“I do not see myself as William F. Buckley . . . just to be very clear.”
That emphatic response is from Margaret Hoover, the newly named host of the revival of "Firing Line," presented by New York public television station WNET.
It’s a question that must be top of mind for her as she takes on the task of recreating an iconic show that discussed the great ideas of the day, hosted by a lion of the conservative movement. "Firing Line" ran for 33 years, and William F. Buckley has a hallowed place in the conservative pantheon of this country.
“I’m not trying to be Buckley but I also understand that there is a legacy attached to Buckley that some people, most people, have a view of and some people feel very, very strongly about it in a good way, in some cases, and a bad way, in some cases.”
Hoover and I met recently for a conversation about the new show, what she wants to bring to it, and why it’s needed now.
We met on a sunny spring afternoon in New York, after abandoning a noisy coffee shop and retreating to the calm oasis of Gramercy Park. In some ways that itself was an apt metaphor for Hoover’s thinking about the show, a place for a quiet, civilized and rigorous exchange of ideas.
Hoover is an experienced participant in, and consumer of, current media, and she is cognizant of the clutter of our media landscape. “Look, I do a lot of cable news, and even the long cable news segments are 10 minutes, and they’re with three people and you still don’t get to say a lot.” She laments the fact that long, in-depth conversations have gone the way of the dodo, or to the podcast world.
She is also conscious of the comfort so many more of us take in sticking with our own view of the world: “The country is polarized, the media environment is fragmented and polarized, it’s easy for people to go where they are comfortable and to get reinforcement of their own views.”
The original "Firing Line" was never conceived of as an interview show, but an exchange of ideas, as you can see from this trailer:
The lack of rigorous conversation in our saturated media market is something Margaret Hoover and I agree on.
She struck me as extremely thoughtful and deliberate, listening closely to my questions, and taking her time in formulating her responses, eager to make sure that she had understood the questions correctly, not in a rush to respond, taking a breath or two.
Hoover is extremely conscious of the fact that she is reviving a revered legacy show. Of course she’s not going to be another William F. Buckley, but she is respectful of his contribution to public discourse over the decades and wants to figure out the best of the old show and mold it into something appropriate for our times.
Margaret Hoover is someone who knows something about legacy. As the great-granddaughter of America’s 31st president, Herbert Hoover, she is keenly aware that legacies must be treated with respect and care, but is also interested in elevating and refining those legacies. “I don’t believe the past is always the best antidote to progress.”
So who is Margaret Hoover?
She pauses to think about that question. She settles on “author, activist and commentator.” Interestingly, she does not respond with a self-described political label, which is notable for someone who is picking up the mantle of a conservative hero. I asked her about that.
“I think if we are talking about the political spectrum, and anyone wants to know where I fall in the political spectrum, it’s easy to look at my background and say well she’s identified as a Republican in the past, as a conservative in the past. It’s safe to say I fall between the center and the right.” Her activism and support of LGBT rights is an issue where she stands apart from mainstream conservatism.
Hoover looks to her great-grandfather and what he stood for as a guide, pointing out that one biographer described Herbert Hoover as "an independent progressive in the Republican tradition." “That’s exactly who I am,” she declares.
She has worked in the White House, on Capitol Hill and presidential campaigns. She is an author and a regular commentator on cable television, so she seems well suited to engage in spirited conversations about the great political ideas of the day.
And she is unapologetic about having a point of view. “It’s hard in this media climate to get . . . an actual legitimate, expanded long form conversation that is more than just a conversation of opinion, more than just somebody asking a question and hearing somebody’s answer, but actually having the person who’s asking the question have a point of view and push back on it. What we do want to do is show that there is a contest of ideas or a contrast in ideas that then expounds and allows for a conversation to unfold, breathe.”
With all the distribution possibilities out there, I was interested in her thoughts on why this show belonged on PBS specifically. She was clear on one thing - that the PBS audience would be receptive: “What we know about PBS is that it’s a really thoughtful audience that comes seeking information and wanting to learn, and so it’s sort of the perfect fit.”
Then she pauses for a moment and I can see that she wants to be honest but diplomatic, which she is. “You can’t convince a cable news executive that this is going to drive traffic and that they are going to be able to sell ads off this . . . it’s my high hope that people will be surprised, that people are thirsty for this.”
The show has secured funding from an array of sources that cover the political spectrum.
Whenever a new show is announced people are quick to pounce, without having seen one minute of it, ready with their critiques and objections to why something is not going to work. As I’ve urged before in this column when the program "In Principle" was announced, give the show a shot before criticizing it.
Over 33 years Buckley played with many formats. Hoover is going to mostly stick with one guest to begin with, and with some 26 minutes to fill, that provides the opportunity for a deep dive that so many programs promise but fail to deliver on. I hope that she sticks to that format; it’s the one that’s really missing on public television right now. "In Principle" has failed to live up to its promise, and we have yet to see how the newly revamped Christiane Amanpour show, "Amanpour & Company", will feel with a rotating cast of four contributors in addition to the CNN star.
Hoover also plans to use some of the "Firing Line" archival tape because what is quite clear is that so many of the issues Buckley focused on over three decades are issues we are still battling today, as I’ve noted before. Who knows, maybe she’ll be able to have a conversation with some of the guests who appeared as bright young things during the Buckley years.
"Firing Line" begins June 2nd on WNET and will be available nationally on June 22nd. It will air on 28 of the top 30 public television markets and will be streaming on pbs.org. I am looking forward to it with interest.
