TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.06.2008
More on Russert

Joe Klein and Christopher Hitchens have, respectively, insightful and moving obituaries for their friend Tim Russert. Every conversation I have taken part in or overheard over the past couple of days consists of people in one of two categories: Those who had personal stories of Russert’s kindness or generosity, or those who found themselves to be much more upset by his death than they would have expected. I count myself in the latter category, likely because there are certain figures in popular culture—and even if he was first and foremost a journalist, Russert also transcended his job and our “bubble”—who are much more visible than one quite realizes. I remember being rather unaffected by Johnny Carson’s death, but I did register a certain amount of surprise that adults I knew who rarely if ever watched The Tonight Show were saddened by Carson’s passing. By osmosis if nothing else, Russert, like Carson, managed to tunnel his way deeper into our psyches than we perhaps recognized.

 

The television coverage that I saw on Friday, most notable for the sight of what appeared to be a genuinely saddened Keith Olbermann and the complete absence of Chris Matthews, went some way to crystallizing why Russert’s passing is resonating so deeply. The number of celebrity journalists and members of the Washington Establishment on MSNBC was pretty startling. First there was Tom Browkaw and Andrea Mitchell and Ben Bradlee, then Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham and Barbara Walters. You almost expected to see Katharine Graham mourning Russert’s death, even though that would of course have been impossible. Anyway, or belatedly, the point is that for most young, liberal journalists in Washington, this parade of Establishmentarians is seen as being either too cozy with power or too wedded to outmoded ways of covering politics. Russert, to be sure, was part of this group, and while I agree with some of the criticisms thrown his way (the gotcha questions, the coziness with the powerful, the obscuring of really important issues by focusing on the horserace), all the tributes made one remember why Russert seemed so much fresher and less etiolated than this crowd.

 

There were certainly problems with Russert’s habit of focusing obsessively on past statements, but the fact remains that someone needs to put the spotlight on flip-flopping (to use a loaded term) and hypocrisy (okay, maybe not hypocrisy).  Still, I always felt that by the end of a long Russert segment, the viewer really did know where Candidate X stood on the issues. Moreover, where else on network television could you watch an uninterrupted 30 minute segment with a host who actually let his guests talk?

 

Switching from the political to the personal, Russert was an extremely entertaining performer. Like Matthews, his obvious love of politics was infectious and charming, and his plain-spoken persona was surprisingly engaging, if for no other reason than that it did not appear to be shtick. I was always pleasantly surprised, when talking to people in Washington, to hear them say that Russert was actually like that. Similarly, the gigantic amount of publicity generated by his book on “Big Russ” was slightly less annoying than it should have been because Russert had such genuine love and affection for his father. Clichés are clichés for a reason, and so I am sure there were quite a few other people who choked up when they heard David Gregory or some other NBC personality say that they were shocked at how often Russert would sneak away from the anchor desk to place a call to his son about the latest sports score.

 

It is easy (and reasonable) to be cynical about political life in Washington, but the opening theme of Meet The Press, and Russert’s booming voice which followed it (“Our issues this Sunday…”) was one of the few things grandiose and exciting enough to warrant a small dose of pomposity. Tim Russert will be sorely missed.

 

--Isaac Chotiner

Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:49 PM with 13 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

basman said:

Really nice post: tough but fair, I might say.

June 14, 2008 7:31 PM

JSmith125 said:

It's sad when anyone dies prematurely, but I think the reason I don't feel more personally affected is that I don't feel that I'm now going to have less information or insight about politics without Russert than I had before. There are several print commentators and a very few broadcast anchors (perhaps Keith Olbermann) I would feel that way about, but not Russert. I've read a lot of the tributes to him, both from other journalists and from ordinary viewers, and I'm struck by how none of them references anything in particular that we ever learned from him other than "Florida Florida Florida," which of course was a statement of the crashingly obvious that was not made more insightful just because he wrote it on a white board.

Throughout the primaries, his contributions to MSNBC's coverage also struck me as statements of the obvious. Here's a random example, from the MSNBC transrcipt of the night of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Olbermann has just asked him what we should be looking for that night:

TIM RUSSERT: " Well, Keith, the best thing for us, I think, is to talk to the campaigns because you get a sense of the spin that‘s coming. Obama‘s people will say, you know, we were down 20 points in Texas and Ohio.  We‘ve made a considerable comeback.  If we get close and hold her to no significant net win of delegates, we‘ll have done our job.  The Clinton people will counter, wait a minute, Obama won 11 primaries in a row.  If we stop him tonight with a win in the popular vote in Texas and/or Ohio, that‘s interrupting his momentum.  And that means we‘re resetting the race.  We‘re back in the game.  

