Talk:Chuck Todd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

All the Mentions of Todd's "Education" Ignore the Fact That He Never Finished College[edit]

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 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Birth name and date[edit]

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"[edit]

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

Need for Consensus[edit]

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][1], 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[edit]

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?


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.[2] 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?[3] (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)michael

  1. ^
  2. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (2009-07-16). "Salon Radio: Chuck Todd".
  3. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (2009-07-16). "Salon Radio: Chuck Todd".

Controversy Section[edit]

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


"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 (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)

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." --Nbauman (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


I have replaced the link to Chuck Todd's verified Twitter account in the External Links section, this time using {{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. --Flyguy33 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Criticism by Young Turks[edit]

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.
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)

Interview with Ana Marie Cox[edit]

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.
Chuck Todd Thinks It’s Important to Stay Neutral
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)


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)

Edit Request[edit]

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."


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

Reply 20-FEB-2019[edit]

Emojione1 274E.svg  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)


  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