Tim Russert, 1950-2008

Re: OB

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 Idea

)

0 Replies

Re: OB

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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?

I frequently criticize members of my political party. Do you regarding your party?

BBB

0 Replies

Re: OB

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.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

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

Hardly. Most of the people I bother to engage in debate think for themselves. Only those who engage in hyper-partisan idiocy are described accordingly by me. I don't think much of the "I know you are but what am I?" defense. I'm done here.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

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.

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.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

nimh wrote:

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.

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. Where you stayed reasonable;

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.

nimh wrote:

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.

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.

Your desire to defend BBB's exaggerated version of your own thoughts is nice, but you're overreaching in your attempt. 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.

I've checked myself and am quite comfortable, thank you. Your turn.

0 Replies

The same mainstream media Scott McClellan's book accused of complicity in Bushie's lying us into war has proclaimed Russert the journalist's journalist. Such is the sorry state of the union. Bill Moyer's Buying the War was a great piece that certainly put Russert on the spot and his answers only further implicated him. He sat on the truth in the lead up to war and that's just as true after his death as it was before his death. Maybe at an Irish Wake that is unmentionable but his form of journalism is unpardonable and the kudos given him by equally complicit corporate media "pundits" is further complicity, lies and coverup. Russert died with a lot of blood on his hands.thetruth

0 Replies

Take note of your company and their notebooks, Nimh.

0 Replies

Novak, Russert, and the Washington Protection Racket
Novak, Russert, and the Washington Protection Racket
Novak and his partner in logrolling, Tim Russert.
By Jack Shafer - Slate
Posted Friday, June 20, 2008, at 7:37 AM ET

While Tim Russert lived and breathed, one of his biggest fans in the Washington press corps was columnist Robert D. Novak. Between 1994, when Russert was already ensconced in the Meet the Press big chair, and last March, Novak's column made at least three dozen references to Russert, and none was critical, as best as I can discern.

Novak?-who has always painted with a limited palette?-describes Russert "grilling" Bill Richardson (June 3, 2007), John Kerry (April 22, 2004), John Edwards (June 20, 2003), John Edwards again (same grilling, different column, May 9, 2002), and Al Gore (Sept. 18, 2000). He repeatedly described Russert as a "tough" questioner of George W. Bush (Feb. 12, 2004), John Edwards (Jan. 12, 2003), and Al Gore (Oct. 22, 2000) and as an "interrogator" of Michael Chertoff (Sept. 8, 2005), Nancy Pelosi (June 6, 2004), and Richard Gephardt (May 8, 2003).

Russert returned the love, making Novak a frequent Meet the Press invitee, even though during most of that interval Novak had his own CNN shows. In 2003, Russert told the Chicago Sun-Times that Novak was "the hardest working reporter in Washington."

The two knew how to work a story together. On Dec. 27, 2007, Novak wrote in his column that John McCain had "admitted" to him that his votes against Bush's tax cuts were a mistake. In his Jan. 6, 2008, Meet the Press interview with John McCain, Russert quoted back from the Novak column to pin the candidate down. From McCain's nonanswer, Novak squeezed out a Jan. 14 column, citing Russert citing him.

In his Russert-tribute column today, Novak explains the nature of their logrolling relationship.

"Russert from the start was an extraordinary source for me," he writes. By "from the start," Novak means since 1977, when Russert came to Washington as part of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's staff. Novak writes of meeting Russert for drinks in Manhattan in 1982, when Russert pulled from his briefcase a batch of opposition research that would ultimately demolish a Republican who planned to run against Moynihan that year.

In a recklessly honest passage, the conservative Novak attributes the "peculiar pro-Cuomo slant" of his column to Russert's move to liberal Gov. Mario Cuomo's staff. In other words, Novak fesses to spinning positive columns about a politician whose politics he despised in return for good material from his friend Tim.

In Washington, such behavior is tantamount to running a protection racket, a charge that has long been aimed at Novak. In his 2007 autobiography, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, Novak writes about giving Washington players the opportunity to be either his source or his target. Here's the way I condensed the Novak method in my review of the book:

[Novak's writing partner Rowland] Evans and Novak were gentle with Alexander Haig because he was a longtime Evans source. Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, "was treated more harshly because he refused any connection with me. He made himself more of a target than he had to be by refusing to be a source." When David Gergen?-not someone simpatico with Novak?-leaks to him in 1981 from the Reagan White House, Novak figures it out. "I think Gergen, the ultimate Washington survivor, was working the source-or-target model with me. Gergen never really became my source, but he was not my target either?-which I believe was his intent."

In Novak-land, Russert had to be a valued, protected source. When Russert crossed the narrow boulevard that separates politics from media to join NBC News, he continued to make payments to Novak. The two spoke on the telephone "two or three times a month," Novak writes. "[W]e exchanged political information, and I usually was the recipient."

