My Tim Russert Article Generates Controversy

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/My-Tim-Russert-Article-Gen-by-Steven-Leser-080616-256.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 2008

By Steven Leser

There is something odd about us Americans that requires heroification upon the death of many famous people. No, heroification isn’t a real word, it is one made up by one of my favorite authors, James W. Loewen, author of the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868 . Loewen describes heroification as “a degenerative process (much like calcification) that makes people over into heroes. Through this process, our educational media turns flesh-and-blood individuals into pious, perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility or human interest”. Loewen remarks that when we learn about people like George Washington, Helen Keller and other famous Americans, we get this one-sided, biased version of the person without their faults and controversies. These historic Americans don’t even seem like real people they are so heroified. As Loewen rightly points out, this disrespects both the historical figures and those who want to learn about them.

My 6/14/08 article on Tim Russert: “Tim Russert - A Good Man but Biased Journalist” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tim-Russert---A-Good-Man-b-by-Steven-Leser-080614-336.html generated a huge amount of controversy. I received a lot of negative feedback, criticism and in some cases wishes for my death. Many more people spoke up in my defense. The origins of this controversy are completely lost on me. Russert was a person that had a huge impact on major American and global issues and politics of the last ten years. At a time when so many are talking about him, it seems only appropriate to me that everyone be able to inject their opinion concerning what that impact was. I started to become aware of Russert’s particular impact during the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment scandal.

In my opinion, the only proper response to that scandal by someone like a Russert, or any other talking head would be to say “Obviously, the person is a scoundrel as far as their personal life is concerned, but I am not sure why we are covering this. This has nothing to do with the execution of Bill Clinton’s job as President”. That isn’t what Russert did. As I pointed out in my above linked article, Russert couldn’t get enough of talking about the Lewinsky scandal. He loved it so much he raised it as an issue when he moderated Hillary Clinton’s debates in 2000 and 2008. That isn’t what I would expect from someone that is being lauded as the messiah of the field like the mainstream journalism community is doing with Russert. Russert isn’t the only one guilty of eschewing more relevant issues to talk about the more titillating and superficial story of a President getting oral sex from a consenting adult, but he is the one whose lifetime contributions are being discussed right now.

That coverage damaged Al Gore’s efforts to become Clinton’s successor and resulted in the current court jester occupying 1600 Pennsylvania avenue who has ruined our economy, lied us into a quagmire in the Middle East and hurt our image all over the globe. Along the way, Russert and others abrogated their duties to ask relevant questions about our headlong march to war, the Patriot act and warrant-less spying on American citizens, involved themselves in a shameful effort to destroy the life and career of a covert CIA agent and on and on.

Journalists of Russert’s power and stature have a tremendous responsibility to which he did not come close to living up. If the Russerts and Brokaws and others refuse to ask the relevant questions of and about those who hold the reigns of power, how is the general public supposed to learn the timely truth about anything that is being done in their name?

All of this, however, is secondary to the main point of this follow-up article. I don’t believe people like me should be censored or pressured to self censor at any time when they are discussing what they/we believe is the truth about powerful figures. When you get to that level of prominence and impact, you give up the right to that sort of genteelness. It is much too important that we have honest discussions about what powerful people are doing and have done. It’s recognized as being so important, in fact, that under the law, figures of Russert’s stature as well as elected officials do not have the same libel and slander protection that other people enjoy. But for the record, my article of Saturday June 14 that contains no less than fourteen citations to back up my assertions wouldn’t come close to being libelous regardless of the relaxed standard in the case of someone like a Russert. I feel some level of sadness if my article hurt or offended anyone, but that sadness is tempered by my absolute belief in the need to speak the truth and have that truth reflected in the historical record.

[TexasObserver]

1. You wrote the truth.

[jgraz]

12. Just like an actual journalist should

Too bad most of Russert's colleagues don't understand that.

[Joe Bacon]

19. Ah, but they DO understand that

And so many of them have been bought off by the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press that they will lie any lie to keep this corrupt regime in power.

