Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Todd: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Height: Reply
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,693,302 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Broadcast journalists, presenters and commentators.
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Todd, Chuck|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=low|a&e-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Mid}}
|living=yes
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=Low}}
|class=start
{{WikiProject Miami |importance=Low}}
|a&e-priority=low
{{WikiProject Florida |importance=Low}}
|a&e-work-group=yes
|listas=Todd, Chuck
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Virginia
| class=Start
| importance=low}}
}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Journalists|class=Start}}
{{Press
{{Press
| subject = talk page
| subject = talk page
Line 26: Line 19:
{{Connected contributor (paid)
{{Connected contributor (paid)
| User1 =BC1278 | U1-employer = NBC| U1-client = Chuck Todd | U1-EH =no | U1-banned = | U1-otherlinks = [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 News article with mention of connection]}}
| User1 =BC1278 | U1-employer = NBC| U1-client = Chuck Todd | U1-EH =no | U1-banned = | U1-otherlinks = [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 News article with mention of connection]}}
== Should Todd's CONFIRMED anti-Semitism have its own section?==
Obviously, Todd's comparison of Jewish Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders with Nazism is in direct contravention of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism (before any of you anti-Jewish wiki editors get your usual hard-on for Adolf, this is LITERALLY INDISPUTABLE). Given his refusal to apologise for this explicitly anti-Semitic attack, we should at least draw attention to Todd's contravention of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. He is, by all civilized perspectives, an anti-Semite. It is our responsibility to flag him as such.

And no, you bigoted squealers, facts don't give a damn about your anti-Jewish feelings. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.100.66.3|77.100.66.3]] ([[User talk:77.100.66.3#top|talk]]) 02:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== All the Mentions of Todd's "Education" Ignore the Fact That He Never Finished College ==
A biography of a fairly young person who is portrayed as an expert on politics is not complete unless it mentions the salient fact that Todd didn't finish college. Also, with regard to Todd's journalistic neutrality (or lack thereof), he worked for a Democrat's campaign. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.44.147.74|70.44.147.74]] ([[User talk:70.44.147.74|talk]]) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

And he's an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins. How does that even work? Can someone explain that to me? Heck, I'd like to be an adjunct professor at a prestigious university, and I don't have a university diploma either. So how do I get that job? [[User:Ianbrettcooper|Ianbrettcooper]] ([[User talk:Ianbrettcooper|talk]]) 12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

==Birth name and date==
We need more biographical material. Is "Chuck" his given name at birth - or a nickname? [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] ([[User talk:Davidpatrick|talk]]) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

=="Far left"==
Removed "far left" from the first sentence describing Todd's career. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.236.216.241|132.236.216.241]] ([[User talk:132.236.216.241|talk]]) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Need for Consensus ==
I added personal information for Chuck Todd's wife thusly: "Kristian Denny Todd is a Democratic operative and communications professional."

I did not add this information to skew NPOV, but, rather, because my research shows that Todd's spouse is an active and well-profiled political professional in her own right. If you check source [16]<ref>http://www.muckety.com/Kristian-Denny-Todd/139789.muckety?big=true</ref>, you'll see a diagram of her professional relationships. A search returns many results for 'Kristian Denny Todd.'

What do folks here think?

Thanks. [[User:Mrs. Peel|Mrs. Peel]] ([[User talk:Mrs. Peel|talk]]) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== Opposition to investigation of government officials ==
Todd's oppostion to investigation of government officials has not received much media attention but it is relevant because the role of chief White House correspondent for NBC News is one that would traditionally involve holding high government officials to account. Is there a more appropriate way for this material to be presented? Should it be included in an article about other major media that have expressed opposition to investigations?

