RIP Tim Russert

[austrya]

That's so sad

[uwmryan]

This sucks. Read his book Big Russ and Me - then buy or give a copy to your own father. I don't pay much mind/attention to journalists, but Russert was above the grain for me.

[solace]

This sucks. Read his book Big Russ and Me - then buy or give a copy to your own father. I don't pay much mind/attention to journalists, but Russert was above the grain for me.

 

yes.

 

that book is awesome...

 

2 days before fathers day

[isadorah]

this makes me very very sad.

 

i loved watching him during election coverage and debates/ debate recaps. He'd try so hard to be unbiased, but every now and then he would slip and say "We" when referring to the democrats.

[Edie]

I liked him greatly too -- way too young. In fact, he's the same age as my husband

[Clouds of Fluff]

Aww, this is very sad news. My condolences to his family and friends. I enjoyed watching Meet the Press with him on Sunday. He really did seem like a good guy.

 

I think we've lost a valuable perspective with his passing, especially with the upcoming elections, etc.

[aricandover]

this is a damn shame. he was one of the best political analysts around, IMO. RIP Tim.

[kimcatch22]

So sad. He was always a pleasure to watch, and equally as good when being interviewed. Here he is on The Daily Show.

[Moe_Syzlak]

I liked Russert a lot. Didn't see MTP every Sunday but always did when I was home. I don't mean this any way to be disrespectful. In fact, quite the opposite. NBC/MSNBC should have a Tim Russert Memorial Whiteboard on election night. It seems the sort of tribute that Russert himself would have enjoyed and chuckled at.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Dead from an apparent heart attack

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06132008...att_115384.htm

 

He seemed a genuinely nice guy, gregarious. His covered always seemed a bit leaned to the right.

 

Someone with no taste hearing he had a heart attack might muse whether he turned red, then blue.

[bböp]

Damn, that is a shock. He did always seem to be the voice of reason in a way, especially with the turbulent elections in 2000 and 2004. That's a shame.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Really sad news.

 

He was just 58.

 

Sad indeed.

[Good Old Neon]

There's something really meta about the media coverage surrounding his death....

[Pocahontas]

Sunday mornings will never be the same without this wonderful man.

[LouieB]

 

he was my fathers age

And he was my age as well.....

 

He was an excellent interviewer that's for sure...

 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

There's something really meta about the media coverage surrounding his death....

I think when a media figure dies, they get a bit more attention because they are all in the same club. Russert certainly did not lean to the right. He was about as unbiased as they come even though his career started working Moyniahan & Cuomoa, he worked hard to nail Democrats and Republicans.

 

I think he was probably universally respected. Having said that, I think there are lots of politicians who are breathing a quiet sigh of relief that they won't have to be interviewed by him again.

[Good Old Neon]

(Considering the circumstances, I don

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

(Considering the circumstances, I don

[Happiechick]

Loved Tim Russert, hell of a guy. What a reminder of how short life is, and to live every day to the fullest.

 

Another reminder why, IMO, Please Tell My Brother is one of the most beautiful songs, ever.

[Good Old Neon]

I'd say you're about 98% right. But in an age that is completely void of journalistic values, he is par for the course, which puts him towards the front. His background with Moynihan notwithstanding, I think the current administration has taken advantage of his softness often enough, getting Rice, Cheney or another Bush talking head on the show to give their unfettered spin.

 

RIP Tim.

RIP journalistic integrity.

 

You can say that again:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...12501951_2.html

 

At the Libby trial, Russert made a point at how he treated all his conversations with Administration insiders as off-the-record unless otherwise instructed. Such suck-up stenography is not good political journalism, but it is how Washington journalism works.

 

Testimony at the Libby trial also revealed that far from fearing Russert as a tough interrogator, Cheney's office that he was a pushover: "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." (Daily Kos 1/25/2007).

 

Russert may have been a journalist's journalist, but that is because he epitomized much that is wrong with mainstream political journalism - no that its partisan, but because it is fixated on trivia - flag-pins and other pseudo-issues like candidate's haircuts or whether or not they were sincere when they cried, gotcha quotes - and, above all else, the political horse race. What passes for political discussion is usually vapid and issue free. Russert was just better at this than the other entertainers on Sunday morning TV

[alison the wilca]

It has been said that he didn't ask those follow-up questions because he knew that the people watching his show could easily determine for themselves when someone was spewing crap. Leaving it out there (instead of picking a fight) can potentially have just as much resonance.

