Requiem for Pope Russert
Tim Russert is dead. Long live Tim Russert!
It should come as little surprise that, precisely at a time when the sanctimony of the Old Media stands threatened by blasphemes, bloggers and an increasingly agnostic public, the choirboys, priests and cardinals of the Media Church should treat the passing of a figure like Tim Russert as if it were the demise of the Pope.
As someone who himself has paid a couple of unscheduled visits to the CCU in the past couple of years, I intend no personal disrespect toward Russert or his family with whom we must all share our grief. But the flagrant disrespect shown us by the stage-managed, manufactured and excruciatingly prolonged televised requiem for Russert is rather breathtaking.
Russert collapsed on Friday just as I was beginning a 5 hour road trip through the Mojave desert allowing me, via XM Radio, to soak in the endless dirge begun by CNN and presided over, quite appropriately, by Bishop Wolf Blitzer. The Bishop - and his long list of public mourners - from John McCain to Jim Carville to the Clintons to Paul Begala to Colin Powell and countless others--all seemed shocked, not only by the purported infallibility of Russert, but also by what they had apparently supposed was his immortality.
Over and over and over again, Bishop Blitzer loudly mused how was it possible that a 58 year old man, seemingly in good health, could be stricken by a flagging heart? My own doctors had answered that same query from me a year ago by simply reminding me that I was a human - much clearer information than the confused and inaccurate mumbo-jumbo about cardiac arrest dosed out repeatedly by CNN's medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen.
In between her dollops of misinformation, as I barreled up I-15, I did learn the following: that Tim Russert was not only a fabulous, relentless journalist, he was also a model father, a model son, a devout Catholic, a man who never ever forgot his humble roots as the son of a garbage man and a man so in touch with blue-collar America that - if only he had survived- perhaps Barack Obama could have named him Veep to win over all those beer drinkers in Buffalo.
I had met Russert a couple of times - twice out in Iowa during this or that year's presidential caucus. And he seemed nice enough of a fellow. In fact, after reading his memoir, I had acquired a certain amount of personal sympathy for him. Though he deftly cashed in on his taciturn dad, Big Russ, and celebrated him as a man who placed the values of "responsibility and accountability" over those of affection and nurturing, I began to see Russert as the victim of a childhood shadowed by an emotionally stunted father. What, in the end, is their to celebrate about a father who can't bring himself to say "I Love You" to his boy until that son is 54 year old man? Brrrr.
But with all due respect for the dead, I would rate Russert as a journalist perhaps just above the median average. He certainly mounted his weekly pulpit of Meet The Press well-prepared by a hard-working research staff. He'd have his quotes and video clips lined up meticulously to at least, briefly, put his subject on the spot.
But what was baffling, if not downright maddening about Russert's style, was that he would inevitably pull that knock-out punch and end the encounter with an embrace rather than a roundhouse right. Just when he'd get his guest to start backtracking, dissembling and stumbling, he'd gently let him - or her--go.
Strangely enough, during his prolonged liturgy for Russert Friday afternoon, Bishop Blitzer - chummily reminiscing with former General Powell--noted the same tendency by Russert. But Blitzer found it praiseworthy. He always asked "the tough questions," said the Bishop of Russert. And then he added, admiringly: "But there was always the soft landing." Ah yes, "the soft landing," Colin Powell concurred.
Indeed, without unfailingly pulling that last punch Russert knew very well he would risk excommunication from the Inner Sanctum of the Beltway. A harder landing for his guests could dry up that most cherished of press commodities - access and kinship with the powerful.
But back to CNN. After three straight hours of listening to Blitzer's prayer for the dead, I could stand no more. The desert I heard on the air seemed infinitely more vapid than the Mojave I was driving through. You also had to wonder what was in those cynical little heads of the CNN execs. Did they really believe that all those average beer-swilling Americans whom Russert presumably loved really wanted to stay glued for hour upon hour to hear the same regurgitations over the death of an elite, remote, talking head?
Probably not. The inexplicable amount of air time devoted to Russert's death surely was laced with some potent self-pity by the networks themselves. In the sudden death of Tim Russert they no doubt caught a passing glimpse and reflection of a fate they fear for themselves.
