Howling Back

So I wrote this post about how Tim Russert is whack, and then Kevin Drum linked to it and added the idea -- not present in my post -- that "this is not a partisan issue. The gotcha routine, no matter who it comes from, is bad for everyone, both Republicans and Democrats." Bob Somerby threw a fit, declaring "It’s time to give up on Kevin and Matt and all the Good Boys of the Village suburbs" and throughout the item just attributes Kevin's views on this to me, though I said no such thing in the post I wrote.

Meanwhile, though I don't really want to speculate as to Russert's motives, I think the impact of his methods is pretty unambiguously bad for Democrats. It's not a "partisan issue" in the sense that one could, in principle, be both a member of the Republican Party and also be a politician whose career would benefit from participating in a serious discussion of important issues, but in practice the whole ludicrous enterprise is a boon to the Party of Flim-Flam.

Then on top of that, what I didn't get into because I wanted to talk about Russertism more broadly, is that it seems obvious that Russert has a special animosity for Hillary Clinton or perhaps for both Clintons. That gets into the whole other question of why it is that possession of a bitter and contentless aversion to the Clinton family is considered something worth flaunting -- or even exaggerating -- in DC press circles (which I guess we're supposed to call The Village these days, but since I grew up in the Village in NYC I don't care for the term) rather than the sort of thing one keeps to oneself.

But to summarize, Russert's interview methods obscure the good ideas of people who have good ideas, but also obscure the bad ideas of people who have bad ideas, drawing all political conversation into a miasma of substance-free posturing. I don't happen to think it's worthwhile to append every lamentation of the sorry state of political discourse with the observation that said sorry state is bad for liberals and (most) Democrats (seems to work fine for Joe Lieberman and it was always a boon to John Breaux) but for what it's worth I think Kevin should consider the fact that partisan politics is an essentially zero sum game so given Russert's considerable influence his quirks and derangements can't really be non-partisan in their impact.

Comments

somerby has done exceptional work and one certainly understands his frustrations, but his fit-throwing has become so predictable and tedious that i can't actually read him any more.

Posted by howard | November 15, 2007 1:20 AM

Russert obviously dislikes HRC - so does Matthews and Williams - The latter just gave Rudy such a fawing interview that it was comic - far funnier than Williams SNL skit (Not as funny as Rudy on SNL though).

Russert was obviously disappointed by his old boss Moynihan rushing to endorse HRC when he thought she would be running against Rudy. Rudy quotes Moynihan a lot now, since Moynihan is not around to rebuke him for his support for Iberian Water Torture and the war etc.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 1:24 AM

"it seems obvious that Russert has a special animosity for Hillary Clinton or perhaps for both Clintons."

Man, you're awfully clueless sometimes, Matthew.

If Mark Penn said that up is down, you'd protest loudly, and a week later, you'd be saying that it seems obvious that up is down.

Posted by Petey | November 15, 2007 1:24 AM

Somerby is very strict with you guys - He reminds one of Hedly Lamarr getting upset at that guy chewing gum on line in Blazing Saddles.

But he is correct nonetheless - Incidentally, Hedley was probably correct to shoot the gum chewer too - To set a tone.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 1:32 AM

As to the crux of the argument:

"I think Kevin should consider the fact that partisan politics is an essentially zero sum game so given Russert's considerable influence his quirks and derangements can't really be non-partisan in their impact."

The genre of gotcha journalism practiced by Russert is mildly hostile to the nuanced politics of a reality-based governance. In this way, the gotcha genre has a bit of a Republican friendly bias in the current political configuration.

This is a completely separate factor from Russert's substantive biases, which tend toward anti-unionism and anti-entitlement programs. These substantive biases are far more important in helping the GOP than the biases created by the gotcha genre.