"You know, the interesting thing, Keith, will be the Clinton people will be focusing on the popular vote, the Obama people on the delegates tonight. One interesting question in our exit polls that we already can talk about, we asked the voters of the four states whether they thought that the so-called superdelegates should vote for the winners of the caucuses and primaries or vote for who they in their own judgment think is most electable.  

"And by a margin of almost two-to one, the voters are saying the superdelegates should vote for the winners of the caucuses and primaries, which is very, very significant in that if Senator Clinton does not make some significant inroads in the elected delegate count tonight, she‘s going to have to be very reliant on convincing superdelegates to switch into her column, even though Obama may have a lead amongst the elected delegates.  

"And so I think this will be another piece of information that will be debated by both campaigns and looked at by superdelegates throughout the country."

It was always like that: "Well, Candidate's supporters will say one thing, and Candidate B's supporters will say something else. Candidate A will need to succeed in order to be successful, but Candidate B could benefit if Candidate A stumbles. It's just something we'll have to debate." It was as if Russert was just there by virtue of seniority; when they wanted actual analysis, they'd go to Chuck Todd.

Russert, like most of these guys, reminds me of the famous definition of a journalist: "no ideas and the ability to express them." But I don't mean to be unfair to the guy, so maybe someone who was more of a fan of Russert's could explain why, other than being "a presence in our homes every Sunday morning," he was worth listening to. Was it just that somebody needed to state the obvious for the benefit of whomever was tuning into politics for the first time that week, and Russert was able to do it in a friendly and upbeat way?

June 14, 2008 7:32 PM

ramboorider said:

Just a note on the 'total absence of Chris Matthews'. He was on a plane to Paris, I'm guessing to cover Bush, but not sure about the reason. When he landed, they had him on the phone and later last night, they found a camera for him and he was on for a while. I don't think he heard until he landed and he seemed almost more confused and overwhelmed than sad yet. Hadn't really had time to fully process it. I thought at first that he was just too overwhelmed to be on the air, but that wasn't it.

June 14, 2008 7:50 PM

newdex said:

"America" hasn't lost anything that can't be easily replaced.  I just feel sorry for all the columnist/aspiring television pontificators whose years of sucking up are now pointless.

June 14, 2008 8:39 PM

norval13 said:

Actually, Chris Matthews' comments were among the most touching, in part because he didn't claim to be Russert's best friend (indeed, he was probably being polite; in a recent NYT Magazine article about Matthews, the writer observed that Russert looked down on Matthews)  As for Olbermann, it was a bit surprising to see him so chastened.  But don't worry, by Monday night, he be himself again and we will be subjected to an endless "Special Comment."

June 14, 2008 8:48 PM

fougasseu said:

Isaac, thanks for the thoughtful post. It's a bit early in the morning for etiolated, but I looked it up. The perfect word. I'm not part of any community in Washington, just another American who was fixated on his show. It was a staple of our Sunday mornings, and we always referred to it as "Tim's show". Or if we were out in the yard, "time to watch Tim". He did seem to have a preternatural knack for asking what had been on my mind all week. I think that's where his powerful bond with most Americans came from, he knew to ask what we wanted to know. And I suspect that came from his powerful connection to his roots. I don't think he was was asking questions to impress the Washington Press corps, he we asking the questions the public wanted answers to.

And if you watched him obsessively, as we did, you knew the nod that meant he knew the guest was spinning (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Shalala, Begala, et al), you knew the guests he admired (e.g, Broder, Goodwin, McCain, et al), and you knew the guests that bored him.

And there were the little things. With Hannity and others it's always "Joe", never Sen. Lieberman. With Russert it was always respectful, formal, a bit distancing. Always the title.

The quotes have been mocked in the last few days, but I think viewers have forgotten their origin. He began by reading them, because he wanted to get every word right. He was dealing with language. Very specific language that has been used by our politicians with devilish skill. He had to read exactly what they said to catch them. But the reading made for bad TV. So they had to put the quotes up, and when they did, probably even to their surprise, it made the guest's words seem more permanent and more indicting.

