We got to sit down recently and talk to the Peabody Award winning chica Alison Stewart, the former MSNB reporter and host, now hired for the Bryant Park Project to co-host with Luke Burbank. 
It's NPR's brave new morning show still in the rough, but scheduled to be up and running Oct. 1.
Stewart, 41, won a coveted Peabody Award for her pioneering MTV coverage of the 1992 Presidential election. (as opposed to Billo Reilly who tells women he has a Peabody when he wants to distract them from his turkey neck)
She's been a reporter and anchor at ABC, CBS, and MSNBC, before turning
the heads of network suits as host of
her own noontime news show,
The Most. (She
particularly turned the head of one MSNBC suit: Bill Wolff, MSNBC Vice
President of P
rogramming whom she married last year. He's the funny guy
who fills in for Willy Geist on Tucker sometimes).
The Most was lite and funny, and studded with viral Internet video, but Stewart's interviews could be counted upon to be insightful, direct and smart. Her fill-ins for Keith Olbermann have cemented her into progressive psyches.
With all these TV bona fides why in the hell would she go to radio? Who would seemingly go backward down the technological ladder? Risky, no?
"I didn't see this as a risk," she said, "I saw it more as an opportunity." I love to make things, build stuff. I made my own doll clothes, built the doll house for my dolls. And in my career, the happiest times for me have been when I've been involved making something."
She helped build MTV's ground-breaking political coverage. "I was one of the first producers to do that stuff." She helped create The Most, a new concept in news. "The idea of being able to make a new show, really set off bells for me."
The Bryant Park Project (or B double P which just may end up being the name of the show) will be multi-media with podcasting and videos of stories and real time connections and linking to NPR.org. It's ostensibly aimed at the 25-44 demographic, but Stewart says, "It's not so much about the age- it's really more about the type of person.
They're shooting for The Daily Show audience. Stewart: "My 20-year-old niece loves it, so does my 70-year-old dad. I've made that very clear up and down the food chain here- we can't think about it in terms of age, we have to think about it in terms of sensibilities."
It's to be conversational, personalized, spontaneous, and vivid. No longwinded back-grounders, no droning esoterica like we've come to love from NPR, "We thought about what kind of show we'd want to listen to, then said, let's make that show."
She bristled at our suggestion that young people aren't paying attention to the news, or listening to much radio (we'd read the polls, seen the data).
"People who are 30-35- those people have mortgages, kids, ailing parents," Stewart says, "it's not like they're out snowboarding every weekend. They're people with serious issues.
"Maybe I know a select bunch of 20-year olds because I work in the news business. But I want to defend people who don't necessarily take their news in the traditional way. I feel they need their own news sources."
They're looking to new frames for the same news covered by the multiple formats available to everyone these days. How to make it attractive to those who've been turned off by the old forms, or simply haven't consumed news in the first place.
"I'm just coming from 24 hr. news, so I'm asking: does there need to be a 5 minute Iraq segment every single day? What we came to decide was: we'll do it at the end of the week and really put everything in context. Obviously, Iraq is a big story right now, and of course we'll cover big breaking news- but if you do it every day in little pieces it's hard to understand the whole."
They're working this out in a piloting process. The first pilot, is on their NPR blogsite; listen to it here.
(What a concept: piloting a brand new show on-line, free to anyone to
hear and comment upon- so different than the secretive, stultified,
hemorrhoidal, commercial radio whose aging audience is waning due to
attrition, and attracting no younger audience for lack of innovation).
In the pilot, they did a little piece on Paris Hilton (In case you've been in a coma, or Tacoma, she's a rich girl, apparently, who doesn't wear underwear, and got put in jail for something, and then got out). Stewart apparently lost the argument whether to include the Paris Hilton "news." What we liked was that she and Burbank aired the argument, giving raise to the unavoidable questions about "What's news?" and "who cares what happens to Paris Hilton?"
(Commenters, who were pretty supportive of the effort as a whole, hated this part more than anything in the hour long pilot, siding with Stewart).
There's a feetch Luke Burbank did with matching video about some 80-year-olds riding the 80-year-old Cyclone, the legendary roller coaster at Coney Island.
The conversational analysis and banter is interspersed with newsreads from the NPR newsroom which has an irritating electro back beat. (commenters complained about this a lot too).
