Comments on: Political Culture: What Hath Russert Wrought?

By: kshane

kshane — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:46:22 +0000

I suppose an arrogant prick like Scarborough should be considered. While he is certainly partisan, from time to time he makes noises like that sound like he sees both sides. Plus he has had some unexpected success with Morning Joe.

By: kshane

kshane — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:46:22 +0000

By: kshane

kshane — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:46:22 +0000

By: Zack

Zack — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:34:12 +0000

I won't forget his testimony (also during the Libby trial) that everything that a source told to him was presumptuously < a href = 'http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/07/libby-live-tim-russert-one/' rel="nofollow">"off the record" unless he was given permission to use it. Which is a pretty significant perversion of the journalistic process, and wholly representative of the change our media has undergone from "journalism" to "stenography."

By: eric

eric — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:51:55 +0000

If Russert set the standard in the network news interview game, then I'd say his biggest failing was an obsession with the political process. Everybody who knew him says he loved the "game" of politics. Consequently, interviews would hone in on "horserace" questions, questions about tactics, strategy, everything to do with the game. This would often take up half of the interview time. Then, after those most important strategy issues ("So Mister Obama, if you lose state Y, what percentage of the remaining primaries will you have to win?"), issues of actual policy might be tackled, if there was time.

I can't single Russert out. That's the way it is on Fox, CBS, ABC. This mindset even infects local political coverage now. I'm alternately bored and angered by these interviews, because I would like more tough questions on policy proposals. For example, asking not just for policy statements, but for evidence that this or that prescription for our national ills has a good chance of working. How? Why? Why does the candidate expect the economy, families, employers, employees, consumers, to respond to a new law, a new tax, a new tax break, a new mandate, in the way the candidate wants?

Russert was what he was. He loved what he loved.

As for bias, Limbaugh said of Russert, "He was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist." What that means is that he was obsessed with how the game was played, left or right, it didn't matter.

By: JonCummings

JonCummings — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:21:53 +0000

Gosh, it sounds like you think AC is some kind of attention whore. (Soon they might have to change “AC/360″ to “AC 24/7.”) I suppose the white-haired wonder must be in consideration; he'd be OK, though I still think of him more as a flak-jacket wearer than a roundtable host.

I'm sure there are innumerable candidates outside NBC/MSNBC. I wonder if someone like Cooper is really going to want to give up his CNN ubiquity for a Sunday-mornings-only gig–and imagine the battle royale that would ensue if AC was foisted upon the already-boiling-over ego/talent pool at MSNBC!

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:59:36 +0000

One of the reasons Russert was easy to maneuver was because his strategy in asking questions and follow-ups rarely varied — formatically, that is. To prep administration officials for an appearance on Meet the Press, aides who worked for Bush & Co. would study tapes of Russert's interview style and coach their people on how to respond. Based on good prep (i.e., knowing how to make Russert back down after a line of questioning), Administration officials would go on the show so they could be asked the “tough” questions. But because Russert was generally locked into a format, they knew how to get beyond what was uncomfortable, and “move on” to what they wanted to talk about.

Oh, and I noticed Anderson Cooper wasn't on your short list, Jon. I think his people will be contacting you shortly.