Yesterday, Chris Mathews had Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnacle on as guests. They paid tribute to Tim Russert. They all pointed out their Irish Catholic upbringing. Their roots made for great cops and great prosecutors. They were filled with the need to "get the bad guys".

At one point Buchanan told a joke about being told that Fordham graduates existed to be the FBI guys who sent the Harvard grads to jail. "The traitors were at Harvard", Buchanan laughed.

As I watched this spectacle, the feeling that came over me was that I was witnessing what was truly wrong in MSM. Here were these very insular, ethnocentric men who had the ability to deterine what the important stories of the day would be. They represented a very narrow sliver of the population as a whole.

None had very much contact with other ethnic groups in their formative years and all "clung" to their religion. Mathews understood the woman from Pennsylvania who asked Obama about a flag pin. Mathews was at a loss when trying to understand Michelle Obama's pride comment. As I watched I actually got more and more upset.

Here we had Pat Buchanan watching Russert take down the racist candidate for Louisiana Governor,David Duke on a Meet The Press clip that was shown. Without missing a beat, Buchanan agreed that Russert was a great interviewer. The racist that Pat Buchanan had spewed out was swept under the rug. Buchanan was happily at home with his fellow alter boys. Buchanan is one of the reasons that Rev Wright's views have a base in reality.

MSNBC has exposed itself as isolationalist when it comes to truly offering a different point of view on a variety of issues. There may be isolated exceptions like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but for the most part, NBC and MSNVBC are pretty much Whitebread and very Centrist in their point of view. It was in full display in the Russert tribute on Chris Mathews.

I think you're right on here, MJ. All the commentators as well. You've all said something that's very hard to say. We don't tend to like death and families left behind or the loss of familiar figures.

But, had Russert not died, some of us would likely have been complaining about his show this week -- his choice of guests, his choice of gotcha questions and softballs, how the wrong story spun out of MTP on Sunday...

I guess that as a celebrity journalist he got a louder voice than most in the national conversation and that means he had a notable life. But you know, I see a lot of people at TPMCafe who strike me as more qualified to have a louder voice than Russert does. Wasn't that notion always part of the internet conversation?

Just have to say it -- I think you are all being harsh. (No, no defense of Pat Buchanan but then there never is. He would offend talking about this or anything else. What else is new.) It's the wonder of the remote control -- you can switch to another channel or grab a book to read, or take the dog for a walk.

To many people "out there" someone like Tim truly is 'family' and he was a particularly nice, likeable family member, one who died with no warning and tragically young. I'll never forget the very real grief that my bright and involved shut-in grandmother experienced when the womsone who was regularly on Washington Week in Review died suddenly. ------------- For the people on NBC and MSNBC, he WAS their friend -- and their boss. In the rest of the world you'd put a wreath on the shop door and simply close up for a week. That isn't possible, however. So let the people who need to grieve.

Yes, life is unfair, our perspective is skewed, every life counts -- even (maybe especially) the soldiers who die in Iraq deserve as much honor and mourning as Tim Russert. But that's the point - *every* life matters and every family deserves the chance to mourn. Russert's family was more extended and more public, so public that some people who don't need that mourning wind up watching. But there is always the remote control... After all the air time spent on Britney, ugly rumors, and mis-statements a 5 year old would understand were a simple mistake, it's hard to find grief over a good man to be particularly offensive.

Reading all these comments makes me feel fortunate, even privileged, to not have a teevee. Apparently "celebrity journalism" is an unavoidable habit that one loves to hate, kind of like going overboard on Russert about going overboard in Russert.

As far as the first question, why does the death of one newscaster get so much attention, and 4,000 deaths in Iraq so much less? This is a media phenomenon seen again and again, and commented on at some length (with facts and figures) by Nicholas Kristof in his column a few months back. The more personal and up-close a news story is, the more readers respond to it. People respond to individuals and specifics, not generalities and groups. In fact, in one study, donors gave far less to help two children than to help one child, even when the children were named, because they could not as readily respond to the tragedy of two children's plight, as one, even though the suffering was twice as great, affecting more people. No one said it was rational.

" How is it that the media barely notices 4,000 American (and 100,000 Iraqi) dead in the war but goes insane over this?"

Because the mainstream media are egotistical numbskulls. It's a crime that the American public feeds these sociopaths.

Russert was one of "them", "them" being those you see tripping all over themselves to get in front of a camera to express their heartfelt sorrow and reminisce with warm, cuddly stories. "them" is the DC/New York media gang, the same gang that circle the wagons when one of theirs gets criticized, the same gang that are firing back at the criticism of the alleged sexism in their coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"them" control what gets broadcast, and since Russert was a highly visible and well known "them", "them" took over the airwaves and force fed you what is important to "them", deifying one of "them."

And lets not forget, its a cost effective way to fill air time on 24/7 cable shows.

