An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Quote of the Day: On Tim Russert

Black Conservative Castrati? The “picks” are the problem. »

Tim Russert Was No Walter Cronkite

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in Media.
Jun 16th, 2008 | Comments

Tim Russert at a basketball game with James Carville

I am not a contrarian by nature and feel bad when I hurt people’s feelings, and I have held off writing about NBC News’s Tim Russert, who passed away on Friday of a heart attack at age 58, because of the strange double standard we have about speaking ill of the famous dead.

But a hopefully respectful amount of time has passed, as well as Father’s Day, so here goes:

I felt embarrassed watching the orgy of self-important coverage about Russert on the networks and cable news shows. You would have thought that someone really big like the Pope had died. This is because at heart I remain an old-school journalist who believes that becoming part of a story – which Russert did with proud regularity – is a cardinal sin and that the death, marriage or the winning of an award by one of our own should be duly and briefly noted, but then it is time to get back to work.

The “Meet the Press” host was by all accounts a loving husband, father and son who went about his business joyously, but I am at a loss to understand why that made him so special.

Russert was praised for asking tough questions in a business where everyone should ask tough questions, and if they can’t need to find another line of work. Like becoming a White House press secretary.

Russert was praised for his integrity, but I fail to see what was so principled about his obsession with playing the “Gotcha” game and needling his guests to respond to the latest media feeding frenzy over some non-issue.

Russert was praised for his modesty, but what I saw was an outsized sense of his $5 million per year self worth that is typical in the business, while it was noted amidst all of the clubbish praise that he was jealously protective of the “Tim Russert brand” and careful not to overexpose himself.

Russert was praised for his love of politics, but that deep affection pretty much blinded him to the Inside the Beltway rot that certainly did not begin with the Age of Bush but has taken on a toxicity that has driven many Americans to drop out when it comes to their citizenly obligations.

Calling Tim Russert one of the pre-eminent journalists of his generation – and execrably comparing him to Walter Cronkite, which some of his colleagues did — is damning him and the industry with faint praise. Besides which, Russert wasn’t even a journalist in the traditional sense. He was an interviewer with a research staff.

The big and not least bit surprising message that I took away from the non-stop coverage on Friday night is that the journos praising Russert as well as the dear departed himself considered themselves to be insiders and integral to the process of politics and government. It should come as no surprise that I would put it slightly differently: Members of the Washington press corps are pretty much bought, as the harsh reactions to Scott McClellan’s observations about it in his blockbuster best seller showed.

Don’t misunderstand me. Tim Russert was very good at what he did, and I acknowledge that a cynicism born of personal experience colors my views of the passing of this leading news media celebrity. But Russert was a bigger part of the problem than the solution, and if he was an exemplar of the best the news business has to offer then it indeed has fallen far.

Photograph by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

8498693

I think you've hit it pretty much onthe head. My head started doing double takes when I heard about flags at half mast.

A good guy sure .. and did get into some tough questions. But as you say, there used to be a standard that exveryone was expected to do that or else they couldnt be journalists and now it's just a community love in.

KathyB

It appears Shaun Mullen is a contrarian after all! He states: "hopefully a respectable amount of time has passed"; since when is less than 72 hours a respectable amount of time to disparage a person's contribution. He has not even been laid to rest and Mr. Mullen has seen fit to substantially mock most of the accolades given to a man of integrity. Unfortunately all of the qualities regarding Mr. Russert (mentioned above by Mr. Mullen) should be expected from our journalists. However many current journalists, interviewers, media personnel, etc., do not adhere to his work ethic nor to his sense of responsibility and there "lies the rub". Maybe putting the spotlight, on the importance of these qualities, will foster a greater emphasis on them.

It appears that Mr. Mullen is capitalizing on this newsworthy information to get his "moment in the sun". Try to get a life, Mr. Mullen. A life that does not need to belittle another's efforts in order to elevate your own. Maybe then you can hold a forum and people might even listen.

shaun

KathyB:

Just asking: By your holier-than-me calculus, what time period (be specific in days, hours and minutes) should transpire after Ted Kennedy dies before it become appropriate to mention his womanizing, addictions and that mishap with a certain young woman on a bridge?

GeorgeSorwell

I completely agree that Russert was part of the problem.

He was the main exemplar of the ridiculous game of gotcha that fills our political journalism. I suppose it made for good television.

