Support Russert's career, if you can.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

I am in agreement with those who have said Tim Russert betrayed this country and the world with the latter part of his career (at least the last 8-9 years). I challenge those who say he was a good reporter to provide specific examples of his work to support that thesis.

I know there is a custom against speaking ill of the dead (especially recently dead), but it is generally observed in a local context, not about political and journalistic figures. I don't believe it should be observed with respect to a figure like Russert, especially now, when the indifference of the power elites has lead to the awful power exercised by the right wing in the US, not to mention the the incipient destruction of civilization (viz. An Inconvenient Truth). While I have empathy for his family and friends, how much should that interfere with a rational discussion of his career? I think it best to keep the discussion factual (without "grave dancing"), yet this man who enabled so much suffering and destruction in this world is being lionized a la Reagan. I think it better to stand up for truth about a wretched career while so much undeserved praise is being heaped his way.

One last thing before beginning a factual indictment: nuance is a good thing. I have read many positive posts by those who had some casual personal contact with him. Many felt that way about Reagan and some feel that way about Bush. One doesn't have to be a jerk in his personal conduct and demeanor to serve evil. I didn't know him, but I know he served evil to his own vast enrichment.

OK, among my major beefs:

1) He was a major contributor in the War on Gore in the 2000 campaign. If you go to dailyhowler.com and internally Google Russert, you will get a plethora of examples of dishonest, lazy and irresponsible "journalism."

2) His treatment of Howard Dean in 2003 in the MTP interview was biased and far more agressive than interviews with Bush.

3) He was complicit in the Judith Miller scandal, part of the systematic campaign of misinformation leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

4) He has been a McCain lover for years and it has significantly colored his coverage of that deceitful man.

5) He has consistently held a double standard with regard to Dems and the GOP. The Dems get hard curveballs, while the GOP gets slow, fat pitches over the plate.

That's enough to get started. If anyone wants to particpate in the challenge, please be specific, if possible. Russert backers are especially welcome.

I've been somewhat telegraphic in my indictment, I realize, but that is more due to the overwhelming number of instances regarding this shameful career. I can't sit idly by, while another enemy of the Democratic Party and the people is praised. They have TV, which is still the 800 pound gorilla. All we have is the growing, but still much less influential Internet. So bring it on! Defend the career of one of Orwell's finest.

[ananda]

1. Thank you.

The truth is that Russert never challenged the
rightwing Reeps the way he did those like
Howard Dean.

All of the points listed tell us that Russert
was NOT a fair and honest journalist interested
in the kind of free press that keeps the public
well informed.

Ya'll -- the damage these pseudo-journalists and
faux-reporters do is immeasurable.

Listen to Moyers on this issue. A truly free and
objective press is the only hope for America.

Sue

[calimary]

2. Unfortunate. And true.

May he gain wisdom wherever he is now.

RIP.

Forgive if you can (because it IS a good thing to do - BELIEVE ME, I'm trying to!!!!). BUT DO NOT EVER FORGET!!!!!!

[BuelahWitch]

5. Excellent post!

:hi:

[undeterred]

3. I agree.

[BuelahWitch]

4. Russert once called birth control "controversial"

I believe this was back in 2003 or 2004 when I gave a damn about things and used to watch the Sunday shows. I forget who he was interviewing, but he mentioned "controversial" (the actual word he used) and then lumped abortion and birth control into the same subject.
At the time there was a huge uproar on DU that this was going to be the next thing the Right was going after in its war on women. I have been looking through the archives, but cannot find the post, unfortunately.
My point: Russert was out there pushing the agenda of the far right. He was not a fair journalist.
What are we going to say when Cheney dies? "Oh, he had such a cute sneer, I'm going to miss it so much!"

Sorry, while I feel for his wife and son, I can't be a hypocrite.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. it has been a

controversial subject.

Calling something what it is, especially as a journalist isn't really 'pushing an agenda'. Is it?

I believe that birth control, and abortion are personal decisions which have no place being legislated. But sadly, there are many people in this world who don't share my opinion, and pointing that out- asking those who share my view to explain why I hold it, and even challenging me on it, doesn't make them my enemy- It may actually make them into an unwitting ally.

peace~

[HEyHEY]

15. Exactly. I had this argument with an aide to the mayor once

Because I called an initiative of his "controversial." The aid called and was all over my case for calling it that - his argument was that it wasn't controversial because it was a good initiative. Good or bad, controversial is controversial. It doesn't speak to the merits of the actual issue one way or the other.

