Russert was the best of the best of balanced journalism, but how sad is it that....

[sfam]

we no longer have journalists going after truth? Russert was a terrific interviewer, and really did want to poke at both "sides" in a rough but fair manner. Unfortunately, this assumes that the truth can be found by juxtaposing both sides.

In Bill Moyers' most excellent documentary on selling the Iraq war, he interviews Tim about this very point. Tim made it clear that he saw it as the responsibility of the opposing side to uncover the truth, and if so, he could expose it. Unfortunately, as we all know, most of the democrats caved under the national sentiment supporting the lies that conflated Bin Laden with Saddam. Knight Ridder News Service was virtually the only news organization that pursued "the story" in the vein of investigative journalism.

In watching Russert's face during the Moyers interview, its clear that he realized the problem Moyers was pointing out. But it is hard to blame Russert for this. There is definitely a roll (or was before he died) for a balanced middle to probe both sides. But this cannot be the whole story. Worse, the Tim Russerts of the world are a dying breed. The new game is the O'Reilys and Olbermanns who stake out an ideological footing and launch attacks to the other side. The blogs are even worse in this respect, but at least they provide a nice counter-balance in bringing up stories the MSM would rather bypass, such as the fact that all MSM news services had paid generals on staff who were still getting goodies from the Defense Department while briefing us all "objectively" on the status of the war.

In short, the investigation of truth in journalism is a dying art form. Sadder still is the idea of balanced journalism - a shoddy replacement to be sure - is also dying. Tim Russert was surely its best advocate.

[Buzz Clik]

1. "most of the democrats caved under the national sentiment supporting the lies" Exactly!!!

I strongly believe that the people here at DU who are showering Russert with hate do so because he reminds them of their own failings in this issue.

President Bush had an approval rating around 90% when we invaded Afghanistan and only slightly lower when we invaded Iraq. I refuse to believe that DU was immune to these numbers: A significant portion of our ranks secretly supported both invasions. Because Russert also gave verbal support to Bush's military misadventures, these DUers now can safely blame Russert as somehow being complicit. Russert never was briefed by the CIA or given any access to secure information. Nor did he vote for the war. Yet he's to blame?

Please.

[sfam]

4. Actually I think it was around 30% or so who disagreed with the Iraq invasion...

I absolutely think the Afghanistan invasion was the right thing to do. But I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq thing. The conflation at the time seemed completely fabricated. Anyone who had a few alternate news sources, including European sources, could have easily seen the doubt in the press if they hadn't with their own eyes.

But in regards to folks at DU, my guess is a very large percentage of them probably did not support the Iraq war. DU is hardly an even distribution across the population. Even if we were talking 10%$, a good percentage of DU folks would fit there.

But I absolutely agree that Russert is not the one with blood on his hands. He NEVER was an investigative journalist. Our ire needs to be directed at the Washington Post and New York Times. It is they who absolutely SHOULD have covered this story. They are really the last sources with resources to pursue stories like this.

[Mr Rabble]

6. Have a look in the archives. You couldn't be more wrong.

DU was overwhelmingly opposed to invading Iraq certainly, with less opposition to the Afghan invasion.

Either way, you are making the false assumption that our elected representatives are going to vote the way we want.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The politicians see all of us as a nuisance and very seldom legislate on our behalf. Rather, they are running things for the upper class, or the elite of our society.

Russert was among that group.

Now I didn't know him personally, so I wont attack his character, but as a "journalist" he was a hack and a dupe, who either willingly or otherwise fully supported every depraved move that the Bush administration ever made. Further, he has been more than happy to obfuscate real issues by asking about "supporting our troops" or some such nonsense at every opportunity.

RIP Tim.

[Buzz Clik]

30. "so I wont attack his character..." Too late.

And, yeah, I disagree with the concept that DU was overwhelmingly opposed to the war. The open chatter was clearly stacked against the war, but how long would someone survive here who posted support for it no matter how strongly they believed in the invasion?

I can't prove my assertion; I'm simply trying to rationalize despicable behavior of spitting and pissing on someone who has been dead for less than a day.