I can't find a Novak column that names Russert as a source, so the nature of the material Russert provided to Novak is unknown except that it appears to have been anonymous, the usual form of payment in the Washington protection racket. Here's how Novak characterizes the information his pal gave him:

He supplied for use in my column news tidbits he could not use. During my half century of journalism, he was the only colleague who was a source.

Sharing information with another reporter is completely kosher. I do it daily, almost hourly, as do many journalists. But the Novak-Russert relationship poses a couple of questions. Why couldn't Russert use the tidbits? Was the information tainted? Was it information about Democratic Party powers that former Democratic operative Russert couldn't use? Nobody in Washington, not even saints, gives away something for nothing. Why was it in Russert's interest to steer a decade-and-a-half worth of information to Novak for almost no payoff except to see the information used? Was Russert protecting himself by feeding Novak, or did Novak owe him and feel obliged to use the information?

Speaking at the Russert memorial service yesterday, Al Hunt?-Novak's former colleague on Capital Gang?-praised Russert as a journalistic angel who practiced "the oldest virtues and verities in the profession: preparation, integrity, fairness, accountability."

That may be true, but this week, the real Russert scoop belongs to Novak. His Tim was a bit of a devil. His "skill" at opposition research "propelled him to the top ranks of television interviewers." Russert's long service as an anonymous source to Novak, aka the prince of darkness, requires further explanation.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

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.

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 in name of poster X or Y>.

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.

0 Replies

I'm glad that critical media consumers eventually started to chime in on the same notes too. One of the users at TPM Cafe put it in an off-hand way, but he's got a point.

Actually, he's got two. One is really quite off-topic for this thread. It's his description of the "buddy-buddy" character of MTP, "a private party that the rest of us are invited to observe." He says, "I'm glad these guys are all having fun. But maybe they are having too much fun," while the world suffers from policies they end up barely scrutinizing.

That may be off-topic, but boy do I recognize that feeling. Ever more often, when I check into some news show, mostly online now, I get the feeling that I've barged in on some social event with lots of political chatter. Where the guys are play-acting like they're all mates of each other and mine, spending time with them is like a substitute for the family meet-ups you dont really have anymore, and you just happen to pick up on some of the news too. Dude, I dont need ersatz friends, I have my own and they're more fun. I just wanna hear the friggin' news.

Anyway, all that on an aside. Back on topic:

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

While you may have an issue with the way that was phrased, the item got some really good comments as well. So I'll pass them on in lieu of constructing an argument myself, which would run roughly down some of the same lines anyway.

Libertine wrote:

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.

whatdoIknow wrote:

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.

mutu wa mbuzi wrote:

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."

one_wilson wrote:

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.

amcarey wrote:

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.

Good thread. <nods>

0 Replies

Tim Russert's Death Gives US Media Some Breathing Room
by JRSWRITER

"The notion that Russert asked the "tough questions" of those he interviewed, advanced by a host of former colleagues on a tribute broadcast this Sunday in place of "Meet the Press," is absurd. During the run-up to the war, Russert, along with the rest of the media, provided a platform for Vice President Dick Cheney and others to present their lying claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction without seriously calling any of them into question. On March 16, 2003, only days before the US-led invasion of Iraq, Russert virtually handed his program over to Cheney, providing the latter with a propaganda opportunity in front of a large national audience, much of it skeptical about the administration's claims. Russert's particular role here was to politely raise certain doubts and allow Cheney to allay them." Tim Russert and the decay of the American media

The sudden transition of corporate shill Tim Russert of NBC has given the US mind control apparatus some much needed breathing room. The corporate media has come under fire in recent months for its handling of the presidential primaries, the perpetual pass they give the Bu$h administration and the decline of open minded analysis and hard hitting investigative reporting. The media is supposed to have a liberal bias but in truth it is fascist and right wing in nature. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's recent book took the corporate media to task for being sock puppets for George W Bu$h's preemptive invasion of Iraq. McClellan's book put the big time media talking heads in an extremely awkward position. There were no WMDs, Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9-11 and the invasion and occupation has not been the "cakewalk" as the Bu$h-Cheney administration and the corporate media repeatedly told us it would be. Most AmeriKKKans have by now deduced we were snookered by the Bu$hites and the mainstream media. Folks are taking their revenge out on the corporate media; both newspaper readership, network and cable news viewing has declined precipitously over the years. More people now get their news from the Internet ,short wave radio and the foreign press now than ever before. Disingenuous sycophants and shills like Tim Russert were the catalyst for these changes.