For the most part, I agree with you, M.J. The coverage of Russert's death has left me with the impression that the man himself was a generous human being and a kind soul, but his passing does not change my opinion of his work as a journalist. Russert contributed mightily to the "gotcha" style of journalism that is now so prevalent on television. His standard practice was to cross-examine his interview subjects using their own statements as exhibits. On the surface this seems the essence of fairness, but mostly it was just tiresome. His obsessive focus on niggling details often obscured more significant issues. (His performance as a debate moderator during the primary season was particularly disgraceful.) And even though the TV eulogizing has depicted him as being above "the fray," in many ways he was at the center of that fray.

Still, I do mourn the man. His personal warmth came across on television. And I think the reaction to his death has much more to do with who he was as a person than who he was as a journalist.

I turned to my wife last night, after they trotted out Luke, and said, "What is this, a cult?"

I always thought his brand of "Gotcha" journalism - when he'd read a selective quote or replay a portion of a taped interview - was pretty weak, regardless of who he was grilling.

Seemed like he was trying to embarass his interviewee rather than add substance to the national discourse.

His fingerprints on the Plame case and then denial of responsibility was particularly odious.

by the way-

Since when is 58 considered a particularly "young" age to kick it?

(I speak as a 57 year-old.)

No doubt, the blogosphere plays a very important role in the dissemination of information. But remember this: because of the stature of MTP as a place for serious political discourse, aspiring or current politicians deem(ed) it necessary to appear on MTP and to submit to often very tough questioning (sure there was light stuff sometimes, so what!). David Duke's gubernatorial campaign was exposed as fakery and scuttled, Ross Perot showed himself, in cross examination, to know little about the economy - bam, they were both toast, and Russert got Chaney to provide a record of his malicious idiocy that anyone who cares about history has to value -- the list is rather long of politicians who were confronted with their contradictions and made to make a public record, often to their chagrin, and this wasn't through muckraking bloggery, but by politicians subjecting themselves to the sort of cross examination that no press conference, debate or any other forum that I know of offered a comparable experience. Part of the strength of MTP was access to people in power, and this is certainly the weakness of bloggers -- most have almost no access.

The idea that Russert had to be perfect, or free of idiosyncracies in order to be recognized for making an extraordinary contribution to political discourse is about the most illiberal attitude I can imagine. The rhetorical trope of 'hollywood' sounds more like sour grapes that substantive analysis. Just wait -- former blogger Chuck Todd may end up taking Russert's place -- I hope he does because he knows politics, and tell me that you won't envy him having that opportunity thrown his way!

The problem we have here is the mixing of the personal with the professional. For the celbrojourno set they can't distinguish between the two because they are what they do in their own minds... or at least I perceive them to have that problem.

It is true that the celebrity "journalist" elite are far too cozy with eachother, the people they allegedly cover and so on. They represent a suffocatingly homogenous world view and their "common" wisdom completely discounts the experience and viewpoint of almost all the actual common people of the nation. They are residents of the elite little village that sees the trampling of the Constitution as a policy dispute and the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation for imperialist reasons as a strategic choice. They are so rich now and most of them have been so removed from "real" life in America for so long they simply cannot understand what life is like for most of us in today's world. I found it ironic that one of the great virtues they extolled about Mr. Russert was how he was always the regular guy, but that is how many of the elite act like to think of themselves. They mistake a lack of pretension with not having been absorbed by the Borg. Mr. Russert's own clear biases made it obvious how long it had been since he was a regular guy. Once upon a time he was a regular guy, but Russert had been a part of the DC establishment for so long he was thoroughly infused with their values, their beliefs and their priorities as exemplified in his ultimate insider statement about all discussions being off the record. One example I could offer is that a regular guy wouldn't have been silent when he knew who was violating the law for political purposes in the Plame affair. No, a regular guy would have reported the criminal and not have had to be forced to testify.

Clearly, the celebrity journalisists like Russert and Stephanopolous (the all-time successful politico wannabe celebrity)are part of the problem they are supposed to be covering and they revel in it. For them, that's the whole point. The emphasis is on the celebrity part and their own personal agrandizement as opposed to the alleged "journalism" they practice.

As far as the DC based celebrity journalist corps is concerned Russert was a standout because he was actually intelligent and reasonably informed in comparison to the dimwitted and collosally uninformed standard that holds sway in their "profession". Unlike most of them who just go to J school and practice looking good on camera, he had actually played the game on the Hill and had worked for a Governor so he knew a bit about the game he covered and he provided much of the "color" for the broadcasting of the political "games" much as ex-athletes do for football or baseball broadcasts. Russert was more popular in this role than the man closest to him in terms of background, the famous Mr. Mathews--another onetime regular guy now multi-millionaire who, are always reminded, hails originally from Philly.

Much of the eulogizing of Mr. Russert included mentions of his unending love of "the game" of politics. The treatment of our national political and governmental life is far too often considered little more than a sporting event by those in politics and certainly those in the celebrojourno club. Naturally, politics and government can, in some sense, be viewed as a game, but it is unhealthy and corrupting to view it that way all the time. This view breeds cynicism and a debasing of the issues when seriousness is required. Many of us simply do not agree that the dominant political is just a benign competition between essentially two competing teams or points of view that are not all that far apart, etc... This is the mindset that makes people think it doesn't matter if you elect Bush or Gore when we know now very clearly that is a dangerous way to view our politics. Russert was one of the chief cheerleaders of this very distorted and inaccurate viewpoint.

