Meet the Press: Tim Russert passes away
 

Another one... damn.

I do hope that the ranks that are replacing them turn into greats.

I recall some of the first times I saw Meet The Press and enjoyed how people played themsevles instead of the roles that they were supposed to be.

Tim Russert set the standard for the Sunday morning political interview shows...a standard of challenging politicians of all persuasions to respond to factual information that he would present to them in his amiable but serious non partisan style.

.. and a standard that has significantly diminished among his many more partisan imitators and competitors over the course of his 17 years as moderator of MTP.

RIP

Tim Russert was a great journalist and an amazing moderator; this is such a loss for NBC and for the people who watched Meet the Press.

I'll definitely miss him this election season.

How the hell do you die in this age at 58!!! What a waste of an important political figure. Muy muy terrible.

What the...

Heard this earlier. Stunned, simply stunned. How sad for his family. He talked of them often and obviously loved them.

MTP and Sunday mornings will never be the same.

Meet the Press is a show I remember watching as a kid. not every week or anything, but occasionally. All of my life Ive known that it was an important show. As an adult of course i watched much more frequently and looked forward to it. When Tim took over, I was pleased. Ive always liked and respected him as a person. I mean I dont know him or anything, but there was something comfortable and enjoyable about him and his interviews wasnt there?

besitos amigo. besitos.

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.

Thats right. He was respectful of the person as he worked his work so that we all could see. Integrity that man had.

This is truly shocking and stunning news. I'll miss his professionalism and great analysis that he brought to the screen in his newscasts.

I especially feel for his family, and I hope they are comforted by the fact that they are in everyone's thoughts and prayers.

It was sad watching a visibly upset Tom Brokaw talking about him with Keith Oblermann.

He was one of the few moderators who refused to ever let his show turn into a shouting match event. He had such an affable presence on the air.

I think that's what always struck me about him--he was such a good moderator, never letting things get out of hand, yet so polite at the same time. He certainly left big shoes to fill; I don't think they will ever be filled.

He seemed like a very decent guy. The kind of guy you would go out with for a beer and some wings and just shoot the shit with.

A native son of Buffalo NY and proud at that.

Never hid his working class roots.

He and Jennings both died way too young and were arguably the best of the lot.

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:


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:

Host, I just lost all respect for you.

You know, I was tempted to do something when I saw your response, host, like close the thread or PM you to edit it, but I think I'll let your words stand all on their own.

If you don't understand now why few people respect your posts or why so few wish to engage in any discussion with you, you never will.

Somehow, though, I think you're so caught up in your perceived one-man crusade to enlighten the masses that you are blind to your own inequities.

So be it.

And for the record, this thread was for the members here who saw him as a person, not an image. Your actions here are akin to a drunken fool stumbling into a memorial service and badmouthing the deceased in a loud, obnoxious fashion.

Re-thinking response....

JJ, you said more than I thought I could. I rethought my response over and over after I posted, thinking I might be able to say more, but I am so incredibly glad you did it for me.

Interesting. Because I think that he hit the nail on the head. Let's start with the fact that Russert was rarely a journalist, if ever. He worked in the news room, but he rarely reported the news.

The man made his name and his career out of getting politicians to discuss the issues. He held conversations with them. He did NOT dig up dirt on anyone or break news. That was left to the reporters in the field. Russert brought the movers and shakers into our living rooms.

So calling him a journalist is pretty inaccurate, and host is right there. That said, Russert WAS very effective at a moderator. You see villany in the '04 Bush interview, I see a unique opportunity that was lost because Russert wasn't bold enough.

Now, where host has gone wrong here was bringing the truth too light too soon after Russert's death. Host, people liked Russert - my wife spent an hour yesterday crying about it - and his personna was always as approachable as Rather's was firey. In my opinion, it's a little early to speak ill of the dead.

Now, for the rest of you, host's opinions are valid and he didn't attack anyone here. How many of the rest of you can say the same thing?

Russert was more than just a moderator of MTP. He was NBC's Washington bureau chief for 20 years.