 

In any case, he was obviously deeply beloved by friends, family and colleagues and I've enjoyed watching him for years on the Today show each morning. He was always happy and excited to be doing what he was doing. I'll miss seeing him.

[Good Old Neon]

It has been said that he didn't ask those follow-up questions because he knew that the people watching his show could easily determine for themselves when someone was spewing crap. Leaving it out there (instead of picking a fight) can potentially have just as much resonance.

 

Who ever said that is not making sense. And if that was Russert's explanation, it is not a very good one.

[bjorn_skurj]

Those of us who do journalism for a living, at any level, always know more than we can or should print. Every reporter has to come to their own conclusion on what terms to accept information or talk to sources. Russert was a good interviewer, not an inquisitor. I am pretty sure NBC was not paying him to interrogate his guests like Meet the Press was really Camp X-Ray. If he did, he wouldn't be able to get people to go on his show - who would, if it would be that unpleasant of an experience - no one would watch his show and there would soon be no show.

I knew a reporter once who refused to talk to sources off the record at any time, but she is the only one I know who has that strict of a policy. The rest of us really do want to know all we can, hoping that what we can't say will inform what we can, and result in a better end product.

I understand the frustrations of those who think American journalism has fallen down on the job - it's true to a large extent. Quality has been undermined in all segments of journalism by the wringing of more money out of media ventures. But I think human nature has a lot to do with why things aren't as good as they should be. People get the kind of journalism they want and deserve, by and large. If there is a magic newspaper story that will make people want to pay attention to the world around them, hold their elected officials closer to account and act in a more responsible fashion in all aspects of their lives, boy ... would that win a Pulitzer Prize.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Those of us who do journalism for a living, at any level, always know more than we can or should print. Every reporter has to come to their own conclusion on what terms to accept information or talk to sources. Russert was a good interviewer, not an inquisitor. I am pretty sure NBC was not paying him to interrogate his guests like Meet the Press was really Camp X-Ray. If he did, he wouldn't be able to get people to go on his show - who would, if it would be that unpleasant of an experience - no one would watch his show and there would soon be no show.

I knew a reporter once who refused to talk to sources off the record at any time, but she is the only one I know who has that strict of a policy. The rest of us really do want to know all we can, hoping that what we can't say will inform what we can, and result in a better end product.

I understand the frustrations of those who think American journalism has fallen down on the job - it's true to a large extent. Quality has been undermined in all segments of journalism by the wringing of more money out of media ventures. But I think human nature has a lot to do with why things aren't as good as they should be. People get the kind of journalism they want and deserve, by and large. If there is a magic newspaper story that will make people want to pay attention to the world around them, hold their elected officials closer to account and act in a more responsible fashion in all aspects of their lives, boy ... would that win a Pulitzer Prize.

 

As one who has made his career in journalism for 28 years, the aim of any reporter is to get it on the record, else it's just privileged blather. those who go soft on "off the record" are often the same ones whose "informed sources" are the reporters he pounded drinks with the night before.

 

You make a very good point about balance -- and that Russert was a "moderator" and that the Sunday morning slot was not one for bloodletting (you're going against the guy in the crystal palace on the other channel for Chrissakes!).

 

However, there's a major distinction today, particularly with electronic media: the "journalist" approach his job first as celebrity and thereafter (hopefully at least) as reporter. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow were journalists who became celebrity -- or more accurately confidant -- because of that approach.

[bjorn_skurj]

Sure. It's up to the reporter and the people who pay him or her as to what kind of reporter they choose to be. Reporting is a very subjective pursuit, akin to therapy sometimes. It can take a long time and many pounded drinks to develop sources to the point where they trust the reporter is not a bad person looking to do a hack job. A lot of times, being a reporter is kind of like being a spy or an undercover cop - your true agenda has to be hidden, but in your own mind, you have to keep a clear division. Not all succeed at that, and the penalty is losing credibility. Being irked at Russert because he is not Amy Goodman seems a bit unfair to me, though.

Another point I would like to make to no one in particular is how the media explosion/fragmentation affects journalism and the public mind. As there may never be another rock band with the broad appeal of the Beatles or the Stones, there may never be another journalist with the broad credibility or moral authority of Cronkite or Murrow. As the music scene has developed into a million little niches to cater to everyone's taste, the news can be found now from so many sources (so many of them bad) that whatever your point of view, some news purveyor will be around to cater to you and your peculiar Weltanschaaung. Or maybe that's a good thing. I don't know.