[Binka]

30. Ah The Crux Of The Biscuit

For years people asked why the "talking heads" were being paid super star salaries. Then people stopped asking because it became the norm, but the Corporate powers knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They were creating a complicit and compliant mouthpiece silenced by filthy lucre. Russert as the son of a blue collar worker knew this better than most but he loved his MONEY and his high powered lifestyle.

He was a PIG. Complicit in mass murderer and a heinous propagandist.

[Beartracks]

38. I don't think that's exactly it. It's laziness and economics.

>... lie to keep this corrupt regime in power.

Nah, that's not the specific reason, that's more just the result. "Journalists" (unlike journalists) go for controversy. Not facts, not truth -- controversy. If something catches some pundit's attention -- say, the titillating sexcapades of an elected official or the family member of one; or a mis-quote that might in some way possibly be misconstrued as racist or otherwise offensive when taken out of context; or cleavage appears anywhere, anytime -- and that pundit builds a head of steam and sends it up the flagpole to see who salutes... well, the MSM will salute, 'cause that's where the ratings are. This sad fact really plays to the GOP's interests, because right-wing pundits are louder and brasher -- read "more controversial" -- and can really give legs to stupid non-news stuff, and the MSM chases it like a puppy chasing a bone.

It's unfortunate that when non-news becomes a story, the MSM will either: 1) report the non-news thing as an actual story, or 2) report the story that the non-news thing has become a story (with the excuse: "This thing has become too big to ignore!" :eyes: ). Either one chews up airtime that would better serve the public if it was filled with news we could actually use.

And, yes, add to that the fact that much of the MSM's actual news is of the non-investigative he-said-she-said kind (factual, but prone to abuse by propaganda machines); and add to that the fact that much of the MSM are owned by corporate interests whose purposes, by definition, trend toward self-preservation; and add to that the fact that much of the population is too busy trying to keep their economic heads above water to pay much attention to anything that's too complicated for soundbites -- and the whole thing does make it easier for the corrupt regime to stay in power, as you say.

[eleny]

2. K&R

With thanks.

[Hissyspit]

3. I like Loewen's books, too.

Good job. If you speak the truth and speak it well, it will always piss someone off.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. "a purveyor of received wisdom"

Tim Russert and the decay of the American media
By David North and David Walsh

SNIP

The treatment of Russert’s demise, in its own peculiar fashion, speaks more eloquently about the state of American journalism and the milieu of which he was a part than it does about Russert. No doubt there is shock over the abruptness and unexpectedness of his death, for it is a troubling reminder to the social elite that success, celebrity and immense amounts of money do not bestow immortality, or even, necessarily, a long life.

In the end, after all, Russert was a celebrity, little more than that. Was he an important or insightful journalist? Or a serious political thinker? There is no evidence to support such claims. In spite of his lengthy tenure as anchor of a major news program (he was the longest-serving moderator of “Meet the Press”), it is not possible to link Russert’s name to a significant journalistic work or even an instance of acute political analysis. On the contrary. He was a typical representative of what passes for journalism in the United States’ corporate-controlled media: conformist and philistine in his views, a purveyor of received wisdom who had no doubts whatever about the values and legitimacy of the political establishment.

One has only to consider certain of the events that occurred “on his watch”: the Clinton impeachment, the stolen 2000 election, September 11, the Iraq war and its aftermath. None of these events evoked from Russert a critical examination of the claims of the state and its representatives.

SNIP

In Bill Moyers’ documentary, Buying the War, Russert claims that he didn’t raise sufficient doubts about what Cheney and others were telling him because critics and skeptics weren’t contacting him. He tells Moyers: “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”

Millions were protesting in the streets, United Nations inspectors, the International Atomic Energy Agency, various foreign governments, not to mention the World Socialist Web Site and other left-wing publications, were refuting the Bush government’s claims, but none of this was accessible to Russert. In this, he’s probably being honest. Attuned to what the powerful thought and considering left-wing opinion to be illegitimate, Russert only had ears for Cheney and his fellow conspirators.

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/russ-j16.shtml

[tblue37]

18. Excellent post. Thank you. n/t

[Overseas]

5. Thank you for writing so well about how many of us feel. K&R!

[benddem]

6. good job

I don't understand this beatification.