==Controversy==
In a July 16, 2009 interview with civil liberties attorney and author [[Glenn Greenwald]], Chuck Todd discussed his opposition to the investigation and possible prosecution of U.S. government officials who authorized torture.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/todd/index.html |first=Glenn |last=Greenwald |title=Salon Radio: Chuck Todd |work=salon.com |date=2009-07-16}}</ref> In clarifying his argument, Todd stated that he was simply representing the views of the [[Obama]] administration. However, as Greenwald observed in the interview, Todd's language and questions from Mika Brzezinski clearly indicated otherwise, and his reporting of the debate completely excluded the contrary opinion on the subject--namely that elected officials should be held to account for committing crimes.
In the interview with Greenwald, Todd justified his opposition to criminal investigations due to the image of acrimony in Washington it would present:
<blockquote>
Is it healthy for our reputation around the world - and this I think is that we have TO do what other countries do more often than not, so-called democracies that struggle with their democracy, and sit there and always PUT the previous administration on trial - you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward?

Look, I am no way excusing torture. I'm not excusing torture, and I bristle at the attack when it comes on this specific issue. But I think the political reality in this, and, I understand where you're coming from, you're just saying, just because something's politically tough doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. That's, I don't disagree with you from 30,000 feet. And that is an idealistic view of this thing. Then you have the realistic view of how this town works, and what would happen, and is it good for our reputation around the world if we're essentially putting on trial the previous administration?<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/todd/index.html |first=Glenn |last=Greenwald |title=Salon Radio: Chuck Todd |work=salon.com |date=2009-07-16}}</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Special:Contributions/24.201.79.203|24.201.79.203]] ([[User talk:24.201.79.203|talk]]) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)michael
<references />

== Controversy Section ==
I hardly think the following rates the designation of Controversy, under its own section:

"Controversy

"Due to his generally uncritical commentary on the President's economic policies and other matters, Todd has been characterized by commentators including Rush Limbaugh as 'the stenographer of the Obama administration.' [20] [21]"

The clause, "Due to his generally uncritical commentary on the President's economic policies and other matters..." is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Therefore, I am deleting this section. [[User:Mrs. Peel|Mrs. Peel]] ([[User talk:Mrs. Peel|talk]]) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

:Indeed, primary sources and blogs are ''not'' sufficient reliable sources for a Controversy section. If an actual controversy can be sourced to reliable third-party coverage then it's of note. Otherwise it's "this guy said mean things about that guy" with no end in sight. - [[User:Dravecky|Dravecky]] ([[User talk:Dravecky|talk]]) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy section specifically referenced at least two statements by Chuck Todd (including an interview) which caused commentators across a broad political spectrum (NYT best selling author Glenn Greenwald ''and'' radio show host Limbaugh) to question his impartiality, impartiality which is expected from a political analyst in Todd's position. Clearly this is a significant element in Todd's bio, as this controversy has resonated among activists of all political shades, as evidenced by the referenced sources, which are no less authoritative than those in comparable "controversy" sections in other articles. How many more sources must one cite to confirm this? Also, why not relabel or rephrase the content, rather than remove it outright? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.134.160.52|209.134.160.52]] ([[User talk:209.134.160.52|talk]]) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This is still sourced only to primary sources, a couple of blogs, and a YouTube video. It's also given [[WP:UNDUE]] weight in the article as it's longer than the section on his entire career with NBC News. If there was a ''controversy'' then it would have been covered by ''other'' media outlets, this gaining reliable ''third-party'' coverage. Without such coverage, this section does not belong in any biography of a living person. - [[User:Dravecky|Dravecky]] ([[User talk:Dravecky|talk]]) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::Hi, Dravecky: Glad you're on this and [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. Otherwise, it would go on ''ad infinitum. '' Cheers. [[User:Mrs. Peel|Mrs. Peel]] ([[User talk:Mrs. Peel|talk]]) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dravecky and Mrs. Peel are not following Wikipedia policies. [[WP:NPOV]] ''requires'' us to include opinions on all sides, and blogs can be [[WP:RS]]:

