george steinbrenner with a statement?

Tim Russert had a more direct connection to baseball than some might have known. He served on the board of directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame, to which he had been appointed several years ago. From everything I've heard, he was a rabid baseball fan. He seemed like a very likeable guy, too.

sorry, i should have noted the gravity of the situation ... he was well-regarded, and its a sad thing.

I'm sorry to hear he's dead, but I'm not sorry he'll never be on television again. I really, really hated his 'journalism'.

He served on the board of directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame, to which he had been appointed several years ago. From everything I've heard, he was a rabid baseball fan.

I just updated the article with this:

"We are shocked and deeply saddened to learn of Tim's sudden passing," said National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum Chairman Jane Forbes Clark. "He was an integral member of our Board of Directors and its executive committee, and he cared about the Hall of Fame and its mission so much. We'll miss Tim's critical thinking and his unsurpassed passion for the game tremendously."

I disagree with wcw. I thought he was the best at what he did on TV now, and maybe ever.

I disagree with wcw. I thought he was the best at what he did on TV now, and maybe ever.

He made Sam Donaldson look like Jerry Springer.

Yeah, I'm sorry to see him go too. He was a good interviewer. He would have come in handy during this critical election cycle.

On May 11th, Terry McAuliffe (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager) was a guest on MTP, and mentioned during his interview that Russert's father, "Big Russ" was looking down from Heaven on the Democratic primary.

Awkward pause. Russert said, "Big Russ is in the Barcalounger still watching this, God bless him."

Eerie.

Condolences to his family and colleagues.

Holy F!@# Tim Russert DIED?

At the risk of violating nowisnotthetimeism, Russert seemed like the epitome of rolodex reporting. Get along with everyone, get access to everyone, ask the "tough" aren't-these-your-words? question, accept any empty non-answer that comes your way, and skip pleasantly on. He often suffered fools not just gladly, but cheerfully. There's a reason Dick Cheney's office listed "MTP... control message" as its #1 internal option for spinning his lies about Iraq. That said, Russert also had an obvious intelligence and affability that was put to best use on those marathon primary/election broadcasts. He appeared to have a likeable spirit, and a good personal center, and that's something.

He would have come in handy during this critical election cycle.

I think I stated this extremely badly in the Lounge, but I wish (and I'd gamble that he would have wished as well) that he would have survived until the end of this cycle. Both selfishly - I like his analysis - and for my perception of him. I think he'd want to know who the winner is. His unabashed enthusiasm for politics was pretty infectious.

I agree with Gonfalon on Russert. I certainly feel for his family, but if we want to honestly look at his career, rather than offer empty praises of his journalism, his ties to Cheney and the disservice he did the country in refusing to ask difficult questions over the past 8 years, should at least be mentioned.

I'm fine with suspending critical judgment of his career at a sensitive moment, but that requires suspending all judgment, not just what's unflattering.

Edit - Eh, "disservice" is probably too strong. As someone who really admired him growing up, I was unhappy to see how he was used by the administration.

I have to break my exile for just this one to post what this douche's take.

What a ##########.

See you all in March 2009.

his ties to Cheney and the disservice he did the country in refusing to ask difficult questions over the past 8 years, should at least be mentioned.

And he was an aide to Democratic Senator Moynihan, too. What's your point?

We're not really going to turn this into a "he was too easy on the people I disliked!" p!ssing contest, are we?

RIP.

It came out during the Plame affair that Russert had a policy of assuming every single conversation he had with a public figure was off the record unless he was instructed otherwise. That's just astonishing. It's like being an anti-reporter, vowing to never reveal anything you've learned.

He seems like a good journalist who just got seduced by power and money. It's too bad he didn't live long enough to get back to good journalism.

His death is sad for his family and colleagues.

However, looking broadly at his career, as the cable networks are forcing us to by putting his death at a Lennon level, I believe he's largely responsible for the foolish emphasis on consistency of opinion that's plagued our government during this political generation (beginning really with the Clinton era). The "flip flop" is a term of disparagement largely because of Russert, IMO. That's his legacy. But no matter what your political affiliation, we all have an interest in having politicians objectively examine what is actually working and defend policy plans, not play gotcha over how their current way of thinking varies from something they once said in the often distant past.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," except on Meet the Press.

[H]is ties to Cheney and the disservice he did the country in refusing to ask difficult questions over the past 8 years, should at least be mentioned.

I vehemently disagree. Russert did ask the difficult questions.

One problem was that in the interest of fairness to all parties, he allowed his interviewee to respond as the interviewee wished -- and Russert would occasionally not follow-up. Still, he did ask the initial questions, which is more than can be said about others on the Washington beat.

And he was an aide to Democratic Senator Moynihan, too. What's your point?

His point is clear in what you quoted. Who gives a #### that he was an aide to Moynihan? It has no bearing on what was quoted whatsoever.

We're not really going to turn this into a "he was too easy on the people I disliked!" p!ssing contest, are we?

What? No, I was thinking more along the lines of a reasoned analysis of his strength as an interviewer and journalist. But comments like yours are a good way to get off that track.

Both selfishly - I like his analysis - and for my perception of him. I think he'd want to know who the winner is.

Funnily/sadly enough, the latter was one of the first things I thought of after hearing the news. He'll never get to know who wins!