[scheming daemons]

7. Sorry.... I have to disagree

Even though the whole basis for impeachment was bogus.... when articles of impeachment are being debated in the congress, it is a newsworthy story.

It is a ridiculous question to ask "why are we covering this?"


It was a story. It was the biggest story in 1998-99. It was based on a GOP witch hunt, and trumped up charges.... but impeachments are news.

[merh]

14. But you see, because the trumped up charges and witch hunt

was covered by the likes of Russert, the coverage gave way to the political clout needed for the impeachment. The tabloid journalism gave credence to the political assasination attempts and created the story. Without their coverage there would have been no impeachment. In stark contrast is the likes of GWB. GWB is guilty of war crimes, has violated the constitution and federal statutes with reckless abandon and in so doing has weakened our national security and ruined our economy, yet he remains untouched. The articles of impeachment introduced by Kucinich have been ignored and impeachment is not a story when it should be a story.

What really bothers me the most about Russert's "journalism" was his lack of curiosity. He never bothered to investigate why it was Plame was outed and the consequences of said outing. He was used and he not only let it happen, it didn't seem to phase him one bit.

Those who liked him have the right to mourn him and ask that his memory be respected, but they don't have a right to shut down his critics or to ask his critics to sit back and watch as he has become the story when the real story, the article of impeachment introduced against GWB, go ignored.

[BrklynLib at work]

25. Death is not exoneration. To quote "The evil that men do lives on after them..."

[Yotun]

8. The concept of 'bias' is subjective in itself.

For example, your article 'Tim Russert, a good man, but biased journalist', somehow assumes that your views are the unbiased objective ones, and Tim's the biased ones. Yet quite possibly, you are transferring your own biases, and subjective opinions to the man, simply because you did not like what you were hearing, and because it went against your own preconceptions of reality. The Lewinsky example you give is the perfect example of this. I can thing of a thousand subjective reasons a lot of people would give on why it was a newsworthy item, or what it said about Clinton or his guidance to the country. Your own opinion was that it should not be covered. Yet you demand that this opinion be passed to a journalist and that he support your own views.

I am not passing judgement on Tim, because frankly I don't know aout his coverage of the Lewinsky scandal. But here are the facts. There is no objective concensus on what is in the civic interest of citizens to know, and there is no objective concensus on what are the appropriate dimensions on which to judge a political figure, or even to what extend the rights to personal privacy of that figure go, even if we each have our own opinions. The job of a journalist is not to pass judgement, or to present his own opinions- his job is to provide facts, and attempt to draw out information from public figures, sometimes, by playing devil's advocate, and then letting the public decide for themselves.

Let's take an example- Keith Olberman is a commentator, not a journalist, and a lot of you agree with his views. And I see a lot of threads calling for Keith to take over this show or that, or how what this or that journalist is talking BS. But the fact is, a lot of you hold this views because you agree with the guys preconceptions and biases. You can't replace a journalist with a commentator- not only is that not his job, it is exactly the opposite of what his job should be.

[scarletwoman]

9. Thank you! Excellent post! Rec'd, of course. I wish more people understood just how damaging the

kind of faux "journalism" practiced by Russert and his ilk has been to our Republic.

Thank you again for a wonderful post,
sw

[Hart2008]

10. The Boomers supplanted journalism with info-tainment.

I would feel the same way if Paul Taylor of Tom Fiedler had died and everyone on the Tube was heaping praise on them.

These people changed the rules about reporting on a political leader's personal life, with a special emphasis on harassing Democrats running for President while ignoring similar stories about Repukes, especially the Bushes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald

It is fair to point that out, now that the first of the pack has died.

I was taught not to speak ill of the dead unnecessarily, but also the MSM shouldn't make more of them in death than they were in life.

These so-called journalists like to dish out criticisms of politicians but don't like it when the tables get turned on them.

:nopity:

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Great article....Thanks kick nominated n/t

[Bread and Circus]

13. I liked Tim and watched him every Sunday morning but your writing is spot on.

I was entertained by and actually liked Tim Russert even though I knew for a fact he was biased in the exact way you depict. Picking through the bias and the "stealth editorialism" as you put it, I felt I took away something from his show. And at any rate, it was probably the most important Political show on TV because it was the one that had the highest power guests and the cache to help set the news agenda.

