Sofia wrote:Tim Russert is one of the most even-handed interviewers on TV. He asks everyone the hard questions. I've seen him put it to Rs and Ds.
Well now.
I am sure Sofia thinks that when Russet goes after Democrats with a Louisville Slugger it's the same thing as when he goes after the Republicans with a Nerf bat.
Tim Russert served as hired Debate Assassin for the GOP throughout the 2002 election. He should have changed his name to Sammy Suckerpunch. I guess these comments appear a bit subjective, except if one produces some facts to support that judgment.
Back in Sept '02, on MTP Russert allowed Tom Davis R-VA, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee to lie through his teeth without so much as a hint of rebuttal, correction or factual follow up. They were discussing the discredited idea to put Social Security funds into the hands of the money managers on Wall Street. Davis said privatizing Social Security was "...not the Republican position." Lie. It was specifically worded in the 2000 Republican Party Platform. But Russert just bobbed his head up and down.
Davis said, "President Clinton embraced it at one point as you recall." Lie. Russert knew the truth about this.
Davis said, "205 Democrats voted to praise it (privatizing)..." Lie. Russert knew it.
Davis specifically MIS-QUOTED several Democrats as supporting privatization. Mr. Davis was lying about it, but Russert did not even question it, and this gumba has his job because he is considered to be an "informed individual. In fact, one would say his position requires him to be one of the top 1% of "most informed" individuals in Washington, so by allowing blatant lies to pass he is participating in the lie.
In another perspective, Russert gloms onto soft news and neglects any sort of analysis of some of the most important of national issues, does not even follow-up on what was presented. This is "hard-hitting" journalism?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h030801_1.shtml
"Here's the breakdown from the NBC transcripts:
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BURTON DISCUSSES THE CLINTON PARDONS, 1659 words
JAMES CARVILLE DISCUSSES THE CLINTON PARDONS, 3756 words
[Total: 5415 words]
And here's the time that was left to discuss President Bush's tax cut proposal, one of the most important budget measures in many a year:
SECRETARY PAUL O'NEILL DISCUSSES THE BUDGET AND TAX CUTS, 2525 words
The first two segments used up half an hour. The session with O'Neill lasted sixteen minutes. On Meet the Press, that general balance has persisted for weeks.
Maybe Russet's session with Carville would have been tolerable if he had gotten somewhere in his interview with O'Neill. But let's just say it: When Russert sat down with the Treasury Sec, O'Neill ate Tim Russert for lunch. Was the big guy even prepared for the session? Here were a few of the problems:
1) How much will the tax cut cost? Russert asked O'Neill about Democratic claims that the Bush tax cut would really cost $2.6 trillion. Not one word of O'Neill's reply had anything to do with what Russert had asked. Seeming not to notice this point, Russert simply moved on (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/6/01).
2) How much will go to the top one percent? Twice, Russert asked O'Neill about claims that 43 percent of the tax cut's benefits go to the top one percent. Both times, O'Neill pulled a switch?-asked about the total plan, he gave an answer about the income tax provisions. That seemed to be fine with Russert. O'Neill was never forced to speak to the question which Russert had asked (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/7/01).
3) What about those White House numbers? On Saturday, both the Washington Post and the Washington Times reported on distributional numbers, which the White House had released. Each paper devoted an entire story to the White House numbers (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/5/01). Russert?-seeming wholly unaware of the Saturday stories?-asked O'Neill if the White House would ever release such numbers. O'Neill?-who dodged the distribution question all through the session?-didn't mention the Saturday stories either.
Does performance like this by the press corps matter? Only if democracy matters. If the Democratic cost analysis is accurate, for example, then Bush's plan truly doesn't add up. You'd think Russert would want to examine that question. Sorry?-the genial host was far too busy hashing and rehashing the Clinton pardons, asking again and again, for the thousandth time, questions which have been hashed and rehashed long before."
Here Russert has bought, hook, line, and sinker the Bush administration's narrative, and has moved himself out of the penumbra of objectivity as a journalist or newsman and into the darkness of an unquestioning shill for the government's position.
This is not objectivity, but merely a single tune on the "Great Wurlitzer," that amalgam of state and private sources which pump out factoids to support the government's position.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/r_metro_levey010703.htm
"Do you think the war against Iraq is unavoidable?
"Tim Russert: "Nothing is inevitable, but unless Saddam Houssain decides to fully cooperate with the UN inspectors rather than calling them spies I believe the world will take steps to disarm him."
.<BTW some were American spies>
"Washington, DC: You were always quick to question Bill Clinton's character but I never hear you saying anything similar about our current President. Is having an extra marital affair much more morally repugnant than unjustly starting a war that will end up killing thousands of people or destroying the nation's environment or refusing to help the unemployed? Since you seem to be the self-appointed arbiter of morality, maybe you can clear this up. Thanks.
"Tim Russert: Thanks for the question. The issue about President Clinton was about lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Those are very legitimate issues to pursue. I believe very firmly that if similar allegations were made about President Bush they would be pursued vigorously."
So, In other words, a president's sex life (aka lying under oath and obstruction of justice) are "very legitimate issues to pursue" but executive abuse of secret, undisclosed detention of American citizens in this country are not a direct threat to civil liberties or unconstitutional, lying about the threats from Iraqi military weapons and having no realistic exit policy, and urinating on the environment are off-limits--until he allegedly lies about sex.
Russert's kind of word dance is merely elliptical movement with the attitude of a snake.
Let us review what Russert's nerf bat has struck about those missing WMD.
"
.."
Or how about his piercing comments and questions to administration officials about what this implies:
