Going Overboard on Russert
I don't get it.
I'm not going to lie. I felt terrible when I heard the news but only because he was someone I "knew" from television, because he seemed like a lovely man, and because I felt for his wife, son, and father. I still feel "shocked."
But that's it.
So tell me, why is thing being covered this way? How is it that the media barely notices 4,000 American (and 100,000 Iraqi) dead in the war but goes insane over this? Aren't thousands of dead and maimed kids (soldiers and children) infinitely worse, especially when the war is a fraud, engineered by lies and liars?
Sorry, folks.
The Russert story is pure celebrity journalism. It is no different than the coverage of the death of a movie star or a sports figure. Moving, captivating, but not "news" in the sense of being of significance.
I don't know what Russert would think. Frankly, I did not like MTP under Russert because it was too self-referential. There was too much Russert and his buddies all shmoozing about the news The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Carville (and sometimes their kids) were regulars was pretty telling.
Stephanopoulos, Schieffer and Blitzer may all have lots of celebrity friends (they may also show up on their respective shows) but their shows do not have the feel of a private party that the rest of us are invited to observe. No, I don't expect Sunday morning news shows to feel as substantial and solid as Bill Moyers but Russert lowered the bar. Not only is that buddy-buddy stuff tiresome, it is a symptom of the dangerous coziness between journalists and the people they are supposed to cover and even each other. I'm glad these guys are all having fun. But maybe they are having too much fun while both America and the world suffer from US policies which they barely scrutinize.
Russert knew, I think, the difference between news and Hollywood. This is Hollywood. Still, it does tell us where we are going as a culture. Gertrude Stein said America is the "only fabulous country." It may also be the silliest.
I remember years ago when John Lennon was shot, and at the same time, 10,000 people in Italy died in an earthquake. I remember saying something similar to what you are saying. I know see how abstract I was being, and you are being now. Russert actually played a role in millions of peoples lives -- and certainly in the lives of his media colleages -- and it would be strange, to say the least, to expect that people not pay attention to and grieve for someone who touched there lives most directly and identifiably than do those dying in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that Russert's death is more important in any 'objective sense' than the Iraq war.
June 17, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 17, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you enjoyed rmrd0000's comment (I did), you might enjoy this disquisition, too.
"But the Healys and Seelyes and Connollys and Kellys have been crawling all over our political culture, chasing Bill Clinton’s troubling blow-jobs—and Hillary Clinton’s troubling gender." And he doesn't stop with the girls; he gives it to the Irish Catholic boys -- Matthews, Barnicle, O'Reilly, Buchanan and too many others to list -- as well.
June 17, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link.
June 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for writing this. I experienced the same feeling yesterday watching the catholic boys kibitz on TV about another catholic boy.
I found it very disturbing that they all felt so comfortable to indulge their ethnicity while at the same time having been all up in arms when they witnessed Wright engaging in his ethnic reality and went completely bonkers as if they were somehow underseige!
I was angered by the fact that they could presume to be a reflection fo what others beleived and not have any regard for the diversity of thought, views and cultures that watch not only MTP but Hardball as well.
Such sactimonious privileged entitlement on full display was utterly frightening.
It made me appreciate Obama's candidacy even more and to see exactly how the dominant themes, thoughts and cultural responses have greatly shifted in this country.
Buchanan, Matthews and Barnicle are generational dinosaurs.
Rachel Maddow, Schuster and Olberman are inDEED a breath of fresh air.
June 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've nailed my quarrel with Russert. He was an good journalist and better than average interviewer I suppose, but like Matthews and Buchanan and Barnacle he couldn't get out of his cultural box and he didn't even want to get out of it. He took pride in being in that box as do they.
You can't be a great journalist or a great leader or a great anything if you can't see the bigger picture. Good, yes. Good guy, yes. Great, no.
June 17, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember these guys aren't typical Irish Catholics, any more than Dershowitz or Speilberg are ordinary Jews, or 50 Cent and Jay-Z ordinary blacks, or Steinem and Dworkin are ordinary women, etc.
The power, wealth, fame, and inherent isolation from ordinary reality, has made them caricatures of their former selves. Magnifying whatever tendencies brought them to fame, from habitual extremism to conformity.
June 17, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, they're not in the Catholic Irish box at all. At least not the same box most Catholic Irish are in.
