Tim Russert, 1950-2008

Russert asked [the] off topic questions, pursued a bit, got [his] their points in--and moved on.

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.

Source

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

Snood--

I can't think of one.

Lash wrote:

Snood--

I can't think of one.

Jim Lehrer