Chuck Todd Wants You to Meet the Pods
For nearly a decade, Sunday mornings meant waking up at 3:30 and putting on a suit and tie while preparing for his work as moderator of 'Meet the Press,' where Mr. Todd would interview presidents, senators and the occasional movie star on America's longest-running TV show.
No longer. His 5:30 a.m. alarm these days is his 14-year-old poodle, Ruby, and his work uniform is more understated — jeans and a quarter-zip maroon fleece for a recent trip to the Capitol. But he's still interviewing senators.
After leaving the corporate home of 'Meet the Press' in January, Mr. Todd is embarking on a career as a media entrepreneur. He has a podcast and a YouTube channel, and plans to hire other hosts for a podcast and video network focused on politics and culture. He also said he was working with an adviser from a major financial firm to build or acquire a company focused on community news.
Mr. Todd said he was adjusting to the realities of digital entrepreneurship and full-time podcasting. Sound bites are out, Mr. Todd says. Longer interviews are in — because many officials want time to make their points with fuller context. The first episode of the podcast, 'The Chuck ToddCast,' released Wednesday, has an interview with Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and lasts about 45 minutes.
'The current system of legacy television just doesn't allow for that,' Mr. Todd said. He plans to release three podcasts a week with the help of a full-time producer.
Mr. Todd's relationship with NBC News, his professional home for 17 years, became bumpy after he criticized the network's leadership over a decision to hire Ronna McDaniel, the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, as an on-air analyst. Less than a year later, he was out. He had a podcast named 'The Chuck ToddCast' at the network, and the company let him take the name with him. 'I was ready to go,' Mr. Todd said.
Mr. Todd said he missed some aspects of TV news, such as collaborating with producers and managing a team of journalists. But he said he was excited to 'sing for his supper' on the podcast and eager to find a business solution to a problem that had vexed investors for decades: the collapse of local news.
Mr. Todd's business plan calls for a constellation of local sites owned by their communities — like his beloved Green Bay Packers — and anchored by coverage of local youth sports. The growing popularity of athletics and their importance to families who view them as a gateway to college make them an ideal subject to build around. No matter your politics, Mr. Todd said, you care about local coverage of your child's latest game.
Mr. Todd and the bank he is working with are eyeing a purchase that could cost up to $2 billion, he said. He declined to say whether he had lined up any backers or specify the company they were looking at, but he ruled out major newspaper publishers.
His decision to pursue the somewhat quixotic venture — one that has flummoxed many media executives — is inspired by his own experience. After years of covering Washington, Mr. Todd said, he concluded that the decline of local news had coarsened U.S. politics. Legislators have told him that their constituents aren't paying attention to local policy anymore because there are almost no local journalists around to cover it.
'A guy named Craig one day thought classified ads ought to be free,' he said about the rise of Craigslist, which decimated classified ad revenue for newspapers. 'Yada, yada, yada, Donald Trump became president.'
No deal on local news is imminent, though. So for now Mr. Todd is settling into his new job as a full-time podcaster and streamer.