Condolences to his family and friends. I thought he was, for the most part, excellent at what he did.

a reasoned analysis of his strength as an interviewer and journalist

I'm sorry; I just wouldn't consider "his ties to Cheney and the disservice he did the country in refusing to ask difficult questions over the past 8 years" to be reasoned analysis, but partisanship that I, for one, don't believe was particularly accurate. And I'm a left-leaner.

I was thinking more along the lines of a reasoned analysis of his strength as an interviewer and journalist. But comments like yours are a good way to get off that track.

No, you were thinking along the lines of calling Russert a bagman for Them Evil Republicans (tm), on the very day of the man's death, no less.

Let the hatred go. Please.

I agree with Salfino and Padraic here but am genuinely saddened because the guy seemed nothing if not affable. W's characterization as "gregarious" is probably pretty good.

The gotcha schtick tired, however, and look no further than Dana Milbank's testimony in the Libby trial if you think Russert did not get a little too comfy in Washington and lose his way as a journalist.

but partisanship that I, for one, don't believe was particularly accurate.

What was inaccurate about saying 1) he was friends with Cheney and 2) he didn't ask tough questions of the administration? I don't think either of these points are particularly "partisan." The first is simply a verifiable fact, and the second is a judgment I make from personal experience in journalism and my own critical eye. Neither point is even remotely related to a political position.

If it's the potentially inflammatory term "disservice" you didn't like, I made a point of "editing" that not five seconds after the post.

I'm really surprised at some of the comments I just read on here.

Russert was "friends" with Cheney is a "verifiable fact" ?

YouTube: Cheney on "Meet the Press" and the transcript of that appearance. These guys were friends?

look no further than Dana Milbank's testimony in the Libby trial if you think Russert did not get a little too comfy in Washington and lose his way as a journalist.

I'm tired of Googling this one. Got a link?

What was inaccurate about saying 1) he was friends with Cheney and 2) he didn't ask tough questions of the administration?

1. I don't know if this is true; it's certainly true that he had friends in both parties, but I have no idea if Cheney was one of them. Even if he was, so what? If we're not allowed to have friends with whom we disagree, that's a sorry world indeed.

2. This certainly is untrue. I can't think of any tough questions he ducked. To the extent he can be criticized, it isn't because he didn't ask tough questions; it's that he allowed his interviewee to present his side of the story.

Here, TVerik. And by Dana Milbank I meant Cathie Martin. Oops. It was Milbank who wrote the Post piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

Did I read it wrong, or did you write it wrong? It's Milbank's reporting about the trial, right? Did he testify?

Fred, you might be right that Russert's failure was more in failing to provide tougher follow up questions, or in allowing administration officials access. That is probably a better way to phrase it than "didn't ask difficult questions."

I don't have a link for the Russert/Cheney friendship, but to the best of my recollection, I read that in a Michael Massing piece in the NYRB.

Edit - In general, I think my initial comment was poorly phrased. Even worse, this discussion made me miss the Phillies offensive explosion.

I'll put it this way -- Russert was certainly not in the same boat as Brit Hume or the folks over at FOX News.

You are right, TVrik. I wrote it wrong.

Padraic, I don't think that they were friends but this, from the link above, may be what you are thinking of.

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

Russert was certainly not in the same boat as Brit Hume or the folks over at FOX News.

No, not at all. That's why I initially said that my unhappiness at the time was because I had a lot of respect for Russert. I had no such expectations of FOX.

Padraic, I don't think that they were friends

Well, if no one else on this site (which is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff) remembers this, then I must be off. I still get all my news and information from trees, so Googling for this isn't easy.

Russert was "friends" with Cheney is a "verifiable fact" ?

YouTube: Cheney on "Meet the Press" and the transcript of that appearance. These guys were friends?

There is reason to be skeptical of Russert's handling there.

At the risk of violating nowisnotthetimeism, Russert seemed like the epitome of rolodex reporting. Get along with everyone, get access to everyone, ask the "tough" aren't-these-your-words? question, accept any empty non-answer that comes your way, and skip pleasantly on. He often suffered fools not just gladly, but cheerfully. There's a reason Dick Cheney's office listed "MTP... control message" as its #1 internal option for spinning his lies about Iraq. That said, Russert also had an obvious intelligence and affability that was put to best use on those marathon primary/election broadcasts. He appeared to have a likeable spirit, and a good personal center, and that's something.

IMO that's a very fair take. Russert was an utterly typical TV journalist in that he knew that you have to appear tough enough to be credible, but not so tough that you wind up out of the loop, which in Washington is the kiss of death. Even though they were first take reactions, you have to take note of the obvious respect he commanded among his colleagues, but as the role of the mainstream TV journalist has taken such a dive off the cliff since the days of Edward R. Murrow, this sort of praise, especially from the likes of Sally Quinn and Mike Barnicle, can mean only so much.

He was at his best on election night, when his encyclopedic knowledge and intelligence were given free rein, and that's when I'll miss him the most. But his historical legacy is going to be a lot closer to Lawrence Spivak than it will be to the likes of Murrow. He was way too constrained by his job description to rise much above that.

He has been a presence around Nationals games since their arrival in 2005, and will be missed around Nationals Park. Both the radio and TV crews noted his passing tonight. In addition. Don Sutton lauded his work on behalf of the Hall of Fame, saluting his passion for the game.

I only wish Lucchino had seen fit to refrain from using that cheesy term "Red Sox Nation" in the team's release noting his passing. It sort of trivializes things.

There is reason to be skeptical of Russert's handling there.

I'm generally liberal, but I think that hatchet job is largely baseless.