In that role, he was responsible for all NBC reporting on the WH and Congress and IMO, he lived up to the journalistic standards more than most.

how is it that a television talking head, whom presumably none of us knew as a human being, can come to be treated like a friend who passed away?

do you have relationships with other tv characters?

it is a drag that russert died, yes, like it is a drag that anyone dies.
but to go from there to that strange area of fashioning a saint's reliquary in the image of the departed is a ritual generally reserved for people dealing with the loss of someone close to them, and so, by extension, to someone you actually knew.

there is something deeply deeply strange about this thread coming to a little conflict between those who are mourning for the "loss" of a television talking head-as-friend and those who tend to see russert as a television talking head. and there is something even more strange about the assumption that anyone *should* approach russert from one direction as over against another.

it's all more than passing strange.
think about it.

Once again, I have the impression that the 'news' has worked this death up into a frenzy and a monumental loss to the very fabric of American society.

Yesterday morning I called up my mother and she was crying. She said she had been watching the coverage of Tim Russert's death all night. I don't even remember seeing my mother cry when her own sister died.

So I'm in the middle ground here. I respect Tim Russert for what he did and he seemed like a truly likable person. But having not watched any news coverage of his sudden death, my weekend is not grounded in this happening.

I'm listening to Madilu System this morning (thanks, rb :p) and sending some happy thoughts the way of the Russert family.

Lighten up, everyone. :)

No, I didn't know him. No, I didn't have a relationship with him. But I respected his work and thought he stood above many in his field. He asked tough questions, not always the tough question I wanted. His interview with David Duke stands out to me because he basically exposed the guy for what he was- a racist. After the interview Duke knew he'd been exposed and more importantly so did the voters in Louisiana. Tim exposed him not by heated quick "gotcha" questions. He broke Duke into pieces in two simple yet calm questions. "What are you running on if not on race?" Duke- "the economy." "What are three largest employers in LA?" Dukes face dropped and he had no answer, he simply didn't know. He'd been exposed as a fake and he knew, you could tell by the look on his face.

This was typical of Tim's style. No in your face, not let you finish your answer BS. Just you said this on that date so how can you explain your statements today?

We'd all know more about our politicians if all the pundits took a page out of his play book.

Say what you want. I'll miss him and I think his passing is a loss for us all.

I feel bad for his family.

That's all.

Russert was the consumate infotainment professional. As for host's assessment, the only thing i disagree with is the idea that he was taking the spot of an I.F. Stone. Someone who asked tougher questions of the powerful -- and not just easy marks like Duke -- would not have been in his position.

He was one of the many folks in the press that made the Iraq debacle possible. Take this interview with Cheney, who's spouting his usual 9.11 bullshit. "Tough" Tim Russert lets it slide:

Here's Russert's next, hard-hitting question. Mr. Tough lets the bullshit flow unchecked:

Yes, he forces Cheney to defend some point, and in that sense, he's tough, but what he asks is irrelevant to Cheney's main assertion. Ol' Dick will miss him, i'm sure.

Not so, Jazz, as others in this thread have pointed out before me. He reported plenty of news; I grew up watching him give the reports from Washington, D.C. on NBC Nightly News.

I feel, like some others in this thread, it's frankly too soon to bring up these kinds of criticism; have a little respect for the dead and give it some time. And no, I haven't spent my entire weekend watching coverage--I hate that kind of shit. But in my household, MTP was more important than going to church--in fact, it was my father's excuse not to go to church when the rest of us did.

Anyways...

What? Wait, so you're saying he wasn't right all the time? Well that completely changes my opinion of him.

Man I hope no one tries to hold me to this standard.

And yes Snowy I think he was a journalist.

Sorry, but Meet the Press doesn't count as journalism in my book. Was Russert an effective moderator? Yes, abosolutely. But he didn't report on the news. He provided a platform for the newsmakers to explain themselves. That doesn't make him less human, though.

Yes, but MTP was only one of the many things he did in his career.

The responses describe him as a journalist...some posted that "he set the standard.....in his field", etc....etc.....I specifically responded to a post with that opinion. Where do you get your opinion that this can be separated into "Russert the person"? (Not a question directed to you, Tully.... you say Russert was a journalist.)