Looks like Andy Warhol - who will leave a much longer lasting mark on the world than Russert--was dead wrong when he mumbled that line about 15 minutes of fame. Warhol departed the earth in 1987 just when cable TV news was maturing. He could have no idea that two decades later, in the bottomless hole created by the continuous news cycle, 15 minutes wasn't anything at all. We could now go for hours and hours and hours over so very little.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
From the previous thread…
I wasn’t a big fan of Russert’s, although I started watching his show compulsively this past year as the political season heated up. Definitely sad to see him go at such a young age. Here’s a nice piece (Nicholas Lehman’s New Yorker review of the “Big Russ” book Marc references) that balances his attractive qualities as a TV news personality as well as his weaknesses as a journalist.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524crbo_books
June 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Marc,
Thanks for your hard hitting , edgy, against the grain comments on Tim’s death “with all due respect to the dead” of course.
On behalf of Tim’s fellow South Buffalo Irish Catholics, we will mourn Tim and muddle on somehow with the brillance of the likes of you.
Who are you again?
June 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Probably not. The inexplicable amount of air time devoted to Russert’s death surely was laced with some potent self-pity by the networks themselves. In the sudden death of Tim Russert they no doubt caught a passing glimpse and reflection of a fate they fear for themselves.
And the fate of the bloated Beltway “professioanl media” as well.
I hope.
Great post, Marc!
June 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I respected Russert because, although he was a liberal journalist, he wasn’t your typical obnoxious and unfair one.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I respected Russert because, although he was a liberal journalist, he wasn’t your typical obnoxious and unfair one
That’s because he wasn’t a Fox “News” sort of journalist.
I met Russert myself and found him to be a classy person.
I’m sure that the right will complain that someone like Michael Kelly was not eulogized in a similar fashion by the MSM. Of course Kelly was rather tendentious gasbag who often let his temper get the best of his judgment.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Picture: Marc checks contaminated Mexican tomatoes crossing the border.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
At least Russert won’t have to deal with Keith Olbermann anymore.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
>>>from John McCain to Jim Carville to the Clintons to Paul Begala to Colin Powell and countless others
and Obama:
“He was. The standard bearer. For serious journalism.”
June 13th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Dr. Samuel Johnson once said that in lapidary inscriptions, man is not upon oath. Meaning, when we do our obituaries, we always gloss over the bad stuff. I admire that Russert didn’t make it on his looks, unlike so many others in television news these days. I admire that he was clearly, intensely interested in politics. But the proper description of him, I think, was that he was an establishment front-runner, consumed by his need to be important. That doesn’t make him unusual in Washington, sad to say. As for today’s orgy of self-satisfaction that all of these journalists were free to tell you how important they were to Russert (with the exception, I would say, of Tom Brokaw, who seemed as sincere as ever), one wonders how they would have handled the death of a public figure they did not work with.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Here’s an interesting footnote from Russert’s years as a politico:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/13/tim_russert_in_memoriam/
June 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Thanks for the New Yorker link Reg. It pretty much sums up my own view of Russert: Great son, fantastic dad,…but someone who understood the rules of decorum inside the beltway sufficient enough to be successful there.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I would politely disagree with your otherwise astute post on just one point, Marc, that being the slap at Big Russ (or at least suggestion) of Big Russ being a bad father because he didn’t tell Tim that he loved him until Tim was 54. My own father - who is about Tim’s age - was NEVER told by his father, my grandpa, that he loved him (but all of his kids - my aunts and uncles - always loved their father, and felt like the feeling was mutual). So, I really believe that this is a generational thing, and that if your own father told you that he loved you on a regular basis, Marc, then God bless him, but he was the exception rather than the rule from that era.
A premature Happy Fathers Day to all good fathers out there…including my own.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Good link here that underscores the point that Russert was “unbiased.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604050007
June 13th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
er, I meant, “biased.”
June 13th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Valid point on the media orgy–Buckwheat has been shot, as he is every Groundhog Day.
Otherwise, let the family mourn for the guy before you assess his career.
June 14th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Yeah, what is it with the Pope? When he visits the U.S., CNN gives 24/7 coverage for days on end, news be damned.
The visit is pure photo op. The pontiff isn’t here to make any decisions, sell any indulgences or heal any sick, he’s just stopping by for some face time with his followers. Yet CNN insists it’s important enough to warrant minute-by-minute coverage.
