A Final World On Tim Russert's Place In Our Universe

In the wake of Tim Russert's I've noticed among a lot of my journalistic friends an enormous amount of introspection and self-assessment, even among those who, like me, did not know Tim well. It is a perfectly appropriate to remark upon and even to criticize, the fact that the media treats a death in its family like a death in its family. But Tim's death seems to have hit the Washington political community by an order of magnitude greater than the passing of a loved one.

Here is one reason why I think that this is so, and it has to do with the general esteem that professional political journalists of all stripes have for themselves in relation to their profession. The truth is that most of us -- well, maybe I'll just speak for myself, but I think it this opinion is common -- are exquisitely aware of how our journalism doesn't always live up to our standards; how it can debase the debate discourse than enhance it; how it can magnify idiotic side stories and render as insignificant the most pressing questions of the day.

There were a lot of folks in town, and I consider myself one of them to some degree, who emulate Tim Russert consciously and conspicuously. Tim Russert -- as Tim Russert -- helped to build and sustain the professional bearings and even the confidence of many political journalists because he got it right. He did it right. (It can be done right!) We loved Tim's method and style -- and not only his method and style, but also the notion that esteem for him was near universal (and so it could also be for us) -- and that he was able to enjoy the game of politics without guilt and still be a figure of enormous respect. The fact that one guy was capable of getting it more or less right... gave a lot of us hope that we might one day be able to cover politics meaningfully, too.

So, take that hub of hope away, and a good part of many political journalists in down just froze. When Peter Jennings, whom I did know, passed away, this same paralysis took hold. Eventually, it broke, and some ABC News staffers I know began to hold themselves to higher-order standards as a way of honoring PJ's memory and making sure that his standards did not die with him.

Comments

If more reporters because of Russert's untimely passing force politicans to deal with their records to examine their positions and take a side; he will have accomplished a lot. If more reporters take the time to care for serious matters and not get bogged down in trival pursuits because they want to fill the void he left; that'll be a good thing.

But I think what was most interesting was that his family came first with him from all the reporting and tributes I've seen: that is probably why he didn't get bogged down in so much bs. He had a core that was not political.

Posted by Rhoda | June 17, 2008 10:05 AM

No, he didn't get it right. He was more interested in access & power & status than the truth. He sounded tough & prepared thoroughly but he was actually kind of lousy at follow up questions, and he got lousier the more powerful the person he was interviewing. He was above average, but there are investigative reporters working in Washington today worth a dozen of him--Dana Priest, Jane Mayer, I know of a researcher at the Post who's contributed more. He wasn't a journalist's journalists, he was a pundit's pundit. You are a pundit too. And while he was an above average pundit, this worship of him shows something sick, sick, sick about journalism in D.C. He was a pretty good pundit, but making him out to be some sort of journalistic hero is yet another demonstration of how deeply corrupt the D.C. village is.

Posted by Katherine | June 17, 2008 10:24 AM

And PJ's standards brought us what? The George and Charlie farce in Philadelphia. What standards!

Posted by Andrew | June 17, 2008 10:29 AM

To put it differently: "political journalism" in D.C. today, with a few exceptions, does not deserve the name of journalism at all. The country would be better off if most "political journalists" ceased to broadcast and publish. Simply broadcasting candidates' appearances, debates, & publishing transcripts of their statements, internal poll results, government documents released by the Congressional committees, youtube clips of candidate's speeches, etc. etc.--leave the analysis to analysts who actually care about substance instead of endless horse race nonsense and aren't in love with access & their insider status, & open up space for the real reporters. That isn't hyperbole; I realize some substance would be lost, but overall, I sincerely believe that the country would be better off & the public would be better informed.

Posted by Katherine | June 17, 2008 10:31 AM

Its now Tuesday. A bit of perspective please.

Posted by P M T Barnum | June 17, 2008 10:31 AM

I am really going to miss Tim and his white board during election returns this fall. It just won't be the same. Despite the multitude of choices to follow the returns on TV and online, I always flipped back to NBC to see what Russert and Brokaw were saying.

I'm so glad he lived long enough to see Luke graduate from college.