Russert died suddenly last Friday of a heart attack while at work in the NBC Washington Bureau office. His death provides a respite from the scrutiny and scorn McClellan's book and recent events have refocused on the US media. The news and cable channels took a hit for the contrived controversies they created during the recent presidential primaries. McClellan's book provided additional fuel for the fire. The media talking heads were all back peddling denouncing McClellan as a crass opportunist and sell out who betrayed his former long time friend and associate George W Bu$h rather than owning up to their role in selling an illegal war.

But most AmeriKKKan's knew the Bu$h administration conducted a prolonged propaganda campaign to dupe us into going along with his plans for imperialist wars beginning with the US invasion of Haiti, Afghanistan and then Iraq. But they had visions of cheap oil dancing in their head's and did nothing to dissuade the invasion. Some of us pointed out the corporate media has given Bu$h a free pass on every major issue since he announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2000 but it fell on deaf ears. It was the corporate media who refused to grill Bu$h on his AWOL status during the Vietnam war, his inexperience on foreign affairs, his shady business history, the economy or the inconsistencies about the official government accounts of 9-11 or the obvious white wash and cover up of the 9-11 Commission! Now all that is obvious to all but the totally comatose and braindead.

Tim Russert was a flunky, a functionary of the corporate elites doing the bidding of his fascist masters. The ruling elites use the Sunday morning "public affairs programs" like Meet The Press to promote their fascist agenda and Russert was a willing shill albeit one who occasionally exposed his guest's inconsistencies and contradictions. But Russert was no threat to the status quo whatsoever. If he were, he would never have been given the position at NBC on Meet The Press nor the wide latitude and free hand he was at MSNBC and CNBC. Russert was the quintessential company man and he was well paid for it.

But at his death, Russert's contemporaries in the mainstream media went out their way to portray him as a sainted news hound. On MSNBC they were touting his devotion to Catholicism, how he contemplated going into the priesthood. On PBS he was canonized. It was sickening to see the talking heads sitting on stage making up history to make Russert a hero. In essence they were using Russert's death to take the pressure off of themselves. By heaping praise on him they were using him to vicariously absolve themselves of their crimes of warmongering and deceit. His death gave them an opportune break from having to rationalize being cheerleaders for Bu$h's fascist agenda that time has shown to be one of the colossal, costly and bone headed misadventures of this nation's history.

While he portrayed himself as a blue collar guy from Buffalo New York, Russert was really a political insider having worked as the Chief of Staff for New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's senatorial campaign as well as press secretary for Mario Cuomo's campaign for New York governor. His experiences and political connections helped him land a job at NBC. From there he parlayed his connections, skills and willingness to shill for the power elites to become host of NBC's Meet The Press. Make no mistake Russert was no blue collar working class radical. He was one of the good ol' boys as far as toeing the line for the corporate oligarchy. "Russert became a household name during the period of the severe decline of the American media, when ignorance, superficiality and cynicism became the hallmarks of all that passed for news and analysis. It is worth noting that in its original format ?'Meet the Press' had a single guest and a panel of questioners. It went through various permutations, until ?'Under Russert,' as one commentator notes, ?'the show was expanded to one hour, and became less of a televised press conference and more focused on Russert, with longer interviews and Russert hosting panels of experts.'" Tim Russert and the decay of the American media By David North and David Walsh 16 June 2008 Tim Russert and the decay of the American media

In the Orwellian New World Order a shill and propagandist like Russert is painted by his colleagues as a tough minded interviewer and reporter. "CBS News ?'Early Show' Co-Anchor Harry Smith: ?'Man did Tim Russert love politics. He ate it, lived it and breathed it. His knowledge of it was organic, internal and genetic. It showed in his every broadcast, in his every debate appearance. He was not afraid, nor was he intimidated. And because he was so good at what he did, we were the beneficiaries. He was in that chair for us, and we were damned lucky he was.'" Reactions To Tim Russert's Passing , Journalists, Politicians From Both Sides Of The Aisle Praise NBC Journalist - CBS News

The media is using Russert's demise to take the pressure off of themselves, restore order and regain the initiative in the ongoing psychological war they are waging against the AmeriKKKan people. Russert himself admitted he wasn't forceful in probing the administrations claims about the war on Terror and WMDs. Perhaps that's why so many Washington insiders and media talking heads are singing Russert's praises at a time when the corporate media has lost all credibility. They are cheering him on just like he cheered them and their polices that now have AmeriKKKa on the brink of fiscal collapse and moral ruin.

In fact the media's coverage of Russert's passing also allows the corporate media to keep the news of Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduction of thirty five articles of impeachment against George W Bu$h and the failure of the Democratic Congress to take serious action on it off the front pages or the TV news! The massive coverage of Russert's death also allows all the news media to ignore the US Senate's recently released report documenting Bu$h and Cheney lied about the threat of Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction, thus validating McClellan's charges and Kucinich's articles of impeachment . We certainly can't have that, now so we see how the game is played; even in death Tim Russert is still performing useful service for his fascist masters. link

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

True.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

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.