The problem is if Tim were a good journalist in the sense of being unbiased and getting down to the bare truth, he probably wouldn't have a show at all or one like Bill Moyer, which is sadly sort of fringe.

Such as it is in corporate owned media that works on its own behalf.

I still miss Tim Russert and wish he were alive today. May he rest in peace.

[L0oniX]

15. K & R ...and for the intelligent people on DU.

...because repuke freeper troll ops suck.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

16. 0% Presidential.

Move to GD or Media Forum mods.

danke.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

17. 0% Presidential.

Move to GD or Media Forum mods.

danke.

[tblue37]

20. Thank you. K&R n/t

[Eurobabe]

21. k & r for free speech.

[mzmolly]

22. I don't agree that Russert didn't ask tough questions, but I do appreciate

the manner in which you went about your critique.

K and R for having an ounce of class followed up with some actual documentation.

[Martin Eden]

23. When Russert interviewed Rumsfeld

I don't remember exactly when the interview took place, but it was in W's first term and it was Russert's first interview of Rummy after Hersch's "Stovepipe" article exposed the Office of Special Plans that was set up to promulgate the lies that took us to war in Iraq.

I couldn't wait for Russert to ask Rmsfeld tough questions about this propaganda operation in Rummy's Pentagon, but I kept waiting ... and the subject was never brought up in the interview.

I haven't had respect for Russert as a journalist ever since.

[BrklynLib at work]

24. [A standing ovation]

[dana_b]

26. beautifully written

and spot on.

[defendandprotect]

27. Thanks for the tough truth telling ---

[redqueen]

28. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[juno jones]

29. You are right.

Just remember that.

I have recieved more gape-mouthed vitriol for daring to question the sanctity of the memory of holy Tim (fer crissakes) than I have for any crackpot stupid-ass thing that ever came forth from my keyboard here. I never even got pooh-poohed that bad in GD-P when the fur was flying a few months ago.

All of us who remember exactly how complicit the man was (and by extension, the goddamn MSM) are now simply 'haters'.

I've seen this shit going down for years. I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone by now.

Fight the good fight baby, and know you are correct in your critisism. Speak the truth. As it is said, the truth shall set ye free....

[The River]

31. Well Written

This over-the-top mourning reminds me of the funerals they
used to throw for gang leaders in the 20's and 30's.
The lavish displays paid for with blood money
as though an important funeral could lend an air
of respectability to a career criminal.

Cheer-leading for war may not be a "criminal" offense
but tell that to the 4000+ dead soldiers.

Just where is the line between innocent "reporter" and
complicit "propagandist"?

[bjobotts]

32. Exactly. This patriotic pandering because he was "one of our own" doesn't change the facts

[JoFerret]

33. Most people watch watch too much TV

end of message.

[meowomon]

34. Fine

But couldn't they wait a day or two until he was in the ground? Let a maggot or two hatch before informing us what we already know? I knew this everybody knew this? Why wait until the man is dead to start covering it? Because you are a hateful mean bunch of people, that's why!

[libodem]

35. I love your separated at birth pic

both of them psychopaths with out a conscience.

[PoliticalAmazon]

36. No surprise that your article triggered negative feedback...did you...

see what was going on at DU? I and a few others were the first to question the MSNBC coverage of Russert, and the many deification-of-Russert threads here at DU, and there were only a few "I agrees" at first. Most, predictably, called us "freepers" and "trolls" and worse.

I think that, before long, we will see media articles examining the "phenomenon" of the grief-groupies, both on message boards and in the media.

I can't help but compare Walter Cronkite's handling of the announcement of JFK's assassination and the professional coverage that followed with what we experienced after Russert's death. It makes it easier to understand how the majority of the MSNBC stable of journalists (under Russert's leadership, mind you) became media lemmings and stood silently about the obvious reality that Bush was lying us into Iraq.

[neuvocat]

37. There's more real journalism in DU alone

than in the entire press core, never mind the internet. It is unfortunate that Russert died but his career was unimpressive at the least.