It is a shame that he died at a relatively young age. May he rest in peace.

timr

How many of you have forgotten what was said-under oath-during the Libby trial? Remember this, whenever we wanted to get the official line out, we put Cheney on MTP. Russart was very reliable in pushing the administration line. He was, besides being the man of "gotcha" questions, not able to go off script. He never asked a followup when one of his victims said anything newsworthy. I thought that he was just another rich member of the village who summered on Marthas Vineyard with the other rich and politically powerful. I thought that he was not a journalist, but just an interviewer who had a not very good research staff. To speak ill of the dead, he was a typical inside the beltway, ignorant, selfimportant blowhard.

scalawag

Russert was a classy representative of a very dispicable lot.

The embarassing thing is when he'd dust off a "Meet the Press" minute from the past. You'd get to see Martin Luther King or even Robert Frost. I remember Alexander Solsenitsyn about the time of his exile. Malcom X was on I believe. George Meany of AFL-CIO was a frequent guest.

But under Russert virtually everyone was a politician, a party hack, or a pundit. And the topics were not guided by policy, much less a discussion of ideas or collective morality. Everything was the electoral math, the latest poll numbers, and the donation totals. And when that was out of season, it was always, "who's up? who's down"

Finally as to that vaunted "tought interview technique." That didn't apply to everyone! Incumbents generally got it easier than challengers and insiders got it easier than outsiders.

At MTB this week Tom Brokaw held forth with Tim nearest and dearest to say farewell. And who were they. The show producer, Ms. Fischer, understandbly. Gwen Ifill of "Washington Week in Review" on PBS, who last year called Tim on his frequent guest spots on Don Imus show. Doris Kearns Goodwin, pop historian and plagiarist. Mike Barnacle, fellow Irish Catholic and another plagiarist. Power couple Mary Matalin and James Carville (AKA Skeletor) and by satelitte Mrs. Arnold Schwarzenegger in all her color coordinated glory.

It was like a cross section of everything wrong with broadcast journalism.

kevn

Shaun, I'm relatively new to this blog, and I've become a big fan of the content regularly posted. But this exposition seems to me a fairly desperate plea for attention. I've got to agree with KathyB. Forcing oneself to "hold off" for an acceptable amount of time before lashing out at a dead man does not make you a contrarian. It makes you small.

shaun

kevn:

Perhaps you'd care to answer my question to KathyB posted above.

Jazz

Glad I waited a while to re-read, digest this and let others respond first. A few comments on both the article and the comments:

First, I will agree that there was at least some element of the "gotcha" questions on non-issue tabloid stuff, at least in the later years. That's sad, but also endemic of the media. Once such stories break out of the blogs and e-mails and onto the small screen, it seems like everyone feels they have to grab a piece. Perhaps Russert did feel himself as "part of the political process" with his mighty soapbox, but in the end he really was. The media *is* part of the political process, and thank heavens or most of us would never know the names on the ballots before we showed up on voting day.

Self involved or self-important? Perhaps, though I didn't really pick up on it, and surely not much more so than his competitors.

As to the "waiting a respectful time" part, I fear I might have to take the side of one of the commentors there. I don't know the precise length in days, hours and minutes that constitutes the minimum, but before the coffin is in the ground might be pushing up against it. ;-)

One of the superior things about Russert, as I see it, is being demonstrated already in this comments section. He is described as a reliable flack for getting the GOP and/or Bush administration message out there. In right wing sources, I'm already seeing the usual banter about how he was a flack for the Democratic party and held "love festivals" for Obama. This is about the highest praise you can get from the blogosphere... when they are both bitching about you, you must have been doing something right.

Russert didn't *badger* and go on the attack, even in flagrant cases where I'm sure many of us wish he would have. But he did ask follow-up questions where he felt appropriate and replayed answers given on subsequent appearances to challenge them in light of more recent events and evidence. Mainly, he asked questions and gave the subject the time and space to provide answers, allowing the viewer to judge how good those answers were, in my opinion.

And last, is an "interviewer' a journalist or not? That's one charge where I'm really confused by the point Shaun is making. Surely "journalism" when covering politics includes asking questions and getting answers on subjects which candidates might not wish to discuss if left only to spouting their own talking points and stump speeches. The only difference here is whether or not you're employing the old fashioned shoe leather to go out and get the interviews or having the subjects come to you when you have a big platform. Sunday morning interview shows seem to fill the bill on that score as I see it.

