death of an entertainer
(Editor’s note: This post comes from Favio Snimp, just back from motorcycle racing across the Sahara and never afraid to be a contrarian.)
If you’re likeable, recently deceased and have been on TV a lot, you’ll get rave notices. Tim Russert certainly is getting his air time, right up there in Anna Nicole Smith territory. MSNBC seems to have instantly commissioned “Dirge for Tim for Lone Plaintive Horn” and repeats it often.
What, exactly, did Tim Russert offer to our needy nation? All the grim lamenters, on TV and in newspapers, agree. He was “the real deal.” He was “the ultimate dad.” An unending variety of accolades repeat the same sentiment: Russert was a regular guy who loved his family and remained faithful to the Buffalo Bills.
Anything else? Oh, yes. Apparently Tim Russert is considered a monument to the gathering and dissemination of information crucial to maintaining our democracy. All this praise for Russert’s “journalism.” Al Hunt, a longtime Beltway insider, called him “the best political journalist in America.” Wow. Russert must have really brought down some bigwigs! Weirdly, neither Al Hunt nor anyone else seems to have come up with single Russert scoop, or an example of how Russert’s no-holds-barred grilling under the hot lights had flushed out a culprit.
Let’s see: Torture. The loss of habeas corpus. Rampant kleptomania in Congress. Rampant kleptomania in Iraq. The illegal politicization of all government agencies. Widespread incompetence. Billions funding private armies. Thousands of creepy W-worshipping youngsters in civil service, unqualified and toting dubious Bible college diplomas. Anyone recall Russert revealing any aspect of this systematic destruction of America’s legal and governmental foundations? A teensy bit, even?
In fact, Dick Cheney’s handlers consider “Meet the Press” an ideal place to “control the message.” Like most of the pundit and news class, Russert’s clique included the authorities he should have been examining in our behalf.
He was subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame scandal, where he suddenly suffered memory lapses just like so many Bushies do under oath. In his testimony Russert revealed something shocking for a so-called journalist: When he gets a phone call from a big shot, “off the record” is his default mode.
Let us lament the death of a good and generous man who was quite talented at that amiable horse-race chit-chat we call political coverage. Tim Russert was an engaging TV entertainer. Let’s not pretend we lost someone who comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable.
Explore posts in the same categories: politics, dick cheney, Iraq war, media, snimp
June 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Lesemann cried when he heard the news….
June 16th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Wow, i know you probably don’t like this guy, but he is no different then the rest of the media, conservative or liberal. Have a heart, let him rest in peace.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Russert was a political journalist, not an investigative reporter. Seems tasteless to criticize someone, less than two days after his death, for not doing a job he wasn’t even charged with doing.
For one hour on Sunday mornings Russert provided grounded, civilized discussion. It was a welcome relief from the unbridled tantrums we see between talking heads with opposing views on 24-hour cable news channels. Also, Russert was respected not only by his colleagues but by the politicians whom he interviewed. Most considered it a political rite of passage to endure a session with Russert.
Finally, Russert’s testimony in the Plame scandal directly contributed to Lewis Libby’s perjury conviction.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Good point, Bones, about the Libby case.
I apologize for giving the impression of corpse-kicking. It says right there in the purest of pixels: Russert was good, generous, talented. Jim, wanna go back and apply a bold tag to those words?
My gripe is with how the self-enamored Beltway Best Friends 4-Evah Club gave Russert the same glorious Pope-caliber sendoff they’d like for themselves.
A professional comedian, Jon Stewart, routinely performs testier, subtler, and more intelligent political interviews than Russert — “the best” — ever managed.
This is hardly Russert’s fault. This is the market speaking. MTP’s top ratings prove that this is what people want: political coverage best described in Neil Postman’s book title, “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”
But can we please reserve the term “journalist” for important work? Besides, one does not need to be an investigative reporter to learn that our government has become outrageously immoral and criminal. Occasional newspaper-readin’ will do that!
June 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
your thoughts that tear apart a persons career after they’ve passed are even further from “journalism.”
June 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hmmmm… So, by your standards, a small-town newspaper writer who scribes feature stories about Granny Lee’s 101st birthday party isn’t a journalist? What constitutes “important” work? Just because a story doesn’t have value to you personally or doesn’t further your perception of truth, is it not important and therefore isn’t journalism? How many dirty politicians does one have to bring down to earn your rightful distinction of “journalist?”
Yes, Jon Stewart performs testier and subtler interviews than Russert, but they certainly aren’t balanced. I guarantee you wouldn’t see him grill Barack Obama like he did, say, John Bolton. Stewart clearly has an agenda, which is fine. He’s a comedian, not a journalist. And he would be the first to admit it, and would probably laugh his ass off at being compared as an interviewer to a guy like Russert. That’s why Stewart is smart; he knows what he is and knows what he isn’t.