To his last day, Russert was president of NBC news, Washington. From April 20, until now, all of the broadcast networks intentionally blacked out the NY Times reporting that forced the 8000 page release of pentagon documents confirming the complicity of these network's executives and journalists in presenting these hand picked and briefed pentagon representatives, with no accompanying qualification of their conflicts of interests, as they relayed the pentagon line, on braodcast network news shows.

Russert maintained a blackout of the NY Times and FOIA lawsuit, court ordered Pentagon disclosures, (disclosures that NBC failed to inform viewers of the conflicts of interests of the two retired generals often featured on NBC news as "military consultants") on his own show, and to the degree that he had authority as a news division executive, on the entire news network, as well....since April 20th.

I've presented Russert as I knew him. Challenge the things I've posted, if they are misleading or inaccurate, but can we tell the truth here, balance all of the positive assessments of Russert's contribution to distribution of the news and the questioning of the news makers?

People watched MTP and then thought doing so, made them "informed".

That is the travesty, the true outrage. In life, Russert was about what was best for Russert. I think he would understand. He read all of this...it was in plain sight, in the last few months, and years before that. It was indefensible....yet he did nothing to reform his part in the "charade" of "shaping" public opinion

On the sunday immediately following the 2006 election, a dramatic, democratic sweep of the house and the senate.... GUESS WHO WERE SELECTED TO "MEET THE PRESS"?
I "pulled" this post, to think about the reactions of onesnowyowl and of Jumpin Jesus before proceeding. I decided to post it, because:

My concern now is....if I don't post it on this thread, where would I post it, if at all? If I start a new thread in general discussion, around the post quoted above,in my last post, it will most likely be moved to the politics forum. If I post it in politics, the people who want to discuss politics, but not in the politics forum, won't participate.

Maybe jumpin' jesus is correct. Maybe it is best for people who were misled...by Russert...into thinking he did a "great job" as a jounralist and news show moderator and interviewer, should be left to their warm feelings and sadness over his passing.

It seems like such a huge disconnect, that the best time to inject a contrary opinion, is precisely when the eulogizing is taking place. I think people need to be exposed to evidence that they've been fooled, intentionally manipulated by the actions, decisions and policies of Russert, et al.

I am not trying to be popular. I am trying to post what I think, back up every word of it, and call it as I see it, in response to the opinions posted by others.

I'm with Host on this one. I feel sorry for his family and he went out way too young, but lets be honest he lobbed softball questions to politicians.

He wasn't just wrong. He had a steaming pile of horseshit in front of him. Does he call it horseshit? No. Now he's gone -- along with how many Iraqis? -- and we're left with the mess.

Thanks Tim!

Thank you for nicely summing up my feelings, samcol. It's taken my third post to get something nice and concise, and it's only to quote someone else.

this brings a different question... if he or any interviewer was to do hard hitting questions would the people show up to be interviewed?

Would we rather have something albeit watered down (more than zero) or completely nothing at all, zero?

I showed you that it started with who was invited to "Meet the Press", and it went down hill from there. Did you read the article in my first post, by the journalist who finally realized that Russert's approach will only yield:

But in Russert's case, it was much worse, the public was "conned" into believing they were watching fair and balanced coverage, (not like on Fox news....) when the truth was, powerful men like Bush and Cheney took advantage of that perception, succeeding in getting some of Russert's comparatively oversized Sunday audience, along with his faux journalistic integrity, to make their message to the audience legitimate, when it wasn't and Russert's image of integrity was only an image.

This guy said it much better than I've been able to:

Huffington has this to say about Tim Russert, in her book, titled:
Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, And Made Us All Less Safe
Judge for yourself:

Chertoff-Bush-Cheney could not have asked for a more complicit, cooperative shill.....control by fear, augmented by the help of a media stooge.

Two weeks ago, with Russert no longer seeing any usefulness, going forward, in staying on the good side of Scott McClellan, Russert showed that he could ask a challenging question, but the irony was that Russert needed to ask himself the same question and obviously never considered that he needed to, or he did, but was so cynical, with such a huge set of balls, he thought he could get away with aiming it at McClellan:

I did read the complete post, but I still do not get the bottom question...

So we don't have access anymore because you pissed them off for whatever reason.

Are we really better off?

This article runs contrary to the others where they say he was not asking hard questions.