As a young journalist I was once reminded that a journalist could either be a watchdog or a lapdog, can’t be both. Journalism, like other professions, has undergone a visible “change” in the past three decades. There was a time when many considered it a vocation (a calling), but now it is being increasingly treated as a mere job in any other industry.

Shaun Mullen’s earlier post on TV personality Tim Russert evoked interesting comments in TMV. Who is a real journalist? Can he survive in the changed world and the present media industry/culture? I have to battle with these tough questions often during my lectures on media/journalism.

A friend in India, Sanjay Sethi, draws my attention to a piece by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. Hedges latest book is Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.

To take the discussion further, let’s see what Hedges wrote: “The past week was a good one if you were a courtier. We were instructed by the high priests on television over the past few days to mourn a Sunday morning talk show host, who made $5 million a year…No journalist makes $5 million a year.

“No journalist has a comfortable, cozy relationship with the powerful. No journalist believes that acting as a conduit, or a stenographer, for the powerful is a primary part of his or her calling. Those in power fear and dislike real journalists. Ask Seymour Hersh and Amy Goodman how often Bush or Cheney has invited them to dinner at the White House or offered them an interview.

“All governments lie, as I.F. Stone pointed out, and it is the job of the journalist to do the hard, tedious reporting to shine a light on these lies. It is the job of courtiers, those on television playing the role of journalists, to feed off the scraps tossed to them by the powerful and never question the system…” More here…

In keeping with the changing times, who knows journalists may soon be known as media workers (belonging, as they do, to the second oldest profession in the world). This would be in line with the change in name in the oldest profession in the world — from prostitute to sex workers….

When CBS News forced the retirement of controversial Evening News anchor Dan Rather, they replaced him temporarily with Bob Schieffer, an old-school CBS journeyman newsman who had the aura of solidity and objectivity of CBS’s best news years. NBC has now opted for the same path with news that Tom Brokaw will be the late Tim Russert’s replacement host on “Meet the Press” through the elections.

Since Russert’s shocking fatal collapse while in a sound booth working on the Sunday show, speculation has been rampant over who would replace him. And in both the quick-temporary choice and through-the-elections choice NBC has signaled that it wants someone with news gravitas rather than a talk show personality. Respected NBC news anchor Brian Williams hosted the show today — but soon it’ll be Brokaw’s turn. The AP reports:

Veteran news anchor Tom Brokaw will moderate NBC’s “Meet the Press” through the November election in the place of the late Tim Russert, the network announced Sunday.

Brokaw is scheduled to start on June 29. He had filled in on the program for the Sunday following Russert’s death of a heart attack on June 13.

NBC News President Steve Capus said the show will continue to be produced in Washington.

“To have someone of Tom’s stature step up and dedicate himself to ensuring its ongoing success is not only a testament to his loyalty to Tim, but his enduring commitment to NBC News and our viewers,” Capus said.

Nothing was immediately said about who would anchor the broadcast after the election or whether Brokaw, 68, would be interested in continuing beyond that. He wouldn’t be the oldest man on the Sunday morning beat — CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer is 71.

One thing worth noting.

When Schieffer came in a lot of people pooh-poohed his effectiveness, arguing that he was too old to attract — let alone hold onto — younger viewers. In fact, ratings went UP on the CBS newscast once he took over from Rather. And when Schiefer was yanked and replaced by the younger and (then) more popular Katie Couric, ratings went DOWN.

Will NBC face the same situation with Brokaw?

Brokaw has a long, respected history with the network as both a reporter and news anchor. And, like Russert, he wrote books that were best sellers based on their solid content, not his news celebrity name.

Various names for the long term host have been tossed about in blog posts and media gossip reports, but only a few make sense if NBC wants to keep the program on the same level.

WILLIAMS: He’s needed on the evening newscast but he fits the same news mold.

BROKAW: If the ratings to up or stay the same, look for NBC to keep him on as long as possible while someone else is groomed.