[[WP:BIASED]] "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

[[WP:BLOGS]] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

== Twitter ==

I have replaced the link to Chuck Todd's verified Twitter account in the External Links section, this time using {{tl|Twitter}} as [[WP:ELNO]] is not a blanket prohibition on linking to Twitter accounts and I believe this is a useful link. I have also started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal to Amend Policy for Journalists]] proposing a slight amendment to [[WP:ELNO]]. Thanks. --[[User:Flyguy33|Flyguy33]] ([[User talk:Flyguy33|talk]]) 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Chuck Todd]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=705689870 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130926223805/http://www.maverickstrat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5 to http://www.maverickstrat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== Criticism by Young Turks ==

Here's a good critique of Todd. I'm parking it here for now because I first want to see what other criticism is around of Todd. <br>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3JjBS_G1w<br>
Chuck Todd: Bernie And Bannon Are The Same <br>
Published on Sep 14, 2017<br>
Chuck Todd thinks that Bernie’s Medicare-For-All bill is the same as Steve Bannon’s racism. Cenk Uygur, the host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. <br>
(Chuck Todd says there is a purge of moderate governing wings on both parties. There is a wedge between the progressive and moderate left.)<br>
"He just put Steve Bannon in the same category as Bernie Sanders. Are you insane? Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, and you just put him in the same basket as a total right-wing fringe lunatic whose in favor of white nationalism?"<br>
--[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 10:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
<references />

== Interview with Ana Marie Cox ==

In this interview with Cox, Todd addresses many of the issues that people (including editors here) often complain about or discuss. Unfortunately, these quites are hard to summarize, because this feature in the New York Times Magazine is s''already'' highly condensed. But it should go in, probably in the "NBC News" section. And it should go at the top, along with the "falsehoods" quote, because it's easier to understand the journalistic issues when you go from general to specific. For example, his comment about "coziness" should go before the dinner with Palmieri. I think there should be a "Journalism" section that gathers all his comments and controversy about his journalistic style and decisions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/magazine/chuck-todd-thinks-its-important-to-stay-neutral.html<br>
Chuck Todd Thinks It’s Important to Stay Neutral<br>
Talk<br>
Interview by ANA MARIE COX <br>
New York Times<br>
OCT. 4, 2017<br>

My biggest change is that I feel the need to reinforce the wall between the news media and the politicians. The wall has always been there, but sometimes there have been too many holes in it. One legitimate criticism of the political press over the last two decades has been the appearance of coziness between people in the media and the political elite.

I don’t advocate — that’s the big difference. Now, that said, we’re all human beings. We’re born with original bias. By our very nature, we’re subjective. It’s not as if you can eradicate bias out of anything, but it’s about fairness.

--[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 16:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

== Height ==

This page currently lists his height as 5' 2". He's as tall as or taller than Rachel Maddow and her page lists her at 5' 11", which is credible.[[User:Ealtram|Ealtram]] ([[User talk:Ealtram|talk]]) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

:Apparently this is a longstanding joke? I saw this list him as 5'10", but I'm not sure what the credibility is https://caknowledge.com/chuck-todd-net-worth-salary/ [[Special:Contributions/75.50.53.181|75.50.53.181]] ([[User talk:75.50.53.181|talk]]) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

== Edit Request ==

{{Request Edit|A}}

While an experienced editor, I have a [[WP:COI]] as a paid consultant to NBC News. I therefore seek independent review of the following request:

'''Delete''' from section Career / NBC News:

"On October 17, 2016, the [[Daily Caller]] wrote a story, based on [[John Podesta]]'s leaked emails, that Todd and his wife hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director. The Caller said that Todd's wife was working for one of Clinton's challengers. "The invite is just the latest glaring example of the cozy relationship between mainstream journalists and the Clinton campaign found in the Podesta emails," the Caller wrote.<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/chuck-todd-hosted-swanky-dinner-party-at-his-home-for-top-clinton-campaign-official/ Chuck Todd Hosted Swanky Dinner Party At His Home For Top Clinton Campaign Official], Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, Oct. 17,2016</ref>"

