|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laconic1
Tough, fair, accurate, impartial. Those are words I always thought described Russert's journalistic style. I think all journalists could take a lesson from him as far as not letting personal biases dictate their journalism. and just focusing on facts and getting the story straight.
|
Russert? Russert was a joke, not a journalist...an enabler, a disgrace to his profession. Rather than speak truth to power, to probe it's secrets and report on them, he was complicit in their deception, he only repeated what they wanted the public to know....
He will, I hope, quickly be forgotten. He added nothing....he took up a seat that could have been occupied by a REAL journalist.
His accomplishment is that no one here has even commented on how woefully inadequate he was as a journalist, but how appreciated he was as an infotainment personality.
Tim Russert:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801013_pf.html
Washington Journalism on Trial
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, February 8, 2007; 1:34 PM
And get this: According to Russert's testimony yesterday at Libby's trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.
That's not reporting, that's enabling.
That's how you treat your friends when you're having an innocent chat, not the people you're supposed to be holding accountable.
Many things are "on trial" at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse right now. Libby is the only one facing a jail sentence -- and Russert's testimony, firmly contradicting the central claim of Libby's defense, may just end up putting him there.
But Libby's boss, along with the whole Bush White House, for that matter, is being held up to public scrutiny as well.
And the behavior of elite members of Washington's press corps -- sometimes appearing more interested in protecting themselves and their cozy "sources" than in informing the public -- is also being exposed for all the world to see.
For Russert, yesterday's testimony was the second source of trial-related embarrassment in less than two weeks. The first came when Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director, testified that the vice president's office saw going on Russert's "Meet the Press" as a way to go public but "control [the] message."
In other words: Sure, there might be a tough question or two, but Russert could be counted on not to knock the veep off his talking points -- and, in that way, give him just the sort of platform he was looking for.
Russert's description of how he does business with government officials came when prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked him whether there were "any explicit ground rules" for his conversation with Libby.
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012501951.html
In Ex-Aide's Testimony, A Spin Through VP's PR
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A01
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
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."....
|
This sums up how Russert came to fail to be a news REPORTER. Why do you think he was awarded (rewarded with) an exclusive interview with George Bush before the 2004 election?
The president's own former press secretary called the Washington DC press corps:
The reporters at Knight-Ridder/McClatchey are journalists....Russert wasn't worthy to be member of their profession:
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003809535
In Wake of McClellan Charges: When Bill Moyers Revealed How the Press Bought the War
By Greg Mitchell
Published: May 31, 2008 11:30 AM ET
Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, "The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should've all been doing that."
http://coolaqua.blogs.com/coolaqua/2...chy-has-e.html
McClatchy Has Earned the Right to Use its New Byeline
The recently updated website of McClatchy newspapers has a new byline added under its logo, "Truth to Power", as in speaking truth to power.
McClatchy newspapers was formerly Knight Ridder news. And if you go back through press stories published since the Bush Administration took office, you'll see that KnightRidder, and now McClatchy, has consistently asked the right questions, has consistently reported based on confirmed facts, and as a result, has been consistently right in its presentation of the facts.
So Congratulations to McClatchy newspapers, they've actually earned the right to use this prestigious byeline!!
|
Quote:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/sport...61319350520000
Pixels or paper, truth doesn’t care
On Sports
By dwight jaynes
The Portland Tribune, Jun 5, 2008, Updated Jun 5, 2008
...My guideline for years was that, as a beat reporter or a columnist, I would get to know my sources as best I could. I would be there constantly, in their face. I always felt I was impartial enough to write the truth no matter what. And my core values included being there the day after I wrote something negative about someone I covered -- so they'd have their shot at me, their fair chance to confront me.
But along the way, at some point, the whole thing kind of went south. The problem with all that, I've come to realize, is that I got too close to the people I covered.
In the case of a beat reporter, you almost have to have a degree of that in order to come up with the constant flood of stories you need if you’re covering a beat like the Trail Blazers.
Over time, you realize that in spite of all your attempts to know athletes and public figures, what you usually end up writing about them is the cover story -- the half-true piece of semifiction that those people want the public to see. You begin to realize you're usually getting played. And you sold your soul to get it.
Oh, when you get close to sources, you get access. You get inside information. At least you think you do. You get close enough to players and coaches that it's a fan's dream. Sources become something very close to friends, and, I confess, I've been down that road.
But I also know that when that happens, you're probably not going to do your job as well as you should. Yes, I'm old school, and I think it's the job of a columnist or a beat reporter to always tell the truth and be critical when merited, even about the revered home team.
But if you're critical, you risk your access. Forget about the friendships -- you often lose your sources if you offend them.....
....Lately, I don't have time to schmooz them at shootarounds and after practice. I can't get on the phone and shoot the breeze with them.
Once in a while, it costs me a story. But you know what? As a columnist, I don't feel I need their information or their admiration. And I certainly don’t need to worry about making them happy. . . .
The point to all this is simple. What I've done, I think, is become a blogger in columnist's clothing. The secret to the blogosphere is that bloggers usually don’t have that proximity to coaches and athletes. They aren’t hindered by a need to get along or kiss up to the people they write about.
|
Last edited by host; 06-14-2008 at 11:03 PM..
|