Posted by Laura | June 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Its now Tuesday. A sense of perspective please.

Journalists' narcissism is bottomless.

Posted by P M T Barnum | June 17, 2008 10:35 AM

I'm with Katherine (above), both posts, to the letter.

Posted by PW | June 17, 2008 10:45 AM

Yep,

I think Watergate was the zenith of political journalism, and ever since it's a been a slow and useless decline of partly knowledge but mainly courage.

It wouldnt be missed.

Posted by P M T Barnum | June 17, 2008 10:49 AM

My wife died when our daughter was three years old, and I have raised her as a single parent for the last five years. To suggest that Russert's death is ten times worse than a loved one is laughable and borderline insulting. Maybe it justs distorts the definition of "loved one" beyond my recognition. I am glad you and other journalists are taking the opportunity to look in the mirror a bit, but somehow I think his family has it worse.

Posted by Curtis | June 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Marc, are you really saying that the death of Tim Russert had a greater impact, by an order of magnitude, than if your partner or a parent had died? And that this has been true of all of the residents of DC?

Just checking. Everything else makes sense. (This seems a bit like what we in the UK call the 'Diana effect' after the response to the Princess of wales in 1997.)

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 17, 2008 11:01 AM

We collectively appreciate Tim Russert becuase he embodied two paramount qualities that are sorely lacking in our society, our media, and our political discourse: authenticity, integrity, and civility.

People sensed that the Tim Russert they saw on Sunday mornings was the same guy they'd see at a bar, or in church, or at home. He was real. There are many brilliant people in public life who are not revered, because their personal virtues do not match their intelligence. Tim's did.

Go Bills!

Posted by Buffaloed | June 17, 2008 11:42 AM

I suppose it's a matter of definitions. According to Swopa's liveblogging of the Libby trial, Mr. Russert testified:

T: My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified. So I didn't go on air and talk about it, but I told Neal Shapiro and told him I'd..."

"always off the record" makes you someone who does not prioritize holding those with power personally accountable for the words and actions. "always off the record," if you're a decent person who loves his family and avoids cheap shots in your professional life, makes you a classy courtier, not a journalist - in my book, anyway. but what do i know? i'm just a citizen. i don't have 'access' to the corridors of power and their denizens.

maybe you have a different definition of journalism than a lot of citizens out here. or maybe a different understanding of the role of journalism in a modern democracy.

Posted by Pudentilla | June 17, 2008 11:44 AM

the url for swopa's liveblogging of the libby trial is: http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/07/libby-live-tim-russert-one/

Posted by Pudentilla | June 17, 2008 11:46 AM

For more information on cardiovascular health and heart disease visit CardioSmart.org, a website sponsored by the American College of Cardiology. You will find substantial interactive information that can possibly change your life, and the lives of those around you http://www.cardiosmart.org/

Posted by ACC Media- Cardiosmart.org | June 17, 2008 11:57 AM

Enough already!

Posted by ocouha | June 17, 2008 12:15 PM

Katherine makes some very good points.

Posted by Bill174 | June 17, 2008 12:17 PM

I did not always agree with Russert's brand of "gotcha" journalism. Like any good tool it has its limits.

But when you compare Russert to ass-clowns like Brit Hume, Russert looks like Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite rolled into one.

Posted by Choska | June 17, 2008 12:46 PM

I thought Russert was a shining example of bad journalism. I read his softball interview with Cheney from 2003 and it seemed they might start kissing at any moment. His gotcha games gave the appearance of someone who was doing good journalism, but I think they were transparent exercises in the gratuitous. Everyone the world over is going to say or do something worthy of a gotcha, but with no larger framework what's the point of playing? To show we're all human? Gee, thanks. Glad that's the political newscast of record. Which is why I haven't watched TV news for a decade.

Posted by bakum | June 17, 2008 1:18 PM

Marc, I hope you don't emulate TJR to such an extent that you consider your sources always off-the-record unless they give you "permission" to go on-the-record.