'The big change for me?' Mr. Todd said. 'I get to make breakfast.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes herself heard, prompting a rebuke
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Her opinions, sometimes joined by no other justice, have been the subject of scornful criticism from the right and have raised questions about her relationships with her fellow justices, including the other two members of its liberal wing. Advertisement 'She's breaking the fourth wall, speaking beyond the court,' said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. 'She is alarmed at what the court is doing and is sounding that in a different register, one that is less concerned with the appearance of collegiality and more concerned with how the court appears to the public.' Her slashing critiques sometimes seemed to test her colleagues' patience, culminating in an uncharacteristic rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the case arising from Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship. In that case, the majority sharply limited the power of district court judges to block presidential orders, even if they are patently unconstitutional. Advertisement Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent for the court's three-member liberal wing, including Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson added her own dissent, speaking only for herself. She said the majority imperiled the rule of law, creating 'a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.' That prompted an extended response from Barrett, the next most junior justice and the author of the majority opinion. It did not stint on condescension. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barrett wrote, in an opinion signed by all five of the other Republican appointees. 'The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain,' Barrett went on, referring to Sotomayor's opinion. 'Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.' Just months ago, Barrett was the target of ugly criticism from the right for minor deviations from Trump's legal agenda, with some of his allies calling her 'a DEI hire,' suggesting she had been chosen only for her gender. But the president's supporters were delighted by her criticism of Jackson, with some crowing that their earlier attacks on Barrett had succeeded. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist with close ties to the Trump administration, told NBC News. Advertisement Murray said she suspected that Barrett's remarks were part of a larger agenda intended to silence a critic. 'It was incredibly dismissive,' she said. 'And I just wonder if it wasn't just about this case, but rather about these asides that Justice Jackson has been leavening into her dissents.' Jackson was appointed by President Biden, fulfilling a campaign promise to name the first Black woman to the court. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, she served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and succeeded him. Biden had also appointed her to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she served for a year. The bulk of Jackson's judicial experience came in her eight years as a federal trial judge in Washington. Among her notable decisions there were ones blocking the first Trump administration's attempts to fast-track deportations, to cut short grants for teen pregnancy prevention, and to shield a former White House counsel from testifying before Congress. Jackson adjusted quickly to the Supreme Court. Other justices have said it took them years to get the hang of things. 'I was frightened to death for the first three years,' Breyer said in a 2006 interview. Even Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a giant of the law who sat on the court from 1916 to 1939, needed time to find his footing. 'So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,' Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote of his friend and mentor. Jackson has appeared comfortable expressing herself from the start. Advertisement She has been particularly active in filing concurring opinions — ones that agree with the majority's bottom line but offer additional comments or different reasoning. Indeed, she has issued such opinions at the highest rate of any member of the court since at least 1937, according to data compiled and analyzed by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, both of Washington University in St. Louis, and Michael J. Nelson of Penn State. She has also been active in dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts did not write his first solo dissent in an argued case until 16 years into his tenure. Jackson issued three such dissents in her first term. Marin Levy, a law professor at Duke, said Jackson had been doing two things in her dissents. 'The first category concerns standard disagreements on the merits,' Levy said. 'The second category feels quite different — I think here we see dissents in which Justice Jackson is trying to raise the alarm. Whether she is writing for the public or a future court, she is making a larger point about what she sees as not just the errors of the majority's position but the dangers of it as well.' Jackson, who did not respond to a request for comment, has also been a harsh critic of the court's use of truncated procedures in ruling on emergency applications. 'This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided,' she wrote in April, when the court said that Venezuelan men the administration was seeking to deport to El Salvador had sued in the wrong court. 'It is also dangerous.' In a dissent from an emergency ruling in June granting Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security data, Jackson accused the majority of giving Trump favored treatment. 'What would be an extraordinary request for everyone else,' she wrote, 'is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this administration.' Advertisement When the court let Trump lift humanitarian parole protections for more than 500,000 migrants in May, Jackson wrote that the majority had 'plainly botched' the analysis, 'rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation.' Jackson and Sotomayor are the only members of the court who have served as trial judges. In the last term, Jackson repeatedly criticized the majority for undermining the authority of their colleagues on the front lines. In the dissent that prompted Barrett's rebuke, she decried the majority's 'dismissive treatment of the solemn duties and responsibilities of the lower courts.' Last year, in a dissent in a public corruption case, Jackson seemed to allude to revelations by ProPublica and others that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had failed to disclose luxury travel provided to them by billionaire benefactors, a strikingly critical swipe on a sensitive topic. 'Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,' she wrote. 'Greed makes governments — at every level — less responsive, less efficient and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iran won't retaliate against US or pursue nuclear ‘militarization,' says top diplomat