Most so called journalists who sold out their integrity and public duty to become the public relations arm of the warmongers movement were not lionized last week a great journalists. Only one was, and the fact that he was is troubling. It shows that personality still comes before competence at the craft of journalism. He was over the course of his career a reasonably good journalist, fun to watch on Sunday, and was personable....middling, not great.

0 Replies

rabel, that's true. "Network news anchors praise the job they did in the run-up to the war" link

0 Replies

Re: BBB

nimh wrote:

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.

Really? That creative hatchet job above where it appears I suggested your post was idiotic, when in fact that never took place? That's what you think we disagree on, nimh? Come on dude. You have more integrity than that. In case anyone forgot; this is what I actually referred to as idiotic:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

This will remain idiotic, no matter how you try to edit the simple truth of it.

nimh wrote:

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.

I'll settle for a happy medium for the interim period between a man's passing and it becoming old news as it is now. However, BBB's post will remain idiotic wherever or whenever it is posted because it simply is. Not one nice thing said of Russert was done with the silly intention she ascribed to the media reaction in general. Not one.

nimh wrote:

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)

One man's bluster is another's simple matter of fact as I'll demonstrate shortly.

nimh wrote:

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>.

Yes, just as the honest man and the liar will both claim to tell the truth. Would you argue that the honest man is telling a lie based on some evidence that an arbitrary liar lied? That's not much of an argument, Nimh.

nimh wrote:

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.

It seems you're not even trying to get it here, Nimh. There is plenty of room to be partisan without being irrational, yes. On the other hand; how do you suppose someone's behavior could fit the term hyper-partisan, without crossing that threshold? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

nimh wrote:

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.

This too will be clearer with a clear understanding of the word "hyper" as a prefix.

nimh wrote:

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.

A simple reading of BBB's "scumbag" thread that annoyed me in the first place, would show how absurd this charge is. In it; I defended John and Cindy McCain from asinine attacks, while laying out a more nuanced way to defeat him. Nothing black and white about that Nimh.

nimh wrote:

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.

Yes, "much like the fiercest partisan would be" but damn it Nimh: that isn't any kind of proof of partisanship let alone hyper-partisanship. Answer me this? Who are my fellow partisans? Please look up both Partisan and the prefix ?'hyper' before continuing this misguided attempt to distort the meaning of hyper-partisan. Some definitional leeway is normal, but you are way too far away from the actual meanings to be reasonable.

nimh wrote:

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.

See above. Passionate Not Equal

Partisan.

nimh wrote:

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.

Worry not; you'll win any popularity contest against me regardless of which group is judging. This departure from well reasoned discourse notwithstanding; you are by far the kinder gentler guy. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that the hatchet job at the beginning was probably done, at least in part, with the intention of shielding BBB.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Take note of your company and their notebooks, Nimh.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my arguments, thanks.

I believe you'll have the integrity to amend this statement after researching a couple of meanings.

0 Replies

Why Do Journalists Mourn Russert So? Meet the New Press
Why Do Journalists Mourn Russert So? Meet the New Press
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 30, 2008; Page C01

Scratch the surface of all those glittering tributes for Tim Russert and you might find an undercoating of journalistic insecurity.

The NBC analyst was hailed as a symbol of old-fashioned, carefully balanced, substance-driven reporting, an approach that, while not exactly extinct, often seems drowned out by today's loudmouth television culture.

But why was his passing depicted as the end of an era? What, after all, is stopping the networks from putting on other hour-long programs of sustained political interrogation, even if its practitioners are less skilled than Russert?

The answer is that news organizations are too often captives of the convenient. The networks still air their half-hour newscasts at 6:30, despite declining audiences, because trying an hour in prime time is deemed too risky. The cable networks lean toward loud and opinionated shows because such fare brings in the hard-core audience. Despite Russert's success, many producers today are terrified of boring the audience. Most interviews last six or seven minutes before it's time to move on to the next segment about Michelle Obama doing fist bumps on "The View."

While "Meet the Press" regularly managed to make news, television's dominance is being eroded by a YouTube ethos in which candidates, partisans and pundits can reach a growing audience online, no middleman required. That, too, has fueled the anxieties of the Old Media crowd.

And so the emotional farewells to Russert, which ultimately came to feel excessive, seemed rooted in journalism's crisis of confidence. Russert was a popular figure in a field whose practitioners are often mocked and derided, a credible commentator in a widely distrusted profession. Journalists of all stripes wanted to be associated with him, perhaps hoping a little of the magic dust would rub off.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

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.

He was a shill for the government in power, Lash, nothing more and nothing less. "searching questions" please. He constantly lobbed softballs and if they were having any trouble he'd then set it up as a T-ball.

0 Replies

Tim Russert, 1950-2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know