NBC POLITICAL DIRECTOR CHUCK TODD: Some reports suggest he’s the person Russert would have liked to replace him further down the road. A superb analyst who does his homework and research, can talk in sound bites, looks good on camera and is a solid writer. He doesn’t have the interviewing experience that some of the others do.

ANDREA MITCHELL: A hard-working reporter who does paindstaking pre-interview homework, has excellent sources and asks tough questions.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Was an excellent print columnist before he went on the air. Does his homework and can ask excellent, tough, even unrelenting questions. But he has been criticized this year as being too partisan and as sexist. Is hated by some on the right and left. Like Russert, worked for a politico. If he was picked he’d probably do well and grow in the job but there would be a lot of criticism for NBC for picking him.

DAVID GREGORY: A newsman who is a rising start at NBC. His MSNBC show should now be seen as a possible audition for MTP.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Like Russert, comes from a political background. Has won lots of fans and good reviews for the way he has morphed into good interviewer, often independent voice, and above all TV personality. In some ways, he’d be closest to Russert in his kind of background. There would be controversy if he’s picked. Some on the left and right don’t like him, but he’d probably grow in the job.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Highly unlikely. He has a huge following among progressives and some independents, but has become anathema to the right and to many Hillary Clinton supporters. He has been blasted by many media critics for his sometimes emotional mixture of politics and opinion. And his once truly special “Special Comment” segment now seem more like a perpetual Rage-O-Matic machine, rather than Murrow like commentaries.

Note several things:

1. Russert was the happy warrior of political TV and one always painstakingly prepared. NBC will want someone with preparation and gravitas. MTP has traditionally been hosted by people with either news background or people perceived as being issue oriented versus personality oriented. Until Russert took it over and livened it up, MTP seemed more like a CSPAN or PBS show than what it is today.

2. This isn’t just a matter of image. MTP is a moneymaker for NBC and its brand name. Just as Russert protected its long-running legacy and polished its image, NBC will want the product to be the same or better and is unlikely to risk it to someone who will veer it closer to a radio or cable talk show.

That’s why it seems likely that (a)Brokaw could stay on a bit until after the election, (b) NBC bigwigs will be evaluating the networks’ other choices in coming months.

What NBC won’t want is a repeat of what happened with Schieffer and Couric, where the temporary host held and even expanded the fort — and highly-touted permanent host who looked good on paper came in and started to watch the fort collapse.

UPDATE:
–The New York Times’ TV Decoder blog:

“I’ve been appearing on ‘Meet the Press’ since the days of Watergate when it was moderated by Lawrence E. Spivak right through the distinguished tenure of my great friend, Tim Russert, so I feel right at home,” Mr. Brokaw said in a statement. “Tim made ‘Meet the Press’ the center of the universe for informative and lively discussions of public affairs, particularly the exciting 2008 campaign for president, and I intend to continue that commitment to our viewers.”

The announcement caps a week of whispered speculation about who would replace Mr. Russert, at least temporarily, on the broadcast. Mr. Brokaw’s name had been mentioned, along with the NBC correspondents David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell and the MSNBC host Chris Matthews.

In the week since he died, after all the millions of words about his life, there is the question of, beyond the self-love of media people celebrating themselves, why do so many people everywhere care so much about Tim Russert’s death?

Peggy Noonan has the start of an answer: “The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better…That’s what we talk about in eulogies, because that’s what’s important. We don’t say, ‘The thing about Joe was he was rich.’ We say, if we can, ‘The thing about Joe was he took care of people.’”

In the week’s outpouring of sentiment, there was a striking emphasis on Russert’s random acts of kindness-concern for people and their families far beyond the token gestures of a political life. After all the talk about his work, we are left with the residue of a sweet man who lived out E. M. Forster’s injunction, “Only connect!”

What we long for in our hyperactive, overcrowded and wised-up lives is some joining of what Forster called “the prose and the passion”–some sense of a feeling heart behind all the cunning and the calculation of it all.

Tim Russert of Buffalo and Washington knew just what E M. Forster of Cambridge and “Howard’s End” meant.

Cross-posted from my blog.

