One Question on Russert

[Carolina]

As many of you at DU, I had a love-hate relationship with MTP and its moderator, Tim Russert.

Some Sunday mornings he would have me cursing at the TV when I felt he was playing HARDball with Democrats and HANDball with repukes. Or when his roundtable discussions were peopled mostly by those who skewed rightward. Other mornings, I listened intently to his questions or analysis and agreed. I also thought, he was probably a decent guy because of his obvious filial and paternal love.

As I watch all the newsies this morning, I am struck by the fact that every last person says he always did his research, always did his homework, he was fair. He studied his guests' positions and then took the opposite side in his line of questioning. And he listened to the responses and came back with appropriately challenging follow-up questions. They also continually point out that he always spoke to his blue collar roots, to his Dad, the retired sanitation worker, who told him: "Speak to me." And I know they are sincere, not simply heaping praise on a clearly beloved colleague, mentor and friend.

So here's the rub for me. How did this seemingly honorable, diligent, common man let BushCo get away with selling this horrid Iraq War?! A war that due diligence, even in 2002, would have shown inquiring minds to be wrong and ultimately disastrous. How did he sit there on so many Sundays in 2002 and allow Cheney and Rice to promote such an horrific lie without ever using Cheney's words from 1991 against him, without ever pointing out the history of US-Iraq (i.e. Saddam-Bush I and Rumsfeld) relations, without pointing out the nationality of the obvious perpetrators of 9/11, without ever giving the few, the brave, the naysayers an equal, fair chance, etc?

I am sorry about his untimely passing and may he rest in peace. But this war sticks in my craw as nothing else in my over 50 years' lifetime. All the death, destruction, waste all based on LIES. It just gets me. Sorry for the rant.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. he not only helped sell the invasion,

he helped the DOD with its illegal sales job afterwards (Gitmo, abu grhaib, and successin Baghdad) AND he stopped stories about how the DOD broke the law by doing domestic propaganda. Russert looks good only in comparison to the rest of the crap on cable.

[Saturday]

3. I too thought of your position and

grieved that the 4000 plus dead did not have the fanfare upon their demise as Russert is having. The media took us to war for coverage, ratings and profit. Russert was one of them. I feel for the personal loss of his family BUT......

[Carolina]

4. exactly and I can't forget that

All the apparent good he did cannot erase what I see as his complicity in this disaster. And it flies in the face of all that is being said about him this morning. Yes, it's natural to laud the dead, or at least not speak evil of them. And I didn't loathe him as I do BushCo, but he aided and abetted a huge crime. I can't let it go just because he died.

Probably should turn off the TV and go for a walk. :hi:

[sfam]

11. He did use Cheney's words from 1991 against him...Cheney blew it off of course...but...

The reason given yesterday by Chris Matthews was that Russert took them at their word that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. That's why he "bought into it". Turns out they lied to Russert like everyone else. Why he believed it? The reason given was his blue-collar, patriotic roots, yada yada yada. Bottom line, lots of people believed this tripe. Tim wasn't alone.

[Joe Bacon]

52. Timmy's right-wing bias is well documented

Go to Bob Somerby's Daily Howler and look at Bob's archives on Russert.

http://www.dailyhowler.com

The truth is that NOBODY practiced the art of PRE$$TITUTION more that Tim Russert. He was the penultimate flunky, the ultimate brown-nosing asskisser and apologist to the rich. He was the Christian equivalent of Yevetschenko, and as that clown apologized for his Soviet politburo members, so did Russert do the exact same thing here in America.

I still loathe Russert's whoring for the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a blow job. That callous creep just slobbered over anything involving Bill Clinton's penis. It was the center of Timmy's universe, his raison d'etre for existence. Timmy did his Opus Dei masters real proud over that.

YET

We have an out of control insane religious freak in the White House, who Timmy repeatedly worshipped in the same manner as the brainwashed kids of Jesus Camp. No matter what crimes George W Bush has committed, Timmy and his fellow presstitutes such as Whoreen Dowd, Bob Whoreward, Whoreward Fineman and David Blowder sit at the "pundit" roundtable and ignore it. Outside of Olberman, name me ONE so-called "mainstream" journalist who has even discussed Dennis Kucinich's impeachment motion. Not one. They don't care, because it is in their Ayn Randian self interest to keep these fascist thugs in power.