Yes, if Russert had been a liberal advocate, he could have smacked Cheney around as suggested here. Short of making the man cry, what purpose would it have served to talk endlessly about "cooking the intelligence" and such?

Bernal, that link you posted from 6-4-2 was eye opening. I don't know the name of the guy who wrote it, but that kind of writing is an example of blogging at its absolute worst. "Reprehensible" and "shameful" are the two words that come immediately to mind, but I'm not sure that they are strong enough words to describe how loathsome he is in writing those words immediately after a man's death. I didn't know Russert, but he seemed like a good man, certainly one who didn't deserve such vile hatred.

My condolences to Tim's family and friends. He was, of course, a member of the mainstream media, and in spite of that, I often enjoyed his insights, and his enthusiasm for his work, .

I think of Russert as the Peter Gammons of politics. He clearly had a passion for his subject, and he was known and respected throughout the industry. But, as I said above, I think Russert was on top of his game, and the best at what he did on TV today. I don't think anyone would say that Petey has never been better.

*Edited for verb tenses in the second sentence, but I'm not sure I should have*

Yes, if Russert had been a liberal advocate, he could have smacked Cheney around as suggested here. Short of making the man cry, what purpose would it have served to talk endlessly about "cooking the intelligence" and such?

Russert didn't need to have engaged in that sort of rhetoric, but there's still a distinct contrast between the sort of doggedness that he often had in pursuing minor contradictions, and in not forcing the issue once politicians such as Cheney continued to evade the hard questions.

And again, in Russert's defense, this was more the nature of his job than it was any particular personal shortcoming on his part. This combination of pseudo-aggressiveness and lack of genuinely tough cross-examination is what MTP and its competitors have always been all about. You can learn a hundred times more about these Sunday morning guests by watching their actions than you can by listening to the way they sidestep and eventually co-opt the likes of Russert once they obtain real power.

The cliche "kiss up and kick down" doesn't precisely describe what Russert's role was, since it implies a nasty personal edge that Russert didn't have, but from a political standpoint it isn't too far off. The higher a politician rose, the more respectfully Russert treated him.* The real role of Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., is to serve as a measurement of a politician's standing in official Washington---not by what they say, but simply by counting the number of times that they're asked to appear on the show. It's about as insular a milieu as you can find anywhere this side of Skull and Bones.

*Unless that politician offended Russert's sense of personal morality, as in the case of Bill Clinton during pusssygate.

I have to admit, when I hear that Rush Limbaugh has kicked, all I'll think is good riddance.

But scareduck's reaction (and Zumsteg's towards Sutcliffe) help give bloggers a bad name.

But his historical legacy is going to be a lot closer to Lawrence Spivak than it will be to the likes of Murrow. He was way too constrained by his job description to rise much above that.

I'll nominate Keith Olbermann as this generation's Edward R. Murrow. Anyone care to second?

I'll nominate Keith Olbermann as this generation's Edward R. Murrow. Anyone care to second?

Not me. It's not that Olberman doesn't necessarily have some of Murrow's better instincts, but the nature of TV today is such that you're never going to see another Murrow, or at least you'll never see another Murrow who can ever have the sort of wide influence that Murrow had in his day, when he worked on the highest rated of what was then only three major networks in the country.

Beyond that, Olberman for better or worse is caught up in what can only be called "entertainment values," as opposed to the equally passionate but less personalized style of Murrow. Murrow in many ways had no more charisma than someone like Bill Bradley, but with the platform of the country's leading network, he was able to attract a wide audience. But since that sort of mass audience isn't available today for serious broadcast journalism, players like Olberman often have to shout at the top of their lungs in order to be heard. And while I can understand the necessity for this at times, it doesn't always make for the most enlightening form of information.

Surprised at some of the nonsense here only hours after Russert's death. Not only is the allegation of "ties to Cheney" flat-out wrong, but there seems to be a serious misreading of that "MTP... control message" notation. All that meant was that the White House thought it would have an opportunity to get its own message out by putting a high-level official, the VP, on the #1 rated interview show, which has a ripple effect on other media coverage. To read it as suggesting that the WH thought it could control Russert or MTP, or expected kid-glove treatment, is not an accurate reading.

The older I get, the more I value civility and measured rhetoric toward those who merit it. (I say this knowing full well that I've shamefully failed to live up to those values quite often in the past.) I saw a lot of that in Russert. Others have complimented his sense of decorum and his even-handedness. I'll second that, and say he was, according to everything I've heard, a true gentleman and a loving husband, father, and son. Those are just about the highest compliments you can pay a man.

He also recognized something I take to be a truth these days: *most* of us, despite our political differences, want nothing more than to make life better for ourselves and others. We of course differ greatly and sometimes archly as to how that should be accomplished, but in the main we want good things for yours and ours. I yield to no one in thinking that the current administration has been damaging to our nation in the extreme, but I don't think they're somehow evil rather than merely incompetent. The recognition that your political enemies probably aren't some reanimated form of Hitler/Stalin/Pinochet/Mao/Pol Pot/Castro/Bin Laden/Baal is a useful and moral one. Hosannas to Russert for perpetuating that ethic. We need more of him and fewer of Scareduck in the conversation. I'm aware that those who assail the freshly and innocently deceased see themselves as brave tellers of truth, but I think most sensible people regard them, rightly, as maladjusted a**holes. So call them what they are.

Anyhow, I feel comfortable in calling Tim Russert an important journalist and a great man; I'll pray for him and his family at Mass this Sunday.