Posted by Petey | November 15, 2007 1:32 AM

Though this may be a stretch -- Russert also has what could be called a parochial school bias. Indeed he told the court (in the libby case) that he had told the Bureau offficer who his source was in the leak case because he shared a religion related bond - Meanwhile he had a public posture of protecting his sources and preferring not to testify.. So he would favor someone like the lapsed catholic Rudy who shares this backround, but not the more observant catholic Kerry - because Kerry didn't have a parochial school even though he's the same religion.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 1:40 AM

somerby has done exceptional work and one certainly understands his frustrations, but his fit-throwing has become so predictable and tedious that i can't actually read him any more.

Same with me, although I admire him tremendously. Honestly, the Beltway "journalists" are so goddam stupid and obtuse that I don't see how a sharp, talented guy like Somerby can stand slogging through their crap.

And speaking of crap, you oughta get a load of Davey Broder's latest bowel movement. The old fool might actually drive me to **like** HRC.

Posted by sglover | November 15, 2007 2:29 AM

Jeez. All Kevin meant was that Russert's tricks are hostile to politicians of any stripe before they are consciously more hostile to Democrats than they are to Republicans. That's pretty clear, and you might even say that Kevin's point is (a) agnostic on the question Matt is raising -- that is, Kevin might even agree with everything Matt said; and (b) worth making in its own right, regardless of the damage it does to Democrats.

That is to say: if Russert were to force all politicians to say "Mother May I" before every answer, that too would be bad for all politicians, even in a zero-sum game; it might also be objectively worse for Democrats. Those things don't conflict with each other, much.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 2:41 AM

I also have another question. If Somersby is so "sharp, talented," then why does he crucify Matthew for Kevin's sins? That seems just as sloppy as the pro journo who forgets to include in some news article the information that Giuliani told pretty big lies or whatever.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 2:46 AM

"That is to say: if Russert were to force all politicians to say "Mother May I" before every answer, that too would be bad for all politicians, even in a zero-sum game; it might also be objectively worse for Democrats."

Well, no.

It it were objectively worse for Democrats, then it wouldn't be bad for all politicians. In fact, it would be objectively good for Republicans.

This is the meaning of "zero-sum game".

Posted by Petey | November 15, 2007 2:46 AM

You miss the point. You are attributing the problem to Russert's general "interview method." But that method was not the same for Gore and Bradley, and will not be the same for HRC and Giuliani.

Russert will never, never, never try to trash Rudy's character the way he did to HRC. He will never, never, never try to trash Romney's character the way he did to HRC. (He'd be a little tougher on Romney than Rudy, but despite Romney's ludicrous list of blatant flip-flops on every issue imaginable, he'd never make the "character" attacks so blatant.)

Posted by Algernon | November 15, 2007 6:49 AM

Algernon is right: Matt Y has completely missed the point. Russert does not have a single "method" that impacts Democrats and Republicans differently. Rather, he treats Democrats and Republicans differently.

Russert may have a special animosity for Hillary Clinton, but he also had a special animosity for Al Gore, Howard Dean and John Kerry. He pointedly didn't have any sort of animosity, special or otherwise, for George W. Bush.

Somerby may have been a bit theatrical in his presentation (big deal), but his criticism of Matt (not just Kevin) was spot-on.

Posted by Eric | November 15, 2007 7:10 AM

Martin - you missed the point. Russert is hurting Democrats. Why indulge him if you want to win?

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 7:26 AM

Martin - why should a partisan blogger like Bob Sumerby be evenhanded liks a journalist? He is trying to be an advocate.
While Somerby gets some things wrong and he fails to examine why smears against Dems seem to work - he does a good job pointing out a huge problem of Democrats who seem to enjoy losing elections.
That is the crux of his argument - He wants to know why you put up with that s***?
If Russert and Matthews spent everydays talking about Rudy's expensive cosmetic dental work, his lisp, his being despised by blacks, his scandals, his odd gait, his "Chinese" laugh, etc - Do you think Rudy or any of his supporters whould stand for it?
No - they want to win. They have a war to wage.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 7:35 AM

Yesterday - On CNN, Jenni Moos compared OJ Simpson's courtroom smirk to Al Gore sighing in his first debate with Bush.