[Mr Rabble]

42. Wow. Might I suggest a valium?

I am not quite sure how you equate pointing out facts with a character attack. I am certainly not spitting on Russert's grave, but I am also not going to forget what a simple Google search would turn up. You shouldn't either.

Sure is ironic to then see you say, " I cant prove my assertion...".

Good day to you sir.

[Buzz Clik]

44. You haven't been keeping up with these threads.

The threads and posters have been light on facts and heavy on character assassination.

As for the valium -- I'll pass. I don't find it necesary. Projection?

And, my friend, try looking up the definition of irony. Admitting that I was simply expressing an opinion about the roots of the behavior around here was just that -- an opinion.

[sufrommich]

10. I supported invading Afghanistan and not secretly,

I can't imagine anyone on DU saw the invasion of Iraq as anything more that pure folly.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Possibly so.

Considering I wasn't a regular poster a the time, perhaps you can tell me: what was the general feeling about those hundreds of elected Democrats in Congress who supported invading Iraq? Did we vote any of them out of office in the subsequent year or even support their Democratic opposition in the primaries?

[DallasNE]

21. My Heart Goes Out To The Russert Family

And now is probably not the right time to dump on Russert.

But any notion to play Russert as an honest broker is way off the mark. Russert was Dick Cheney's lap dog, as we found out in the "Scooter" Libby trial so I object to any assertion that Russert was the last of the old breed of honest journalist. Russert was in fact the face of what has gone so terribly wrong with MSM. The need to be close to power corrupted Russert's brand of journalism.

[Buzz Clik]

34. "And now is probably not the right time to dump on Russert." I agree, but you did it anyway.

I don't get it.

[Youphemism]

2. I agree -- plus, I don't understand why others "pile on" when folks die.

Yes, we tend to recommend people for sainthood right after they die, and I don't subscribe to that, either. Still, short of a truly heinous person, why must the wake of their death be the moment in which all truths must be outed?

I liked Russert, and pretty much agree with everything you've said about him. But if I didn't, unless he'd performed secret garage experiments on farm animals, or something, I'd just keep quiet and let people work through their grief.

Sorry, I don't want to detract from your point... Objective cross-examination is hard to find now. It's going the way of investigative journalism, and all of the other casualties to the era of high profit margin infotainment.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. When 'folks' die I generally don't pile on.

When some famous person who I thought was an enabler of everything I despise dies, and people here sing out his praise as if he were some sort of hero or Great Man, I feel as obliged as the child in the fable of the Naked Emperor to speak the truth.

Work throught their grief? The family and friends of Tim Russert are working throught their grief, we are just spectators who appear to have opinions on the recently deceased.

[Youphemism]

12. So, by saying Russert was evil you're protecting us from a foolish dictator?

"I feel as obliged as the child in the fable of the Naked Emperor to speak the truth."

So, you're just slamming Russert to save us from the stupidity of our own judgment?

Is it possible someone has a Narcissus Complex?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Russert enabled a foolish dictator to have his way.

When high praises are heaped on him on his death, when he is referred to as a great and fair journalist, a dangerous lie is allowed to go unchallenged. No I do not have a Narcissus Complex, I am under no delusion that this stupid board has much effect on anyone, but thank you for taking the time to personally insult me. Was Timmy a close friend of yours?

This is what we do here. You state your opinion on current events, I state mine. Frequently we disagree. When I see an opinion here that I disagree with, I will quite often respond with an argument stating my opposition. Perhaps you view this place as a group hug session where nobody every disagrees with anyone else, and all opinions, no matter how delusional, no matter how contrary to facts or devoid of logic, are held as equally valid as any other opinion.

The child in the fable was under no delusion that his speaking the truth would save the people, he just felt obliged to speak the truth. Me too.

[Youphemism]

27. Bill Gates to the rescue...

You were spared a full response by a Microsoft automatic update that crashed my system after it downloaded. I'm not going to rewrite it.

I just thought I'd mention that so you didn't feel cheated. It was a worthy response that questioned the altruism of your attempt to save us from the evils of our remembrances by trashing a dead guy.

I liked him. He was a likable guy, who asked good questions. Anyone on either side of the aisle made sure they prepared before an interview with him -- even evil dictators.