They still float up there in their LAISSEZ-FAIRYLAND, thinking everything is just hunky dory and wonderful, AND they are totally ignorant of us here in the real world who know that they are full of shit. Let them continue to float, let them discover that they have been marginalized until it is too late. It's only a matter of time before what happened to Walter Winchell happens to them, just imagine, like Winchell they become a has been trying to pass out their mimeographed bullshit to passers-by and getting laughed at as passers by simply crumple their pages up and toss them away.

[Carolina]

55. thanks for the link

and the more appropriate pen names: Whoreen Dowd, Bob Whoreward, Whoreward Fineman and David Blowder

[rfranklin]

2. Was Russert the one who said "integrity is for losers?"

Or was that Chris Matthews. I seem to remember some such story about one of the MSNBC talking heads.

[Ino]

23. Russert said "Integrity is for paupers!"

...and that lack of character made him rich

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/020109_Russert.htm

[Phred42]

42. Interesting and disturbing

This would explain Tweety and others too.

But where did Podvin get this 'interview'

[katmondoo]

5. My question too

but I have refrained from posting anything. I still feel bad he died so young even though I could never watch him without getting angry. He seemed like a good man in spite of his leanings toward the Bushies.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Cheney aide: MTP is "best format"; helps us "control the message."

From wiki:


>>>>During the trial, another witness, former Cheney communications director Cathie Martin, testified that she "suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format", allowing the administration to "control the message".<18><19>>>>>>

[patrice]

15. ooops wrong post

[bluerum]

7. Russet was a laid back kind of stealth RW water boy. Not so in your face

as many of the others. But he still carried their water and that fact should not be lost.

Was he kind of personable? Yes.
Was he less of an asshole than _O'Lielly? Yes.
Did he kind of remind you of a journalist Pillsbury dough boy? Yes.
Was he human and did he have puppy dog moments when the lighting softened and all the hard edges aesthetically blurred? Yes.

But he worked for the MSM and carried out the agenda of the RW.

How can anyone forget that?

[texastoast]

8. Because his bosses told him to

He worked for the corporate media and they are financed by supporters of BushCo.

And not everyone gets the freedom to be Keith Olberman.

So take that anger and work to diversify the media back the way it was before the megamergers were legalized.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

17. I think everyone DOES have the freedom to be Keith Olberman. Takes 2 words: "I Quit."

Or 7 words: "I'm not doing that. So fire me."
Anyone at Russert's level would have a new job by lunchtime.

[texastoast]

18. You are right about that

And I'm not trying to make an excuse for his choice to stay nor do I think he should be canonized as the newsfest is doing now. Whether or not he quit, it doesn't fix the problem that media diversification (rediversification?) needs to happen asap.

The pro-Bush media culture was to the industry's brightest journalists much like the McCarthy years were to the entertainment industry. The blackballing of that time was much like corporate boss pressure on what turned out to be in many cases the "journalists."

[Bluerthanblue]

22. it's easy

for us to say this, it is quite another thing to really put our lives in the balance.

How many of us said we refuse to go to work tomorrow if we invade Iraq?
How many actually went to jail in the effort to stop this madness?

some, some very committed, courageous people, but no where near the number of people who point fingers at others and say "THEY didn't do enough to stop this".

And who only do the complaining through the internet, or after the person they are accusing is dead.

Human'kind' is pretty messed up.

peace~

[senseandsensibility]

25. Russert actually had power

The average person doesn't. You can't compare the two. It's ridiculous. If the average person lost their job, they could be in real trouble such as losing their home, or becoming destitute. This could never be an issue for Russert. It wouldn't even get to that point with him; he'd have found another job immediately. Also, if he had stood up, people would have had to listen. Why should a low-wage worker risk everything when no one would listen anyway? And lastly, it was his JOB to stand up to bushco. Period.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. again,

it is easy for us to judge other people for not doing what we think they should have done.

