Tim Russert, 1950-2008

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JTT's concurrence should be all the proof you need that you've engaged in hyper-partisan idiocy.

OB, I thought you were smarter than to make such a stupid "hyper-partisan response.

BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JTT's concurrence should be all the proof you need that you've engaged in hyper-partisan idiocy.

OB, I thought you were smarter than to make such a stupid "hyper-partisan response.

BBB

From what I've seen; JTT deals almost exclusively in hyper-partisan idiocy. This is neither a secret, nor is there anything partisan, let alone hyper-partisan, in pointing it out. (You might want to consider thinking before posting )

OB, do you frequently post "hyper-partisan" opinions?

Are posters who don't agree with you doomed to be identified as "hyper-partisans", but not you?

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

We've been witnessing a traditional "Irish Wake" with the non-stop exagerated praising of Tim Russert on TV. He was very effective in many ways and deficient in others. He was a nice guy and loyal friend. But he ain't a saint. Making an Idol of Russert will not erase the terrible mistakes the medias' journalists made during the Bush administration.

Perhaps you should start a slanderous thread that identifies him as a scumbag, and then spam it with every idiotic opinion piece you can find. The man was a bit soft, in a Larry King kind of way, so what? He was gentle enough to attract the guests and straightforward enough to attract an audience. That's what he did for a living and he did it better than most. You should keep your irrational ramblings to yourself, and look better for it.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

OB, do you frequently post "hyper-partisan" opinions?

No maham. I do not. Being as I am non-partisan, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one such instance.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

We've been witnessing a traditional "Irish Wake" with the non-stop exagerated praising of Tim Russert on TV. He was very effective in many ways and deficient in others. He was a nice guy and loyal friend. But he ain't a saint. Making an Idol of Russert will not erase the terrible mistakes the medias' journalists made during the Bush administration.

Perhaps you should start a slanderous thread that identifies him as a scumbag, and then spam it with every idiotic opinion piece you can find. The man was a bit soft, in a Larry King kind of way, so what? He was gentle enough to attract the guests and straightforward enough to attract an audience. That's what he did for a living and he did it better than most. You should keep your irrational ramblings to yourself, and look better for it.

Dude. Check yourself.

That was a balanced, "yes there was good but there also was bad" post by BBB, worded carefully. Your stink bomb in return was totally unwarranted.

Making an Idol of Russert will not erase the terrible mistakes the medias' journalists made during the Bush administration.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

OB, do you frequently post "hyper-partisan" opinions?

No maham. I do not. Being as I am non-partisan, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one such instance.

Bull. You may be without party, but you often pick a cause or a case or a person to stand with, in fierce partisan passion - be it the Iraq war back then, or Obama right now.

Same with when you've decided someone or something is on the wrong side of your black and white definition of good and evil. Immediately there's no more balance or even particular openness to hear the other side about him or it: you're the one who tends to go around calling people scumbags, not BBB.

You dont need to be officially affiliated with a party to be hyper-partisan about things.

Says you after you felt compelled to interrupt a thread about a man's passing by pointing out he wasn't the best journalist out there. [..] This would be idiotic regardless of where it was posted, but this thread is certainly the not the place for it. Check yourself, Nimh.

It would appear one of us doesn't have a grasp of the meaning of "partisan" nimh… and that person is you.

Further, your memory of my position on Iraq and Obama are both hazy as well, apparently, if you think I've gone to "irrationally" backing anyone's but my own opinion of either . I offered my own reasons for backing Iraq, and I most certainly can't be counted with the Cyclo-Roxxx wing of Obama backers.

Partisan and by extension hyper-partisan have meanings; and you can't bend them to suit your needs.

Also; I call people scumbags when I see fit, and am always willing to defend the opinion with what I believe to be sound reasoning. Have you noticed BBB's thread about McCain, filled from beginning to end with her spamming of hyper-partisan idiocy? I'm guessing not.

Take note of your company and their notebooks, Nimh.

Going Overboard on Russert

By M.J. Rosenberg - June 17, 2008, 7:56AM

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? [..]

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. [..] 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 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. [..] 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 [..], due to the fact they can't afford health insurance, etc. [..]

Coverage of his death reminds me of the sensational coverage we get locally each time there is another tragic "home invasion" [..] 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.

Elizabeth2 wrote:

Just have to say it -- I think you are all being harsh. [..] 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. [..]

Yes, life is unfair, our perspective is skewed, every life counts -- [..] the soldiers who die in Iraq deserve as much honor and mourning as Tim Russert. But that's the point - [..] 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.

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.

Jim McKay died recently, a "newsman" [..] 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."

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.

For the most part, I agree with you, M.J. The coverage of Russert's death has left me with the impression that the man himself was a generous human being and a kind soul, but his passing does not change my opinion of his work as a journalist.

Russert contributed mightily to the "gotcha" style of journalism that is now so prevalent on television. His standard practice was to cross-examine his interview subjects using their own statements as exhibits. On the surface this seems the essence of fairness, but mostly it was just tiresome. His obsessive focus on niggling details often obscured more significant issues. (His performance as a debate moderator during the primary season was particularly disgraceful.) And even though the TV eulogizing has depicted him as being above "the fray," in many ways he was at the center of that fray.

Still, I do mourn the man. His personal warmth came across on television. And I think the reaction to his death has much more to do with who he was as a person than who he was as a journalist.