What have we learned so far in Presidential campaign 2008? A lot of things — and here are just 10 of them:

1. He who blindly believes the conventional wisdom might just as well plan his or her life from predictions given by a part-time telephone psychic. Many scenarios spun by talking heads, partisans, weblogs, analysts based on supposition or personal opinions were rendered inoperative by actual events and voting results. In many cases, the conventional wisdom turned out to be the conventional pap.

2. Being a clear front runner is not a terrific status early in the season. Even if the candidate tries not to stumble, media hype and expectations prepare the groundwork for a brutal fall if expectations are not fully met. And they often aren’t.

3. Candidates CAN grow on the campaign trail. Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton ended her campaign being the new flagship for the Clinton franchise: now red-faced Bill is the guy who’s along for the ride. She grew because she blossomed as a passionate campaigner, often stubbing her toe, but she emerged as a forceful advocate who even came across powerfully on television in her speech suspending her campaign.

4.Independent and swing voters have long memories and that can be a positive thing for a candidate. Even though his opponents now paint him as Bush Lite — and he sometimes seems to be all but saying the words “me. too” — polls show Republican presumptive nominee Senator John McCain is still being given the benefit of the doubt by many independent and other “swing” voters. They seemingly remember the McCain of 2000 fondly and perhaps realize he’s walking political tightrope. His reservoir of good-will has not run dry yet. Due to his independent support and the decline of the Republican brand, McCain is probably one of the strongest candidates the Republicans can put up in this Republican-unfriendly year.

5. Defining and demonizing a candidate can only go so far — and could led to underestimating the candidate. Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama’s decision this week to eschew public campaign financing and go with his big, fat Internet fund-raising money machine instead deflated any assumptions that he’s going to be an idealistic pushover in the campaign. Rather, his controversial decision indicated that Obama realizes that to change the political culture — even incrementally — you must work within that political culture. And that means using available tools to win. Are Republicans underestimating Obama’s status as a politician who came up in the rough and bumble world of Chicago politics?

6. Don’t totally believe bitter partisans of factions of both parties. Both McCain and Obama have problems with their party bases. Some conservatives still don’t like McCain. Some Clinton supporters still don’t like Obama. Both candidates could lose votes due to this problem (which would make it a wash). But polls show that despite the angry statements of conservatives and many Clinton backers (1) McCain has regained much of this GOP support and (2) Clintonistas are slowly bonding with Obama. Angry Republicans and angry Democrats are returning to their parties’ fold.

7. There remains a segment of Americans disgusted with both parties. Witness the emergence of Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr, who is diving into the campaign with gusto. America’s political fields seem fertile for the planting of the seeds of some kind of third party that may not do well initially but could attract followers, if the right candidate came along. 2008 is too early. But it’s clear the feeling is there.

8. Beware of YouTube or flip comments said in seemingly small groups. Smart candidates will watch their words more closely than ever, which could mean less candid talk from candidates — but they stick their feet in their mouths at their peril.

9. Every state matters. The Clinton campaigns assumption that it could kiss of the caucuses proved a big mistake. Former New York Giuliani’s decision to skip most early primaries and focus on Florida proved to be a humiliating and unmitigated disaster. It isn’t just happenstance that Obama is making it know that he’ll be going after votes in all states.

10. Even though some TV and radio network execs think the wave of the future belongs to opinion-based broadcasters who mix their own political views (and at times their own “issues”) into their talk shows or newscasts, we learned that the broadcaster who was most respected — and beloved — was from the old school. Tim Russert used research, a prosecutorial style not derived from him trying to elect a certain candidate and party, plus dogged, painstaking pre-telecast preparation. It’s now clear he worked himself to death due to his high standards. And it’s now clear that his work and style was appreciated by millions of Americans. He left the scene having set the bar higher for the rest of the campaign.

The story sounds like the story of my grandfather Nathan Gandelman, who wanted to go back to hug his son, my father Richard, one more time after visting his son who was in the Army during World War II. My grandfather was the only one to die in a car crash right after that.

But in the case of the late NBC journalist Tim Russert read HERE about the funny feeling Tim Russert’s wife Maureen Orth had…and that last hug.