Get the picture? That's part of what allows Russert to do what he does.

Moos did not compare OJ's smirk to the Bush smirk in that debate - You would think that would make more sense?

Bush's people would have crucified her and CNN for joking about something like that.

Russert operates in this universe.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 7:41 AM

No, things can be bad for all politicians (especially presidential politics, where most of the players will either obtain cabinet posts or return to their current positions of only immense rather than incredible power if they lose).

This can happen in a couple ways, including but not limited to:

(1) The institution in which they operate can be cheapened, cheapening their lifes' accomplishments.
(2) The cheapening can affect public perceptions of that institution, making it harder to use their power to do anything.

More dangerously, something can be bad for a politician from either party who is smarter and more qualified than his opponent, by dumbing down discourse and making it seem like everybody who in x number of years of speaking in public for a significant aount of time EVERY DAY said something that might, taken out of context, be embarrassing, just doesn't meet Tim Russert's standards and shouldn't meet yours either.

Last, any politician in either party who read Mill (or went to law school) probably thinks a vigorous, substantive debate is more likely to get to the truth of the issues, which is good for everybody.

Better yet, by reading Kevin's post you can tell he's not just talking about Russert - "The gotcha routine, no matter who it comes from, is bad for everyone." He's talking about an institution that is sometimes deployed more harshly against Democrats, sometimes against Republicans, but always in the service of tearing down and cheapening our political discourse and institutions. Maybe that's worse for Democrats - we do tend to want our political institutions to actually, you know, take action which requires a significantly greater degree of trust in those institutions than Grover Norquist tax policy would - but it is unambigously bad for politicians and voters. It's just good for Tim Russert.

Posted by You Can Call Me Al | November 15, 2007 7:59 AM

I don't happen to think it's worthwhile to append every lamentation of the sorry state of political discourse with the observation that said sorry state is bad for liberals and (most) Democrats

A good description of why Somerby's site is so tedious. I thought it was interesting for about a week. I can't believe he's managed to keep it going for so long.

Posted by neil | November 15, 2007 8:00 AM

No Matt, you grew up in "The Village", DC is just "a village" as in "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

Posted by justawriter | November 15, 2007 8:04 AM

On the topic of media habits which are bad for Democrats, by the way: What the hell is up with the media universally calling anything the Democrats in Congress pass "symbolic?" Every single story you can find about the latest withdrawal bill makes sure to stick that in the lede.

Meanwhile, back a couple weeks ago when Bush vetoed the water bill which passed with veto-proof margins? That's just as "symbolic," right, because it was destined to be reversed just as this bill is destined to be vetoed? Well, not according to the AP or Reuters or the New York Times or any other paper besides the Royal Oak Daily Tribune, which said the veto "may prove to be largely" symbolic.

Posted by neil | November 15, 2007 8:08 AM

Bob Somerby is a narcissistic, nit-picking moron with a homoerotic fixation on Al Gore. Most of his complaints after the very beginning of his site have been either total trivia or outrage that people with views different from his own are permitted on television.
At the very beginning his site was devoted to lambasting the media for taking seriously the accusations against Clinton concerning Lewinsky.

Posted by The Moral Panicker | November 15, 2007 8:12 AM

A lot of the media - including the elite liberal media (whatever) - depends on the GOP for talking points - They do not have the time or the inclination to learn about most issues, but they feel they have to present both sides - So the GOP tells them that something is symbolic and they print it - It's that simple.

Posted by Comment | November 15, 2007 8:15 AM

...DC press circles (which I guess we're supposed to call The Village these days, but since I grew up in the Village in NYC I don't care for the term)

Keep the Village the Village. Call the press BeCo (for beneath contempt).