There's the gist of what you missed.

[tblue37]

29. The problem with waiting to get the truth out there is that the truth

very soon gets completely lost in the hagiography. The public canonization of Reagan has allowed most Americans to forget the very real harm the man did, so that even progressives on the public stage are not free to slam his worst policies, because then they would be "attacking" a national icon.

There is a huge amount of video footage of Tim promoting RW talking points, pit bulling Democrats, and softballing Bush administration hacks and other RW partisans. The RW can use that footage to smear progressives, and once Tim's status as secular saint has been cemented, everything he said and did will become sacred and not open to question.

Sure, I feel very sorry that a beloved father, son, husband, etc., has died before his time. I will be 58 in August, so I feel very strongly that the man died before his time and that his death is a genuine personal tragedy for his family and friends. But we need to stop jumping on the bandwagon and helping the RW to set up their tools as our national icons whose words are as much to be valued as the words of the Founding Fathers.

Tim was once a liberal Democrat, but he was co-opted by Jack Welch and GE's millions. When questioned about whether working for GE and getting paid so well might compromise his integrity, he said, "Integrity is for paupers!"

I once had a relevant discussion with my son, a 28-year-old whom I raised with my principles but who has to some degree been co-opted by his generation's self-centeredness and pursuit of materialism. He admitted that although he agreed with my values, he would willingly go over to the RW hack machine if he had a chance, because they offered good career paths and paid well. He said, "I know you wouldn't, because you're almost a socialist."

I thought for a long time about that. I spent a number of reveries trying to imagine myself being offered a multimillion-dollar paycheck by the RW political machine. Would I allow myself to be compromised like that? I couldn’t force myself to even carry the thought experiment very far. It was just too repugnant to me.

At one point a couple of years ago my son directed me to a very well-paid job that was advertised with a government agency. It started at $92,000 and promotions and COL raises would have been automatic. At that time, I was just two years past a point when I had been making only $17,000 a year and was deep in debt from having raised two young children for 16 years following my divorce. I certainly could have used that very nice paycheck and the chance for easy career advancement, and my qualifications for the job were perfect. Of course, there is no guarantee that I would have gotten the job, but although he kept pestering me for months to apply, I never would, because the agency is one whose work I fiercely disapprove of, and I could not even imagine myself contributing to its work, even as a teacher of writing, which is what the post was for.

There are many ways to make a lot of money, but I can’t even imagine doing something that would go against my core principles. I especially can't imagine doing something where I would be right out there in public all the time, as Russert was, obviously assisting in policies that I knew to be wrong. I honestly don't think I could do that, even for millions and millions of dollars and high status on the D.C. cocktail circuit and the in the MSM.

People like Russert (or Matthews, Brokaw, and others of their ilk) who were so easily turned against their erstwhile principles by the chance at money and status are more offensive to me than someone who has actually believed the RW party line all along and are fighting to promote those principles that they believe in. I don’t know whether these formerly liberal pundits actually come to believe the RW nonsense they promote, or whether they are just doing what they have to in order to keep their cushy jobs. But the fact that their principles are so flexible really repels me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3446020&mesg_id=3447071

[Shakespeare]

33. And those piling on with their opinions about Russert's skills don't have a clue about journalism.

Stunning ignorance, really.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I come from a family of journalists.

I guess none of it stuck to me as I am, by your assertion, clueless.

So you think that 'balanced' journalism of the sort practiced by Russert and almost the entire flock of talking head MSM journalists is good journalism that provides a vibrant independent fourth estate so essential for a democracy? I mean really, isn't that entire position laughably wrong at this point? We have anything but a vibrant independent fourth estate, at least outside the blogoshpere, and as a consequence our Republic is in deep trouble in no small part due to the deliberately nurtured (by this same MSM) confused ignorance of much of the population. Or perhaps, this great icon of talking heads had nothing to do with the sorry state of affairs our troubled journalist establishment is in, despite iconifying it?

I have never attacked Russert for his lack of skills, by the way. He was quite skillful at what he did. It was what he applied those skills to, what his agenda was, that I found appalling. I attacked him regularly for his mendacious behavior while he was among us, and I refuse to sit back and let the false praise go unanswered now that he has died.