All in all, we liked what we heard. It was relaxed, and young, but smart and redolent with its own kind of hip pith. 
How does she like working with Luke Burbank, the Seattle native, former KUOW, KVI producer, and Metro Traffic virtuoso who co-hosts with her?
"Luke is a great guy. He's had such an interesting life. Our life experiences are completely opposite. Our professional experiences are completely different. He cracks me up regularly. I think we're going to really challenge each other."
She is just awesome. She is the only person who does a good job filling in for Keith. Bla'M, didnt you say earlier that we wont be able to get her new show here?
Posted by: sparky | July 09, 2007 at 08:47 AM
I don't get cable and have never seen MTV. What was so ground-breaking about the political coverage in '92? Anybody know?
She sounds intereesting.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2007 at 11:26 AM
joanie: I'm guessing the question to Bill Clinton as to whether he wears boxers of briefs.
However, Ms. Stewart has matured well since that time. She has been a great fill in for Olbermann when he is out, and should be excellent on NPR. It will be interesting to see how the new show works, but I'm wishing them the best.
Posted by: JDB | July 09, 2007 at 12:14 PM
She's a hot ticket and funny.
Posted by: mac | July 09, 2007 at 12:19 PM
She IS really pretty. Smart, too!
Posted by: sparky | July 09, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I just listened to the pilot. It's pretty interesting. I could definitely listen to the show. There is enough hard news there to satisfy my news jones, and they are likable.
Posted by: lars | July 09, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I don't know about this dumbing down of the news. they can be all hip, but will they talk about taxes, and land use, and population problems, and social security minutia? These are the things that go by the wayside on TV and most broadcast news because they are drop dead boring. But they're important and need to be discussed. Is this not just another tapdance for the lowest common denominator who wants their news to be entertaining? OK, why isn't it?
Posted by: Michael Manfredi | July 09, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Yeah, the daily show is really funny and well-done, but how much news do you really get from it?
Posted by: Frankenputz | July 09, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Frankenputz:
More than you get from watching Fox. Heck, if you watch Fox, you would probably be surprised that people are upset about Scooter Libby being set free or Bush firing attorneys for purely political reasons.
Posted by: JDB | July 09, 2007 at 04:38 PM
How appropriate: Prell to the Horse's ass.
Posted by: schmee | July 09, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Or Wm Jefferson Clinton freeing terrorist (FALN) for votes for the Mrs., Or freeing some rich bastard because his ex donated half a million bucks for his shrine in Arkansas. Or maybe firing a whole travel department (loyal guvment employees to many administrations) so that his cronies can run it.
Maybe firing over nintey attorneys right up front, without regard for their years of service to our nation.
I personally am offended by the canning of our US Attorney in Seattle. He is one of the good guys in my humble opinion, however, it is presidential prerogative to can who you want.
Alison Stewart is funny and serious. She is much easier to take than that loon she subs for on MSNBC, Olberman.
I am looking forward to her radio show with Burbank. Will listen to the pilot tonight.
Posted by: chucks | July 09, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Scooter Libby was the lawyer for the rich bastard and thought he should be pardoned, chucks. Ironic, no?
Posted by: sparky | July 09, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Ironic, no. Libby was his lawyer and it was his job to do the best for his client. That is what lawyers do.
More moronic IMHO.
That is why OJ is playing golf. Lawyers doing what they get paid to do.
Shakespeare "Kill the lawyers"
Probably not a good idea. Just create fewer of um.
Posted by: chucks | July 09, 2007 at 06:18 PM
At least Clinton had the good sense of precedent to wait until the end of his term. What do you suppose the rush is for Scooter?
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Check this out . . . "Michael Moore Rips Wolf Blitzer" The video is fabulous. Gotta love Michael Moore. And Wolf takes it very well.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Sorry, one more "don't miss" "Robert Greenwald’s “Impeach”
I first heard this on Bubba's show yesterday when he interviewed Greenwald. Watch it yourself.
Oh man! I hope people are finally getting mad enough to take this administration to criminal court! (which would be much better than impeachment!) This "Scotter" thing sure has people talking.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2007 at 11:12 PM
And what was the rush of the judge to imprison Libby before the appeals process had gone its coarse?