Also, Russert is the worst kind of lace-curtain-pretending-to-be-shanty dude imaginable.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | November 15, 2007 8:29 AM

"(which I guess we're supposed to call The Village these days, but since I grew up in the Village in NYC I don't care for the term)"

Try 'Beltway 500'.

Posted by drinkof | November 15, 2007 9:22 AM

Somerby often makes some good points, but I can't wade through his high-school writing style. If he ever got an editor I might go back to reading him again.

Posted by Glenn | November 15, 2007 9:51 AM

While I admire the work Bob Somerby's done, I do feel he should be more up-front about the fact that he was Al Gore's room-mate in college.

Posted by william | November 15, 2007 9:51 AM

"somerby has done exceptional work and one certainly understands his frustrations, but his fit-throwing has become so predictable and tedious that i can't actually read him any more."

I largely agree. Somerby is not a fun read, and many days I give up in annoyance as well. His writing is boring, humorless (although I understand he is is a comedian by trade?!?), and (intentionally) repetitious. Particulalry annoying are his attacks on critics of press coverage slanted against Democrats on the ground that they don't exactly parrot Somerby's formula. (A frequent and paticularly maddening example are his attacks on writers who state, roughly, that the press was biased against Gore during 2000. No, thunders Somerby, the war on Gore was waged for 15 months prior to the election.) And his frequent criticism of Josh Marshall, one of our most valuable bloggers and a frequent critic of our Republican slanted media, are annoying and largely inexplicable. (His critisim of Kevin Drum, the High Broderist of the liberal blogospere, is generally more apt, and was spot on in this instance.)

But despite all of this, Somerby is 95% (or more) correct and is doing valuable work.

Posted by Marlowe | November 15, 2007 9:55 AM

Matt, we've been through this. As stated before, please be advised: it's "wack," not "whack."

Thanks.

Posted by Hip-hop | November 15, 2007 10:26 AM

The real parties

The two party struggle that really matters is not Republicans vs Democrats, but Ins vs Outs. From Russert's perspective on the Inside, both parties are controlled by Ins, and both have rogue Out elements that he sees as inimical to his In interests. Now, the Republican party, based on its structure and the nature of its coalition, is not at all likely to be taken over by its Outs, but the Dems' coalition is a natural to support Out policies, and the In leadership of the party is in real danger of losing control to DFH Outs. Worse, much worse, a Democratic party that actually implemented Out policies might prove wildly popular, and then Russert et al would be definitively cast out.

Russert may well be neutral to party affiliation if we're talkng Rep Vs Dem, but on In vs Out he is a shrieking partisan, and that's the struggle that counts.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | November 15, 2007 10:45 AM

Somerby never had much entertainment value, but he's usually right, and at the beginning he was right when most Democrats were wrong. I don't read him much any more either, but it's mostly because I got the message some time ago. There are still plenty of guys out there who haven't quite figured things out yet, and I'm glad Somerby's there to kick their asses. If he throws in an extra, unnecessary asskicking occasionally just on general principles, that's OK too. Perhaps Matt didn't quite deserve this one, but I'm sure there's something or another that he's done that warrants kicking. There's no such thing as a bad pundit-asskicking.

Posted by John Emerson | November 15, 2007 11:25 AM

Actually, Matt, I was going to complain that you had ignored the partisan nature of Russert's "method," but I never got around to it. So, even though Somerby may have blamed you for Kevin's obtuseness, you really do tend not to want to consider the media's bias against Dems. Like you, I don't want to get into motives, since I'm not a mindreader, but I think there's a very clear double standard at work throughout the media, esp. on the TV. After all, Cheney always felt that Russert was great for him. Do you think Al Gore have felt the same way when he was VP? Not bloody likely.

And, of course, it's not just the candidates -- it's the issues, too. I think Somerby is driven nuts because liberals won't make an issue of the framing -- in fact, we still, to this day, tend to internalize the conservative framing. I just had a conversation the other day with one of my "liberal" friends who was parroting the RNC line on HRC, word for word. I find myself repeatedly "defending" HRC even though I don't support her. It's maddening!