They're fully in the elite, multimillionaire, pundit box.
This whole narcissistic veneration of Russert isn't because he's Catholic Irish, it's because he was a wealthy and powerful pundit in the MSM. Of course even the MSM must feel a bit self conscious over the endless exposition, so it becomes neccessary to eulagize him as though he was just another guy at the local pub, who we hapilly shared a few beers and conversation with.
Nonsense. It's so contrived and narcissistic.
They're really eulogizing and venerating themselves, before the fact.
June 17, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree they are eulogizing themselves.
But the conceit that they represent the Irish Catholic working class also bothers me because they think it is sufficient to be in touch with Irish Catholic working class northeastern men. The country and the world are a lot more complicated than that and if you can only speak for that segment, you aren't a journalist, you are an advocate.
June 17, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making it anti-catholic is kind of obnoxious. It's not as though they have much in common with ordinary Catholics.
Yes the MSM is insular, but it's not so much about religion or even race as it's about the wealth and power of celebrity, not to mention the constraints of fame and inability to blend in with ordinary folks, that creates the insularity.
The same things happens with music and movie stars regardless of color or creed. Many become increasingly disconnected from reality over the years until they're ultimately these exotic creatures bred in isolation, becoming caricatures of their former self.
From Barbra Streisand as the ultimate hippy dippy, to Toby Keith as the ultimate ignorant hick, etc.
The MSM is based on tabloid sensationalism, commercialism, and equivocation to lowest common denominator demographics. It tends to select people with those inclinations. So, MSM celebrities typically become caricatures of themselves as the ultimate equivocating tabloid sophists.
June 17, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree MJ. In fact I was at a loss when I heard from Keith Olbermann on Countdown last night that MSNBC was gonna televise his funeral live like he was a "head of state".
It is part of the MSM culture. They (the media talking heads) are bigger than the news they supposedly report. Go for the sensational, tawdry, titillating and celebrate celebrity while the important, substantive issues get largely ignored. Tim Russert was a media icon, very powerful and recognizable. I was saddened he, or anybody, died at such a young age. But many people sadly die before their time in wars, because of dangerous products or tainted food allowed on the market because of inadequate inspections, due to the fact they can't afford health insurance, etc. The people we aren't familiar with don't matter and the famous do. Coverage of his death reminds me of the sensational coverage we get locally each time there is another tragic "home invasion" or some kids get killed out because the teen driver of the car was doing 110 mph on a winding back road...breaking news, our reporter is on the scene, we'll have round the clock coverage, footage at 11:00.
The media is no longer primarily about the news and providing information. It is about entertainment first and information second.
June 17, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and I will add that I cannot watch any of those talking headache shows because each time I would turn on any of them it would feel exactly like a HOME INVASION by narcissistic con men and women (except Maddow) who pander to my worst instincts in an attempt to sell me to their advertisers - informing me of reality has nothing to do with their shows. There couldn't be a bigger waste of time in the "news" world. It exists only for their advertisers and their bank accounts.
Pragmatically, it was inevitable that news programming would end up not for the public but for the corporate sponsors who pay for it. It couldn't have happened any other way, given the craven nature of "free-market" commercialism and the lowest common denominator programming it engenders.
Even PBS and NPR have long ago shrunk way below the credibility threshold since major corporate sponsorships began neutering the public's
"independent" news media's attitude and coverage (Corporate sponsorships began in the 1970s [maybe earlier] as part of a specific corporate strategy to coopt coverage of themselves and the ultimately political nature of their investment strategies.).
More and more, I see those latter 1960s and earlier 1970s days of revolutionary breakthroughs in attitudes, creativity, and public information as a high watermark of our open society. It was happening all over the world too.
These days, however, even the BBC is a major co-sponsor of the Iraq War and Occupation, and corporate mergers in news and entertainment have so far successfully distracted, divided, and conquered the potential opposition to the ongoing military escalations by the Anglo-American neoimperial nations.
The internet - God Save Net Neutrality - gives us the possibility of reclaiming that high ground and even going beyond, however.
So there is hope and hopefully, yes we can.
June 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the coverage of news becomes defined by the amount of advertising dollars that can be made off of it the news stops being objective and truly informative. I agree with your take on PBS. While the News Hour is currently the gold standard for television journalism even they have succumbed and given in to corporate benefactors. Can we expect NBC News to honestly report on issues that would hurt General Electric? Or ABC with Disney?
