1
   

Tim Russert, 1950-2008

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 07:56 am
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:48 am
I prefer a newsman who asks questions that require truthful answers instead of questions that let the one who is answering answer in a spin mode. But we don't have that kind of newsman any more. What we have now are showman. Who in their right mind would accept the word of a showman about anything important in our lives. Evidently many of the citizens of the U.S. which is why our government and economy have gone to he-l.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:00 am
Lash wrote:

Russert asked [the] off topic questions, pursued a bit, got [his] their points in--and moved on.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 12:13 pm
Source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 01:39 pm
Well. Today Jesse Helms is dead. Does that mean that people are now supposed to pull of the contortionists' trick of talking about him and discussing his political career all while saying nothing bad about him either?

The hypocrisy involved manifests itself in double-tongued commentaries like this (WaPo, "On Faith"):

Quote:
Most of us have strong opinions about public figures, especially politicians and especially those we've never met. But my grandfather taught me never to speak ill of the dead.

So I'll pass on passing judgment on the late Sen. Jesse Helms, who seemed to spend so much of his life passing judgment on anyone who didn't fit his narrow view of what is right and good and Christian.

Yeah, right. So much about not speaking ill - it just comes out more sneakily now.

Helms was a politician with virtues and also very distinctive flaws, which marked his career strongly. You're a newspaper writer. Write an honest reflection on the significance on man's life already, with the positives and the negatives, like newspapers should. If we want sanctimonious eulogies we'll listen to the priest.

Yeah, thats it - the media seem to be confusing obituaries with eulogies. Must be a cultural difference of some sort.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 01:44 pm
I never came away from a Russert interview feeling he had done an adequate job. I agree with those who say that newsmen today are not real newsmen.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 02:08 pm
Lash wrote:

Good link. As the writer comments on the overview of eulogies you copied here:

Quote:
A star-studded lineup, saying in perfect prepared-statement-speak how they remember him, or how they wish to be remembered remembering him.

Seems to sum it up.

As for the author's own assessment ("Tim Russert conducted 15-30 minute interviews with important Washington politicians. He wasn't, in my opinion.."), I'll sign off on that.

-----------------------------

OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
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?

What I think we apparently disagree on is whether this thread is or is not the place for what you describe as me feeling "compelled to interrupt a thread about a man's passing by pointing out he wasn't the best journalist out there," or BBB doing the same.

The post I interrupted this thread with was indeed about how I would evaluate Russert's significance. It was equally a description of my sense of alienation with how the media seemed to go in full Princess Di mode. Apparently, you believe such critical notes are inappropriate at best when it comes to writing about the dead.

That would then be what we disagree on. Like I said, must be something cultural -- though it was good to see some American readers expressing how they were troubled by it too.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I looked it up, thanks. The American Heritage Dictionary defines partisan as follows:

    [i]A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.[/i]

You have been as militant a supporter or proponent (and opponent, for that matter) of specific causes, persons and ideas as anyone here, to the point where it clouded your ability to consider conflicting information. What I wrote here about how you can get once you've joined a cause is fully compatible with this dictionary definition:

Quote:
much (even if not all) criticism is brusquely dismissed, and everything is approached from a boisterously prejudicial perspective. [Y]ou'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.

[T]ake 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. [..]

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.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:37 pm
Who is considered a great American reporter?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:30 pm
Lash wrote:
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.


The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

The viewpoint of a journalist should be invisible.

Partisans such as Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Rather and others are an embarrassment to the 'journalistic' institutions that they represent.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:17 pm
real life wrote:
Lash wrote:
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.


The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

The viewpoint of a journalist should be invisible.

Partisans such as Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Rather and others are an embarrassment to the 'journalistic' institutions that they represent.


This idealized view works for straight news, but when you are faced with a group of lying bastards, as all of these reporters have been over the last eight years, it is essential that these people be called on their lies, not actively supported in them, not coddled and massaged.

Funny that you should dump solely on the reporters, though they certainly need to be called out too. What of the politicians, "top" politicians? Not only the reporters but actual thinking people, which is what Lash is, have given them a free ride.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 03:21 am
real life wrote:
Lash wrote:
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.