Yes, we do have the capability of sensing things..

The next time you hear someone in their 40s or older dissing young people just remind them of this:

In death, Tim Russert did on Wednesday what no living journalist has accomplished this campaign season: he got Barack Obama and John McCain to sit together and talk, quietly.

Specifically, it was Mr. Russert’s son, Luke, 22, who got the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees together. He requested that they sit next to each other at his father’s funeral at Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown. Then, in remarks from the pulpit, he exhorted them and other politicians to “engage in spirited debate but disavow the low tactics that distract Americans from the most important issues facing our country.” At the end of the service, the two candidates embraced.

“Five months from now,” Luke Russert said a few hours later, “I wanted them to remember that this occasion brought them together.”

Forget all of the (fitting) cliches about wise words coming from the mouth of a young person. More than ever, Luke Russert’s comments underscore several facts.

First, it underscores the “real” Russert behind the man with the probing questions and bemused look whenever he discussed anything about politics. He was close to his son and admired his son, who admired him.

My late father Richard Gandelman used to say: “A parent achieves immortality through his children.” You can see now that an admirable quality of Tim Russert lives on through his son.

Secondly, it underscores what I’ve noticed in my extensive travels when I walk away from my computer and go out into the world in my other incarnation: a lot of young people are unimpressed by, puzzled by, and scornful of the angry, partisan demonization aspects of American politics. Rush, Sean and Randi aren’t of their generation.

Luke Russert did the final act in honoring his Dad: he brought Obama and McCain together in a non-debate forum, even if for a little while.

And with broadcast and print reporters out in force, he did something else: he eloquently articulated a view of what politics should be and could be. A final act that honored his Dad — but, perhaps more importantly, he articulated an attitude held by a lot of young people who crave spirited debate but are sick of the hateful atmosphere that permeates much of what today passes for political talk in the United States.

I’ve said it before: when the Baby Boomers pass from the leadership scene, the country may be healthier…and I’m a Baby Boomer.

And young Luke Russert’s comments suggest a better day — with a more mature discussion of issues — may indeed lie ahead.

Could anyone be a Tim Russert? 

I think so, but it wouldn’t be easy. Whoever tried it would have to forfeit possession of all personal time. All available time, 24/7, would be allocated to three relationships: work, family, and friends. Then, you would have to acquire several hundred associates and friends, call them all “pal,” and really mean it. 

Such a commitment to people, I think, can arise from one of only two places. One, Russert felt the commitment instinctively, in his heart and soul. Or, it came from a conscious decision made in his mind. Either way, the active word is commitment. Anyone who has had to become a caregiver knows what that commitment feels like. Before making the commitment, we may feel resentment at being cast into a caregiver role, and our lives become conflicted by it. But as soon as we make the commitment, step over the line into acceptance of the role, the resentment disappears, and our lives become easier, and more filled with love. 

I wasn’t aware of Tim Russert’s acceptance of that commitment until I watched the steady coverage of his death. I have not seen mourning of this intensity for a public figure since the assassination of John Kennedy. 

My immediate shock and loss was of the journalist I had come to accept as the key figure in the coverage of the 2008 presidential election. Russert, in 2008, had become another kind of television news “anchor.” Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and Charles Gibson held down the traditional anchor positions, entrusted with delivering balance and objectivity in their reports. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly were entertainers with news as their act. Russert was a bridge between the two. 

It was troubling to see hard-news journalists like Tom Brokaw, Andrea Mitchell, Howard Fineman, Eugene Robinson and others appear on MSNBC shows like “Hardball” and “Countdown,” which were shows, and not newscasts. They were commentaries, and based in opinion, as commentaries always are. As long as everyone understood that, it was okay for hard-news types to appear and offer their opinions, but the line was always in danger of being blurred. 

Except with Russert. I have read that Russert kept his MSNBC appearances to a minimum. If he lost the trust of the people to be objective, he lost everything. He recounted talking to Lawrence Spivak, the moderator of “Meet the Press” before Russert got the job. Russert asked Spivak: what is “Meet the Press”? Spivak told Russert always to learn everything he could about the guest’s politics and conventions, and then to take the other side. 