But, the bottom line is, they are all cozy and they are all friends with other celeb "journalists" and with the powerful people they allegedly "cover" or report on (it's often more like who they fawn over). The atmosphere they operate in encourages them to be self absorbed and it makes them focus on their own self-importance individually and collectively. They are, after all, "the news" right? They decide for us, they "inform" us as they see fit and so forth. They do a really shitty job in the opinion of most of us who understand there is a whole lot more there to talk about and consider, but such voices and viewpoints are not welcomed to or allowed on corporate airwaves. The point is they all constitute a fairly small, closed and chummy community. They unexpectedly lost a friend last Friday. So, they did and are doing what they know how to do which is to share their own feelings about the matter and they have easy and free access to every form of media. It's a big loss to them so it must be a big loss to us and they will make it so by overdoing the coverage and the praise, etc...

In a genuine way, they can't help but do what they are doing regarding their friend. Now in contrast, the nation, which is becoming more and more a version of Pavolv's dog naturally goes right along with the choreographed shock, loss and sadness and grief just as they go along with all the storylines and themes served up to them whether it is lies about WMD or suddenly being concerned about what Obama's retired preacher said in a speech. Dutifully, the viewers around the nation adopt the opinions they are fed and behave in quite predictable ways in response to the stimulii they are given. The people of Buffalo suddenly swing into action on cue, viewers across the nation discuss what Tim "meant" to them and they send thousands of e-mails expressing their emotional ordeal in the face of the tragedy and grieve along with Tom Brokaw and Mike Barnacle and the whole cast of familiar faces about the man they cared only a little about before his death, but being good and well trained viewers they quickly adopt the feelings and opinions of the talking heads which serves only to ratify the often overblown praise and hyperbole regarding Mr. Russert's professional, personal, and even spiritual contribution to this world.

The clebrojournos all believe they do a great job and that they work hard "getting at the facts" and "reporting" and "being tough" with the powerful while they so dutifully look the other way amidst widespread corruption and criminality among the powerful, while they lick their boots and whose behinds they so lovingly sniff. They are so thoroughly corrupted and rotten to the core (with a handful of notable exceptions) they simply are incapable of taking an unbiased look at what they do and how bad a disservice they do the country on a daily basis regarding almost every area of the news with which they are involved.

The public orgy of self pity and grieving by the millionaires who deliver our news is to them, the greatest way to honor their friend and they do not and can not see the imbalance between their overdone coverage of one man's untimely death versus their refusal to take a hard look at the slaughter and hundreds of thousands of murders their powerful buddies in Washington have caused in Iraq for example. They just can't and never will see it. Because in the end folks, they are just typical, small-minded, limited world view humans who have lots of money, power and fame so it's very simply all about them. They do not belong to a "profession" and they do not act in professional ways. They belong to a club that performs and entertains the populace to keep them distracted from the most important issues not unlike how the bread and circuses of Rome were used and this distraction keeps them pleasantly distracted while the elite do as they please with our country and the world.

Having said all this, I think it a shame that anyone, Mr. Russert included would have their life ended at such a relatively young age. I do have great sympathy for his wife and son under the circumstances which cannot be easy for them. Nontheless, Russert lived a charmed if not tremendously long life--far better than most people can imagine! He made millions! He got to see and do things most people never will. He seemed to value his relationship with his loved ones more than anything else and that's the sign of someone whose priorities in the long run are well ordered. If one cannot live one's life to extended age, Mr. Russert's was a pretty damn good and full one for 58. I understand the grief his friends and family, but they also have a great deal to celebrate in terms of his life.

oleeb,

excellent post, excellent.

I'm glad MJ said this. It's been bugging me too.

Of course a celebrity death is, well, a celebrity death. We all know the routine. Mandatory respect for the dead, sympathy for family, testimonials to our shared humanity, etc.

Among journalists it's a necessary fealty to the powers that be. Long live the King.... and the monarchy, the apparatus, the court, the petitioners, the merchant class, etc.

Not to say there aren't celebrities who I will truly grieve for. But personally, I was never a big fan of Russert, or any of the MSM pundits.

Maybe I'm being callous or breaking the rules of celebrity death, but I see celebrities as public servants who in exchange for great wealth, fame, and power, are supposed to provide great joy, leadership, insight, wisdom, or something of enormous value to humanity. It should require great brilliance, courage, knowledge, or some human quality in unusual abundance. Even unto death their stature should be proportionate to public service.

To be blunt, it's hard for me to pretend Russert was an all-caps GREAT AMERICAN WHO WILL BE MISSED. He was an elite insider and will be missed by elite insiders.

I feel a bit ripped off by the MSM in general. This nonstop reverence of Russert also seems out of proportion to his contribution. Like an ancient monarchy mourning the death of some Count or Baron of the Provence of Punditude.

As MJ points out, what about the soldiers who are dying? What about all those people working for important causes in ignominy?

My eulogy for Russert: he was an OK journalist in an era of corporate media that tends to hammer down the nail that sticks up. He was (surely) beloved by family, friends, and peers.