Not sure if my commentary would have me lumped in with those "assailing" Russert but if that is the perception, let me just echo some of what Andy, Dayn and others have said. He seemed like a good man, had his journalistic merits and his voice will doubtless be missed. It's all very sad.

Sorry to have come across "maladjusted" - #48 is a great post, one that made me consider some of my words.

I'll nominate Keith Olbermann as this generation's Edward R. Murrow.

In his dreams...quite literally.

I actually liked Olbermann quite a bit when he was on ESPN, and we share passions for baseball and Monty Python. But that was before the boy snapped and began running "Special Commentaries" (yes, they're really called that) on Why Bush Sucks Every. Single. Night. Even my ultra-liberal friends find his show tiresome. (I don't watch any cable news shows...bleaugh.)

And he's a whiner. I remember hearing (in 2000, I think) a radio rant of his soon after his mother was hit by a ball in Yankee Stadium and a fellow ESPNer (Kenny Mayne?) joked that "the wrong Olbermann got hit by that ball." Not a nice thing to say, obviously, but if I were in Olby's shoes I would've confronted Mayne privately, not made a big fuss over it. Instead, Olby goes on the radio and whines about how mean Mayne is, and that he had looked after Mayne's kids once, and that Mayne was "a swine." As a result, Olby came off looking far worse than Mayne did. (Defending your mother = good. Bleating like a mama's boy = bad.)

It's not hard to figure out why the guy has bounced from network to network. He seems to have found a home at (MS)NBC; I'm assuming that's a combination of his show being (relatively) popular and that Olby has grown up some. But don't be surprised to see him on the TV Guide Channel someday.

The more I read about Russert, the more I realize that I should have emphasized the "half full" rather than "half empty" aspect of his career. In fact his personal qualities were what helped to fill his glass, and it was mostly the institutional imperatives of Meet The Press that kept it half empty. Given the role's constraints, he did about as well as he could have, and I certainly didn't mean to imply any sort of personal political bias on his part. His main problem was that on a professional level, he was a bit too embedded in the official Washington culture for my taste.

I have to break my exile for just this one to post what this douche's take.

Thank you for your patronage!

Russert asked no tough questions; Gonfalon bubble's comment at #11 hits the nail right on the head with the "epitome of rolodex reporting" comment, because as with much of the press, the great fear is that access disappears. In which case, so what? He wasn't really a journalist, something that was made clear time and again.

Olbermann is about as close to Murrow as we're going to see in this generation. His show tends to falter on two grounds:

1) the stupid video segment, which pulls it closer to infotainment than news
2) the recurring guest list, which often consists of other journalists. This isn't really journalism, but editorializing masked as news; the worst offender is Newsweek's Richard Wolfe. I hated it when NPR used to do it, and I find it just cheating when Olbermann does it.

But as for his special comments, he was the first to call out Bush on a laundry list of anti-American and frankly dystopian policies, from unchecked wiretapping to arbitrary detainment without habeas corpus. Unlike craven stenographers like Russert, who rarely got to substantive issues and all too often played along with the crafted storyline, Olbermann often has the temerity to point out administration doubletalk. This, I suppose, forms a weak third area of criticism of the man's show; the Bush administration, being venal and evil, sounds like a broken record at its end, and for that, you begin to tune out the bad news, there being such volumes of it.

In Olbermann's defense, the heaps of American dead stacked like cordwood, and the hospitals filled even higher with the legless and armless, have no claim to his conscience. The same cannot be said for the likes of Russert, who believed fact-checking was somebody else's job, and that it was the opposition party's responsibility to discover the truth. Russert was typical of most "reporting" on Washington, and while he perhaps doesn't deserve censure for that in particular, he allowed the administration to pass off its lies as fact by providing one more wall — and a particularly large one — in the echo chamber.

Shitferbrains,

Unfortunately, I never read your blog so I can't tell you that you've lost a reader, but you're an asshat of the highest order. Go #### yourself.

Russert helped to preserve the illusion we have a working press corp and a sane government. Both bad. His perch was paid for by General Electric, of course he's going to be part of the establishment. I feel bad for those that took MTP to be something more than a charade.

How tough was Russert leading up to the Iraq War? Right. Just cashing a paycheck.

Go #### yourself.

And thus the opposition! Hooray for democracy and enlightened discourse!

My wife's brother-in-law is a clinical psychologist who works for the VA. I consider the contempt that the administration has for the broken men sent back from Iraq, and then I think about men like Russert who exhibited no curiosity, asked no real useful questions, and had no role in the run-up to that war other than as an amplifier for the lies used to sell the war.

The scales just don't even begin to balance.

The same cannot be said for the likes of Russert, who believed fact-checking was somebody else's job, and that it was the opposition party's responsibility to discover the truth.

And so in light of that, you are glad that he is now dead. Gee, that certainly makes a lot of sense, you seem like a very rational person.

The same cannot be said for the likes of Russert, who believed fact-checking was somebody else's job, and that it was the opposition party's responsibility to discover the truth.

Wow, I could not disagree more.

Still, even if what you say was true -- hell, even if it were Brit Hume or Tony Snow who died -- I would still consider the rhetoric in your blog post to be thoroughly classless and contemptible.

Did you lose someone in your family or something?

I think about men like Russert who exhibited no curiosity, asked no real useful questions, and had no role in the run-up to that war other than as an amplifier for the lies used to sell the war.