Russert was so believable in his dedication to balance – the “other side” – that he could operate on either side of the news/entertainment line without losing credibility. There is not another journalist like him. His loss is going to change the debate between now and November. That is troubling, given the magnitude of this election, and that is what I thought about as I watched the conversations about his loss. 

Then I started to hear a theme. Russert’s loss was not a single event, but a multitude of individual events, between this or that colleague, relative, or friend, and Russert, taken one at a time, and adding up to the whole. Feeling this, I remembered that I was once a pal, among hundreds of pals, of a Tim Russert prototype. His name was Otto Bos. 

Otto’s direction was the reverse of Russert’s. He began as a journalist and became a pol. Otto was covering city hall for The San Diego Union when I started work there as an intern in 1972. He didn’t treat me so much as an intern as he did an equal who got a late start. We were both about the same age, 27 or so, so young, but Otto was already building a special reputation. Pete Wilson was San Diego mayor at the time, and one council meeting was dragging far into the night. About 8:30, up in the pressroom overlooking the chamber, Otto got a handkerchief, attached it to a ruler, and waved a white flag at the council down below. 

Otto was tall, black hair, extremely handsome, Dutch, all-American soccer player but curiously accident-prone. He was committed to work, family and friends. Warmth came out of him like heat from an early-morning sun. Pete Wilson recognized this depth. When he moved on to the United States Senate, and later California governor, he took Otto with him as press secretary. I didn’t see Otto very often after that, but when I did, it was always as if he had just left the room and now was walking back in. 

In June, 1991, Otto was playing soccer on a Sunday afternoon when he suffered a heart attack and died. He was 47. There were several hundred people at his memorial service, held in San Diego’s Balboa Park, and the speakers, led by Pete Wilson, all told of a life more filled by love than most. There were many stories told, and this week the Russert stories have sounded like echoes. I think my favorite Russert story was one told by Mark Liebovich in The New York Times: 

“I hardly knew Tim Russert personally, and I hesitate to even relay this for fear of appearing to. We probably had about a half-dozen conversations over the years, invariably on politics, his beloved Buffalo Bills or the Boston College sports teams (his son went to school there). My last encounter with Mr. Russert was at a Democratic debate in Cleveland, which he was moderating. I was with his colleague Mr. Matthews — I was writing about Mr. Matthews for the New York Times Magazine — and we ran into Mr. Russert in the lobby of the Cleveland Ritz Carlton. He had just worked out and was wearing a sweaty Bills sweatshirt and long shorts and black loafers with tube socks. An MSNBC spokesman who was with us tried to declare Mr. Russert’s attire “off the record,” which I found hilarious, and which I was of course compelled to include in the story. When I called Mr. Russert to tell him this, and he laughed so hard, I had to move the phone away from my ear. 

“ ‘Just do me one favor,’ Mr. Russert said. ” ‘Say they were rubber-soled shoes, will you?’ ” 

That was so like Otto, who taught me the secret of dealing with officialdom: “Never let the bastions get you down.” Now Russert has stepped out of the room, but it is easy, as it has been with Otto all these years, to think about him coming back. At the end of it all, I feel like a fan, sitting in the stands, watching this magnificent election with my pal Russert. But now his seat is empty. The biggest fan of the 2008 presidential election is not going to get to see who won. That is so sad.

Dick Polman on Tim Russert.

Anything else we say is an anti-climax.

It has almost become a sure bet to find some partisan claim in William Kristol’s much awaited, once-a-week column in the New York Times.

Today, however, Mr. Kristol pleasantly surprised me.

In his “Big Tim” column in this morning’s New York Times, Kristol writes a heartfelt, personal and touching tribute to his friend–America’s friend–Tim Russert.

In his column, Kristol tells us, in a non-partisan way, how Tim Russert evolved from a (Democratic) “pol” into one of the most respected journalists in our generation, and relates some little-known anecdotes that reflect on the funny, entertaining side of Tim Russert’s unique personality.