To be fair to Russert he wasn't the only journalist who pushed the iraq war for the Bush government. Most so called journalists did and should bear a large part of the blame for the war.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Says you after you felt compelled to interrupt a thread about a man's passing by pointing out he wasn't the best journalist out there. [..] This would be idiotic regardless of where it was posted, but this thread is certainly the not the place for it. Check yourself, Nimh.

Well, thats exactly the thing one can disagree on, I would say.

BBB foolishly wrote:

Making an Idol of Russert will not erase the terrible mistakes the medias' journalists made during the Bush administration.

As if that was anyone's intention.
This would be idiotic regardless of where it was posted, but this thread is certainly the not the place for it. Check yourself, Nimh.

We're not at a funeral. We didnt even know the man. We are commenting on the life of a prominent person who passed away. In my world that would be a place to honestly evaluate the man and what his role has been, for better or for worse. Same like you would do in a newspaper obituary for a major politician, at least in the newspapers where I'm from.

In your world, on the other hand, any comment thread and any article on someone's death apparently equates with an occasion like the funeral itself, and therefore the maxim that "of the dead no ill is spoken" should be upheld.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It would appear one of us doesn't have a grasp of the meaning of "partisan" nimh… and that person is you.

Bla bla bluster.. skipping this if you dont mind.. (the chest-thumping bluster is part of what can make you seem so partisan on an issue, btw)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Further, your memory of my position on Iraq and Obama are both hazy as well, apparently, if you think I've gone to "irrationally" backing anyone's but my own opinion of either . I offered my own reasons for backing Iraq, and I most certainly can't be counted with the Cyclo-Roxxx wing of Obama backers.

<grins>

And you have no awareness of the fact that Cyclo would say the same thing about his support for Obama, or this or that cause he's behind, right? Everyone always asserts that they, personally, are balanced and rational in their judgement calls, and they're not like.. <fill>.

Sure, you are balanced enough to point out the parts of Obama's platform you dont agree with -- but then so is Cyclo, who's actually gone out of his way to do so several times. Doesnt make him, nor you, any less partisan; your fierce passion will ensure that.

I dont think I ever mentioned "irrational", by the way - I think that was your insertion. Not an especially relevant one: you dont need to be irrational to be partisan. You just need to be convinced enough that you know the truth, and that those who disagree are just dumb and/or bad.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Partisan and by extension hyper-partisan have meanings; and you can't bend them to suit your needs.

Right. And yet you bend them to include preconditions like, it needs to be irrational, or it needs to be beyond "sound reasoning". But dont you see? What "sound" reasoning is, is in the eye of the beholder; I'm sure BBB or Cyclo or Ticomaya also all believe that that's what they engage in; I sure do. The ability and willingness to reason by itself, on the other hand, which all of us possess, has nothing to do with being partisan or not. Marx could reason like the best of them, and all in rational ways too. Still a partisan.

You will enter debate about any issue that might come up thoroughly, yes - but then again, so does Cyclo, and you sure seem to think him partisan. In either case, much (even if not all) criticism is brusquely dismissed, and everything is approached from a boisterously prejudicial perspective. That is you: you've got a heart of gold, and that makes you extremely passionate about doing right. But once you really believe you know what the right thing is, you exhibit the cocksure self-confidence about your cause of the most partisan liberal or conservative. It's all black and white in the end: there's honest men at least trying to do their best and "scumbags" of whom you will hear no good.

I mean, take John Edwards. Most of us agreed he is a man of both flaws and strengths. To you, he was a scumbag first, last and always, always has been always will. Like a Blueflame1 about Bush, or an Asherman about liberalism, you would cherrypick and magnify anything that was genuinely bad, dismiss and brush aside anything that was good, and generally make sure that your rock-solid preconception, once established, would never be vulnerable or even open to nuance. And I'm sure that all along and still now, you are convinced that you demonstrated nothing but "sound reasoning" throughout. Much like the fiercest partisan would be.

Nah. When it comes to Dems vs Reps, you're not a partisan, no; when it comes to a specific cause or issue, you're as partisan as they come. The only difference is that the causes you pick up tend to be all over the map.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Also; I call people scumbags when I see fit, and am always willing to defend the opinion with what I believe to be sound reasoning. Have you noticed BBB's thread about McCain, filled from beginning to end with her spamming of hyper-partisan idiocy? I'm guessing not.

I've criticized BBB enough, thanks. I sometimes think I'm no more popular among liberals here than among conservatives.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Take note of your company and their notebooks, Nimh.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my arguments, thanks.

He wasn't the least bit soft. He was always a gentleman but surgical in his questioning. Russert was as good as it gets. Just watch the montage of clips of him pounding pols on their intentions to run for president. He didn't let them wriggle out with a non-answer. Russert's genius was that he was able to get the answers without making himself the focus of the interview.

Roxxxanne wrote:

He wasn't the least bit soft. He was always a gentleman but surgical in his questioning. Russert was as good as it gets. Just watch the montage of clips of him pounding pols on their intentions to run for president. He didn't let them wriggle out with a non-answer. Russert's genius was that he was able to get the answers without making himself the focus of the interview.

I had to quote Roxxx. This is probably the first (and last) time we agree on something. Russert knew the difference in searching questions and rudeness. He was a good guy---a good man---and it showed. I really liked him.