'''Why?''' There is only one source for this passage, the [[Daily Caller]], and it is not sourced elsewhere. As of February 13, 2019, Daily Caller has been [[WP: Deprecated]] as a source. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_The_Daily_Caller]] Specifically, the finding was that the Daily Caller "[p]ublishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." In general a deprecated source should not be used on Wikipedia, and in the more serious case on the Daily Mail (with now, with the same standard explicitly held shall be applied to the Daily Caller), the source "is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

{{ref talk}}

[[User:BC1278|BC1278]] ([[User talk:BC1278|talk]]) 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)BC1278

===Reply 20-FEB-2019===
{{border |[[File:Emojione1_274E.svg|20px]]{{nbsp|2}}'''Requested claim removed'''{{nbsp|2}}|display=table |width=1px |style=solid |style2= |color=black |lh=1}}
* Per: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_The_Daily_Caller|RfC-''The Daily Caller'']] the claim, which had no second reference beyond TDC to verify, has been omitted from the article.{{efn|The sentence following the claim in question, which states {{tq|"On January 22, 2017, Todd said, “Alternative facts are not facts, they’re falsehoods"}} may have been placed in response to the now omitted ''Daily Caller'' claim (as it immediately followed it in the prose). If that were the case, then this portion of text may not be desirable to remain in the article without the preceding claim to act as context. (It certainly reads as an odd statement on its own.) Please advise if it may be removed as well.}}
Regards, '''<span style="font-size:75%;border:2px solid #EF2B2D;border-radius:50px;font-color:#00008b">[[User talk:Spintendo|<span style="color:#00008b;">&nbsp;Spintendo&nbsp;</span>]]</span>''' 20:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
{{notelist-talk}}

[[User: Spintendo]], I agree that the immediately following sentence makes little sense without context and it would be a good idea to remove it.[[User:BC1278|BC1278]] ([[User talk:BC1278|talk]]) 20:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)BC1278

==Dinner party bit==
I've requested that {{user|Gaidenjagi}} discuss the content. So far, this looks like [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]] to add unencyclopedic content across multiple articles to undermine certain journalists and Axios.
*[[Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material_re:_BLP]]
*[[Talk:Axios_(website)#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material]]
*[[Talk:Caryn_Marooney#Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP]]
{{ping|Gaidenjagi}} --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

: There is nothing more informative about a news outlet or person than the information they want to hide about themselves. The fact of the dinner speaks potentially to his partisan preferences, and the fact that he'd like to hide it is arguably even more newsworthy. There are also a number of sources about the dinner that could be cited (such as the original: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13686). The fact that no effort was made to find and use an acceptable source doesn't comport with the "encyclopedic" spirit. --[[User:GaidenJagi|GaidenJagi]], 1 April 2019 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Thank you for responding.
::I'm afraid such comments suggest [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:POV]] problems with the content, possibly [[WP:OR]] as well. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

== this sentence makes no sense ==

Todd was a focus of an August 2008 Los Angeles Times article paralleling Todd's rise to the rise of cable news networks in coverage of U.S. politics.

[[User:Davido53|Davido53]] ([[User talk:Davido53|talk]]) 21:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


==Daughter studying [[meteorology]]==
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
Several times, Chuck Todd has said that his daughter "is studying meteorology" (most recently on 14 January 2004 on [[Meet the Press]] in an interview with [[Kristen Welker]]. This recent disclosure concerned the weather in Iowa, where his daughter;s interest would align with but not coincide with his. [[User:MaynardClark|MaynardClark]] ([[User talk:MaynardClark|talk]]) 16:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Michael Bennet with Chuck Todd.jpg|Michael Bennet with Chuck Todd.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-05-04T03:49:13.995087 | Michael Bennet with Chuck Todd.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Bennet with Chuck Todd.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 03:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:18, 20 October 2024

Daughter studying meteorology

[edit]

Several times, Chuck Todd has said that his daughter "is studying meteorology" (most recently on 14 January 2004 on Meet the Press in an interview with Kristen Welker. This recent disclosure concerned the weather in Iowa, where his daughter;s interest would align with but not coincide with his. MaynardClark (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Todd&oldid=1252200493"