For example, Kristol tells us about a relatively recent occasion when Tim Russert did his apparently famous imitation of his mentor Senator Pat Moynihan

I last heard Russert do his Moynihan imitation about a year ago. We were having lunch, and for some reason got to discussing Pat’s almost-Russert-career-ending phone call. Tim launched into a boisterous imitation of his beloved mentor. I cracked up, heads turned, and a few people at neighboring tables even joined in the laughter.

Kristol concludes his column, and the tribute to his friend as follows: “On Friday, Tim’s heart gave way. He died too young. But he lived more than a full life — a life overflowing with achievements, and friendships, and love, and joy.”

Nothing partisan here. Just some nice, sincere words from a friend of “Big Tim.”

Thank you Mr. Kristol.

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.

The loss is still being measured — and with each day it’s clear it is even greater than originally imagined. From USA Today:

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says, “Russert was a political analyst more than a reporter. His commentary wasn’t based off opinions. He was assessing impact, direction and implications based off deep knowledge and deep research. … That is the kind of reporting that we don’t have enough of on network television.”

Cartoon by Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons

“Meet the Press” is, by its nature, an hour of posturing, lies and evasions, but today it was filled with genuine feeling–tears, laughter and even a few home movies. (Who could resist Doris Kearns Goodwin in a blonde wig with a feather boa popping out of a cake to a do a Marilyn Monroe-JFK bit for Tim’s 50th birthday?)

Tom Brokaw, presiding over the mourning, was in tears at one point, while political toughie Mary Matalin clenched a soggy Kleenex, but the prevailing mood was love and laughter, a hell of a good wake for a good life, even without alcohol.

By now, everything that could be said about Tim Russert has been said and oversaid, but it’s hard to resist one final observation about the sources of his success, beyond Buffalo, Big Russ and his old-pol Irish genes.

He had the good sense or good fortune or perhaps both to get a start in politics before switching to journalism with two of the twentieth century’s best people in public life–Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo.

From the Senator-scholar who deplored the trend of “Defining Deviancy Down” and the best president we never had who redefined Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” at the 1984 Democratic convention, a young Russert learned that politics was a serious business for serious people.

For all his fascination with the down and dirty of it all, Tim Russert never forgot those lessons. When all the eulogies are over, his successors would do well to remember them for the future.

Cross-posted from my blog.

RJ Matson, Roll Call

UPDATE: Here’s NBC’s Tom Brokaw breaking the news on NBC (amid his own personal grief):

There’s nothing equal.

Not supposed to happen this way. The children bury their parents, dont they?

No parent ought to have to bury their child.

That’s what we humans think of as the natural order. But sometimes, it’s just not meant to be.

This is a picture of Big Russ, Tim’s dad whom he wrote a book about, Big Russ and Me. On the left is Tim’s son Luke, who just graduated from Boston College.

Often people say they don’t know what to say to those in mourning when a sudden tragedy has taken place. I’d offer that words are not the most important at first, no matter how eloquent, no matter how brave, how polite. But something else is.

I can only humbly offer that being there inside the hell of losing a precious son in our own family, that for Big Russ, for any father this Father’s Day who has had to bury a beloved son… many people will say many things to you, write many things to you, but … and… the kindness of people is what will truly stay with you,.

Others’ words may register later or never, much will be a blur now… but kindnesses from others to you will remain seared into your cells forever… kindness being one of the only things that can reach down into the dark where you yourself walk as though dead too for now. Hold onto that, along with all else that has any light at all to it.

___________
CODA
tx HR for link
This is the link to Compassionate Friends, a national non-profit that many have found helpful. They offer friendship, understanding, and hope to bereaved parents, grandparents and siblings.

Anyone with any news background or passion for traditional news reporting has to feel a special sharp stab to their hearts today with the news that NBC’s Tim Russert — one of the early 21st century’s towering news figures and a journalistic descendant of 20th century journalism greats — died suddenly of a heart attack while on the job at the NBC News bureau at age 58. It’s a day they will remember with tremendous sadness.

