http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tim-Russert---A-Good-Man-b-by-Steven-Leser-080614-336.html--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2008
By Steven Leser
I have mixed feelings when I think back on the life of Tim Russert. Here is a man who on the one hand, worked very hard and was always exquisitely prepared for his job and from reports was generous with his time in terms of mentoring fellow journalists. It also seems that he was a kind and congenial fellow off the job and a great father.
His reputation was that of a man who was tough on everyone who came on his show but the evidence shows that almost every time there was a major national issue it seems he came down hard on Democrats and was easy on Republicans.
Tim Russert was one of the members of the press that could not get enough of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal. Not only did Russert use his influence to prolong the story, to keep it in front of the public much longer than the public was interested in it, he routinely mischaracterized data to have the story seem worse than it actually was. As this 1998 article in "The Daily Howler"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092598_1.shtml shows when quoting Russert:
RUSSERT: It’s quite striking, Matt. The vast majority of Americans believe the president is lying--about two out of three--and yet the same number want him to remain in office. They believe that he has been an effective president and what he has done, as much as they don’t believe him and don’t agree with it, it does not disqualify him in their minds from remaining in office at this time.
Russert displayed an extraordinary amount of knowledge about the thoughts of “Americans,” based on the two bits of data he was reviewing. These are the data that were shown on the screen at the same time he made his remarks:
DATA:
Did the president tell the whole truth? No: 60% Yes: 26%
Can the president still lead the country? Yes: 65% No: 32%
Sixty percent is hardly a “vast majority,” by the way, but other problems with Russert’s analysis were apparent. The poll had notasked if people “thought the president was lying;” it had asked if they thought the president “had told the whole truth.” And, at the risk of being accused of parsing too closely, the two questions are hardly the same. One can fail to “tell the whole truth” in a deposition without ever actually “lying” at all; Russert is describing response to a question that NBC did not ask. Given Russert’s penchant for ratcheting things up, “60% believe that Clinton did not tell the whole truth” has now become “The vast majority believe that Clinton is lying.” This is miserable, sloppy, incompetent paraphrase. But hang on folks, it’s gonna get worse.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Daily Howler article goes on to give additional examples of Russert misstating data to make Bill Clintons actions and statements in Lewinsky-gate look worse than they were and compares NY Times analysis of the same data to show how fair reporting compares with what Tim was selling.
In this 1998 Salon article
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1998/07/16/newsb/ concerning a Russert interview by Matt Lauer, Russert is shown to be passing on what can only be described as gossip about whether the Secret Service 'facilitated' the affair between then President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Russert alternately accuses and then feigns innocence and makes 'clarifying' statements saying that he wasnt asserting whether these accusations were fact, they are just "suggestions" out there.
Russert wasn't satisfied to let the Lewinsky affair die with the passing of Bill Clinton's administration. In televised debates, Russert asked Hillary clinton questions about the Lewinsky scandal during her first run for the senate in 2000 and again during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/01/flashback-russert-popped_n_70785.html why an extramarital affair of her husband has anything to do with Hillary's qualifications to be Senator or President is beyond me. It is something I expect Republicans to try to raise, but not a journalist whose job is supposed to be to get at the important issues in politics and be fair and unbiased.
In the runup to the Iraq war, Tim Russert was one of the administration's chief press Cheerleaders for the War. In this 2003 interview where Russert interviewed then Secretary of State Colin Powell
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17500.htm Russert asked Secretary Powell several times what would happen if UN Weapons Inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 but never asked if we would still go to war if Blix and ElBaradei never found such violations. There is none of the tenacious and aggressive questioning of Powell about the justifications for war that Russert would have asked a member of a Democratic administration in the same position. In many questions, Russert was repeating false Bush administration accusations like the existence of terror camps in Northern Iraq, existences of long dismantled Iraqi Nuclear programs etc. Russert's questioning of Powell reminds me of the disgusting practice of push-polling. "If you found out candidate B was a felon, would you still vote for them or would you vote for candidate A?"
In 2005, The Huffington Post's David Fiderer wrote this article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-nobel-prize-and-russe_b_9307.html commenting on Russert's role in the prelude to and aftermath of the Iraq war and pointed out how Russert made many incorrect statements and how Russert had to know that those statements were incorrect:
Russert’s lie: (repeated three times) Inspectors never found any nuclear weapons program in Iraq until 1995, when Saddam’s son-in-law defected and revealed secret nuclear program unknown to the inspectors. It was sheer luck, not the inspections, that kept Saddam from building 21 nuclear bombs by 2003.
Russert’s message: Today inspectors say they find no evidence of nuclear weapons. But experience shows that Saddam can develop nuclear weapons right under the inspectors’ noses. Bombs could still be in Iraq, so the danger - and the justification for war - remains.
The truth: After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the first intrusive inspections in Iraq led to discovery and destruction Saddam’s remaining nuclear weapons program. In 1995, Saddam’s son-in-law revealed a second crash nuclear program (using a fatally flawed design) that U.S. bombs smashed during the Persian Gulf War, prior to the inspectors’ arrival. Before 1991, Iraq relied on European technicians, equipment and manufacturing expertise for its nuclear weapons program, (which, after seven years, remained unsuccessful.) Lacking foreign assistance thereafter, Iraq remained incapable of building any nuclear device.
“Lying” is an inflammatory charge and tough to prove because it presupposes knowledge of Russert’s state of mind. (I only know what I see on TV and in transcripts.) Whatever his motivation – currying favor with The White House, competing with Fox News – Russert’s lies are so obvious that no other explanation makes sense.