You may certainly be correct about that but there are scores of elected officials that are far more responsible for the war than Russert. I didn't vote for Russert to look out for the countries best interest. He was paid to report political news. I can't blame him for starting a war that was inevitable from the time that the first plane hit the towers. Do you honestly believe that if Russert would have banged the anti-war drum that the Bush administration would have changed course? The fool has ultra-low approval ratings and is still pulling the same crap that he has for the past 8 years.

Surprised at some of the nonsense here only hours after Russert's death. Not only is the allegation of "ties to Cheney" flat-out wrong, but there seems to be a serious misreading of that "MTP... control message" notation. All that meant was that the White House thought it would have an opportunity to get its own message out by putting a high-level official, the VP, on the #1 rated interview show, which has a ripple effect on other media coverage. To read it as suggesting that the WH thought it could control Russert or MTP, or expected kid-glove treatment, is not an accurate reading.

You don't try to get your message out in the face of someone likely to challenge it.

Sorry to have come across "maladjusted" - #48 is a great post, one that made me consider some of my words.

Actually, Marc, I was referring to Scareduck. I don't have a problem with anything you wrote.

I agree with some of the sentiments of 48, but I don't see how "most of us wanting to make a better life for ourselves" is even remotely related to the question of Russert's abilities as a journalist.

As I said, if you to reflect on the merits of someones career, that's fine. If you want a period of respect in which commenting on the on their career is verboten, I'm fine with that too. What I don't agree with are simple hagiographies of complicated figures like those being produced on Russert.

It's no surprise that Andy says something like:

The more I read about Russert, the more I realize that I should have emphasized the "half full" rather than "half empty" aspect of his career.

when the coverage of his career consists of testimonials from his friends in the industry.

This is no brief for the despicable comments in the linked thread, but the content-free platitudes of "everyone wants what's best" is as dangerous a journalistic assumption as I can think of. If Russert was as good a journalist as many people claim, he would welcome an open debate into his own motivations and performance.

My wife's brother-in-law is a clinical psychologist who works for the VA. I consider the contempt that the administration has for the broken men sent back from Iraq, and then I think about men like Russert who exhibited no curiosity, asked no real useful questions, and had no role in the run-up to that war other than as an amplifier for the lies used to sell the war.

What kinds of useful questions could have been asked? You could find everything you needed from the public record before the war. It didn't take a genius to see that this war was foolhardy from the start, you didn't need to have a military background to see that this war was a big risk and there wasn't sufficient motivation.

The goal of MTP is to give politicians a place where they can talk about their views and motivations. They can either take that opportunity honestly or not honestly. I don't need Tim Russert to start beating up on Dick Cheney for me to come to an opinion on Dick Cheney. I do need for him to keep bringing politicians onto the air so I can see them having the opportunity to provide more than soundbites.

I agree that MTP wasn't a perfect venue, but that had a lot less to do with Russert than with the people he had on the air. The old "Hardball"/"Crossfire"/"I'll Kick Your Ass" attack style "debate" shows (which use a style that you seem to be advocating that Russert should have pursued) suppress debate, they don't encourage it.

Post 48 hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. We need people like Russert in the media because it's good to give people an opportunity to defend their views in a more comfortable setting where they don't have to feel like they're going to get their nuts kicked in every other question. There is a segment of the population that bemoans the MSM for not doing enough, but the bemoaning is for the wrong reason. It's not that the MSM doesn't ask the right questions or put politicians under the gun enough, it's that they try to control the story. The most enlightening political moments happen when someone is treated with decorum and then hangs himself or herself anyways.

The public needs to start taking responsibility for forming their own opinions and stop expecting the MSM to help them to do it. Once we take responsibility for forming our opinions, THAT will shape the MSM (not vice versa).

More than half of the posts on this thread are embarrassing. I have noted, as I am sure that others have as well, that the majority of posts that are especially embarrassing are being made by bed-wetting liberals.

Tim Russert was fair and balanced most of the time, despite his background working for Democrats. He was very professional and Tim was something Keith Olberman will never be, credible.

You don't try to get your message out in the face of someone likely to challenge it.

Who on tv would have challenged him more than Russert, put within the constraints of MTP?

Most of Russert's failing are that of the sad state of the medium in which he worked.

I have no issue with criticism of Russert's work, even on the day after his death. But from all reports, he was a good and generous man who was loved by most who knew him. Perhaps too generous to the Cheneys and Rices, but I wish that were my primary personal fault.

It's now standard on political blogs to show personal contempt for anyone who disagrees with you politically, or who doesn't do it like you would in your imagination where there are no real-world constraints, but as Dayn states, it does absolutely nothing to change the world for the better, only boosts the self-righteousness of the blogger.

But I guess that's what blogging is all about.

Death is closer than we think. Try to keep this in mind -- will the people who mourn my passing far outnumber those saying good riddance?

Let me add more kudos for Dayn Perry in post 48.

I don't want a journalist making up my mind for me. I want a journalist to show me sides to a story. I wasn't a regular viewer of Russert, but when I did watch him, he tended to challenge his guests and respectfully give them an opportunity to respond. I observed and made conclusions based on what I saw and heard, I didn't need Russert coming on in an epilogue to tell me "Everything you just heard was ########" or something. Journalism should not be advocacy, in my mind.

I didn't need Russert coming on in an epilogue to tell me "Everything you just heard was ########" or something. Journalism should not be advocacy, in my mind.

This is incoherent. So something like factchect.org or investigative journalism is now advocacy? Investigating the truth claims of advocates for one or another position is exactly what a journalist should do, and it is the exact opposite of advocacy.