Most of us in the US even those of us who live on the edge of society financially and otherwise, are unwilling to give what little we have to make the differences we potentially COULD make in this world.

Tim Russert wasn't born into wealth- and while he had financial resources I cannot even imagine possessing, I can't condemn him for his not performing in the way I would like to imagine *I* would have in his position.

Helen Thomas had the guts to speak up- what did it get her? Look at Dan Rather- yeah, they still have jobs, but the access and influence that you seem to think they possess is pretty fragile, and strongly guarded by the power brokers and thier people on the ground.

peace~

[senseandsensibility]

27. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one

Peace.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. no

problem Senseandsensibility.

and peace to you my friend~
and to us all
:hi:

[Kahuna]

36. I'm sure that Russert made at least a 7 figure salary if not an 8 figure salary..

He could AFFORD to have integrity. Get it?

[Carolina]

48. Well first many of us here did more than

complain on the internet. We called, wrote and faxed Congress, and we marched and protested in the streets.

Yes, few of us are in a position to quit our jobs because we have neither the wealth, connections or power of the Russerts of the world.

But I'm not even saying Russert should have threatened to quit, only challenge, ask questions, be a journalist!

It wasn't that long ago, however, that we had the shining examples of Archibald Cox and Eliot Richardson during the Nixon years, political courage that is sorely lacking today.

[Kahuna]

35. Did you see that creepy Jack Welsh practically in tears on MSNBC?

Of course he was devastated that his chief toady was no longer available.

[Eurobabe]

9. I honestly cannot believe what I am reading on here today

How may times would you come here on a Sunday and have people RAILING against Press the Meat about Timmeh.

Now all of a sudden they want to canonize him? I just don't get it.

I feel sorry for his family, but that is about all.

[Carolina]

49. did you even read my post?

I am certainly not canonizing him!

[patrice]

10. Evil IS quite banal - according to Hannah Arendt.

The problem with that is that it means that we need to ask not only MSM/TR, but also ourselves, why we don't know the name of

one

dead Iraqi child.

And yet we can quote chapter and verse what the latest media construction said/did in the latest derivative of the abtractions that we call our/their "lives".

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Well put:

>>>The problem with that is that it means that we need to ask not only MSM/TR, but also ourselves, why we don't know the name of
one
dead Iraqi child.>>>>

[patrice]

16. I've been looking around the net, trying to find a name; haven't found one yet.

I know the local Quakers; I will ask one of them for a name to meditate upon.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. I can give you one- Abeer

and her family.
She was raped and murdered by us.

Her mother father and sister were also killed.

I believe she has some surviving brothers.

thank you for caring.

peace~

[Bluerthanblue]

24. here is her story-

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2006/08/nyt-rendering-abeer-qasim-hamza.html

peace~

[Bluerthanblue]

19. wow-

EXCELLENT point-

thank you.

:hi:

peace~

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. I entirely agree with you...tim was part of the problem and a corporate/gov't tool

or else he wouldn't have been where he was

[Maureen1322]

14. I agree with you and we should be demanding answers

from the media on how this happenened. We need to impeach the MSM along with Bush/Cheney.

[kenny blankenship]

21. What did Chris Matthews say about the *NBC bosses and the war?

Russert was a mouthpiece. He'll be replaced by a mouthpiece.

[Disturbed]

29. Russert: At the Feet of the Powerful and Throat of the Weak

Russert: At the Feet of the Powerful and Throat of the Weak
Posted January 28, 2006 | 04:21 PM (EST)


"The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet.
-- Winston Churchill

Congratulations to Arianna for daring to expose Tim Russert, whose Meet the Press has for so long dishonored American journalism. Russert is guilty of all the sins she has exposed: slimy cronyism, back-stabbing, nepotism, favor-trading and all the rest. But the harm he does to our society goes far deeper: to paraphrase Churchill, Russert is either at the feet of the powerful or the throat of those who challenge them. By so doing with a conservative Administration, he winds up supporting war, violence, inequality, harm to the environment, and expanded Executive power.