It may be now a cliche but Russert was the first to take on the language problem. It enraged the Clintons. No one misused, to put it mildly, the language than those liars. And Cheney? No other journalist quoted Cheney to his face using his own lies to nail him. His work ethic was legendary: He read virtually everything the guest had said and written. So his quotes were often devastatingly on-target.

What a loss. What a loss for those of us who believe words matter.

June 15, 2008 8:02 AM

AlanSP said:

Good post, Isaac.

One other thing that's worth thinking about with regard to Russert and the "gotcha" style more generally is how it has affected the way that politicians speak and write.  Has the fear of saying something that will later come back to haunt them led politicians to eschew saying what they think in favor of following the script?  To pick a couple of Pennsylvania examples, has it led to more Bob Caseys and fewer Ed Rendells? (one of the low points in my opinion of politics came when I was on a conference call where Bob Casey was speaking.  The people on the call were mostly his own staff and even then, Casey seemed incapable of responding to questions with anything but talking points).  I would argue that "gotcha" type questions have contributed to this shift, although there are certainly other factors involved (e.g. consultants that are overly risk averse).  Part of the appeal of talking points is that if you respond to every question with the same handful of lines, the odds of your saying something contradictory (or thoughtful or interesting) go way down.

And it hasn't just been a shift in the relative abundance of guys like Rendell or Joe Biden who say what they think, it's been their devaluation.  Those guys get dismissed as potential national figures because they're "loose cannons" or "gaffe machines."  A couple months ago, Noam was talking about Casey as a possible VP choice, and one of the main positives he pointed to was his ability to stay on message.  I think it's a problem when the tendency to doggedly repeat talking points instead of engaging in real discussion is seen as a virtue.

I don't say this to point a finger at Russert.  As others have said, it's important to have some accountability, somebody who calls people out when they try to have it both ways, and who, when politicians change their stances, asks them to explain why.  Russert took this job very seriously and worked hard to try to do it well.  But if we want to seriously think about his legacy, it's important to look at the unintended consequences as well as the intended ones.

June 15, 2008 2:44 PM

Snarkmarket said:

In one of the many Tim Russert reminiscences circulating this weekend, Isaac Chotiner mentioned the grandiose theme music of Meet the Press, which has always been one of my favorite parts of the show. Naturally, this sent me spiraling deep...

June 15, 2008 5:24 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Olbermann's a journalist? How so? I thought journalists did research, broke stories, interviewed people of consequence and asked them tough, penetrating questions. How does anything O'Reilly or O'lbermann or Dobbs do fit this description?

June 16, 2008 3:30 AM

fougasseu said:

Tep - agreed. Maybe the candidates should come from the world of print.

June 16, 2008 7:48 AM

JackR said:

I was curious about something.  In all the tributes to Tim Russert, I heard many references to his great love for his father "Big Russ" but absolutely no mention, not even one, about his mother.  Now I know he wrote a best-selling book about his father, and I realize it was Father's Day, but still.  Does anybody have a theory or some facts about this?  It struck me as more than passing odd.

June 16, 2008 12:01 PM

basman said:

JackR   Good point and I noticed it too. I was wondering whether it was an Irish Catholic, of a certain generation and before, paternalistic, cultural thing.

June 16, 2008 4:39 PM

renniegirlbabs said:

Regarding his mother, I noticed the same thing, and wondered, as a woman who is sensitive to such things, if he could possibly be sexist (although he certainly didn't seem the type) and then thought that maybe his mom had passed away when he was young, or something. But actually, I watched a ton of coverage over the weekend, and finally did catch a conversation regarding her. I think it was at the end of an interview of Tim given by Tom Brokaw regarding the stories in Tim's book about fathers and daughters...Tom asked him at the end about his mother, saying that everyone knows how he feels about his dad but doesn't hear about his mom. Tim mentioned a couple of recollections he had, including the clever ruse to get them to do their homework: seat them at the kitchen at 4:45 (on the dot) while she was cooking, and only trading a pencil for a fork when they were done. tim said that the aromas got them motivated to get the homework done. He described her as being a typical woman in Buffalo: the one truly in charge of the family. It was brief, but he described her as both loving and strict. I think he said that she died last year.

June 16, 2008 9:28 PM