Actually, it’s no mystery. The robes, the hat, the Popemobile all make colorful, out of the ordinary TV footage in large quantities. And it’s all scheduled well in advance, making shooting it like target practice. When the Pope’s in town, the producers can take a holiday, because they know they can fill a hole of any size whatsoever in their news cycle.
And while we’re on the subject of journalism, it is a shame Marc’s career has brought him this far without having had to submit to enough copy editing, in my view.
If he had, he’d never write something like “With all due respect for the dead.” Why?
Firstly, it’s a cliche. A journalist should avoide them like the plague. More important, he has missed the essential meaning, and in this case wit, of that particular cliche.
The key is the word “due.” When we say, with all “due” respect, we’re actually saying: If respect were due, I would give it, but as it apparently is not, I won’t.
As cliche’s go, it’s a reasonably witty one, but has clearly dulled from overuse so much so that people end up using it as Marc has, as a way to say: “Without disrespecting”
–30–
June 14th, 2008 at 5:00 am
David, ah yes, Media Matters…. To that bunch, anything that doesn’t follow extreme leftist philosophy will be attacked and misconstrued. And, to liberals, everything has to do with Iraq, so a journalist is biased if he doesn’t pound that point. Can you really trust a group who says that Al Franken is more honest than Tim Russert?
June 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I actually didn’t watch Meet the Press very much, as it’s on around 6 AM Sunday morning and I’m not always still up that late on a Saturday night …
Of course he played the establishment game. That goes without saying.
I thought he ran a good debate and was an excellent on-air political analyst.
He was also a pretty nice guy. I ran across him a number of times, and he was always gentlemanly, humorous, and smart.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Is it really a surprise that a guy who was probably sixty or seventy pounds overweight, in a high stress job, most likely eating a cholesterol rich diet with little exericise, dies of a heart attack?
June 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
So, now who gets to be Big Dog at NBC Washington? I’m pulling for Willy Geist.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I will miss Tim. He was a true professional and I admired the fact that he wasn’t an attack dog jouralist. He made me, as a fellow Buffalonian, proud.
Apparently you consider yourself a good judge of media presentation which I must dispute.
Presenting Tim’s work in a negative light goes against the grain and is more than insulting to the millions of viewers who tuned into ‘Meet the Press’ to see a true work of art. Tim got the story also made friends. He developed positive relationships across party lines and he was a joy to be around. He really strived to be fair and balanced and worked tremendously hard to present an unbiased view of the story at hand.
It is sad that people like you would take this opportunity to criticize a man who made such a positive impact on so many peoples lives. I believe it speaks to your smallness and lack of character.
Tim would forgive you but I can’t.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Keith Olbermann killed Tim Russert–at least indirectly. But, he didn’t drag his body to a park.
Tim Russert Has Had It With “Activist†Keith Olbermann
Russert’s body isn’t even cold when the network is ready to announce that Olbermann will take over “Meet the Press”. If so, I’ve watched it for the last time.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hey Woody,
Put up or shut up on the Vince Foster deal, will ya? You beat that drum like a wind up toy, and of all the things you say this one probably makes you seem most like an ass.
Just use Chappaquiddick, ok?
June 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
People know I’ve had my differences with Marc but he sure hit it solid with his comments on “The Pope”. I too, found CNN’s Wall-to Wall coverage of Russert ridiculous - he wasn’t a head of state after all. And I’m not sure he was even at the median level of journalistic competence. Like several other observers I thought much of the coverage was a tear for les temps perdu that will not come again. The Beltway boys are under siege and as Jon Stewart showed the other night totally missed Obama on their way to the coronation of Hillary. That new-fangled inter net with those confusing “Tubes” has them running scared! There was also a quality to much of the “praise” that remninded me of the Comintern when Stalin kicked the bucket - or Hollywood at the the passing Hedda and Louella. Were they really and truly dead? No more bowing and scraping? Carville and Lowery, McCain and Obama - yes everyone had to come forward one more time to kiss the ring.
(Cue Bob Dylan and Something’s Happening but you don’t know what it is.”)
I won’t add much else but isn’t it amazing that our journos see Russert as the model of a “Tough Inerviwer”. May I usggest to these people a glimpse at BBC’s “Newsnight - occasionally shown on CSPAN. There they can watch Jeremy Paxman eviscerate
his “Guests” - what a difference!