What is particularly shameful about his behavior is that Russert does not toady to a conservative Administration out of ideological conviction. However one feels about Sean Hannity, he is at least sincere. Russert, however, has no real beliefs. He sucks up to conservatives today simply to build his career, income, and power.

Russert began public life as a Democrat, and was for many years a card-carrying member of the so-called liberal media elite. After taking over Meet the Press, however, his ratings depended on repeat performances by government officials, whom he dares not seriously challenge for fear they will refuse to reappear on his show. Those who challenge their power, on the other hand, are expendable. By beating up on them, Russert can pretend to be "tough", giving him a pass to fawn at the feet of a Condelezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld or Richard Cheney. Such behavior, of course, is also the safest course to take with his employers.

Russert's treatment of candidates like Howard Dean contrasts dramatically with the obsequious treatment given those in power. A Cheney or Rumsfeld may be shown a film clip of one of their many lies, and asked to explain. They are then given as much time as they want to expand, amplify and embellish their lies, without interruption, whereupon Russert goes on to another topic. A Dean, however, is pummelled mercilessly.

The end result is to reinforce Administration lies and undermine the credibility of those who would challenge them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/russert-at-the-feet-of-t_b_14638.html

[Carolina]

50. thank you for this post and link

:hi:

[ileus]

30. yes indeed he ordered the attack on iraq....

[Kahuna]

34. He didn't order it. But he certainly did facilitate its sale to the

American people. He was a propaganda conduit.

[Medusa]

39. Name me one media person who wasn't?

At least on the television side? They were all cheerleading. And anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just lying or trying to rewrite history to flatter themselves.

[Kahuna]

45. Yep. They were all cheerleading. But Tim added the necessary

legitimacy bushco need. He was a tool, the same way Woodward was a tool.

[Carolina]

51. I do hope you forgot the

:sarcasm:

Regardless, of your inane comment, the fact is that aiding, abetting and enabling a crime does indeed make one a criminal.

[genna]

31. Did you see Charlie Rose's tribute yesterday night? He was emotional after the bombing in NY.

It was not just true of Tim Russert, but of many others.


How did so many of your countrymen believe the US President and company?

We are all inclined to follow authority. The attacks were frightening.

[grassfed]

32. collaborator

[Kahuna]

33. I'm sorry for Tim's passing. But he was definately a GOP tool. He..

only seemed to become more neutral after being outed during the Scooter Libby trial.

[Honeycombe8]

38. Bullcracky. He was a Democrat, and impartial. Some think if someone is not partial to

his/her viewpoint, then they MUST be on the "other side."

Russert had no side. He did vote. He did not, as one poster said, wear a Bush/Cheney 2000 lapel pin (that's just a ridiculous claim, on its face).

[Kahuna]

44. Okay. Whatever. It's obvious that you haven't really been paying attention

since the 2000 election. Take for instance when Tim savaged Al Gore so bad that Gore refused to do a debate moderated by Tim afterward. As like how all of NBC, MSNBC and CNBC were actively pushing bush in 2000 and repeating GOP LIES about Gore. They even gave Andrea Mitchell her own show in 2000 to give a platform to rove, hughes and fleischer (bet you don't even know who they are) to push their Gore lies and propaganda. That's how it's done sonny.

Why would Tim and Company do it you may ask? Because their boss (they guy signing their paychecks), Jack Welsh was determined to get bush elected and they all had their marching orders.

So, be ignorant if you want. It's no skin off my teeth.

[Carolina]

53. you're delusional

None one is impartial. Everyone has opinions and indeed prejudices. Some are simply better at concealing their true selves publicly. Or paid better to do so.

As one writer so aptly put it:
"With a pugnacious face and a sharp, savvy political intellect, Russert is often referred to as the ultimate objective, nonpartisan interrogator. As it turns out, apparently he only plays one on TV."

Oh, and since you speak with such authority, did you know Tim?

