While I don’t particularity care about ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday Mornings, I do feel sorry for the guy because he died while on the job and while on his prime.

June 15, 2008 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Your comments are perhaps some of the most insensitive I’ve ever seen. Tim was a man that loved what he did. His unique communication skills helped many of us, myself included, build their love of American Political Culture. Quite simply, it’s important, and Tim helped us understand that politics isn’t a game, or simply a form of entertainment. There is plenty of room for cynics such as yourself in politics.

Howevever when you mock a network that essentially lost its guide and CEO for spending several hours memorializing him (instead of showing “lock up” or “to catch a predator”), it becomes evident you made this comment, simply to make a comment.

Change the channel if you don’t like it, and pay an icon in American politics the respect he deserves…

June 15, 2008 @ 1:12 am | Comment

I think it’s a question of proportion. I can understand why it’s a big story to the news media – this was a colleague and a friend, so it’s very personal. I largely avoid TV news, so the only bit I saw was Tom Brokaw’s announcement – and I did find it touching because though Brokaw delivered the story very professionally, you could tell how tough it was for him.

That said, at a certain point it becomes – and I am sorry if this sounds insensitive – Britney-esque. This isn’t my friend or loved one, this is a celebrity and as such, the coverage of his death has very little relevance to my life or the issues that most affect us. It’s only “news worthy” up to a point; then it becomes celebrity coverage or to be honest, self-indulgence on the part of the news organizations going overboard.

I respect their grief but they are professionals after all, and they need to be covering the news that’s of real importance.

June 15, 2008 @ 2:07 am | Comment

I am saddened you feel this way – hopefully one day, you will change your mind. Until them, I pity you for having such a negative viewpoint of the most important and respected news person in our country. From your comments, it’s clear that you never watched him dissect the truth every week, how he used his enormous intelligence to present the news in a very real way. Perhaps one day you will realize this, and use your blog to issue a much-needed retraction.

June 15, 2008 @ 2:17 am | Comment

Richard, you wouldn’t know the extent of the coverage since you’re in China, but other than MSNBC, Tim Russert’s passing didn’t generate that much more coverage than say Anna Nicole Smith. And I think someone like Tim Russert deserves just as much coverage as Britney and K-Fed.

MSNBC’s coverage was quite extended and a bit on the long side, but really it was a chance for all of his colleagues to get a chance to say goodbye to a dear colleague. It was a public mourning for a public man.

And I don’t get this, oh they’re professionals so they should get over it. Journalists are human beings too, even if they work in the Beltway. Let them mourn the way they want. There’s hundreds of other channels out there and the Internet. It’s not like people were being prevented from seeing other important news.

Also, less than 24 hours after Mr. Russert’s passing, I can report that CNN and Fox News have moved on. So I think these quick snarky comments from you (who I do respect, which is why I’ve been reading this blog for years) and John Cole are just being critical for the sake of being critical, something that just drives me crazy about blogs.

June 15, 2008 @ 2:48 am | Comment

I generally don’t leave comments but I really didn’t like this post. Agreed MSNBC, CNN, Fox and so on aren’t very good. For that reason, I don’t have cable and keep an eye on sites like this instead.

June 15, 2008 @ 3:10 am | Comment

But should they continue to mourn in public? That’s my question. I do think some public expression is appropriate – Russert was a public figure – but beyond a certain point, this is about peoples’ personal and therefore private grief, even if they themselves are public figures.

Again, I have largely avoided the coverage, so maybe I’m getting it wrong.

June 15, 2008 @ 3:10 am | Comment

Of course the media here is self-important, but you have completely missed why Russert’s death was such a big deal. It was a big deal because he is one of the few journalists whose politics did not matter. His politics did not matter because he always knew the subject and he always pressed whomever he was interviewing. Sadly, he is one of the last of the breed.

June 15, 2008 @ 4:06 am | Comment

The issue isn’t whether or not he was a good or bad journalist. The issue is whether it is such big news when a newsman passes away. As Cole said, this underscores what’s wrong with the media – the reporters themselves are the news. It should not be that way.

This isn’t a slam at Russert himself. He wasn’t my favorite journalist but I’m not maligning him. If one of my truly favorite journalists were to suddenly die I would react exactly the same way if the grief and length of the coverage were so out of proportion with the actual news.

Matt, I am not being critical for the sake of being critical. I have raised this issue before when our media make a circus over small things, such as “damsels in distress” (always attractive white women). Something is out of whack, out of proportion. The day Russert died I got a call from my friend in America who said it was as if the president had been assassinated. Then I read confirmation of this in blogs, and saw some of it for myself on CNN. If Dan’s point is correct – that this was because Russert was different because he kept his politics out and was always simply what a reporter is supposed to be (fair and unbiased) – then it is even a greater indictment of our news-industrial complex.

June 15, 2008 @ 8:25 am | Comment

Tim Russert was one of the very few journalists would could report without bias. As Stinson stated, ‘his passing is the death of an institution.’

June 15, 2008 @ 12:52 pm | Comment

Let’s say it’s true. Is that what the media are telling us in their ongoing bereavement – that he was one of the few among them who tells the truth?