If that process had been allowed, than maybe President Thompson would not have been so inclined to commute Libby's sentence.
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 06:39 AM
Chuck, you are aware that what you are saying is wrong on its face, aren't you? In case you are unaware of how things work in our legal process, you might know that sentences are literally never delayed so a different court can hear an appeal. Judges typically don't overturn their own court's decisions. There was no real reason for Libby to be free at the time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary other that your partisanship? I doubt it.
I also doubt you would be singing the same tune if the politicians we are discussing were anything other than loyal Republican stooges and you know it.
I just don't get your hypocrisy here. This isn't even analogous to Clinton's pardons...none of those people he pardoned at the end had the goods on him nor was he worried they were going to squeal to a prosecutor. So much for you "law and order" Republicans! How do you look at yourself in the mirror spewing lies like this and call yourself a moral person?
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 08:52 AM
...or how do you measure yourself with other people?...by height?
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 08:56 AM
This is simply Chuck buying in to another ridiculous talking point: "Clinton did it toooOOooOOo." That belongs on a playground and not in the national discourse. It is both illogical (since the situations are clearly not the same) and also...they are now comparing Bush's actions with those of a hated Clinton's? Illogical x2.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 10:07 AM
WADR CPP3: I doubt the Repugs have any 'talking points' left. They seem to be drowning (one-another) in a quagmire of confusion.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 10:10 AM
..and there's not much I would agree with Cindy *'GIAR' Sheehan on but why oh why doesn't the lovely and gracious Ms Pelosi go in for the kill?
[* give it a rest]
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Screw you cpp3
I think the whole idea of presidential pardons is bullshit. I admit that I have know idea where they came from in the first place. I think the whole idea of governors having the same power is stupid as well.
Something about the constitution and the separation of power. Still utter bullshit.
That being said, it has been going on forever. Just because I compare Clinton's pardon for profit to Bush's pardon for butt covering does not imply that I agree with either. I am just not sure which I consider closer to the sewer.
Maybe we the people should consider a constitutional amendment to eliminate the power. Maybe that is something you weasels on the left can do together with us snakes on the right to end the problem of political pardons.
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM
"Do you have any evidence to the contrary other that your partisanship.."
"..none of those people he pardoned at the end had the goods on him.."
I have no dog in this fight and moreover I've expressed great support for the Clintons' -but in the 'somewhat' interest of fairness CPP3 -you 'press' chucks for 'evidence' in one breath...and yet in the next you make a statement that you can't possibly back up? Do you actually think that no one of the 'Pardongate''s 140 pardons had anything on him...not even 'Roger'? What pray tell are you smokin.
And I find it interesting/humorous to see you referencing 'talking points' as you seem to follow them to the letter and even in the one's inherent in the MC that perpetuates on this blog. :o)
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Chuck do I need to get a box of Crayons and draw some pictures to help you understand this? Jeez are you being purposefully dense to protect your indefensible POV or are you just that insipid?
Clinton didn't pardon a guy who was in a position to out his involvement in a GROSS FELONY and TREASONOUS crime like outing a covert CIA agent. There is a distinction which intellectually and morally bankrupt people like yourself keep ignoring.
Keep hiding behind some veiled statement like "I don't like any Presidential pardons" if you like. We all know that you lack the cajones to put those statements into practice when it comes to Bush et al. How is that morality treating you?
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 02:03 PM
chucks: cant't you see CPP3 is lonely - wants you to come out and play...even uses you to get a message to me...OMG what a CS!
[But..stickin to his MC's talking points]
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 02:17 PM
Got anything to refute in the line of argumentation Duff or are you still playing your fake persona on the internet? Get back to me when you learn something (never).
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 02:25 PM
btw: in order to alleviate the Pavlovian drool of many on this blog (esp: sparky) in wonderment of what Duff means by MC?...it's 'Minion Club'; you see MC members are following the talking point of may be if we ignore Duff -he'll go away. Well, unlike talk show hosts I thrive on being ignored. In this case your ignorance is truly my bliss.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 02:28 PM
...and CPP3 you trip over yourself so much no one need refute you...it is self evident.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Trip over myself? Unfortunately for you my arguments are cogent (especially in this most recent case). If you are either 1) not bright enough to come up with a legit argument or 2) afraid to engage in debate with somebody who won't kiss your ass and would rather get in your face then please run away.