This is also a great irony, since Russert made his reputation (deservedly I believe) precisely because he did tell people they were full of "crap."

I guess speaking truth to power is no longer considered part of journalism? Wow.

I saw MTP a few times; Russert did a good job within the institutional confines of the position, as Andy, Russ and Alex say, and appears to have been a really good guy.

Related to that, I don't see MTP as selling itself as "investigative journalism" so I am not sure Russert should be judged by those standards. There is little doubt of course, that he was part of the establishment in many respects--because MTP is. So, I can see why people would be irritated by his getting kudos for "toughness." He did seem to be pretty fair, which is better than "tough" for his job.

bed-wetting liberals.

I don't wet the bed anymore, but I do spring a few leaks when I am around tough-guy stalwarts like yourself. Luckily, my computer is near the clothes hamper.

Count me in the club giving kudos to Dayn for what he wrote he post 48.

I didn't know Russert, but from everything I know about him, I would have liked to have known him personally. He was a man who garnered tremendous respect by the way he treated people, honorably, fairly, and with good humor. Any one of us would be lucky to be remembered half as well when our time comes.

My sympathies to his friends and family for their great loss.

The goal of MTP is to give politicians a place where they can talk about their views and motivations. They can either take that opportunity honestly or not honestly. I don't need Tim Russert to start beating up on Dick Cheney for me to come to an opinion on Dick Cheney. I do need for him to keep bringing politicians onto the air so I can see them having the opportunity to provide more than soundbites.

I agree that MTP wasn't a perfect venue, but that had a lot less to do with Russert than with the people he had on the air. The old "Hardball"/"Crossfire"/"I'll Kick Your Ass" attack style "debate" shows (which use a style that you seem to be advocating that Russert should have pursued) suppress debate, they don't encourage it.

Post 48 hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. We need people like Russert in the media because it's good to give people an opportunity to defend their views in a more comfortable setting where they don't have to feel like they're going to get their nuts kicked in every other question. There is a segment of the population that bemoans the MSM for not doing enough, but the bemoaning is for the wrong reason. It's not that the MSM doesn't ask the right questions or put politicians under the gun enough, it's that they try to control the story. The most enlightening political moments happen when someone is treated with decorum and then hangs himself or herself anyways.

Very well put, Russ. Great post.

More than half of the posts on this thread are embarrassing.

More than half? You're easily embarrassed.

Alex Perros, please update the email address associated with your account and contract me through the site's email mechanism.

More than half of the posts on this thread are embarrassing.

More than half? You're easily embarrassed.

Embarrassing for the fools that assail a man that just died.
-
Dayn, you must be a phony, because my characterization of the posts assailing Russert as embarrassing is not much different than your characterization of them as disturbed or "maladjusted a**holes". While you prefer to characterize the uncivil as "maladjusted a**holes", I observed that the majority of the uncivil commentary also happened to be from liberals, so I prefer, for accuracy's sake, to characterize them as "bed-wetting liberals".

for reference

I'm aware that those who assail the freshly and innocently deceased see themselves as brave tellers of truth, but I think most sensible people regard them, rightly, as maladjusted a**holes. So call them what they are.

The problem with organizations like factcheck.org is the fact they inevitably get to choose which facts to check. Some fact-checking is easier to do than others (which is why the US, and not the tyrants of the world, always gets slammed by Amnesty International). And, let's face it...if you fancied yourself the watchdog type, wouldn't you be more likely to snitch on the people you don't like rather than the ones you do? (The factcheck.org board is made up mostly of journalists from NPR and the like. Fair and balanced, eh?)

My wife's brother-in-law is a clinical psychologist

I'd suggest making an appointment, scareduck. Or just lie down until January 20.

Dayn, you must be a phony, because my characterization of the posts assailing Russert as embarrassing is not much different than your characterization of them as disturbed or "maladjusted a**holes". While you prefer to characterize the uncivil as "maladjusted a**holes", I observed that the majority of the uncivil commentary also happened to be from liberals, so I prefer, for accuracy's sake, to characterize them as "bed-wetting liberals".

The posts I take issue with are Scareduck's and, to a much lesser extent, wcw's #4, Gonfalon's #11, a couple by Padraic and maybe Tom's in #16. More specifically, my "maladjusted a-hole" remark was directed at Scareduck, not the others. (I was probably unclear about tat.) So, yeah, I think saying "more than half" is wildly off the mark. If that makes me a phony in your mind, then I'll have to find a way to live with your disapproval.

then I'll have to find a way to live with your disapproval.

I assume he'll say nice things about you when you die, if that helps.

The factcheck.org board is made up mostly of journalists from NPR and the like.

If by "the like" you mean the Wall Street Journal, where both the director and deputy director of factcheck.org have worked, then yes, I would say it is a "fair" group ;-)
("balanced" isn't a concern at all of mine unless we are talking about public airwaves being given to candidates.)

Here.

Based on some of the comments, I'm guessing I was right in my first post to question the timing of this discussion. I do hope at some point, however, a more interesting discussion can be had of one of the most important journalists of this generation. A few generalizations, a nice pat on the back, and the designation as a "good guy" are vastly inadequate to the memory of such an important figure.

I certainly don't think I'll have the recognition of Russert when I die, but the least I can hope is that my thoughts and actions - good and bad - are taken seriously.

I've found factcheck.org to be quite balanced in its efforts - and I'm a lifelong independent.

I assume he'll say nice things about you when you die, if that helps.

