Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Todd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acroterion (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 6 April 2024 (OneClickArchived "Opposition to investigation of government officials" to Talk:Chuck Todd/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chuck Todd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3JjBS_G1w
Chuck Todd: Bernie And Bannon Are The Same
Published on Sep 14, 2017
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.
(Chuck Todd says there is a purge of moderate governing wings on both parties. There is a wedge between the progressive and moderate left.)
"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?"
--Nbauman (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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 salready 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
Chuck Todd Thinks It’s Important to Stay Neutral
Talk
Interview by ANA MARIE COX
New York Times
OCT. 4, 2017

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.

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

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.Ealtram (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/ 75.50.53.181 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

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.[1]"

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."

References

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

Reply 20-FEB-2019

  Requested claim removed  

  • Per: RfC-The Daily Caller the claim, which had no second reference beyond TDC to verify, has been omitted from the article.[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  20:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The sentence following the claim in question, which states "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.

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

Dinner party bit

I've requested that Gaidenjagi (talk · contribs) discuss the content. So far, this looks like sockpuppetry to add unencyclopedic content across multiple articles to undermine certain journalists and Axios.

@Gaidenjagi: --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --GaidenJagi, 1 April 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding.
I'm afraid such comments suggest WP:NOT and WP:POV problems with the content, possibly WP:OR as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter studying meteorology

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]