The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

The viewpoint of a journalist should be invisible.

Partisans such as Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Rather and others are an embarrassment to the 'journalistic' institutions that they represent.


So who's a good American journalist, in your estimable opinion?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 04:24 am
snood wrote:
The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

Well said.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:08 am
real life wrote:
Lash wrote:
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.


The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

The viewpoint of a journalist should be invisible.

Partisans such as Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Rather and others are an embarrassment to the 'journalistic' institutions that they represent.

1. "his points" meant that when he asked his question and was evaded, he would cfontinue to ask the question until at least the viewer could clearly see the interview subject was evading...
2. His viewpoint WAS invisible. He wasn't a partisan. I saw him give a hard time to Republicans and Democrats. You are correct about Stephanopoulos, Matthews and certainly Rather...

I knew I'd commented on this phenomenon of editorializing reporters and news agencies. My good friend Sofia said this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Phelps and AU. Reporting has morphed into editorializing. There are OpEd pages and commentators APLENTY for that.

"I'm eager to hear what had transpired throughout the day.
NBC confirms the report, but immediately bashes the U.S. military for using "such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." Interesting. Quickly fed up, I flip over to ABC where reporters insist that the operation was a failure because the military didn't take the diplomatic route and bring them out alive. Rolling my eyes and looking for another angle, I switch to CBS where I'm excited to see one of their reporters LIVE from Baghdad. Now, we're getting somewhere — some local perspective. The journalist reports on the gunfire in Baghdad following the raid, and wonders if it was a result of anger or jublilation. He decides that "some of it was most certainly" in "anger."

They should supply facts, and leave the bashing, decision-making and wondering to the viewer."

The thing is--reading back, I bet my liberal friends who just said reporters shouldn't inject themselves into the news wouldn't mind these injections so much... We've certainly been saturated with this type of reporter editorializing....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:23 am
Snood--

I can't think of one.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:40 am
Lash wrote:
real life wrote:
Lash wrote:
I suppose you preferred the Dan Rather-type spittle spewing partisan screeching...

Russert asked the questions, pursued a bit, got his points in--and moved on.


The job of a newsman is not to 'get his points in'.

A journalist is supposed to report the news, not try to BE the news item.

The viewpoint of a journalist should be invisible.

Partisans such as Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Rather and others are an embarrassment to the 'journalistic' institutions that they represent.

1. "his points" meant that when he asked his question and was evaded, he would cfontinue to ask the question until at least the viewer could clearly see the interview subject was evading...
2. His viewpoint WAS invisible. He wasn't a partisan. I saw him give a hard time to Republicans and Democrats. You are correct about Stephanopoulos, Matthews and certainly Rather...

I knew I'd commented on this phenomenon of editorializing reporters and news agencies. My good friend Sofia said this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Phelps and AU. Reporting has morphed into editorializing. There are OpEd pages and commentators APLENTY for that.

"I'm eager to hear what had transpired throughout the day.
NBC confirms the report, but immediately bashes the U.S. military for using "such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." Interesting. Quickly fed up, I flip over to ABC where reporters insist that the operation was a failure because the military didn't take the diplomatic route and bring them out aliveHe decides that "some of it was most certainly" in "anger."

They should supply facts, and leave the bashing, decision-making and wondering to the viewer."

The thing is--reading back, I bet my liberal friends who just said reporters shouldn't inject themselves into the news wouldn't mind these injections so much... We've certainly been saturated with this type of reporter editorializing....


thanks for the clarification

I thought that's what you meant anyway, but couldn't resist stirring the pot a bit. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:49 am
You RABBLE ROUSER!!!

Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 07:56 am
You know me too well, Lash. Cool
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:01 am
Lash wrote:
Snood--

I can't think of one.

Jim Lehrer
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:11 am
dyslexia wrote:
Lash wrote:
Snood--

I can't think of one.

Jim Lehrer
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 08:15 am
I used to think so years ago...but, I've heard him go off in left field...like a long hike, sweety.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/09/2023 at 02:48:51