Your anger at the state of our nation is clear and I certainly share your frustration, but it’s unfortunate that you consider a journalist as one who subscribes to your point of view. True journalists have the ability to play Devil’s Advocate in order to present all sides of an issue, and do so in a way that readers/viewers can see the bottom line when all is said and done. Who do you think wrote all those stories you read for your “occasional newspaper-readin’?”
June 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
…and as for your gripe with “how the self-enamored Beltway Best Friends 4-Evah Club gave Russert the same glorious Pope-caliber sendoff they’d like for themselves,” do you have the same disgust with how skier bro-brahs drink one for themselves and one for their homie who just hucked off some cliff and died? Maybe you should recognize that these people simply shared common interests and respected the deceased for their passion and contribution to their profession.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
. . . ah, crickets. All quiet here now.
Just inserting this final grunt for the record. (Wrote it last week, filed it for breather’s sake, forgot about it because Jackson entered its World’s Best Climate™ mode.)
First, for all you skim-and-hate style consumers there, would you please slow down for a teensy moment and study one measly paragraph? Here:
I clumsily made readers unhappy. I regret that. Tim Russert was a beloved, comforting icon. I am crass to have hastily used Russert’s passing to criticize the gaudy display that his colleagues put on. My point remains: Self-proclaimed World Class Beltway Journalmalismists have little to brag about these past seven years. To leverage Russert’s ample likability into a received wisdom that they are, on the whole, magnificent truth-tellers is the sort of decadent fantasy that shows up three-quarters the way through scholarly fallen-empire tomes.
That is all.
Meanwhile, Bones, this is fun!
So, by your standards, a small-town newspaper writer who scribes feature stories about Granny Lee’s 101st birthday party isn’t a journalist? What constitutes “important” work?
Granny Lee’s 101st birthday is important. Scale is irrelevant; 4-H Club reporting is hell-fer-important.
Just because it’s on national TV is no reason to call anything “important journalism.” I watch those Sunday talk shows now and then. (What made Russert “the best” had escaped me. I am grateful to the above correspondents who taught me that pleasantness is the gauge.)
I seldom see propaganda unmasked but rather sustained, amplified and further reworded. Bogus diversions created to mesmerize the hard-of-thinking– “electability” and “terrorist fist jabs” and “white women voters” — are treated with solemn respect. Reporters chum with politicians chum with consultants chum with TV personalities. It feels good. All these important, serious authorities get along! No wonder our nation is so healthy!
Is this stuff journalism? Sure. Paintings of big-eyed kitties on velvet are still art.
Had Granny Lee in her heyday dumped toxic waste into the local water supply, sold black-market Uzis to the Crips and torched an orphanage, I would not give a free pass to the local reporter who winks and chuckles over “Granny Lee’s sometimes eccentric past” — all because the reporter and Granny Lee’s son are drinking buddies.
Yes, Jon Stewart performs testier and subtler interviews than Russert, but they certainly aren’t balanced.
“Balance” and “fairness” and whatnot are a component of the “amusing ourselves to death” thesis. Real grownups just need information.
The source of a data point is also a data point. All sources of information automatically have a point of view; such is human nature. I love the reality of Fox News because they are wonderfully unbalanced and unfair, a bunch of ruthless and cunning GOP apparatchiks. More of that honesty, please.
Screw “balance.” I want intellectual rigor. Ten minutes of, say, Glenn Greenwald hashing it out with Ross Douthat would teach me more than ten hours of any popular TV journalist playing Devil’s Advocate. (Playing, indeed.) Alas, as I stated earlier, that is verboten on a national scale because there is no money in it.
do you have the same disgust with how skier bro-brahs drink one for themselves and one for their homie who just hucked off some cliff and died?
Those two xylophone notes you heard? That was me blinking. I’m lost. False equivalency, I guess. Bro-brahs at a wake don’t congratulate themselves for accomplishments not accomplished.
I do support the adoption of your spelling of “brah” when used in the bro-brah context. “Bra” leads to confusion, even disappointment.
Maybe you should recognize that these people simply shared common interests and respected the deceased for their passion and contribution to their profession.
I object to the apparent installation of a de facto monarchy. Their Russert send-off love-in was their right. Their commandeering of the airwaves for countless hours is another matter.
The airwaves, you see, are public property, licensed to those who promise to contribute to the common good. If Tim Russert was the man everyone said he was, the overexposure would have embarrassed him to death.
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Does Jim let everyone use bold and italics for emphasis in their replies, or just his pseudonyms?
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m staying out of this.
If you can figure out how to put bold and italics in the comments (probably using HTML commands), have at it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Count me out, too. I’m frightened by favio’s burly vocabulary and penchant for clever made-up words like “Journalmalismists.” I mean, how can you argue with someone with xylophone keys for eyelids?