Talk:Chuck Todd

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth name and date

We need more biographical material. Is "Chuck" his given name at birth - or a nickname? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Far left"

Removed "far left" from the first sentence describing Todd's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.216.241 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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], you'll see a diagram of her professional relationships. A search returns many results for 'Kristian Denny Todd.'

What do folks here think?

Thanks. 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. 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:

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?

24.201.79.203 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)michael

Does anyone find this guy to be believable?

I sure don't.. He just looks too shifty-eyed.

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. 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. - 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.160.52 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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. - 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. Mrs. Peel (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)