To those of us who are old enough to remember, there were similar days of sadness when news figures passed away or passed from the working news scene. When CBS’s Edward R. Murrow died of lung cancer in 1965 many wondered whether it was the end of an era. It was. When CBS forced Walter Cronkite’s retirement in 1981 many wondered whether it was the end of an era. It was.

Will this be the end of yet another era? He may not have been completely appreciated when he was alive, but in fact Russert was one of the last giant figures in journalism with broad-based credibility. And although there are some similar news people with great potential, his particular kind of working journalist isn’t easy to find.

Why was Russert so special?

1. Russert was frequently under fire from people on both the right and left. In these days when journalism actually has to be defined as “fact-based journalism” and “opinion-based journalism,” Russert was an equal opportunity infuriator. If he was hard on a Democrat or liberal, those partisans would insist he was biased. If he was hard on a Republican or conservative, those partisans would insist he was biased. In fact, Russert approached each interview the same way: as a nuts-and-bolts journeyman journalist who asked the tough questions, but seldom seemed to be on the verge of morphing into Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes…as some TV news staffers and news personalities seem to be these days. Read the rest of this entry »

As a journalist who has watched Meet the Press almost every Sunday for as long as I can remember, I am shocked and saddened over the loss of Tim Russert. He was a journalist in the great tradition of Edward R. Murrow: fearless, polite and well-prepared, and concerned for the direction of our craft.

WORLDMEETS.US will be posting the global reaction to his loss over the next few days.

The first item so far is from Elana Schor, U.S. correspondent of the Guardian Unlimited of Great Britain.

Schor writes:

Few journalists this decade have had as great an impact on US political life as Tim Russert. Read the rest of this entry »

As I learned the shocking news of the death of Tim Russert at the young age of 58 I could not help but think that we have lost a true class act.

As I sit here listening to the tributes pouring over all of the news networks I hear the people talk about how wonderful of a person he was. Normally you might think that they are simply being kind to the departed, but in this case you get the real feeling that the setiments are genuine. The grief demonstrated by those who knew him is too real to be anything but sincere. Indeed the fact that *all* of the cable networks are covering this heavily is a sign of how respected he was.

I didn’t always agree with his political views, but he always struck me as being fair and respectful to everyone regardless of what he thought of their political views. Perhaps this in part stems from the fact that he was not simply a talking head but a truly brilliant person. A gifted lawyer and aide to both Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan before he entered the news arena, he had perhaps a better understanding of how political people work.

He was also a devoted family man, according to his colleagues he would often step away from interviews with newsmakers to check in with his son Luke. Indeed, he had just returned from a trip to Italy in celebration of Luke’s graduation from Boston College.

Perhaps the best tribute to Tim is the fact that he died on the job. News reports say he collapsed and died of a heart attack while working at the NBC studios. He certainly enjoyed his job and must have relished the incredible primary process we just completed, though it would have been  wonderful to see him cover the rest of the campaign.

I think all my fellow bloggers join together in offering out deepest sympathies to the Russert family.

(Update Below in the CODA, re cause of death. An autopsy has been performed.) Tim Russert, died of an apparent heart attack at age 58. He passed away at his office. Author of Big Russ and Me, about his one of a kind father, Russert also has a son Luke, who just graduated from Boston College this week. His son hosts the XM radio show 60/20 Sports with James Carville.

Tim Russert was a lawyer, and a journalist who inherited the hosting of Meet the Press from the venerably David Brinkley. Mr. Russert was also Washington Bureau Chief for NBC news. He rose through the ranks beginning with being a counsel in New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s office, then took the position of cheif of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. In 1984 he was hired by NBC and in the 2000 national elections became somewhat known as an oracle, when he created a whiteboard calculating electoral votes and putting pretty clear bets on who would win based on garnering votes in normally overlooked states.

There has been much speculation in newspapers and blogs that Russert was good for booking interviews for VicePresident Cheney and others when they had a message to get out, and that he was also booking Democrats as well… but seemed to be tilting to whichever side was most in power in the moment. My personal opinion is it may have seemed that way, but Meet the Press was designed to be ‘an equal opportunity venue’ for many kinds of political voices.