[Shakespeare]

38. I meant exactly what I said. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

40. OK well that settles that.

Keep up the good work.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. One of the best at a sorry and dangerous game.

He, like many of his equally unbalanced colleagues, held absolute horseshit up as equivalent to fact-based reasonable opinions. He gave equal weight to inane duplicitous nonsense and actual facts. The excuses offered in your obituary - Russert is not to blame for his failure to question, and in fact his ourright support for the war - because 'the opposing side' made no case, does not hold water. The opposing side was shut out. The opposing side was out on the streets or marginalized in the few media outlets that would publish what they had to say. Russert does not get off the hook on this, none of them do, despite their after the fact, after the failure was manifest attempts to justify their pre-war participation in this criminal disaster.

'Balanced journalism' is crap. It simply opens the door to the well paid and well connected, lets them out on the vast stage of the bullshit media system, free to lie and distort and manipulate knowing that their nonsense will not be directly criticized or analyzed, knowing that they will be treated with kid gloves. Our media is corrupt and used intentionally to deceive and confuse and distract us, and Russert was one of the many who went along with it.

[sfam]

7. I might agree that balanced journalism is crap, but Russert was never an investigative journalist...

Why hold him to that standard? Truly, this is fairly disingenuous of you. The Washington Post and New York Times failed us. Tim Russert did not. He did just what he's always done - which was to be the best balanced journalist he could be. It is CLEAR that this approach was not what we needed to expose the problems with the lead up the invasion of Iraq. But this is NOT Russert's fault, now matter how many times people here want to make it so.

So yeah, Russert does get off the hook on this. And his death is a sad day in politics. Sadder still is the death of investigative journalism, but that really happened some time ago.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. That is a false dichotomy.

The choice isn't between the inanity of 'balanced journalism' and 'investigative journalism'. If a person being interviewed says something utterly devoid of factual content, the journalist is not required to be the young Woodward in order to stop the interview right there and question the assertions made. 'Balanced journalism' allows lies to go unchallenged and unquestioned. 'Balanced' journalism is not journalism at all as it deliberately enables deception: it is a form of propaganda. It is CLEAR that this form of talking head bullshit enables criminal behavior and does so by design.

[sfam]

16. I disagree that Russert was a shill for the administration...that he couldn't show...

that people were actually lying is hardly an indictment to the point that he was engaging in propoganda. Truly, there are FAR better targets to fire your attacks against. If we agree that Tim was the best of the best of balanced journalism, this means everyone else fell short of his mark. Start with them.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. I didn't say he was a shill, and it is Balanced Journalism itself

that is the problem. A point I keep making that seems to just roll off you.

[sfam]

46. Actually had you read the OP, you would see that was exactly the point I was making nt

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Except that balanced journalism is a deception for that exact reason

I could sit around all day and talk about how little integrity Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have but that would be a waste of time for two reasons. First of all, everybody already knows that. Secondly, their audiences are all right wingers to begin with and they are just echo chambers.

Russert's audience was far wider than that which means that he had a greater responsibility. Cronkite told the country that Vietnam was un-winnable which wasn't biased because anybody with a brain could see that just like anybody with a brain could see that the the Bush Administration was rushing to war and taking great liberties with the truth to do so. Russert had an obligation to do what Cronkite did and tell the country that their government was wrong. Yet we're somehow caught up on this notion that if you say anything negative about the government you are biased and have lost your objectivity.

[truedelphi]

55. Those six words "The opposing side was shut out. " say a lot

And Russert's tag line for me will be his statement "Integrity is for paupers." 1992

[sufrommich]

5. He was a balanced journalist.....

it always shocks me to listen to smart people who think journalist should take sides in any news story.There are partisans on both sides who favor propaganda over real journalism.

[ironrooster]

13. you are entitled to your own opinion - but not to your own facts.

When the facts were of public record Russert should have come down on the side of the facts in lieu of the "all things being equal" horseshit media ethos to which Warren is referring. If you have somebody spouting lies and misrepresentations - they should be countered vigorously -not with well, some people say... that's not journalism - it's an infomercial.