They are handling it the same way they did the death of Anna Nicole Smith, where they went on day after day with testimonials and tributes and anecdotes from Larry King and other journalists and friends et. al., as if she were a monarch. Sorry if I sound harsh about this, but it’s definitely a sore spot with me – if they had given this much time and attention to Bush’s policies of deregulation and environmental devastation the world would be a much better place. Instead we are fed this pablum in quantities grossly disproportionate to the actual event.

One of the most grotesque examples of this was when some child-molesting loon arrested in Thailand last year said he was involved in the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. As his plane landed in the US, fleets of TV journalists followed him as if he were Osama Bin Laden. Helicopters taped the van that picked him up at the airport and followed it as it drove to the police station, reminiscent of the famous white Bronco carrying OJ Simpson. It was all covered live, with the words “Breaking News” flashed on the screen, and all other news was pushed aside. This was the most urgent issue in all of our lives. Then a few days later it was proven to be pure BS – he was nowhere near Jon Benet when she was killed. Oh well, on to the next Biggest Story Ever, like the “Runaway Bride” who was brought into our living rooms every day hour after hour by all the big cable news titans. Another idiotic non-story.

Russert’s death is not a non-story. It deserves coverage and comment. it does not deserve the gushing to which we’ve been subjected. Simply being an honest and hard-working journalist should not be that astounding a phenomenon.

June 15, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

Some of the negative response to this post stems from a superstitious “respect the dead” attitude. I’m sure if Richard had posted a “Russert doesn’t deserve the attention he gets” opinion while the guy was alive, nobody would care…and it seems some people here (like Matt, for example) are upset that the guy who did his thinking for him is gone. That really is tough luck.

June 15, 2008 @ 6:35 pm | Comment

[…] Biggest news story ever – Tim Russert dies John Cole sums up why this is so absurd, and why it’s a metaphor for just how fucked-up the US media is. […]

June 15, 2008 @ 7:18 pm | Pingback

Richard,

You have completely missed the point. The media is making a big story of this because the people want it. Now you can complain about how the media does this all the time (which it does), but what you are missing here is that the people really appreciated him and will miss him. He was truly one of the few who could be civil, fair, and not condescending, while at the same time super-tough. He dealt in facts, not spin and not meanness. He was real. In other words, he was the epitome of what is, unfortunately, a dying breed. People like O’Reilly and Dobbs (no matter what your politics are) could never hold a candle to him. That’s why the sadness and that’s why the stories.

June 16, 2008 @ 3:09 am | Comment

Richard,

How weird is it that we are on opposite sides on this when I generally hate the media and am constantly railing on it and you are in PR? Tells me one of us has to be right on this and my completely objective view says it’s me.

June 16, 2008 @ 3:10 am | Comment

If Russert’s colleagues want to eulogize ad nauseum on their own blogs, fine. But I agree that this does not warrant hours of MSNBC coverage, among others. What’s next? A Barbara Walters marathon? How many hours would Andy Rooney get? With all due respect, these people were/are good at what they do, lets just leave it at that.

June 16, 2008 @ 4:57 am | Comment

Dan, maybe we are not really so much in disagreement about Russert, but we are definitely in disagreement about the role of the media. I’ll grant that Russert was better than many in avoiding spin and bias. But as I said, that is simply what he is supposed to do.

Where I totally disagree is justifying the wailathon by saying it’s “what people want.” So was the Runaway Bride story and the Jon Benet non-killer and Anna Nicole Smith. People love extreme sensations, wallowing in nostalgia, creating and worshipping idols, having their beliefs confirmed, getting all emotional about the death of one of their heroes, etc. But the purpose of a professional and skeptical media is to avoid these things and not sell out to what makes their viewers happy. Fox News is the perfect example of a station that totally caters to what its viewers want – sensationalism, personal attacks on “liberals,” affirmation of the GOP’s brilliance, etc. This is why Bill O’Reilly is so popular, and on the other side, Keith Olberman. I consider both of them actors and clowns and frauds.

So Dan, obviously I am the one who is right. (Joking.)

Being honest and free of spin and tough on those you are interviewing should be the industry standard, not something so amazing we consider such qualities godlike.

The one aspect of my post that I regret was the remark that I didn’t consider Russert to be that great of a journalist. I considered him good, often superb, and sometimes seriously deficient. But maybe this wasn’t the time to mention his flaws. Once all of us recover and our lives get back to normal I’ll put up a post explaining exactly why I have mixed feelings about Russert, who I’ve been watching for many years.

June 16, 2008 @ 6:22 am | Comment

Modesty is well and truly detached from U.S. media culture. If they all died in the same year. It would be a years worth of news. Self sustaining.

June 16, 2008 @ 7:36 am | Comment

Is it Karma do you think? For the coverage of the US media on China in recent months, for saying how the Chinese people deserved the earthquake because they treat Tibetans badly?

June 16, 2008 @ 7:58 am | Comment

RedStar, troll No. 1, can you give me a link to any US media that said the Chinese people deserved the earthquake as an act of karma? Or are you referring to a silly and thoughless remark made by a Hollywood actress, which was ridiculed by just about everyone, including the US media? I am looking forward to your links to stories by US reporters that confirm your rather bizarre assertion.