Posted by jason | June 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Some staffers at ABC decided to hold themselves to higher standards after Peter Jennings died? Good Lord, ABC has gone downhill since PJ's passing. Gibson and Stephanopolis have been atrocious in this campaign in terms of focusing on triviality, best explemplified by the Philly debate. PJ would be rolling in his grave right now. At least when Russert played "gothca" it was usually over a matter of substance. I don't think Russert was a saint in his own right, but he was a giant when compared to the clowns at ABC and most of the rest of the traditional media.

Posted by RKA | June 17, 2008 2:30 PM

It seems to me that Russert and his buddies the politicians both benefitted from an arrangement among the press and the politicians alike - they all agreed to agree that Russert asked really hard questions. Politicians could then get points for 'facing Russert' and Russert got points for asking "the tough questions". Most of his questions consisted of showing the politican tape of either one of his earlier statements or something someone else said about him, and asking him to respond.

I'll agree that he did not traffic in trivia as much as some other journalists, but that does not mean that his questions were at all insightful. I can't think of one thing I actually learned from his questioning. On this past Sunday's MTP tribute, they took it as a bdadge of hoinor that Russert always knew how the subject would anser his questions, and in fact could rehearse the whole interview. In what universe is that good journalism?

He as by all accounts a wonderful husband, father and friend, and a moral person. That is hard enough to accomplish in this world. We do not also have to burnish his journalistic record.

Posted by DML | June 17, 2008 3:47 PM

Tim Russert's record will speak for itself. Remember, Tim wasn't interviewing hometown entrepreneurs or people from the local Lyons Club. Tim didn't interview Boy Scouts. He had to deal with people with agendas. Practiced liars, who wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. Career politicians. People who would rather go without food and water than tell the truth. People who, if their lips were moving were lying. And, people who wanted to use him as a platform for their own BS. Tim had to sort through mountains of crap on a daily basis, and if you believe the doctors it killed him: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | June 17, 2008 4:38 PM

What can we learn from this tragedy? We need a scientific “Russert” to pose the tough questions so that the public can become better informed about the risks of heart disease—prevention, risk, etc. We need diagrams, models, and flow charts (as clear as Tim’s online timeline of his life) to explain in layman’s terms what happened. Meet the Press needs a special medical debate, including his doctors and other cardiologists to scrutinize the facts. This could be tied into the healthcare issue in the presidential campaign. Tim would want a thorough examination of the facts to uncover the “medical” truth. Was this a failing at the individual level (weight, stress), the healthcare level (failure to perform the necessary tests for a proper diagnosis), or both? If we can’t trust the doctors to get it right, we need to become better informed so that we can ask the tough questions to our doctors. We need answers to save a few lives. Tim’s replacement will also be under enormous stress to follow in Tim’s footsteps. We should at least acknowledge that one cannot do it all. Something always suffers; here it was life

Posted by Ivy Hayes | June 17, 2008 7:42 PM

What can we learn from this tragedy? We need a scientific “Russert” to pose the tough questions so that the public can become better informed about the risks of heart disease—prevention, risk, etc. We need diagrams, models, and flow charts (as clear as Tim’s online timeline of his life) to explain in layman’s terms what happened. Meet the Press needs a special medical debate, including his doctors and other cardiologists to scrutinize the facts. This could be tied into the healthcare issue in the presidential campaign. Tim would want a thorough examination of the facts to uncover the “medical” truth. Was this a failing at the individual level (weight, stress), the healthcare level (failure to perform the necessary tests for a proper diagnosis), or both? If we can’t trust the doctors to get it right, we need to become better informed so that we can ask the tough questions to our doctors. We need answers to save a few lives. Tim’s replacement will also be under enormous stress to follow in Tim’s footsteps. We should at least acknowledge that one cannot do it all. Something always suffers; here it was life.

Posted by Ivy Hayes | June 17, 2008 7:44 PM

I watched Russert on Meet the Press when I wanted to learn more about a topic from journalists. It wasn't just Russert who I enjoyed listening to, but the various comments and opinions from all the journalists at his table. I tend to trust journalists to get to the bottom of things. I think there was a lot that was special about Russert, and as I reflected on my place in this world, following his early death, I decided to leave my current career. Life now seems too short to stay in a career I don't love.
Mary

Posted by Mary | June 18, 2008 12:32 PM