BTW, the story about the Bush/Cheney 2000 lapel pin was reported in TRUE LIES by Anthony Lappe and Stephen Marshall (p9 of the October 2004 paperback edition) and it was none other than Al Gore who saw the pin at the 2000 Al Smith dinner in NY.

Read a little for yourself; it's illuminating!

[Carolina]

54. and one more thing

Chris Matthews once worked for a Democrat, too. Tip O'Neill to be exact.

However, as we've seen -- at least those of us paying attention -- people like Russert, Matthews, Stephanopolis (sp?),etc. have loyalty to one thing: their corporate ($$$$) masters.

Working for Dems doesn't always translate into loyalty or support.

[Honeycombe8]

37. "Get away with"? What exactly are you saying Russert said or did? He was a journalist....

his job was to elicit facts and statements.

"We'll be greeted as liberators." Cheney statement elicited by Russert.

Admission by Cheney on MTP, in response to Russert question, that even if he'd known there were no WMDs in Iraq, he'd bomb it, anyway, if he could start over.

Russert questioned Repubs about the silver thingie that Rice said was uranium that Iraq would use for nuclear bomb.

A journalist's job is NOT to tell the viewer whether to believe the statements they hear by the interviewers. His job was to ask the right questions, call to the viewers' attention previous inconsistent statements, and give the interviewee an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. It was not his job to tell the viewer whether the explanation sufficed, or not.

What exactly are you claiming that Russert did not do that he should've done? What did he do, that he should not have done? Do you have links to an interview where it is a slam dunk that he assisted with bombing Iraq?

[Carolina]

47. What exactly are you claiming that Russert did not do

that he should've done?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, I am incredulous at your question. Where the hell have you been and particularly, where were you in 2002?

But here are just a few answers and they are really quite SIMPLE!

1) He should have said that 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, NOT IRAQ. And the 4 others were from Yemen, Egypt and the UAE. Not a one from Iraq, so why attack Iraq!

2) He should have asked how it was possible for a country we attacked and bombed to bits in 1991 and then kept under UN sanctions -- with additional occasional bombings -- in all the following years to morph into an imminent threat suddenly in 2002!

3) He should have pointed out that Jung Kim Il in N. Korea not only had nukes but also the audacity to challenge BushCo. Yet typical of bullies, BushCo didn't dare threaten WWWIII by confronting a much more plausible threat!

4) He should have reported (yes, that is a journalist's job) on PNAC and linked its member composition with those espousing action against Iraq!

5) He should have had more opposing views sit across from him and Cheney (e.g. Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Wilson, Scott Ritter, Bill Moyers, Phil Donahue and ALL the members of Congress who voted against IWR, notably Dennis Kucinich -- whose Prayer for America speech at the CA Dem Convention launched his national poitical career).

You say: "his job was to elicit facts and statements." Well, duh, he didn't do it! And it's especially glaring when he allegedly was so diligent in doing his research and homework. In fact, after the fact and leading up to the 2004 election when GWB needed some national face time following chief weapons inspector David Kaye's exposure of the LIE of Iraqi WMDs in 2004, Bush specifically chose Russert as the vehicle in a rare prime-time interview! This from a man who steered clear of solo press conferences and interviews for obvious reasons.

Back in 2002, we at DU had FACTS and reservations about IWR and the Shock and Awe that followed. Why didn't the honorable, diligent Mr. Russert? Questioning those in power and holding them accountable is a journalist's DUTY in a FREE society.

Again, were you living in another universe?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:crazy::shrug:

[Guava Jelly]

40. Thank you.

We are on the same page.
K&R

[wvbygod]

41. He took the answer with him

Many Democrats have pondered similar thoughts about JFK and LBJ concerning Vietnam. They, too, took
such answers with them when they left us here to pose the question why.

As with all life and death situations, the survivors have no choice but to live with the
remaining questions or die without the answers.

[hulka38]

43. Good post Carolina - my thoughts exactly.

[crankychatter]

46. um, war profiteers own the media and have the means of exercising editorial control?

... and the talking heads are employees before they are journalists?

call me crazy