There are five different reasons to believe that Russert lied instead of misspoke. Add them up, and the results are pretty damning...
-------------------------------
Fiderer's article goes on to point out how Russert attacked then Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry for his votes and statements on Iraq but how Russert's attacks were intentional misstatements of John Kerry's well known statements at the time of his votes and subsequently. This was not an isolated incident as the below articles show:
Russert challenged Democrats -- but not McCain -- about 2002 Iraq intel "caveats" -
http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200705140008Revisionist Tim Russert -
http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2007/05/revisionist-tim-russert.html--------------------------------
Tim was in the middle of the Bush administration's illegal outing of covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Why is Libby calling Russert to talk with him about Valerie Plame at all regardless if it is a day or two before or after Plame's name was initially leaked? The below links and excerpts suggest something more was happening with Russert's role than what he officially has said:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/24/tim_russerts_not_quite_complete_denial_about_role_in_cia_leak_case.phpAfter doing a bit of research, I discovered that Russert has consistently responded with the same cagey wording.
The exchange began with Alan Colmes asking, “UPI reporting that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Plame case, said in court papers that Scooter Libby was told in 2003 that Valerie Plame was a classified CIA employee by his boss, Dick Cheney. Previously, it was claimed that he was told about Plame by you. Which is the truth? Do you have any idea?”
Russert(stuttering a bit): Well, all I know is what I know personally – that Scooter Libby called me in June to complain about something that had been on the cable TV show. I didn’t know who Valerie Plame was until I read Bob Novak’s column.”
----------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702437_pf.htmlFrom the moment he hobbled into the wood-paneled courtroom on a single crutch from an ankle injury, Tim Russert seemed very different from the familiar television figure of Sunday morning combat.
He was careful, sober and subdued. He spoke in a flat monotone. He offered responses such as "I don't recall saying that specifically, but I may have," and "You'll have to refresh my recollection on that." Gone was Russert's usual bombast and showmanship.
With the perjury trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby hanging in the balance, the "Meet the Press" inquisitor -- the man who puts all those quotations up on the screen and presses politicians about contradictions and evasions -- found himself on the receiving end of a tough cross-examination.
-----------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17020411/Speaking before a packed courtroom, Russert said he never discussed a CIA operative during a July 2003 phone conversation with Libby. Libby has testified that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday about such an exchange. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."
Unlike previous witnesses who discussed the tense atmosphere inside the West Wing and revealed some of the administration's press strategies, Russert offered little in the way of fireworks. But the discrepancy between his account and Libby's is at the heart of the perjury and obstruction trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Libby's calls to Russert are part of a broader and more disturbing pattern of linkages between Russert and Republicans that shows that Republicans knew how much they had Russert in their pockets. Perhaps the best evidence of this was made by a Cheney aide under oath at the Libby Trial:
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format," as it allows us to "control the message" --
Cheney media aide Cathie Martin, under oath at the Libby trial, making clear how well Russert fulfills his function.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/26/quotes/as the above statements indicate, when Republicans, like the members of the Bush administration, needed to find a friendly ear, the person that they turned to was Tim Russert. If you want another example, just look at this Whitehouse.Gov link to an interview between Russert and Vice President Cheney -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060910.htmlFinally, what more needs to be said on Russert's bias in favor of Republicans than Rush Limbaugh's statement on Russert's passing?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.htmlRush Limbaugh Statement on Tim Russert's Death: "It's just a shame. Tim was a regular guy with that perpetual smile he wore naturally all the time. He loved life and got everything he could out of it. Whether it was at dinner here in Florida while his son was taking golf lessons, or on the set of Meet The Press, Tim was always the same with me: genuine. He never condescended to anyone and was the consummate professional. He will be hard to replace. He was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist."
"Objective" as far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned?
----------------------------------------
The Tim Russerts of the world serve to blur the lines between the news and editorial sides of the press. They offer to the public the idea that they are unbiased news types diging hard to unearth the facts but in reality they have a conscious agenda they are selling. Readers of mine will recognize a fact that I return to every now and then. There are two main possibilities for journalists. You are either on the news side, or on the editorial side. If you are on the news side, you are supposed to stick to facts and not give opinions. Newscasters are supposed to do their best to remove bias from their reporting and be fair. It is the job of those on the editorial side to give their opinion of what is happening. People on the editorial side, like me, are supposed to be up front and obvious about the fact that they are Opinion/Editorial writers. There is not supposed to be a blurring of the difference between news and editorial writing and reporting. In my case, it's obvious. I write for an Internet publication called OpEd News. Who can say what Russert purported to be? Was he on the News or Editorial side of the journalism house? I say he was an editorialist masquerading as a news reporter like so many TV journalist personalities these days.
Outside of journalism, Russert may have been one of the nicer guys on the planet. On the job, when he wasnt actually on screen, I understand he was a great guy to work with, respected by competitors and always had time to help out other journalists. I wish that had been the totality of his effect on this planet. His on screen actions helped Republicans manufacture a false case for impeachment against Bill Clinton and then used that scandal as a weapon against his wife. He helped the Bush administration make the argument for war against Iraq and then was an apologist for that war, except when it came to Democrats who he pilloried relentlessly if they had voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. When I think of the life of Tim Russert I will think of a man who could have done so much good with the power that was given to him and instead used it to help those who had some of the worst motives and intentions on the American political scene. Rest in peace Tim Russert. I mourn your passing on a personal and human level, but in terms of journalism, not so much.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