[Kickin_Donkey]

48. He was not a balanced journalist ...

He was a shill for the Republicans. Therefore he wasn't even a journalist.

[tkmorris]

53. Sometimes the TRUTH means taking a side

Sometimes one side is just completely wrong. When that occurs the responsibility of any journalist, Russert included, is to say so.

[wurzel]

8. Russert was neither the best or the worst. He was irrelevant.

MTP became a program of recycled irrelevant garbage. I just couldn't watch it anymore.

[niceypoo]

14. Russert threw softballs to republicans and played 'Gotcha!' with Democrats

He gave Cheney a platform for, and legitimized, his lies before and during the Iraq war and never bothered questioning him on them. When it came to Democrats, all he was interested in was playing gotcha and confronting them with right wing talking points.

He was a right wing hack. I just don't accept the masturbatory praise heaped on him.

[sfam]

17. Bullshit. This is your biases talking, not his...

Russert was hardly a right-wing hack. This is a blatantly unfair statement, but I'm guessing you know that.

[niceypoo]

20. It is the gospel truth and you know, stop the circle jerk please...

He legitimized Cheney's lies to sell us the war, meanwhile he played 'Gotcha' with the Dems. He was a walking, talking, right wing talking point spewing hack.

[sfam]

23. Your notion of the "gospel truth" is about as acurate as those guys on TV stealing SS checks from...

senior citizens. OK, so, um, Tim Russert is personally responsible for leading this country into an illegitimate war. Got it. His role was FAR larger than the investigative journalists at the Washington Post and New York Times. Got it. He's responsible because you thought he bought into their lies. Fine, perhaps he did. So did quite a few others - like 70% of the country in fact.

This is FAR different from being a right-wing shill. And again, his role is to ask people questions. He does this far better than anyone else whether you realize it or not. I'm more than happy to agree he blew a few of his interviews leading up to the war, but again, I am FAR more upset at those who purport to do honest, investigative journalism. THEY TRULY let us down. The questioners could have questioned better, but they NEVER would be telling us truth. The best the Russerts can do is catch spokespeople in lies.

[kath]

50. none so blind as they who will not see...

Warren S. and one or two others here have repeatedly and patiently laid out valid points for you to consider.
But they keep rolling off, and rolling off and rolling off you.

It's as if you have your fingers planted firmly in your ears, saying "La la la, I can't HEAR you".

[musicblind]

51. personally I think sfam is the one making the valid points

in this thread. The others seem to come off as bitter, vindictive, and obsessed with their own world view. And I have absolutely no dog in this fight.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I am sad for his death. And I feel for his family.

But in no way under no definition was he fair or impartial. He picked a side and attacked the other side. He had too much power and used it to sway the public. That is not an impartial journalist.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

19. Best of balanced journalism?

you were watching a different program than me on Sunday morning.

He was Cheney's lap dog and was nasty to Democrats as part of his "style."

[K Gardner]

22. It is frightening to see what the MSM has become, with punditry and gotcha replacing

true journalism. Russert more times than not rose to the occasion and tried to provide guidance for those around him.

How many times in the past few hours have we heard one of his colleagues say: "How will we go on.. what will we do?"

That is a scary thought..for without anyone of integrity left to guide the listing ship, it surely will sink, and us along with it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. K&R n/t

[tishaLA]

25. The best critique I have read on here

(or the one with which I most agree) is not about whether he was "objective" or "agenda-driven," but that his brand of journalism was the ultimate insider game, where everyone knows everyone, has dinner with them, sleeps with their wives and husbands, and even vacations together. Russert was very good at maintaining at least the semblance of his working class background, but I don't think it would be unfair to say that he loved the trappings of power--the trappings of Washington. That love, in effect, made it impossible to be "objective," because he was always on the side of the powerful, no matter how many paeans he wrote to his humble Irish Catholicism.

[OneDemsConscience]

26. OMFG

Look, I have no doubt Russert was a fine man on a personal level and deserved the love and respect people feel for him.