Clutch snark FTW

The problem with organizations like factcheck.org is the fact they inevitably get to choose which facts to check. Some fact-checking is easier to do than others (which is why the US, and not the tyrants of the world, always gets slammed by Amnesty International). And, let's face it...if you fancied yourself the watchdog type, wouldn't you be more likely to snitch on the people you don't like rather than the ones you do? (The factcheck.org board is made up mostly of journalists from NPR and the like. Fair and balanced, eh?)

If you go onto factcheck, and go through their 2008 archives, you'll see that they're nowhere near as imbalanced as you're implying. They're hitting McCain harder now, but when the Democratic race was still up for grabs they were going after both candidates (plus Edwards) with regularity.

And you mention NPR. Please tell me that you're excluding The News Hour from whatever you're trying to suggest about that network's agenda. I'll let the rest of NPR speak for itself, though most of what I see when I channel surf there are endless reruns of Antiques Roadshow, British sitcoms and plays, geriatric rock and roll, and some blond telling us how to get rich.

I was generally less-than-impressed with Russert's professional work, and I stopped watching his show years ago. Still, I don't think he was a bad sort at heart, my mother liked him a lot, and 58 is just too young for anybody to go.

I agree that MTP wasn't a perfect venue, but that had a lot less to do with Russert than with the people he had on the air.

One of Russert's many empty claims — endlessly repeated by those in similar circumstances as a means of excusing themselves from their misdeeds and crimes of omission — was that there was nobody in the opposition party willing to stand up against the war. Yet, Al Gore (the former Presidential candidate) and Ted Kennedy (as corrupt and frankly creepy as he is, he still had high standing at the time as a ranking Democratic senator) both made impassioned speeches against the war prior to its start. Russert's role was to minimize those voices.

Moreover, I have a real beef with those claiming that Russert was a journalist. If he were classified as the host of a television talk show, that would be one thing, but real journalism was being done elsewhere, rare examples of which showed up in the McClatchy newspapers and in few other places. Russert was sadly all too typical.

Short of making the man cry, what purpose would it have served to talk endlessly about "cooking the intelligence" and such?

It might have stopped a capital folly that even Bush's daddy knew would be a mistake had it been executed before the war. For those who trivialized the deaths involved — are you serious?

The posts I take issue with are Scareduck's and, to a much lesser extent, wcw's #4, Gonfalon's #11, a couple by Padraic and maybe Tom's in #16. More specifically, my "maladjusted a-hole" remark was directed at Scareduck, not the others.

I've been called worse, Dayn, and I'll consider it an honor and reflective of the heat of the moment. But let me ask you this: what specifically is wrong with anything I wrote? You object to my tone, is that it?

When was the last time you had to deal with a man whose brain has been so physically abused by concussions due to IED's that he's now mentally disabled? I'm an a**hole for pointing out that Russert helped men die and lose their limbs? Sorry that hurts your sensibilities! I'm in favor of civil discourse, up to the point where it amounts to euphemism. Wars have consequences, and one of them is a lot of body bags.

While you prefer to characterize the uncivil as "maladjusted a**holes", I observed that the majority of the uncivil commentary also happened to be from liberals, so I prefer, for accuracy's sake, to characterize them as "bed-wetting liberals".

I'm not sure why Republicans would complain about the mainstream media; most of the MSM carried their water for the better part of this decade. It's not reporters who wouldn't cooperate with the Administration, it's the reality of the world that didn't.

As for Russert, he wasn't a perfect man, but he was a good one, which made him twice the man some of his critics here will ever be. Requiescat in pace.

Russert helped men die and lose their limbs

a bit of a stretch...

I have noted, as I am sure that others have as well, that the majority of posts that are especially embarrassing are being made by bed-wetting liberals.

Tim Russert was fair and balanced most of the time, despite his background working for Democrats.

Fortunately, in a worthy tribute to Tim Russert, we have the likes of you to restore fairness and balance to the thread.

Of course, "fair and balanced" means something quite different to today's FAUX News-watching "conservatives" than it means to those of us in the reality-based community, so take that for what it's worth.

And you mention NPR. Please tell me that you're excluding The News Hour from whatever you're trying to suggest about that network's agenda. I'll let the rest of NPR speak for itself, though most of what I see when I channel surf there are endless reruns of Antiques Roadshow, British sitcoms and plays, geriatric rock and roll, and some blond telling us how to get rich.

That's PBS. You know, it comes out of the box that shows pictures in your living room. I believe it's called a television.

NPR has no pictures & comes out of the box most people would refer to as a radio.

Or maybe I'm even more disoriented during my morning commute (which is when I listen to NPR ... I could be watching it, too? That sounds positively dangerous) than I thought.

retro-shiite, filthy racist whore

I missed the thread where you went to that handle. What happened?

The factcheck.org board is made up mostly of journalists from NPR and the like.

If by "the like" you mean the Wall Street Journal, where both the director and deputy director of factcheck.org have worked, then yes, I would say it is a "fair" group ;-)

And they've also worked for places like CNN and the AP, both of whom are about as "balanced" as a meal eaten by John Kruk.

Look, anytime you fill any organization with professional journalists, you're gonna see a slant to the left. Period. Outside of Fox, conservatives don't congregate in American newsrooms because they know they're not welcome. (Fair enough: you don't see many Cindy Sheehan-types in American boardrooms.)