Iran will not retaliate further against the United States's strikes on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program or pursue nuclear 'militarization,' according to one of the country's top diplomats. 'As long as there is no act of aggression being perpetrated by the United States against us, we will not respond again,' Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said in an interview with NBC News that was published Thursday. Takht-Ravanchi said that Iran is open to negotiating with the U.S. over its nuclear program, but he added that Tehran will not stop enriching uranium. 'Our policy has not changed on enrichment. Iran has every right to do enrichment within its territory. The only thing that we have to observe is not to go for militarization,' Takht-Ravanchi said. The U.S. military bombed Iran's three vital nuclear sites — at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — on June 21 after Israel and Iran traded strikes for more than a week. Iran retaliated, launching an attack on the U.S. military's Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Iran gave advance notice of the attack, and Qatar's defense systems blocked the strikes. U.S. officials said there were zero casualties. President Trump has celebrated the U.S.'s attack, saying the assault 'obliterated' Iran's three nuclear facilities. He and other administration officials have pushed back against the early, 'low confidence' Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that suggested the U.S. military attack set back Iran's nuclear program by a matter of months. The Pentagon suggested on Wednesday that Iran's nuclear program has been set back at least a year. 'I think we're thinking probably closer to two years, like degraded their program by two years,' chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told reporters. The Israeli strikes and U.S. attack on Iran came as Washington and Tehran were negotiating over potentially striking a new nuclear agreement. Trump pulled out of a 2015 Obama-negotiated deal in 2018. 'How can we trust the Americans? We want them to explain as to why they misled us, why they took such an egregious action against our people,' Iran's deputy foreign minister said. Still, Takht-Ravanchi said Iran is for diplomacy and 'for dialogue.' He added that the Trump administration has 'to convince us that they are not going to use military force while we are negotiating.' 'That is an essential element for our leadership to be in a position to decide about the future round of talks,' the Iranian diplomat added. Trump reiterated his desire to restart nuclear negotiations with Iran on Thursday. 'We're not looking to hurt them. We're looking to let them be a country again. They got beat up. We were both exhausted, frankly, but Iran really got beat up,' Trump told reporters. 'And if they want to meet, I know they want to meet, and if it's necessary, I'll do it.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's proposed new political party could focus on a few pivotal congressional seats
The new US political party that Elon Musk has boasted about possibly bankrolling could initially focus on a handful of attainable House and Senate seats while striving to be the decisive vote on major issues amid the thin margins in Congress. Tesla and SpaceX's multibillionaire CEO mused about that approach on Friday in a post on X, the social media platform which he owns, as he continued feuding with Donald Trump over the spending bill that the president has signed into law. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' wrote Musk, who is the world's richest person and oversaw brutal cuts to the federal government after Trump's second presidency began in January. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring they serve the true will of the people.' Related: 'The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it': the terrifying truth about why Tesla's cars keep crashing Musk did not specify any seats which he may be eyeing. In another post on Friday, when the US celebrated the 249th anniversary of its declaration of independence from the UK, Musk published a poll asking his X followers whether he should advance on his previously stated idea of creating the so-called America party to challenge both Republicans and Democrats. More than 65% of about 1.25m responses indicated 'yes' as of Saturday morning. 'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' Musk also wrote in text accompanying the poll, which he promoted several times throughout Friday. Musk's posts on Friday came after he spent $277m of his fortune supporting Trump's victorious 2024 presidential campaign. The Republican president rewarded Musk by appointing him to lead the so-called 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, which abruptly and chaotically slashed various government jobs and programs while claiming it saved $190bn. But Doge's actions may also have cost taxpayers $135bn, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan non-profit dedicated to studying the federal workforce. Musk left Doge at the end of May and more recently became incensed at Trump's support for a budget bill that would increase the US debt by $3.3tn. He threatened to financially support primary challenges against every member of Congress who supported Trump's spending bill – along with promising to 'form the America Party' if it passed. The House voted 218 to 214 in favor of the spending bill, with just two Republicans joining every Democrat in the chamber in unsuccessfully opposing it. In the Senate, the vice-president, JD Vance, broke a 50-50 deadlock in favor of the bill, which Trump signed on Friday hours after Musk posted his America party-related poll. The Trump spending bill's voting breakdown illustrated how narrowly the winning side in Congress carries some of the most controversial matters. Trump has warned Musk – a native of South Africa and naturalized US citizen since 2002 – that directly opposing his agenda would be personally costly. The president, who has pursued mass deportations of immigrants recently, publicly discussed deporting Musk from the US as well as cutting government contracts for some of his companies. 'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head to South Africa,' Trump posted on his own Truth Social platform. The president also told a group of reporters in Florida: 'We might have to put Doge on Elon. Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible.'