Posted by mary | November 15, 2007 12:52 PM

Just for the record, I understood the point perfectly well. But the commenters here seem to have taken the concept of the zero-sum game to an extent that is unwarranted. There are examples of zero-sum contexts in which everyone can still lose. If you observe the last ten years of the NHL, for example, that is an indisputably zero-sum context in which all parties can lose. Every time major-league baseball has a postseason full of sweeps, the team that wins the World Series wins while the entire project of playing baseball takes a small hit in perceived tedium of the games etc. Why is this so hard to understand? Russert's tactics may well be something that makes life needlessly vexing for all politicians while also tending to help Republicans more than Democrats. If you all can deviate from a single rule (zero-sum game), then maybe this will become clear.

As for Somerby, any time a rhetorical point is accompanied by shoddy logic, then the point is harmed. When he lashes out at Matt for Kevin's sins, then potentially there are ten readers out there who might say "to heck with this guy." Somerby's status as a someone who is not a professional journalist has zero to do with his making exaggerated claims. Since many people likely already think that his claims are exaggerated, it's in his interest to be a little careful about the acid he spreads around.

Posted by Martin | November 15, 2007 1:22 PM

Russert and others in the media calibrate their questions, in substance and in rhetoric, in order to create the most contentious and long-lived presidential race possible. That is their livelihood, so it's naive to expect *not* to constantly mess with the playing field and the players to get that outcome. I don't think they care who wins, but if you took away the names and just told me the poll numbers and conventional wisdom about the chances of each candidate at any give time, I could tell you with pretty good accuracy how Russert would deal with them.

I'm mystified as to why anyone would be mystified about this.

Posted by Rich | November 15, 2007 1:28 PM

Prior to his NBC days, Russert worked for NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who in 1993-4 chaired the Senate Finance Committee, which shares jurisdiction over health matters. Moynihan believed (with good reason) that the Clinton administration in general and Hillary in particular dissed him in putting together the 1993 health reform initiative. His nonsupport, if not outright opposition, is one reason that the plan failed so spectacularly. And then he had to watch as she was elected to take his seat in the Senate.

I think that it is a good guess that Moynihan's disdain filtered down to his staff. It says something about Russert that almost a decade and a half later, it still determines Russert's views on Hillary.

Posted by Vadranor | November 15, 2007 1:52 PM

I really do not believe Tim does his gotcha stuff much on Republicans. Have you ever heard him go after McCain or Lieberman?

Posted by bob h | November 15, 2007 1:53 PM

It's always struck me that what Russert does is go easy on those in power -- because, I've alwasy assumed, he needs them to keep coming on his show. Since the past several years have been ones of largely Republican control, they've gotten the easy ride. But I guess the test will be if we get a Dem Pres/Dem Congress in 2008.

Posted by Glenn | November 15, 2007 2:10 PM

If I could read only one blog per day, I think it would be Somerby. I don't think there is anything more important than pointing out the rightwing tilt of the Village and the repeated failure of the liberal commentariat to stand up for their own. I find it especially galling how readily liberals for whom HRC is not the first choice are willing to accept the pummeling she takes from people like Russert because they think it helps their preferred candidate.

Posted by bobbo | November 15, 2007 2:36 PM

Somerby's real point is that Russert and the rest have influence over the outcome of elections and constantly have their hand on the scales in favor of the Republicans, who somehow avoid the constant barrage of "character" questions that are lobbed at Democrats. I think, sadly, he's correct and a repeat of campaign 2000 is already under way, although so far it's only touched upon Clinton. I look forward to another barrage of Naomi-Wolfisms like I look forward to my next dentist visit, and the worst thing about it is that no one wants to stop it.

