s knowing better but choosing to look the other way. Her recent interview with Bissent was a prime example. She offered no rebuttal to any of his statements esp on the economy and the message that the Democrats put out about illegal military acts. He controlled the interview not Welker. I hope things change. If not, find someone who can be tough enough to stand up and challenge Trump. Thanks !