June 16, 2008 @ 8:08 am | Comment

Richard, can you give me a link to any US media that criticized or condemned Sharon Stone’s comments? I am looking forward to your links to stories by US reporters that confirm your rather bizarre assertion.

In fact, I CAN provide you links to resident contributors to YOUR blog that DEFENDED Sharon Stone, and said “She did nothing wrong” and “has nothing to apologize for”. If you ask me to provide links to those, I will gladly to do so.

June 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am | Comment

@Richard: I’ll grant that Russert was better than many in avoiding spin and bias. But as I said, that is simply what he is supposed to do[…]Being honest and free of spin and tough on those you are interviewing should be the industry standard, not something so amazing we consider
such qualities godlike.

Re: Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, mainstream media et al., I Can’t agree more. So what websites, papers, channels or programs in American & in the UK do you recommend that are honest, free of spin and not doing the biddings of the elite minority,some of whom are white supremacists, imperialist, evangelists & Rapture-awaiting fundementalists and zionists, all together colluding, running and benefiting from the US miltitary-corporate-industrial-complex ?

June 16, 2008 @ 8:56 am | Comment

Red Star, don’t try to manipulate. YOU made a statement that maybe it was “karma” “for the coverage of the US media on China in recent months, for saying how the Chinese people deserved the earthquake because they treat Tibetans badly.” I asked you to provide a link showing me where this happened. I am still waiting. And I will be waiting forever, because there was no such coverage in the US media. Not a single US media reported that the earthquake was an act of Karma, of retribution for Tibet.

Sharon Stone is an actress, not a politician or influencer, and she can say whatever she likes. It is not the role of the media to condemn or support her. Pundits can do so if they’d like, but since her comment was so thoughtless and insignificant and since hardly any thinking person ever gave it any thought at all, why would the pundits even bother? But you love it, because you can hold it up as an example of the West hating China, although precious few in the West would say they agree with Sharon Stone.

Tommy, I’m not sure who you are or what your mission is. I only know I don’t like what I see. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks.

June 16, 2008 @ 9:43 am | Comment

I dunno…”actress” would imply an “ability to act.” I’m not sure she qualifies.

June 16, 2008 @ 10:34 am | Comment

I gotta go with Richard on this issue… I’ve known a couple of my former media colleagues who have croaked on the job. It’s never pretty, and it sucks when you have to consider your own mortality. But fawning over someone who’s job it is to relay you information is somewhat silly. Don’t get me wrong… I’d hope to have a halfway decent sendoff when I shuffle off the mortal coil.. but still, I don’t expect it… and I don’t think Russert would have either…

June 16, 2008 @ 12:34 pm | Comment

Jeremiah, I thought she was quite good in Casino.

Paul, thanks for the comment. Your site is one of my favorites. By far.

June 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm | Comment

Red Star, don’t try to manipulate. YOU made a statement that maybe it was “karma” “for the coverage of the US media on China in recent months, for saying how the Chinese people deserved the earthquake because they treat Tibetans badly.” I asked you to provide a link showing me where this happened. I am still waiting. And I will be waiting forever, because there was no such coverage in the US media. Not a single US media reported that the earthquake was an act of Karma, of retribution for Tibet.

Of course they will not openly say it. Even CCTV is not so crude as to make such statements. But have you heard of “insinuations”, “suggestive language”, “rhetorical provocations”, “deliberate descriptors”, “editorialized language”, “selective facts”, “dramatic intonations”, “weird facial expressions”, and, in the case of Sharon Stone, “surrogates”, and “attack dogs”?

Come on, don’t be so naive, so simple.

Now, do you want ME to list the quotes made by frequent contributors to YOUR site that said “Sharon stone had nothing to apologize for” and “she said nothing wrong”?

June 17, 2008 @ 8:45 am | Comment

Do you know the concept of karma, Red Star? That whatever happens is what is supposed to happen? The most Sharon Stone can be accused of is thoughtlessly regurgitating some notions of karma and foolishly relating it to the earthquake. She should not be condemned because she didn’t do anything wrong, just dumb, something that should be ignored but something you are determined to breathe life into because it confirms your set notions of Westerners hating China (which, even if it were so, has nothing to do with Stone’s unfortunate remarks, which were not an expression of hatred).

Back to topic. For anyone still not convinced that the US media went way overboard over Russert’s passing, I recommend this article that documents the hours of grief on cable news, and not just MSNBC. It further drives home the point that the lines have blurred between those in power in DC and those who are supposed to be covering them.

http://www.slate.com/id/2193689/

June 17, 2008 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

Who’s Tim Russert? Was, rather.

June 18, 2008 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

I always enjoy reading your blog because you tell it like it is,
with the perspective that many Americans lack because they are so
steeped in their culture.
Yes, it was shocking that Russert died so suddenly, in his prime, but
because it was a reminder of our own mortality. Otherwise,
as a news personality, I too didn’t see what the big deal was – greater, true journalists have passed away recently with little fanfare, alas (eg. Halberstam).

June 30, 2008 @ 12:28 pm | Comment