So now that you're been insulted, feel free to slink away or step up and try and refute my arguement. In case you forgot we're talking about how Chuck's reference to pardons is irrelevant.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Can you read genius; I wasn't defending chucks point I was simply pointing out how you can't be sure that 140 folks who were pardoned did not have the goods on the Clintons' - and even tho you narrowed that statement, you still can't be sure unless you have some way of knowing exactly what each of the 140 know...and how would you know that??
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 02:43 PM
I can clearly read better than yourself. It is pretty obvious to any thinking individual on its face that the situations between the two pardons are vastly different. I even spelled it out s...l...o...w...l...y... for you and you still can't figure it out. Name one of those 140 people who would have been able to squeal on Bush and Cheney's commission of high treason and how that is in any way comparable. The fact that you can't understand that it is irrelevant what these people might have known just reinforces my point that you're incapable of logical thought. Try taking some of your own advise and reading the whole post before you comment.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 02:54 PM
That's ok duffy. cpp3 is so wrapped up in his/her own views that anyone who differs is stupid. Some days I enjoy sparring with his/her liberal rants. Other times I just think he/she is just acting like the following end of a donkey.
I do not understand why old Joe Wilson or David Corn were not investigated or tried for their roles in "outing" Plame. (the he/she part is not meant to be an insult. I really just do not know cpp3's gender)
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Just so you can't keep playing dumb (which you are very good at) here is the Crayola version of some of the obvious differences:
1) Timing. Clinton did this crap that last few days of his Presidency. Bush needs to weather the storm for a lot longer than that.
2) Number. How many people does Bush pardon? Like none. He DOES however pardon somebody who may have direct evidence (and does unless you are a lying Republican loyalist) of a high crime ordered by the VP and/or the President.
3) Treason. Name one traitor in the group that Clinton pardoned that jeopardized the cover of a covert CIA agent to hit back at political opponents for telling the truth because it undermined his lies attempting to justify a war?
Wow do you really not understand any of this or are you too deep undercover yourself Duffy?
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Just so you can't keep playing dumb (which you are very good at) here is the Crayola version of some of the obvious differences:
1) Timing. Clinton did this crap that last few days of his Presidency. Bush needs to weather the storm for a lot longer than that.
2) Number. How many people does Bush pardon? Like none. He DOES however pardon somebody who may have direct evidence (and does unless you are a lying Republican loyalist) of a high crime ordered by the VP and/or the President.
3) Treason. Name one traitor in the group that Clinton pardoned that jeopardized the cover of a covert CIA agent to hit back at political opponents for telling the truth because it undermined his lies attempting to justify a war?
Wow do you really not understand any of this or are you too deep undercover yourself Duffy?
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Chuck, so I can take it that you have no backup for your claims? I just outlined the obvious differences between your talking point which went in your ears and got spewed out your keyboard uncritically.
You are not stupid because you differ with my opinion, you are stupid because when presented with evidence of how your opinion is based upon nothing but Republican talking points you can't refute anything logically. All you can come up with is some pathetic attempt at gender bending insults?
So can or will you refute the arguement or are you going to whine like the little girl you accuse others of being? And I thought you wanna bees were supposed to be manly. Weak.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 03:07 PM
So cpp3
Is what you are saying is that it was ok to pardon terrorist for votes, or Mark Richardson for $$$, or firing all the US prosecutors to put in his own? Waiting till the end is just cowardice. At least Bush is getting and taking the heat.
Nothing that I have posted on this thread suggests that I am ok with any of the pardons, or the program itself. I did say that I am against the whole damn thing. The only thing I said was that it is the POTUS prerogative to pardon anybody. Even Charles Manson if he so chooses. It does not matter who is pissed off about it, you, me, Nancy, Hillary, Harry etc. It just does not matter.
You are so wrapped in yourself that you are arguing with somebody who does not have an argument with you. Unless, of coarse you think Democrat pardons are ok, just not Republican.
To answer one of your charges, No, I do not see the difference between the outing of Plame by Libby, Wilson or Corn or the FALN terrorist and Richardson pardons. All are wrong. All were self serving to the respective presidents and perhaps detrimental to our nation.