But part of the problem is how intellectually slothful the American public has become. The majority of the American people refuse to or can't think on their own. They need to be told what the events mean and they can't be bothered to engage in independant thought. Getting in the "Way Back" machine and listening to a hypothetical conversation, but one that assuredly occurred, between 2 Americans (maybe after watching Dick Cheney on MTP?)...
"Geez it sounds like we will be attacking Iraq."
"Yeah it does. They said on the news that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. So I am all for it."
An independant press was supposed to be the cornerstone of our freedoms by accurately reporting to the people what our government was doing...it cannot be that when making money from corporations, whose profits are often directly related to laws passed by the government on their behalf, trumps everything else.
June 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
June 17, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 17, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire your empathy for those that must find "family" on the tube but find that your comments actually illustrate what seems to be at the core of what is wrong here.
You describe an alienation in which people seek the succor of family from the mass media while also being able to click the remote to eliminate any unwanted reactions that may arise from experiencing this relationship. In the world of yore, when family members were both a joy and a pain the relationships that developed were beyond the egocentric. One had to accommodate, one had to work to understand the needs and feelings of the other. One had to go beyond their selves and in so doing developed beneficial characteristics such as social responsibility.
The family mediated by the media allows a shallow imitation in which one may wallow in a sense of grief without really having lost anyone actually close to them. They do not have to adjust for lost earnings, dispose of the lost member's property, rearrange family hierarchies, etc. In a word they do not have to actually experience all of grief, only that part in which they wish to indulge. And at the same time there is no opportunity to see young family members grow into new roles to fill the vacancy.
This media created simulacrum satiates without nourishing. This affects not just those that willingly or inadvertently fall into this trap but the wider society as well and hence the rest of us who dwell within it. I have no clicker that can switch off this society.
June 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the comments left by Elizabeth2. It is much better that we spend time on the death of someone like Russert, than on some other media-types that I will assume us TPM readers would place in a lower position on an importance scale.
The importance that all people in the media play in many people in everyday societies life, well, that is a peculiar thing and a much grander discussion.
On the whole I find that a bit of mourning over Russert, be it in the form television coverage, is not unwarranted. Has it been excessive? Well, I wouldn't know. I switched the TV off and took the dog for a walk.
June 17, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Elizabeth. His book about his father, and his second book about so many other people's fathers, seem to have touched so many people across America. He was clearly an extraordinarily warm, generous and generally wonderful man to all the people who knew him. They all seem to have found him so very special. So it seems totally understandable that his tragic death at such a relatively young age would evoke a special reaction.
I agree with people's commentaries on the state of the media nowadays but I think that's a separate issue. I don't like a link being made. It feels like kicking a dog when it's down.
June 18, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and this article shows what's wrong with you. "...especially when the war is a fraud, engineered by lies and liars?" Why can't you make a point about the reporting of Russert's passing vs. the other deaths around the world without injecting your own left wing spin? It's the same thing. The same deficiency. You have a political goal so you use the same "hollywood" theatrics to make it as you condem others for the same thing.
June 17, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't you make a point about the reporting of Russert's passing vs. the other deaths around the world without injecting your own left wing spin?
Ummm, because...this is a left-wing political blog?
Ummm, because...that's we you read it?
Ummm, because...that's why YOU read it?
Ummm, because...the questions that MJ asks and the juxtapositions are good questions that make good points?
...among others
June 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 17, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreeing that though Russert was clearly a decent human being , his work was over-praised there was one exception : election night 2000.
While the other network anchors were all describing what seemed to be a complicated situation with Florida and several western states all undeclared , Russert took an ordinary flip chart and crayon,listed the open states with their electoral votes and demonstrated those western states could be ignored- whoever carried Florida would win.
It was impressive.
June 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone who excised TV News from his life about 10 years ago, I actually have no impression of Mr Russert except the what I've heard from other pre- and post-mortem.
Jim McKay died recently, a "newsman" who easily had as important an impact on TV journalism, though as a commentator and reporter on ABC's Wide World of Sports, but he was 86, no one was surprised.
If you look at the average age range of the folks covering Russert's demise, you can get a sense of what's really going on. They see themselves. This is narcissism.