And you mention NPR. Please tell me that you're excluding The News Hour from whatever you're trying to suggest about that network's agenda. I'll let the rest of NPR speak for itself, though most of what I see when I channel surf there are endless reruns of Antiques Roadshow, British sitcoms and plays, geriatric rock and roll, and some blond telling us how to get rich.

I think you're referring to PBS, not National Public Radio. Both services are the definition of vapid.

Al Gore (the former Presidential candidate) and Ted Kennedy (as corrupt and frankly creepy as he is, he still had high standing at the time as a ranking Democratic senator) both made impassioned speeches against the war prior to its start.

Gore wasn't running for anything, and Ted's seat is as safe as safe gets. Meanwhile, the people who actually wanted to get (re-)elected to high office (I'm looking at you, Hillary) voted for the war.

I'm an a**hole for pointing out that Russert helped men die and lose their limbs?

How exactly did Russert do this? Did he plant the IEDs himself?

The nice thing about knowing the truth about everything is that common courtesy becomes strictly optional, as most everybody are dirty liars.

I missed the thread where you went to that handle. What happened?

It's the continuation of a running joke between me and Andere Richtingen. Back in '03 or '04 during a Cub game chatter, somebody started making ribald comments about something or other, and AR called me a "filthy, filthy whore." (Neither of us remembers the specific context.) Well, he occasionally breaks it out at random moments for old time's sake.

During the recent megathread when folks were discussing the Valerie Plame/Niger uranium stuff, I wondered aloud what one calls a resident of Niger (figuring that "Nigerians" would refer to people from, well, Nigeria). AR jestingly called me a "filthy racist whore" for using the word "Niger."

Gore wasn't running for anything, and Ted's seat is as safe as safe gets. Meanwhile, the people who actually wanted to get (re-)elected to high office (I'm looking at you, Hillary) voted for the war.

Exactly right, but what does it have to do with anything?

That the people free from electoral pressure saw the war as BS is not a mark against their statements from the time, but rather the opposite.

Post 48 hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. We need people like Russert in the media because it's good to give people an opportunity to defend their views in a more comfortable setting where they don't have to feel like they're going to get their nuts kicked in every other question.

You're worried that the Vice President might be upset because someone would call him out on his use of specious, trumped-up nonsense to promote the deaths of other human beings as an instrument of policy? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the case for war be airtight before committing to that course of action?

Gore wasn't running for anything, and Ted's seat is as safe as safe gets. Meanwhile, the people who actually wanted to get (re-)elected to high office (I'm looking at you, Hillary) voted for the war.

My point was that neither of Gore or Kennedy were being treated seriously by guys like Russert, when they got airtime at all. The charge that Russert made here (though he pretended otherwise) was that somehow it was the responsibility of the Democratic party to be doing his legwork for him:

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have an opposition party. That's our system of government.

BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody…

TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposing views.

What does that mean?

How exactly did Russert do this? Did he plant the IEDs himself?

Worse: he helped get the country into the war in the first place. He believed in access more than truth, which makes him not too different from others in the journalism business (the TV end of it especially), but in so doing he forfeit his claims to being a journalist.

That the people free from electoral pressure saw the war as BS is not a mark against their statements from the time, but rather the opposite.

Just so.

You're worried that the Vice President might be upset because someone would call him out on his use of specious, trumped-up nonsense to promote the deaths of other human beings as an instrument of policy? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the case for war be airtight before committing to that course of action?

What does calling him out publicly and with lack of sufficient decorum do besides make sure that he doesn't appear in public again? It was VERY clear from the Cheney interview that the administration had screwed up without requiring the requisite flogging from the interviewer. Sure, maybe some people missed some sort of masturbatory exercise in watching someone they despised getting their come-uppence, but mostly I just wanted to hear exactly why he did what he did (or at least why he would say they did what they did). Beyond that, what else exactly do I need from an interview?

Journalism should not be advocacy, in my mind.

Yes, it should. It should advocate the truth and for honest and legitimate public service from those entrusted with it. It should not just detail the two or more sides but really try to ferret out which side is correct based on the best available data and consensus of objective opinion.

Somewhere along the way, apparently the American people got dumb enough to where we no longer have someone report the news (called a "reporter") and make up our own minds about it. We now need a "commentator" to not only tell us the news, but to explain it to us as well.

RIP, Mr Russert. You were a hell of a reporter.

What does calling him out publicly and with lack of sufficient decorum do besides make sure that he doesn't appear in public again?

Reduces his stock, and if done in a timely manner, prevents a catastrophe in the making?

Worse: he helped get the country into the war in the first place. He believed in access more than truth, which makes him not too different from others in the journalism business (the TV end of it especially), but in so doing he forfeit his claims to being a journalist.

This is just silly. Russert's job was to provide a forum, ask relevant, sometimes tough questions, and report on the debate. It wasn't his job to tilt the outcome one way or another.

As far as comparing Keith Olberman to Edward R. Murrow, please. Very few people who are actually familiar with the work of Murrow would make that comparison.

The real role of Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., is to serve as a measurement of a politician's standing in official Washington- attract an audience and thereby help the advertisers sell cars, brokerage services and mouthwash.

Fixed

The real role of Meet The Press, Face The Nation, etc., is to serve as a measurement of a politician's standing in official Washington- attract an audience and thereby help the advertisers sell cars, brokerage services and mouthwash.

I understand the cynicism as someone who started in the news business. But that should be an oxymoron because the public service of journalism as I described it without a focus on profitability is the bargain the networks made with the government when they were given PUBLIC airwaves.

Page.