I was also amused to hear what a “democratic” and “regular” guy Timmeh was! A real working class hero! I’ll let past columns by Bob Sommerby burst that balloon - just see any number of http://www.dailyhowler.com blogs examples of this.
In thw past twenty years producivity of American workers has risen 76%. But real wages have gone up less than two. More and more people are downwardly mobile and they’ve tapped out on savings, home equity, and credit cards. Maybe that is why GOP is a “Toxic Brand”, and the right is reeling. And 81% say the US is on the wrong track.
Did I learn the above from Tweety? No! But Bill Moyers told us all that last nightn on hisn PBS broadcast. When he goes will CNN clear its sked?
To ask is to answer.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
One more thing. I’m waiting for the conspiracy buffs to question his death. Scott McClellen is testifying this week and Russert was up to his eyballs in the Plame affair. Paging Dorothy Kilgallen!
June 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
BTW, I agree that the coverage of Russert’s death was over-the-top I call it Look-how-decent-we-are! excess. And I was watching FOX, naturally. CNN must have been downright nauseating.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Let’s just ignore or downplay deaths of famous people unless they meet some high and mighty test–except, of course, unless they are Hollywood stars, a princess, or a drunken, psycho author who kills himself.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Memo to Woody: it won’t be KO. My money is on Chris Matthews.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
And of course he could end each broadcast with: “This just in, Russert is still dead!”
June 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
rlc, nice to see you back on the computer. Hope you’re doing okay. Stick around.
Now, for more exciting episodes of “Who killed Tim Russert? Follow the clues. Who had the most to gain or the biggest grudge to settle?
If revenge is a factor, watch your back, Bill O’Reilly.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I’ll take the credibility of Media Matters over Bozell and his dingy outfit any day, Woody.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Nancy Morgan at American Thinker:
June 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The media is pushing what sells.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I’ll take the credibility of Media Matters over Bozell and his dingy outfit any day, Woody.
So would most sentient human beings.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Good one. You got me there, Randy.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Happy Fathers Day.
Here’s Barack’s Father’s Day message at a church in Chicago:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5nFN
June 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
It’s like fish in a barrel.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Credibility in politics is like beauty… All in the eyes of the beholder.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:44 am
I’ll echo what reg said but belatedly so… Happy Father’s day everyone! And if you haven’t read McCain’s “Faith of My Fathers” you ought to. (And no reg, he still isn’t conservative enough for me!)
June 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am
The CNN coverage of Russert’s death was largely intended to make similar punch-pullers like Wolf Blitzer feel good about themselves. “Late Edition” featured numerous self-serving clips showing what great pals Wolf and Tim were. Sometimes in praising “great men” we are really trying to attract attention to ourselves.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
And hoping some of that “greatness” will rub off on ourselves.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Thankfully I missed the cable Russert-watch, but I did see Meet the Press, with Brokaw anchoring a memoriam and I do believe, as Randy noted, that Russert was an authentically warm, utterly enthusiastic guy - probably a very good “boss”, a terrific friend and obviously a great family man - who his associates loved and respected. Says nothing about his journalistic flaws, but the fawning and wall-to-wall crap aside, I get the sense that much of the praise of Russert the man was totally genuine.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
That Russert may have been a genuinely nice guy doesn’t make him a good journalist. However, Russert was a good TV personality who celebrated the prevailing wisdom of the Washington establishment.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I was simply astounded how every eulogy began with “He was SUCH a devout Catholic and SO devoted to his family!”
Forty-plus years of rightwing propaganda about how inherently anti-family and anti-God and un-American the NYC/DC media is, I guess, have really done the trick.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The coverage of Tim Russert’s death shows he was well liked by his colleagues: even Stewart and Colbert had tributes. I rarely watched “Meet the Press” because mornings are for newspapers, but his questions in the political debates were mostly trivial and often insulting, but never of the sort to elicit a thoughtful or intelligent response. Think of his asking Kucinich about UFOs, wasting the opportunity to learn about his policy proposals or political thinking. That sort of ‘gotcha’ journalism is apparently considered profound, as if dogged, tough and stupid questions without substance are to be admired.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Where is Anderson Cooper?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
[...] [...]