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 04:04 PM
See cowpot
There you go again. I have a difficult time be non-gender specific when talking/keyboarding with anybody. I really have no idea what gender you are. That is not meant to insult you or anybody else. If I knew, I could address you properly. But I recognize that it just may be none of my business and will respect your anonymity. Another non-issue.
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 04:17 PM
cpp3: Just as I thought you have no knowledge of what those 140 'pardon'ees' knew about the Clintons. That was my total point. Try to twist any way you want...you just don't have the goods. Other than that point, like I said I have no dog in the fight. You just proved my point.
Point-Set-MATCH! Nice try.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Screw you cpp3
Another logical response to a well-articulated factual argument.
And if these Clilnton pardons had the "goods" on him, I would imagine he would have pardoned them sooner. Not wait until he had nothing to lose.
But then, dullards may not get that fine point.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2007 at 05:32 PM
Actually, I think that should be nothing to gain. :)
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2007 at 05:36 PM
...that's right joanie; you too have proved my point: you could only 'imagine'
man, this gets easier every day.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 05:38 PM
chucks: Even Charles Manson if he so chooses. It does not matter who is pissed off about it, you, me, Nancy, Hillary, Harry etc. It just does not matter.
Well, it matters to me. I don't equate treason with sex. Sorry, chucks. I do have some ability to discriminate levels of criminality.
I'm reading and responding post by post. I can't believe the responses from you two. If all this is no big deal, why did we all have to go through the Cllinton impeachment? I mean, one little lie about sex and another "little" lie outing a CIA agent and treason brought by a Republican prosecutor and heard before a Republican judge.
My, my. What am I missing?
And, cowpot, haven't you learned yet to ignore Duff?
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2007 at 05:51 PM
It's like trying to ignore 'substance' and education...can't do it. But rest assured I thrive on your ignorance....hahaha; like I said 'tis my bliss.
btw: any one seen CPP3 and joanie in the room at the same time...Hmmmmm; chucks - ever see them communicate much?...Hmmmmm :O)
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 05:56 PM
You see chucks: they (the MC team) don't have a clue how to handle someone like me. They don't see how I could have independent thoughts and yet support the Clintons'. So, they label me as 'shill', 'troll' and they have adopted a talking point: 'ignore Duff' may be he'll go away. THTH (too hot to handle).
This is too easy...I must let the DNC know how weak their support is on this blog and how many CSs there are.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Does anybody out there agree with me that the whole pardon thing in and of itself is corrupt? Forget the partisan crap. The system itself is bad.
I think somewhere up there I said that Bush's was to cover his butte.
Clinton's was for personal gain. Neither is acceptable IMHO.
Joanie, it is a big deal to me.
The only pardon that I ever believed in was Ford's of Nixon. And not because his ass did not deserve prison. He did. But it was better for the country to get past Nixon.
Posted by: chucks | July 10, 2007 at 06:10 PM
IM(not so humble)O: the pardon scheme is totally bogus; what kind of example is it to our Nation's youth (and not so youth). I say do away with it and make EVERYone own up to their responsibilities and pay for lack of.
And don't even make me go into the inequities of the Congressional health/medical coverage plan as compared to what the 'rest of us' must endure!!!
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 06:14 PM
oohh yaawnn.....
Posted by: waiting fo' Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Oh yes..we must deal with alias's - such a CS thing to do.
Posted by: Duffman | July 10, 2007 at 07:12 PM
Boy trying to get some of you obtuse mental pygmies to use sound logic is getting to be quite a chore.
Slowly, for those of you who STILL don't get it:
Chuck et al come in here saying "pardons suck but Clinton did it too." This is completely outside the issue. Pardons themselves are not the issue. Clinton is not the issue. Bush IS the issue. This was my original point and nothing you have said has made a bit of difference other than being a feeble attempt to change the subject because you know you can't refute the argument.
Got it?
Argue and obfuscate all you want to try and deflect from the fact that Bush succeeded in shutting up a guy who could out him for a high crime (outing a CIA agent for political revenge). You're flat out wrong to bring up Clinton, especially since you're on record saying it was wrong when he did it too.
What you're doing is called giving lip service to what you know is morally and ethically indefensible and then in a cowardly fashion turning a blind eye because of your own partisanship. Call me an asshole all you want...but you know I'm right.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | July 10, 2007 at 07:53 PM