The best eulogy for Tim Russert was give on Friday by Rachel Maddow on her radio show when she said (and I'm paraphrasing), "We're going to set aside talking about Tim Russert and move on to the news, because that's what he would he wanted."
June 17, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend (uneasily, I might add - more later) to agree with the thrust of this discussion. A great deal of what we all somehow intuit is "wrong" with modern journalism, is encapsulated in the career and in the unfortunate and untimely death of Mr. Russert, and the faux death-of-a- statesman aftermath of that event:
We have the journalist as Superstar. We have the journalist as a respected member of the club: One of the inside guys(usually) who get to participate in at least the illusion that they are involved in running things. We have the journalist as a "player" - on stage, and not in the audience where he belongs. We have the journalist who (AT BEST) confuses the issue of whether his loyalties lie with the public, or lie with the inside power-brokers with whom he wants to (MUST?) stay on good terms. We have the journalist as infotainer. We have the journalist as multi-millionare conglomerate.
We definitely HAVE all these things, and I submit that not a single one of these things is good for the healthy practice of journalism.
Honor compells me to sugest that we have one OTHER thing as well. I venture here uneasily, because I'm headed onto terrain often exploited by demagogues and various sorts of kooks, and I fully realize it. Nevertheless, it must be said: We have here a journalism too much informed (in my view) by religious bias, and an accompanying religious clannishness. I have lived 60 years on this earth, and never before felt it either necessary or appropriate to make such an observation (I have been generally indifferent to ANY individual's mainstream religious leanings, previously). I make it now only with the greatest reluctance, because I must unhappily conclude that it has become a REAL detriment to good journalism:
It seems to MATTER now (to an extent I don't recall previously) that a given journalist is Irish-Catholic, or Jewish, or Evangelical. It matters (of course) in forming their basic values, but it ALSO seems to matter more than it should in determining who they talk to, what they talk about, what they think about, who's "in", who's "out", and what the assumed areas of consensus and the prevailing underlying attitudes might be that don't even REQUIRE a thorough discussion. If journalism is properly the province of FACTS, it seems to me that a preoccupation with FAITH (the antithesis of facts) cannot be a good thing for the practice of the journalistic craft.
June 17, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
" 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.
June 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think of it this way. 99% of the "American public" didn't watch his show.
That should make you feel better.
June 17, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Good one!
June 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would make me feel better, if that 99% weren't watching "journalists" worse than Russert.
It bothers me that our mainstream media have a captive audience of hundreds of millions, yet the material these media present is mostly misleading rather than educational, and stultifying rather than inspiring.
June 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, many millions in fact are getting better journalism than Russert.
The News Hour for example, as imperfect as it may be, is still better, receives far higher favorable polls for public trust, reaches vastly more people since it's almost universally broadcast, and has an audience of about 2.7 million daily viewers, and 8 million viewers who see the program at least once weekly.
Beyond that, there are many quality news sources that individually have far smaller draws, from TPM to the New Yorker to Democracy Now, but which cumulatively reach far larger numbers than the cable news networks combined.
The cable networks are a bit like Campbell's Soup. Sure, they're the largest purveyor of salty, putrid, canned puke; but it represents a tiny fraction of the nation's overall diet and virtually zero percentage of nutrition.
June 17, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no substitute for multiple sourcing
June 18, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's like saying that the ice cream is 95% fat free.
It's that overly influential 5% that has me worried
June 18, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't say I agree with the premise of your question but nonetheless, the coverage of Russert's untimely death can be considered another classic case of the media going over the top. As a viewer of his Sunday show, my heart goes out to his family, but like other viewers, we do still have equal grief and sorrow for the families of the service men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true the coverage of the wars has gone down greatly throughout the media, but just because it's not "front page news" doesn't mean we're not thinking of them nor supporting them. The war is still causing consternation and stirring up protest around the world, so, no, the 4,000+ dead are not forgotten and will not be for gotten.
June 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
He was one of the gang. He was a part of their clubbiness. So, they feel more a sense of loss and they all wanted to be remembered as they are remembering Russert.
Since they have to work overtime to cover heads of states ad nauseum when they die...why not have that same ad nauseum coverage for one of their own..whom they all know worked like long and hard, who relentlessly strove to make the news 'better' and as a consequence his death was untimely due to the sheer stress of their profession.
June 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink