With Great Power Comes Great Numbers of Angry Critics

It's a bit hard to know what to say when an important public figure whose work you didn't really care for passes. But I think in a lot of ways it sells Tim Russert's legacy short to offer merely bland praise (it really is true, by all accounts, that he was a super-nice guy to those who knew him in person) for someone who really was a dominating presence in modern journalism who exercised enormous direct and indirect influence. Nobody can become as important as Russert was without doing some stuff that some people think was bad. Thus, when The Atlantic asked me to do a Current item on Russert's passing, I thought I'd take a mixed approach that doesn't back down from criticism, while trying to be magnanimous in recognizing his considerable accomplishments.

Meanwhile, in a BHTV episode Jane Hamsher and I recorded shortly before Russert died, Jane revisited her displeasure with Russert's handling of the Scooter Libby matter.

Comments

I hate to say it, but your beardless look in that BHTV piece reminds me of the Numa Numa guy.

Posted by live | June 14, 2008 3:38 PM

Nobody likes to speak ill of the dead, but there has been more talk about Russert's death than of the pope's.

Get a grip.

He was a third rate loudmouth.

Sorry, but it's true and, in this environment, needs to be said.

Posted by McGuff | June 14, 2008 3:52 PM

No, McGuff, that doesn't need to be said.

You almost succeeded, Matt. Would like to have seen you end w/ what people could learn from Russert rather than despair about what what may lie ahead.

Posted by THS | June 14, 2008 3:55 PM

get off your intellectual high horse. He did a great service on his show. He held politicians to account with their own words. If they could address the context of their statements, explain how their position has changed, or admit they were wrong, there was no gotcha.

By no means did MTP offer an adequate picture of political debates or the issues, but it did offer one very valuable piece of the puzzle.

Posted by Jaswar | June 14, 2008 4:00 PM

Since I was a clown above, I'll also say I think your article strikes a good tone and balance.

Posted by live | June 14, 2008 4:01 PM

Cool! A second chance to keep the liberalism flowing.

Posted by TLB | June 14, 2008 4:06 PM

I've never been much of a fan of Tim Russert, though I do watch Meet the Press almost every Sunday. One of the things I've learned today was that he spent four summers working with his dad during his summer breaks to make money for college. It miffs me a bit that you think a guy whose father was a garbage man is putting forth a "bizarre posture" while talking about his blue-collar upbringing. Sure, he died a mulit-millionaire, but his family was pretty far from that when he was growing up.

I've always thought it unfair when people have attacked you for your less than difficult background. It's what everybody would give their kids if they could, and it's how everybody wishes they could grow up. But most of us aren't that lucky and no matter where we end up as adults we have enormous respect and gratitude for the hard, unglamorous work that our parents did to get us there. Whatever else you can say about Russert, but when talking to the most powerful people in the country there's nothing wrong with remembering where you came from and being pround of it.

Posted by mark f | June 14, 2008 4:07 PM

I think the Current piece is right on target -- well done, Matt.

On the subject of the Libby trial, since I was fortunate enough to also be there (specifically, in the media room of the courthouse) when Russert testified, I'll add a couple of notes:

1. It was clear from the comments in the media room that the reporters didn't view Russert as a colleague -- he was a celebrity to them, too. Mostly, they razzed the MSNBC rep in the room (Shuster) about how sycophantic his network's coverage would be.

2. About the "racket" Jane talks about... both Russert and Cooper followed a roughly similar pattern in the Plame investigation. They cooperated when they thought their testimony would clear Libby of leaking to them. When it became apparent that their testimony might be used to send Libby (or Rove) to jail for perjury, then they balked and a long court battle ensued. Kind of sobering (if not appalling) when you think about it.

Posted by Swopa | June 14, 2008 4:19 PM

Russert was Goebbels without the limp. He wanted brown people to die in the Middle East, Lil' Joey went after Jews. Similar outcomes. Destruction and dead people. Fuck him. Good riddance.

Posted by steve duncan | June 14, 2008 5:10 PM

"The blue-collar persona was, in many respects, a bizarre posture for a multi-millionaire television celebrity, and in actual policy substance he was invariably more outraged by the prospect of a long-run Social Security deficit than, say, burgeoning income inequality in the United States."

I honestly believe that most blue-collar workers are A LOT less passionate about growing inequality than politicians, reporters, and academics.

Posted by thehova | June 14, 2008 5:15 PM

Thanks to ths, jaswar, and mark f. What they said.

I don't think it's "sobering", or in any way "appalling" that Russert and Cooper would balk at being used as tools in a politically-motivated travesty. Looked like characteristic good judgment to me.

I had great respect for Tim Russert, am shocked and saddened by his untimely death, and pray for the comfort of his family.

Posted by robert powell | June 14, 2008 5:18 PM

On record as liking the guy, liking his style and mourning his passing. The only thing that I wasn't crazy about was the somewhat cloying "Father knows best" bullshit. Some kind of overcompensatory Catholic schoolboy guilt operating there. "Big Russ" ("watch out for phonies") seemed like a big dope. Russert told a story about badly wanting a good baseball glove for Christmas or something and dad came home with a cheap knockoff. Young Tim was crestfallen, dad said nothing and walked away, and later young Tim blamed himself. What- "Big Russ" couldn't spring for a Rawlings or a Spalding or a Wilson knowing the joy it would bring to his dutiful boy's heart? We're not talking a '67 911S Porsche here. The Russerts wouldn't have gone hungry if Tim got a good glove. The old man was a cheap, dull, self-pitying slob who looked at his kids like utensils. But, because he (Tim) wanted to believe in the concept of "Honor thy Father" - he made the stupid old prick a hero. Sad, really.

Posted by Trevor | June 14, 2008 5:22 PM

Tim Russert: Dead today at 58.

Also dead today: about two thousand other human beings you couldn't have been bothered to give a shit about. Quite a few of them, kids.

Posted by Chet | June 14, 2008 5:31 PM

"Also dead today: about two thousand other human beings you couldn't have been bothered to give a shit about. Quite a few of them, kids."

Wow. Thanks. I needed your moral slap in the face. How can I join you in caring about those 200,000?

Posted by jaswar | June 14, 2008 6:06 PM

more tough talk from from the blog revolutionaries

Posted by comment section filled with bitter wankers | June 14, 2008 6:07 PM

The state mourning for this nothing suit being enforced by the TV news organizations is grotesque.

Posted by turkey | June 14, 2008 6:25 PM

robert powell:
So it is okay that Russert was Darth Cheney's patsy? Or did you miss that part of the Libby trial? What was politically motivated? Libby was guilty of lying. They outed a CIA agent. I guess you don't care about such things.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 14, 2008 6:29 PM

I agree with the commenter at BHTV that Jane looks great without the beard.

Posted by CJColucci | June 14, 2008 7:13 PM

Jaswar wrote: "get off your intellectual high horse. He did a great service on his show. He held politicians to account with their own words. "

That isn't nearly enough.

How about holding them to account with facts? How about holding them to account when they're talking nonsense?

Someone like Senator Inhofe is a *consistent* imbecile, so his past statements aren't going to be of any use in playing 'gotcha'.

Posted by Jon H | June 14, 2008 7:18 PM

"I honestly believe that most blue-collar workers are A LOT less passionate about growing inequality than politicians, reporters, and academics."

Probably not if you ask them about "growing inequality".

If you put it in terms that are directly relevant to them (food and gas, mortgages, healthcare, insecurity) and contrast their position to that of the wealthy, I think they'll be pretty passionate.

Posted by Jon H | June 14, 2008 7:24 PM

Wow. Thanks. I needed your moral slap in the face.

It's more like - perspective. Russert was really only noteworthy for being a face on TV. He wasn't a groundbreaking journalist, I never heard of him on location anywhere dangerous, there's really nothing about him that was especially heroic or courageous. He was a Beltway player, and what skill at that he possessed he parlayed into personal success, not any benefit for the people of the world.

Sure, he was a great guy, I'm sure. Most of those other couple of thousand people who died on the same day were great guys, great women, great children, too. Being a decent person isn't rare; it's just rare on TV.

Posted by Chet | June 14, 2008 8:24 PM

As far as I can tell, Inhofe's MTP interview is frequently cited as evidence that the guy's an imbecile and needs to be voted out of office.

It appears that he got Inhofe on the record in a way that is now considered to be incriminating. I believe Russert also challenged him with the UN inspector reports, Brent Scrowcroft's concerns and pressed him on "why now?"

I'm not sure what else you could ask for other than calling him a liar or idiot.

Posted by jaswar | June 14, 2008 8:39 PM

Russert wasn't a journalist. He was a pundit and talk show host. Politicians liked going on his show because they weren't worried about him and knew exactly what to expect and how to respond. He served the same function to politicians that Jay Leno serves in Hollywood. They went on his show for publicity, and he was happy to give it to them as long as he could get the top people to come on.

It's sad that he died young, but there's no need to puff his job up into something it wasn't.

Posted by Rid | June 14, 2008 8:40 PM

It's sad when anyone dies prematurely, but I think the reason I don't feel more personally affected is that I don't feel that I'm now going to have less information or insight about politics without Russert than I had before. There are several print commentators and a very few broadcast anchors (perhaps Keith Olbermann) I would feel that way about, but not Russert. I've read a lot of the tributes to him, both from other journalists and from ordinary viewers, and I'm struck by how none of them references anything in particular that we ever learned from him other than "Florida Florida Florida," which of course was a statement of the crashingly obvious that was not made more insightful just because he wrote it on a white board.

Throughout the primaries, his contributions to MSNBC's coverage also struck me as statements of the obvious. Here's a random example, from the MSNBC transrcipt of the night of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Olbermann has just asked him what we should be looking for that night:

TIM RUSSERT: "Well, Keith, the best thing for us, I think, is to talk to the campaigns because you get a sense of the spin that‘s coming. Obama‘s people will say, you know, we were down 20 points in Texas and Ohio. We‘ve made a considerable comeback. If we get close and hold her to no significant net win of delegates, we‘ll have done our job. The Clinton people will counter, wait a minute, Obama won 11 primaries in a row. If we stop him tonight with a win in the popular vote in Texas and/or Ohio, that‘s interrupting his momentum. And that means we‘re resetting the race. We‘re back in the game.

"You know, the interesting thing, Keith, will be the Clinton people will be focusing on the popular vote, the Obama people on the delegates tonight. One interesting question in our exit polls that we already can talk about, we asked the voters of the four states whether they thought that the so-called superdelegates should vote for the winners of the caucuses and primaries or vote for who they in their own judgment think is most electable.

"And by a margin of almost two-to one, the voters are saying the superdelegates should vote for the winners of the caucuses and primaries, which is very, very significant in that if Senator Clinton does not make some significant inroads in the elected delegate count tonight, she‘s going to have to be very reliant on convincing superdelegates to switch into her column, even though Obama may have a lead amongst the elected delegates.

"And so I think this will be another piece of information that will be debated by both campaigns and looked at by superdelegates throughout the country."

It was always like that: "Well, Candidate A's supporters will say one thing, and Candidate B's supporters will say something else. Candidate A will need to succeed in order to be successful, but Candidate B could benefit if Candidate A stumbles. It's just something we'll have to debate." It was as if Russert was just there by virtue of seniority; when they wanted actual analysis, they'd go to Chuck Todd.

Russert, like most of these guys, reminds me of the famous definition of a journalist: "no ideas and the ability to express them." But I don't mean to be unfair to the guy, so maybe someone who was more of a fan of Russert's could explain why, other than being "a presence in our homes every Sunday morning," he was worth listening to. Was it just that somebody needed to state the obvious for the benefit of whomever was tuning into politics for the first time that week, and Russert was able to do it with more boyish enthusiasm than somebody else?

Posted by Jefferson Smith | June 14, 2008 10:25 PM

I'm no big fan of Russert, but maybe I can help, Jefferson. First, Russert's virtue was asking tough questions. I know the "gotcha" style isn't always popular, but it's better than softballs, which I gather were common in the pre-Russert era. Also, you're being unfair by picking out that off-the-cuff commentary. It's damned difficult to talk coherently on live tv for hours on end. You're not going to make interesting points every time. And finally, things are obvious to us aren't obvious to people with only a casual interest in politics (in other words, most Americans). Russert made them more informed.

Posted by too many steves | June 14, 2008 11:02 PM

Matthew, I recall not too long ago you linked to an article by Jonathan Chait about the ingeniousness of people who talk about their "working class background". That piece irritated me.

Now you've written:

"The blue-collar persona was, in many respects, a bizarre posture for a multi-millionaire television celebrity"

Well, last time I heard you come from a very wealthy in New York City, were you attended an elite private school. You and Chait are both Jewish, a culture which rightly prides itself on the fact that being a member of this group is a unique experience. To paraphrase Chait, one might start a phrase with "As a jewish-american..." Nothing wrong with that right?

What you and Chait miss is that coming from a working class background (irish catholic working class, in Russert's case) is a unique experience in its own. One that comes with both institutional and psychological hurdles. Someone born the son of a garbage man does not have the same imprinted self-image of eliteness that someone like you, born into a world of intellectuals would. All though not as bad, the same stagnation that follows from low expectations of blacks and latinos applies to working class whites.

You have benefited from your families background no doubt, but as Barack Obama said in his speech in Philadelphia, many do not feel particularly privileged simply because they are white.

Most importantly, it is this sort of gross oversight by intellectuals such as yourself that allows the right to to portray the left as elitist.

Posted by Tad | June 14, 2008 11:12 PM

One more thing...

American history is full of examples of people who overcame their less than elite origins to rise to high levels of power -- think Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, or Nixon. What most profiles of these people usually point out is the sense that they carried with them a sense they didn't fit in, that they were the "other". Where you come from leaves an indelible stamp on your personal journey through life and it is not wrong to take pride in the fact that you defied the odds and made the leap into the ruling class through hard work and determination.

Posted by Tad | June 14, 2008 11:32 PM

Cool! A second chance to keep the liberalism flowing.

Yawn. That thread was hardly a representative sample of MY commenters. Most of the participants were throwing out vitriol far-removed from this site's regular discourse, and none of the site regulars (other than the oft-unhinged Richard Steven Hack) were present in that trainwreck.

That Althouse was cognizent of such an egregiously-hijacked thread, and saw this as a ripe opportunity to cudgel liberals, also makes me wonder if a bit of trollery was taking place. When I can't tell if the comments section I'm reading is from MY or HuffPo, a thousand pardons if I call bullshit.

Posted by concerning the trolled | June 15, 2008 12:48 AM

What most profiles of these people usually point out is the sense that they carried with them a sense they didn't fit in, that they were the "other".

Very true about LBJ and Nixon.

Which is a lot different than Tim Russert who carried himself as someone who did fit in. You're forgetting how the other way in which this feeling of not fitting in manifests itself is to become a toady to power-- to try to prove, desperately, that you really "do" fit in. This seemed to me the path Russert took: his "off the record until agreed otherwise" policy towards speaking with politicians, his expectation that anyone would just call him if there was something he needed to know about a story, and the fact that MTP became a place where Cheney could be assured of a megaphone to disseminate the talking-points-of-the-day. Insofar as Russert may have felt like an outsider, he seems to have used his success as a means of proving to everyone that he was really "one of the insiders."

Posted by Tyro | June 15, 2008 1:20 AM

too many steves, I think the second part of your defense of Russert works a lot better than your first. Yes, I could imagine that someone like Russert might decide he was going to pitch his analyses to the level of newcomers or casual viewers who hadn't already heard the same points made 50 times before. I suppose there's value in that.

But my example was not unfairly chosen -- it was typical of his stating-the-obvious style, at least on election nights, and I don't believe that's a function of having to fill hours of airtime, because he didn't: He wasn't the anchor but a guy brought in for a few minutes at a time specifically to offer analysis and (presumably) insight. We know it IS possible at such moments to offer insight, because other analysts manage to do it (Chuck Todd frequently did, for instance). And a guy who's really earning his $5 million a year could probably manage some artful mixing of simple explanations for newcomers together with comments that actually advance the discussion.

Russert, though, just seemed not to have any ideas. I suspect that what people are calling his "gotcha" style of questioning may have reflected this as well: If you can't yourself analyze policy proposals and help us make real sense of them, well, you can always go dig up your interviewee's past quotes -- it doesn't really take any brains to do that. As I say, I just don't feel that my understanding of US politics is going to suffer any now that Russert is gone. And I suspect that the next host of "Meet the Press" will be an improvement, even if the Russertophiles here have trouble imagining that.

Posted by Jefferson Smith | June 15, 2008 2:38 AM

Russert's Roundtable discussions were often very good, but I thought he did more to corrupt DC political journalism than anyone. The "gotcha" style, the focus on trivialities, etc. are not to be missed, and I hope that style of journalism dies with him.

Posted by bob h | June 15, 2008 5:55 AM

What Tyro said.

Also, the world would be a less annoying place if more of these working-class-turned-multi-millionaire-types had watched The Four Yorkshiremen.

Posted by novakant | June 15, 2008 6:11 AM

As the "oft-unhinged", let me add: Fuck Russert and everybody who likes him.

Now again, how can we get Bill O'Reilly to go apoplectic so he'll croak? Then we can read all the comments from these morons about what a wonderful guy he really was when he wasn't waving a loofah around.

Back in the day when I was planning my terrorist spree, I intended to take care of these scum more directly - with a bullet in the head. The MSM are the enemy, just like the politicians, the oil companies and the military-industrial complex are the enemy.

Compared to these scum, bin Laden is Yoda.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 15, 2008 6:46 AM

There is no possible defense for O'Reilly and his loofah. It's one thing to dry hump your Irish-Catholic working-class roots a la Russert. Quite another to soap up your horny, over-the-hill, Penthouse Forum fantasies on an answering machine. One is from guilt. The other from Dorkville.

Posted by Trevor | June 15, 2008 7:20 AM

I hope Russert's passing would be a chance for "Meet the Press" to return to it's roots: a moderator let's real journalists ask questions of the guest.
In the old days, it was Lawrence Spivak (pretty conservative, in the old sense, he would probably be appalled by movement conservatism) allowing the Washington Press corp (and they where a decorous bunch) ask a few questions, often on preselected topics. (It was here I learned to hate Bob Novak, wondering at age 12 'what's wrong with that guy' and if he was the prototype for Simon Bar Sinister in the old 'Underdog' cartoon).
Get Froomkin and the McClatchy people, of course, and the Right wingers will avoid the show. I can dream of Bill Moyers for the moderator...
Russert would not have been so popular in with Washington Villages if he had been a strong questioner. I suspect an unbiased analysis of his work would find a strong Establishment bias, which translates into cheerleading for the war.

Posted by MR Bill | June 15, 2008 7:20 AM

With all due respect to the passed, there was a reason that whenever Dick Cheney wanted to get out his message unchallenged he only went on Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Meet the Press.

The popular meme is that Russert was tough, but I can't remember how many mornings I pulled my hair out waiting for him to challenge Cheney after he lied flat out on national TV. Sorry, but Russert was a pushover.

Posted by Vincent | June 15, 2008 3:59 PM

Russert came from a working class background.
Yglesias, in typical white person style, pontificates about what working class people need, based on what? An upper-middle class background of Private school->Harvard->Blogging.

Posted by alfred | June 15, 2008 8:05 PM

"Someone born the son of a garbage man does not have the same imprinted self-image of eliteness that someone like you, born into a world of intellectuals would. All though not as bad, the same stagnation that follows from low expectations of blacks and latinos applies to working class whites."

How much of Russert's life was spent as the "son of a garbage man"? One of the problems with guys like Russert and Chris Matthews is that they still think of themselves as working class guys, even though they've been living like multi-millionaire celebrities for decades.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 16, 2008 10:22 AM

I agree with everyone (in short, I'm feeling a little ambivalent). It would have been better if Russert had had something blow out and had to retire, obviously. No personal animus, just wasn't a fan.

Hey Matt, thanks for the link to the video. Jane is awesome, and I hadn't seen/heard her before.

Since I'm an old man (in my 30s), I tend not to tolerate multimedia tomfoolery in connection with newsish stuff, so I'm glad I absently clicked the link before realizing it was one of those garshdamned videos.

Who's the irritable, beardless fellow, though? And the oversized glasses, almost a caricature there -- self-branding I guess. Looks a little andrew sullivan though.

Posted by grouchious | June 16, 2008 11:51 AM