Anyway, I'm not denying Shaun's right to critique Russert as he sees fit. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Not precisely the picture I got of Tim, though. Far from perfect and, I agree, no Walter Cronkite, but not one of the worst either. Pretty good, in fact.

ChrisWWW

Thanks for this post Shaun. I agree that you hit the nail right on the head.

The coverage of Russert's passing has been shameless, especially on MSNBC. It defies belief that they've spent almost 3 solid days covering the death of one of their own TV personalities. Journalists are told to cover the news, not make it.

Russert himself was deeply entrenched in the power structure of Washington. How else can you explain his policy of always being off the record when talking to government officials unless specified. He served his buddies in power, not his audience.

Criticism of Russert's professional/public life are fair game even after his death. By all accounts he was a great guy to the people who knew him personally and to them we can extend our sympathies. But that doesn't mean we need to pretend he was an exemplary journalist unless we just like lying to ourselves.

shaun

Jazz:

What indeed is a journalist? I would be the first to concede that the definition has become elastic since I wrote my first bylined story (local boy dies in Vietnam) in 1967.

Is a journalist someone with no journalism background who relies substantially on others to research and vet information for him so he can question his TV show guests on the affairs of the day? I have real trouble seeing Russert as a journalist in that context.

Russert was a "news personality" and was very good at that.

rocks7

"Russert was a bigger part of the problem than the solution"

Are you serious???...your comment, in a world of Fox News, CNN and the homogenized cookie cutter 6:30 pm Network News coverage with the exact same stories. (The networks even take their commercials at the same time). You actually think Tim Russert was part of that shallow press bunch?

Tim Russert and "Meet The Press" was a breath of fresh air every Sunday morning. He may not be Walter Cronkite...but one thing he wasn't....was another Wolf Blitzer.

One thing YOU can claim Mr. Mullen...is you know the concept of "sensationalistic comments"...I hope you racked up your HIT Counter on your website...all this before the man is even in the ground...good one.

Jazz

By the original definitions, then certainly Russert would not qualify, nor would many, many people on television today. (The majority, in fact, as I see it. Similar to how many "weather people" on TV are actually meteorologists doing the real work of predicting the weather. Darned few. Most are pretty, talking heads trained to stand in front of a green screen, read off a teleprompter and let NOAA do all the heavy lifting for them.)

But as you say, the definition has become more elastic and the "journalism" circle seems to have widened quite a bit. I suppose that is inevitable over time. Is a "graffiti artist" actually a "painter" or is that title reserved only for those with a liberal arts degree who work on canvass and have their work displayed in a gallery? I suppose a case can be made for both sides.

As to the research aspect, clearly I can not speak from personal knowlege of the man. But during the endless coverage, one long segment was with a woman who was portrayed has pretty much his only full time assistant, and everyone was commenting on how Russert generally spent his entire week reading, researching, making calls and getting ready for his Sunday show and that he wrote all of his own questions. If that's not true, they did a good job selling it. If it is, then it sounds like he was doing a fair bit of the heavy lifting - in journalism terms - himself. As I said, though... I only know what I've been hearing from he colleagues on the small screen.

Russert was certainly a television news personality who also happened to bring a lot of information on politics to viewers and got high profile subjects to answer questions whenever he could force them into it. Was he a journalist? I'll leave that one for wiser heads to answer, as I'm really not qualified to say.

ChrisWWW

Russert was certainly a television news personality who also happened to bring a lot of information on politics to viewers and got high profile subjects to answer questions whenever he could force them into it.

In the last seven years, can you name an instance where he actually gleaned some important information from the administration relating to the Iraq war?

kevn

Shaun:

I'm not a journalist, or a blogger, and my relationship to the media is as a consumer. So perhaps I do not understand the necessity of these types of articles. There is always one, or more, of course, who feels it necessary or at least enjoyable to counter the tributes to the deceased with attacks. And the one common thread is always the implied "too soon?" If you have to employ this device, you know the answer.
For me, the discussion on the nature of journalism is a useful one, especially today, and worthy of the focus of this discussion. This post seemed to be only tangentially about this issue, however.
Yes, the coverage on MSNBC has been indulgent, but let's not forget that these people were close friends. Would you expect any less of Fox if one of their contributors suddenly passed away?
To answer the question you put to KathyB: there is no time period where it is "appropriate". Perhaps you can explain the necessity of reminding everyone about the worst a person has done with his/her life, when we should be remembering the best of their contributions? I think, as grownups, we can all agree that people who live long enough will develop deep flaws and make mistakes throughout their lives. To feel it necessary to harp on a person's shortcomings before they are even buried is self-serving.
If Tim Russert's death was to spawn a legitimate discussion of modern journalism and its relationship to the Washington power structure, fine. I'm thinking this discussion could have been had in July. Less sexy, but at least tasteful.

ChrisWWW

To answer the question you put to KathyB: there is no time period where it is "appropriate".
[...]
I'm thinking this discussion could have been had in July.

I think Russert would be proud of me for pointing out this inconsistency :-)

******
I still fail to understand the need to canonize the dead. If you feel that Tim Russerts positive contributions to society are not outweighed by the negatives, then you should say so. That's called having an honest discussion. I doubt any of us is going to be able to hurt Tim's feelings anyways...

kevn

The question put to KathyB was about Kennedy.
The discussion about re-examining journalism (spawned by Russert's death and a review of his contributions) could very well be had in July. Sorry, that was not clear on my part.
Good point, though: in the spirit of full disclosure, I will say that I think his contributions outweighed his negatives. This is not ultimately important to my point, though. For my part, I have no wish to canonize - just not disparage.

shaun

kevn:

Some context might be in order here regarding my unkind words about the state of the media generally and Washington press corps in particular.

This is something that I as a former longtime reporters and editor whose work, mostly investigative was nominated for five Pulitzers (won none), have touched on often since I became a blogger.

Beyond the question of whether it is appropriate to damn Russert with faint praise before he is in the ground or at any point, which is fair game for discussion, I am utterly comfortable in my blanket put downs of the media, which believe me are not an effort to get attention and additional readers.

Here's what I wrote following the publication of Scott McClellan's book in a post titled "The Great Mainstream Media Implosion":

http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2008/05/great-ma...

This is write I wrote following publication of Scott McClellan's book:

runasim

I appreciate Shaun's candor.
The difference between his take and those commenters who disagree stems from differences in expectations. What do we expect from the media as the conveyors of news and insight into news?

I'm basically on Shaun's team, but mine is more an indictment of the media format rather than Russert, the man. I don't care much for his style of interview, because ambush confrontations lead to sparring instead of revelations.
Maybe it suits those who enjoy the sports aspect of winners and losers, but I would rather know more about a person than how well he can do verbal boxing.

Perhaps, though, Russert has to be seen in the context of his times.
Now that personalities and showmanship have pushed hard news and wise, rather than flashy, commentary into a tiny corner, perhaps high expectations are no longer reasonably to be expected.

During the self-congratulatory orgy of eulogizing, I felt I was mourning the pasing of high expectations in newsland. more than the passing of a man.

Manchester2

The blanket coverage seemed like a wake. People needed a chance to grieve. I don't read much more into it than that.

runasim

"People needed a chance to grieve. I don't read much more into it than that."

That the mourning was public and prolonged was a symptom of how self-engrossed the armies of media 'personalities are. Even in grief, it's all about them, not about the world they are expected to report on.
For a Hollywood funeral, I'd go to Hollywood.

It's the excesses I object to. Russert filled his role as a TV personality with charm, and enthusiasm atop the results of hard work.
With appropriate self-awareness and proportional humility, I wouldn't have thought twice about a 'wake' ,by this friends and admireres, no matter how I felt about Russert. or his role.
With the excesses in place, however, it seemed like they were celebrating themselves rather than mourning Russert.

KathyB

Comparing Ted Kennedy to Tim Russert is absurd, on many levels. So as not to digress, I will respond to the time inference as posed. If you feel the necessity to nullify a man's contribution (when others more learned than you disagree), it might be better construed if you allowed the "dust to settle". This would serve a dual purpose; it would not make you appear so callous and it would allow your comments to be better assimilated. As for a time relevant to this type of situation, my "holier than me calculus" as you put it, would be when it would no longer appear to be self-serving! In your case, probably 30 to 60 days would have allowed the mourning/grieving process to find acceptance, while insulating you from criticism.

blog comments powered by Disqus