Posted by Steve V | November 15, 2007 2:46 PM

bobbo is Somersby

There are about a hundred things more important than what Somersby's latest rant is. The man has a persecution complex and the mention of Russert, Dowd and now apparently Drum, sends him into spasms.
With Media Matters and the TPM's Horses Mouth, the only reason to read the Howler is for your dose of vitriol.

Posted by hobbo | November 15, 2007 2:53 PM

Why do so many of the commenters feel the need to attack Somerby (or whomever is up for discussion) personally? I guess it's just part of the game -- you've gotta show that you are mas macho, or something. And it's easier than addressing the substance of what he's saying.

Posted by mary | November 15, 2007 3:46 PM

I find it especially galling how readily liberals for whom HRC is not the first choice are willing to accept the pummeling she takes from people like Russert because they think it helps their preferred candidate.

You've got it exactly backwards, bobbo. The reason that so many liberals support other candidates is precisely because Hillary takes a pummeling and is incapable of defending herself. Hillary and her team area bunch of bullies. When they perceive that an opponent is weak (e.g. Edwards or Obama) they are aggressive.

But let a guy like Rupert Murdoch trash Hillary every single day (has anyone at Team Hillary ever read the NY Post?) and what does she do? Have him host a fund-raiser. A guy like Richard Mellon Scaife -- literally, the center of the VRWC -- trashes Bill and Hillary for years, and they go kiss and make up.

Clearly, the Clinton's have a different understanding of the meaning of "fight back." Don't ask me to defend them against Russert. If you don't like the way Russert treats Hillary, I'd advise you not to vote for her, because I wouldn't expect any changes.

Posted by space | November 15, 2007 3:56 PM

If you're a liberal blogger criticizing Tim Russert while leaving out the sizable body of evidence of his animus toward Hillary Clinton-- all readily available on MediaMatters-- or his misleading views on Social Security, an issue you yourself have blogged about very well over the years, then I htink it's fair for Bob to conflate the views expressed in your post with Kevin's. Because, for whatever reason (and it might just be lack of time), you're leaving out a substantial portion of the case against Russert. The most controversial portion, perhaps, but also the only part that can cut into his ability to continue hurting Democrats.

Journalists love to be told that we're unfairly mean to both sides. That means we're fair. Right?

Posted by marc h. | November 15, 2007 3:57 PM

Since you have been reading Somerby, why DON'T you take on Matthews? His idiocy this week over Hilary Clinton has been nauseating.

Posted by JC | November 15, 2007 5:16 PM

Just hopped over to peek at Ezra Klein's blog and I see, again, he's going to be on Hardball today. His commenters all ask if he will call Matthews out. I haven't watched Ezra on Hardball, but it seems safe to say that the day anyone will call out Matthews is the day pigs will fly. But hey, at least someone is finally "howling back" at that prominent media figure Bob Somerby!

Posted by Steve V | November 15, 2007 6:01 PM

If I could read only one blog per day, I think it would be Lee Siegel. I don't think there is anything more important than pointing out the blogofascist tilt of the blogoreich and the repeated failure of the liberal commentariat to stop paying attention to uppity young whippersnapeprs like Ezra Klein.

Posted by Sprezzatura | November 15, 2007 8:52 PM

Vadranor made a very odd error up above - He implied that Moynihah did not support Hillary.

Moynihan's enthusiastic support for Hillary was critical for her Senate win - He also was hoping to see Rudy lose to her.

Moynihan would have been a big supporter for her Presidential run.

Posted by Comment | November 16, 2007 12:22 AM

Vadranor - Incidentally, Russert was long gone from Moynihan's staff by the time HRC was First Lady.

It is possible that Russert resented his former boss supporting a woman he disliked.

Posted by Comment | November 16, 2007 12:25 AM

That last sentence should be included on state teacher exams as a sentence diagram challenge. If they can diagram that, they'll be fit to teach any seventh grade English class.

Is a little editing too much to ask here?

Posted by KathyF | November 16, 2007 4:01 AM