Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I just heard that here. Very sad indeed. He was a treasure.
 

I may be hated and vilified for what follows, but I am going to imitate Shakespeare's Cassius and bury Caesar, not praise him.

First of all, obviously condolences go out to his family and closest friends. Those who loved Russert the man obviously are in shock, grieving the loss of someone who had a place in their hearts, a place now empty, the hole aching.

Yet, for most Americans, Russert was not a father or brother or husband or neighbor. He was a television personality. A journalist? Perhaps, although he began his career as a political aide on Capitol Hill.

Russert's behavior during a winter Democratic candidates' forum was, without a doubt, one of the most egregiously awful performances in the history of televised political discourse. Shallow, sexist, pointed at destroying the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his farcical display of "gotcha", his loaded, "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" questions were painful to watch, and widely disparaged, and not just by Hillary supporters.

Last year, at the Scooter Libby perjury trial, Russert was called as a witness, after a document was discovered that claimed his program, Meet the Press was a good place for Vice President Cheney to go, because it was somewhere the Administration's message could get out relatively easily. On the stand, Russert admitted under oath that his practice was to keep all conversations with important sources confidential and off the record unless specifically stated otherwise. There was much criticism of this position; not being a professional journalist, I cannot comment directly on the propriety of his position. I feel, however, that it is a mistaken one.

Russert has been an accomplice in the destruction of our public discourse, replacing shallow, shoddy "gotcha" moments for serious, in-depth, well-researched questions and follow-ups. As much a player as any Senator or Congressman, Russert admitted on air in 2000 that the press was Sen. John McCain's "base" - the root from which sprung his first run at the White House. His behavior since has yet to give a lie to that declaration.

A personal tragedy? Absolutely. A public tragedy?

Meh.
 

Geoffrey, I knew you'd have somethin' to say about this. All I can say is we disagree. In the vast wasteland of TV news, getting vaster and wastelander every say, he was a jewel. No Edgar R. Murrow, but no one is.

Re, "Russert admitted under oath that his practice was to keep all conversations with important sources confidential and off the record unless specifically stated otherwise."

Being a practicing journalist, I can say that I have more than a few relationships with people in power exactly like that. It's the only way to develop relationships and establish mutual trust and build goodwill with sources on a given beat sometimes. You *have* to do that for the day that you have to set fire to a bridge; maybe there's a chance to rebuild it afterward if you do. And, you build up goodwill for the days when you have drawn the well down.
 

.. have to draw the well down, I mean.
 

OK, I will grant your point, ER. At the same time, in the case in question, the specific question was one of a breach of national security which threatened not just the identity of a covert CIA operative, but an entire network of foreign nationals risking their lives to provide information to the US, and against their own countries. There is a qualitative distinction here that, I think, is important to remember. Even if the practice is common, even necessary, I believe that there is some larger ethical principle involved, a journalistic principle, that might supersede the prior commitment to off-the-record discussions. In this case, I believe Russert has his hands on a huge story, and botched it. In the meantime, a good woman lost her job, some foreigners lost their lives, and the country was weakened by the loss of an information network vital to our national security.

I heard Tom Brokaw's announcement, and the clip he played of Russert "confronting" Clinton in the heat of the Lewinsky mess. After naming a list of bogus non-scandals from Whitewater to Travelgate to the one thing that Clinton really did do that might be construed as wrong, Russert noted that Clinton still has approval ratings in the 60's (our current President hasn't seen those numbers since before he was re-elected). He then asks, "Are you, rather than Ronald Reagan, the real Teflon President?" This came right after Brokaw called Russert "the toughest questioner in contemporary journalism". I think it says less about Russert's abilities than it does the lack of such abilities in other journalists.
 

Hindsight: "the specific question was one of a breach of national security which threatened not just the identity of a covert CIA operative, but an entire network of foreign nationals risking their lives to provide information to the US, and against their own countries.

One, at times, I'd say an alleged question of national security pales compared to a jouralist's promise, or decision, or judgment.

Pentagon Papers.
 

Oh, and two, how does anyone know what Russert actually knew and when he knew it, as far as realizeing the ramifications of what he was hearing, and not reporting, and not being told? If he wan't ask that line of questions in court, or in deposition, no one knows. And I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless there IS information that says he knew the full story ar the time.

Methinks you misunderestimate how much reporting, and journalism in general, is just so much shooting from the hip, making decisions on he fly, and letting the chips fall where they may.

It's actually like blogging in those ways.
 

Russert's testimony at the trial was specifically concerned with how he had come to learn the identity of Valerie Plame. The issue at hand was whether Scooter Libby had been an agent of Russert learning that tidbit of information. The discussion specifically concerned Russert's knowledge or lack thereof of Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent and spouse of the person the CIA recommended as a researcher concerning the Nigeri uranium.

Russert admitted that he was informed that Ms. Plame was in fact a covert agent. He also admitted that he was aware that members of the Bush Administration were spreading this information, although he did not know why. He could have reported this to his superiors and had them assign a third party to investigate the question, perhaps using Russert himself as a source on background.

In any event, Russert chose to hold close his own personal experience of agents of the American government leaking the identity of a CIA agent in direct violation of the law. That alone is more than an oopsie. Perhaps the issue was not as clear cut at the time; one should always grant a certain benefit of the doubt to anyone in the heat of any given moment. Yet, even in the relatively short-term hindsight provided by the growing case against Libby, I do not see how Russert would have violated his own ethical standard by coming forward. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the courts had already determined there is no federal shield law, so Russert had no legal recourse.

In any event, my larger complaint was noted in my previous comment. That Russert was held in high regard as an interviewer, in light of just this one example given to show what a tough interviewer he was is enough. I know there are excellent journalists out there. I try not to paint too much an entire profession with the sins of the few truly wankeriffic individuals who stand out for their shallow pomposity, their obsession with horse-race versus substance, and their insiderism.

My own candidates for the worst offenders would not include Russert. He has had great moments. On the other hand, people like Cokie Roberts, Joe Klein, George Will, and David Brooks, so in love with their own voices and their own connections, and lacking any serious understanding of any relationship between what they report and the real lives of the people who consume what they report (us polloi), are among the worst. Yet, Russert was hardly stellar - no Murrow, as you say (that his show was seen as a friendly vehicle by the Office of the Vice President, while not necessarily an indictment, certainly raises my own eyebrows) - and specific examples often used to show his virtues turn out to be quite weak, to say the least.

I am not saying he is the source of all evil in our national press corps. Rather, I am saying that revering a slightly-higher-than-mediocre journalist, when there are far better ones out there, leads to the reverence of mediocrity, mediocre journalism, and mediocrity is something we cannot afford.
 

Well, his bones aren't yet cold. Dr. ER and I are both saddened by this, as are lots of others.

This post is just a little memorial to him. I wish you'd had the decency to wait at least a little while before pissing on it.

I'm miffed. Not angered. Disappointed. But not surprised. Don't go off in a huff. Just let his bones cool.
 

I understand that you are miffed. My point was not to attack him personally, but to be honest enough to say that many of the encomiums to Russert, in my opinion, are misguided. Obviously, any sudden death is a shock and a source of sadness, especially in one so young and, regardless of one's opinion on the merits, at the top of his game and profession. I certainly wish nothing but comfort for his family, colleagues, and friends.

That is all I shall say. Enough. Let him rest in peace.
 

Sniff. Whatever else he was, and did, Tim Russert was a good guy. And was one of the most successful members of my tribe.

Lord bless Big Russ today.