But he was a shill of shills. He was practically a GOP operative. Time and again he threw softballs at Reps while grilling Dems with utter bs.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. General Electric lead the charge to war to aid the Pentagon. When the Pentagon turned against war in

2005 January about the time Bush decided to invade Iran, the General Electric News Network turned against the war.

GE does what the Pentagon does. It is as simple as that. Other news organizations curry favor with the FCC. GE relies upon the military for its business and I suspect that it employees lots of retired military. It does not really need FCC favors as much as it needs Pentagon favors, so it faced between the choice of pleasing the WH and pleasing the Pentagon, it is going to side with the military.

MSNBC has been the voice of the generals, not the voice of the people. It is also the voice of GE, the world's second or third largest company, manufacturer of nuclear power plants, of which 13 new ones are planned in the US as soon as President John McCain is sworn in and signs the requests. He is on record as loving nuclear energy.

Tim Russert was always loyal to his company, which is probably considered high praise in the world of corporate journalism.

[nomaco-10]

31. Russert was no shill, His only failing....

was his blind faith that all people in government had the best interest of the american people at heart. He was one of those flag waving, my country is the bestest in the whole wide world jingoist types. He was blinded by patriotism and it muddled his view to the point of not being objective enough at times. Not a good thing for a top notch journalist. I often wonder if he lamented his involvement in allowing many questions to go unasked and unanswered in some of the interviews he did during the run up to the war. Maybe we'll find out someday.

At the end of the day, I believe he was a truly decent individual who loved his family and his country and did the best he knew how to offer up some insight into politics on sunday mornings.

My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues at NBC

[kath]

37. Russert's MediaWhore-dom goes WAY further back than the Iraq occupation.

he was a major leader of at least 2 of the the RightWingChoruses in the past 10+ years, screaming "Clinton's Cock! Clinton's Cock! Clinton's Cock!" and "Gore's a Liar! Gore's a Liar! Gore's a Liar!", and spreading major bullshit far and wide.

He was Cheney's "best format", Cheney's go-to guy for spreading Bushco Bullshit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

Many examples online of how Neo-cons would come on his program, spouting lies and bullshit, and Russert just sat there, not seriously questioning any of it.

Evidence is out there. Turn off the teevee and educate yourselves.

[ileus]

39. He was the best no doubt....no we have no one.

all those left at this time blow chunks both right and left.

[Exilednight]

43. Why is everyone kissing Russet's ass now that he's dead. I will admit that he was a ........

smart and intelligent man, but he was not an equal opportunist when it came to poking at both sides. He often soft balled rethugs and played gotcha with Democrats.

One of the worst kept secrets in journalism was the fact that Russert was a Bush supporter.

People might not like the truth, but not liking it doesn't change it.

[LBJDemocrat]

45. Balanced?

I don't care to debate Russert's decency, but I am tired of this notion that balance is about pleasing half of the population that supports policies that are ethically unsound.

There is a right and a wrong, and equivocating between the two does not make you noble, it makes you cowardly, no matter what percentage of the population is on the wrong side. True, it makes you a good employee for a big media company; but it is not a virtue. An aptitude, maybe, but not a virtue.

30-50% of the United States supports corporate welfare, use of third world slave labor, and various violent policies which I won't even bother naming right now. There is a right and a wrong, and none of this is right. Period.

[sfam]

47. Wow, wouldn't it be nice if people actually read the OP prior to responding?

If you had, you'd notice this entire post was talking about the failings of balanced journalism.

[Kickin_Donkey]

49. Tim Russert was not a practioner of ...

balanced journalism.

As many posters have said, he was soft on Republicans and played gotcha with Democrats. He was a shill for General Electric, which is why Jack Welch picked him for the job.

Your ignorance on this issue is stunning.

I suggest you read the many articles about his work on The Daily Howler, MediaMatters, MakeThemAccountable, even the DU archives.

He was dangerous because he fooled naifs like yourself into believing he was fair and imbalanced, when he was nothing of the sort.

[tkmorris]

54. Perhaps your OP wasn't quite what you thought it was

A reread forces me to the same conclusion the first read did: you shower accolades on Tim to a greater extent than you criticize his supposed practice of allegedly "balanced journalism".

[Skittles]

52. what planet do you live on? n/t