TV News After Russert

If there is one thing I hate is when someone dies, who was not a very good person; everyone begins to speak about them as though they were a nice person. They talk about how honest, sweet, kind, courteous, respectful and generous they were. I mean, let's be respectful to the dead, but a spade is a spade.

Now my opinion of Tim Russert:

I met Tim while in New York City some years back. He was without a doubt one of the most honest, sweet, kind, courteous, respectful and generous men I have ever met; AND THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.

Roger Dean Kiser, author

It will be interesting to see if this affects political analysis. In a broad stroke, my preference is for the "straight arrow" approach, but that matches my personality.

Being a political news junky, I am enjoying tonight's program. However, I feel that you are covering only 2/3 of the story. There is 1) the "old school," Russert-style, neutral jouralistic moderating. Then there is 2) the new, "shouting of opinions school," epitomized by Keith Olbermann on the Left and Bill O'Reilly on the Right. There is a highly influential, third style of contemporary news reporting, as practiced by Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" and Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. In particular, Jon Stewart is an absolutely neutral, "equal opportunity abuser," asking tough questions and delivering scathing satire about politicians and policies on both sides of the aisle. Stewart is extremely knowledgeable and does his homework; perhaps not as prodigiously as Russert, but he practices a similar style of doing his homework, asking tough questions and then sitting back and waiting for the answers. These programs, though they are listed in the Emmys as "Comedy/Variety" programs, are surely current affairs shows. They use satire, parody and humor to skewer the issues of the day.
Last year, Jon Stewart played a concert at West Point - a bastion of conservative thinking. We bought tickets and settled in behind what seemed like the entire corps of cadets. I wondered to myself if my "neutral" thesis about Stewart were true - and figured I would certainly find out tonight if he was considered simply another bastion of liberal media.
Stewart took the stage at West Point and the place went nuts. Through the applause and cheers a young male voice shouted: "WE LOVE YOU, MAN!" Stewart shot back: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, BROTHER."
There may be hope, yet, for a neutral style of current affairs reporting. It just feels and sounds different than the old school we're used to.

Liz Nealon

Agree that O'Reilly, and Olberman are biased. Within their programs that's ok. When NBC has Olberman anchor live election coverage that's where I draw the line, and cry foul.

As to Stewart. Absolutely love the Daily Show. But this? "In particular, Jon Stewart is an absolutely neutral, "equal opportunity abuser," asking tough questions and delivering scathing satire about politicians and policies on both sides of the aisle." Sorry, Stewart is lefty to the max. Does not go after dems, or liberals, except the cases of "light, or humerous faux pas". Whereas he does go after the right on the issues. Still love the show, but he's not unbiased.

The nets should take a lesson from the public on how Russert's death is being felt. America loves fair play, and the people are showing it

When I tried to come up with a list of names for possible Russert successors, I couldn't come up with a-one. 'Nuff said.

There is nobody I can think of, either currently working or on the horizon, who uses the "dispassionate observer" method of journalism. Most, if not all, incorporate their personal and/or political beliefs into their oevre (collected works). Dam' shame -- Russert was one-of-a-kind. Dam' shame -- we let it get that way.

There is a huge vacuum left by the loss of Tim Russert. A positive, inquisitive, ethical, well-mannered, well-educated Catholic journalist/lawyer. I can't think of anyone else who could garner such a superlative description. Plus a sense of humor & an impish grin or a disarming,welcoming smile. He did use all the talents God made available to him; nothing stopped him. He wasn't "old school" or a "starched shirt" but he was a great researcher, who alos used logic in debate and writing skills learned in high school, college, and law school. All congressional personnel, all CEOs,etc. should be knowledgeable, ethical, moral, and as dedicated as Tim Russert. He stood out from the crowd as a quality person. An image that just came to mind is Jimmy Steward in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." A man driven to do right acts!
Let's hope & pray that the phrase "cream always rises to the top" applies here & there will be many, many more great people who rise to the top. Quality people ARE missed.

The following points struck me during this show:

1. The professor from Syracuse should have been challenged on his assertion that NPR and mainstream media is liberal. If there is empirical evidence of that assertion I would be interested to see it.

2. Before Fox, there were no liberal counterparts to O'Reilly and Hannity in the mainstream media. Although I agree that pure objectivity is an impossibility, the intention of mainstream broadcast media is to inform. Fox news was created for the purpose of persuading people to adopt a certain political point of view.

3. Yelling, screaming and name-calling is not informative and is a poor substitute for civil and honest debate.

4. I have no doubt that Russert was a decent man and that he probably was the best that the mainstream media had to offer, but ultimately he did not impress me. Journalism is a search for the truth and the truth does not necessarily exist in the middle between two points of view. During the show there were comments to the effect that Russert represented conventional wisdom or the consensus. What the heck does that have to do with the truth?

5. Beltway journalists are too cozy with their sources and the last thing they would ever do is to offend a high level source at the risk of losing access. One would think that once a source is proven to be a liar that the duped journalist would get pissed and not credit another thing said by the source. Yet, that is not what seems to have happened. Cheney said without qualification that Iraq had WMDs. After being so wrong without taking any responsibility for his error, Cheney deserved nothing but derision. Yet, some of the testimony that came out in the Plame affair was that Cheney considered Russert an easy mark. As much as Russert may have been fair, in my opinion he was a creature of the beltway who failed to challenge the "official sources" that repeatedly deceived the American people.