Mr Russert was a frequent pundit in the most recent 2008 runs between Senators Clinton and Obama giving opinions that often took on the timber of sportscasting… for following college teams was one of his great loves in life

Mr. Russert’s wife is connected with Vanity Fair magazine. Maureen Orth, has been a special correspondent there since 1983.

One question will be who will replace Mr. Russert who has been a major doorway Read the rest of this entry »

Tim Russert on MSNBC just held up a three-page list of Senator Hillary Clinton’s primary comments against Democratic presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama — distributed minutes before Clinton is expected to concede the race and endorse Obama.

It’s now being circulated as well online. Fox Business News is putting out the full press release, which made the front-page of Google News.

Here’s what the RNC is putting out.

And this is only the written statements. Prediction: Republican campaign ads will be featuring a lot of snippets of Clinton comments both to use them against Obama and also appeal to former Clinton voters to support presumptive GOP nominee Senator John McCain. The full-court press to win over Clinton’s disappointed voters is already on — witness recent comments by McCain and one of his most active supporters, Connecticut Independent Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman.

I have a theory about West Virginia, the state with the “Wild and Wonderful” slogan and the first bearer of good tidings for Hillary Clinton since her accountant told her it was okay to lend herself another few million bucks in her quest to defy gravity.

West Virginians aren’t irredeemably racist as some commentators portray them, they just don’t like any politician who is not a white male, and despite her lopsided 41-point victory there yesterday Clinton is no Mountain Mama, merely their version of sloppy seconds.

After all, 30 percent of West Virginia Democrats voted for George bush in 2004 over that girlie man John Kerry.

Furthermore, those all-important undeclared superdelegates are not going to be moved by the results of a primary election that hasn’t mattered since 1960 when JFK beat HHH, and whose voters personify the concept of a backwater state.

West Virginia ranks toward the bottom in household income and other quality-of-life indicators among all states, and apparently in viewing positively the coming of the first serious black candidate for president, as well. How else to interpret this staggering fact: Two in 10 people leaving polling places in the Mountain State unapologetically said that race was a factor in who they voted for, which I would translate to mean that it was a factor for a substantial majority of voters who would never utter such a thing to a network exit poller.

And although he had dropped out of the race 15 weeks ago, a white guy by the name of Edwards got 7 percent of the vote. Dunno. Maybe it was his haircut, but white guys did really well in the Republican primary, too.

This suggests a couple of things:

* Obama’s race will be a huge factor in the fall and the big question is whether people who will not vote for the nominee simply because of his skin color and/or because they falsely believe he is a Muslim can be offset by new Democratic voters who don’t give a fig about race, already registered blacks, more affluent white voters and Independents.

My own view is that they can, and American is an election cycle or two away from race, gender and sexual preference not being determining factors in the success of a national candidate.

* Despite Clinton’s belated apologies for her campaign’s seeming obssession with race (as in belabor Obama’s vulnerability because of his blackness 19 times and then apologize the 20th), expect to hear more such talk in the run-up to the primary next week.

That is in the state of Kentucky, which is a lot closer to West Virginia than Oregon in more than distance and will be another “symbolic” victory for Clinton.

This is not to say that people who are disinclined to vote for a black are her Great White Hope, because there is no hope for her with Obama holding a big lead in popular votes, pledged delegate votes, opinion-poll positives, contributions and endorsements, and is currently picking off uncommitted delegates by a 4-1 margin. (As it was, Clinton’s 12 delegate gain in West Virginia has been more than offset by superdelegates migrating to Obama.)

Besides which, the mainstream punditocracy has dutifully fallen in line behind NBC News blowhard Tim Russert, who in a moment being compared to Walter Cronkite telling LBJ that the Vietnam war could not be won, declared after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries last week that “We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it.”

Me too, and the version of this story at my own blog was bumped by two that are far more important — a development in the Pat Tillman case and the latest setbacks for the Bush torture regime.

Well, maybe not everybody has gotten the message. Just ask folks in the Wild and Wonderful State.