This is the kind of crap I'm hearing and it makes me think less and less of self-proclaimed "Informed" people.

[BuelahWitch]

22. How long was your "initiative" in place before you called it controversial?

Birth control has been around since the '60s. It is hardly controversial in 2008 (or 2003/2004 when this interview took place).
Apples and oranges. But don't let me stop the Deification of Mr. Russert by pointing out his bias...

[HEyHEY]

24. It doesn't matter how long it's been in place

Some people still don't like it - yes they are rejects - but they are still there. As long as they are it is controversial. Shit, the Israeli Palestine conflict has been going on forever yet wouldn't you say it's a controversial subject?

[BuelahWitch]

31. Apples and oranges, again

Not even close to the same thing. Try again!

[HEyHEY]

32. Um, no, it's exactly the same thing - it's a subject that has two groups of people who disagree

Hence it is controversial.

[gulfcoastliberal]

160. So by that definition, another controversial idea is the earth being round?

The folks at the Flat Earth Society (and Tom Friedman) say the world is flat, so the idea of a spherical world must be majorly controversial!

[BuelahWitch]

19. Many things used to be controversial

that are now thought of as mainstream. If those people who think differently than you or I do have the public ear, like Mr. Russert did, and try and change public opinion to that of their own personal agenda (or that of their bosses) then it's plain wrong.

[HEyHEY]

27. You're suggesting Tim Russert had a personal adgenda to abolish birth control?

[BuelahWitch]

36. How silly, putting words into my mouth

The Republicans have a personal agenda to abolish birth control. Tim Russert was one of their mouthpieces.

And now sir, goodbye!

[HEyHEY]

43. No words at all - it's the point you've been arguing the whole time

[EFerrari]

6. Yesterday we were asked to feel sympathy for him, his family and

his colleagues who are bereaved.

That doesn't translate into a free pass for the damage he did to political discourse in this country in life.

[ladjf]

7. In my opinion you have posted the truth about Mr. Russert.

Normally, such a post would not have been called for. However, in light of the far overblown presentations that have been made by the media, it was time for some serious rebuttal.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. well, I'll take a stab at

#5-

Ever been in the locker-room at half time? The coaches quite often are pretty damn harsh on their players, especially the ones they expect the most out of.

Ever had an Attorney work with you on what to expect when you are going to be cross examined by the prosecution? It is sometimes almost as bad as the actual experience, or the eventual testimony. But the truth can only be exposed by having the courage to face the questions.

I'm a mom who often finds that my 'standards' or expectations for my kids are much more demanding than those I tolerate from other children (to a point)- I have a degree of personal..trust..?. hope..?..invstment in "my own" that can sometimes make it seem like I don't 'like' my kids as much as those who are being jerks, but the opposite is actually true.

Some of us expect 'better' from people we are connected to. I feel like this may have been part of what people are complaining about with Russert.

I'm not trying to make a case for him, but I do think that people (people I stand with- "my" people) are being uncharacteristicly harsh in how they describe his career- in the political legacy he leaves behind.

Maybe it is because they 'expected' better-?
:shrug:

He's dead. It came suddenly, and without good-byes. That is something most people don't want to face.

there is far too much anger in this society- here and everywhere. We need to learn how to cope in less damaging ways.

peace~

[Mabus]

34. I'll take a stab too

#5-

Ever been in the locker-room at half time? The coaches quite often are pretty damn harsh on their players, especially the ones they expect the most out of.

I have. I was a high school athlete who is now becoming increasingly crippled because I gave it my all, not only on the basketball court as a player, but also on the sidelines as a cheerleader for the men's teams. I have been excoriated by my coaches for not doing as much as I could. And, you know what? I went out after half time and tried to do better. Unlike Russert, I listened and tried to be better.

Ever had an Attorney work with you on what to expect when you are going to be cross examined by the prosecution? It is sometimes almost as bad as the actual experience, or the eventual testimony. But the truth can only be exposed by having the courage to face the questions.

Nope. I was the attorney who did the prep work. And yes, I was often harder on the client than opposing counsel. I prepared them to expect the worst and they were relieved when opposing counsel was easier on them than I was.

I'm a mom who often finds that my 'standards' or expectations for my kids are much more demanding than those I tolerate from other children (to a point)- I have a degree of personal..trust..?. hope..?..invstment in "my own" that can sometimes make it seem like I don't 'like' my kids as much as those who are being jerks, but the opposite is actually true.

Some of us expect 'better' from people we are connected to. I feel like this may have been part of what people are complaining about with Russert.

I don't have children of my own but I do have stepkids and nieces and nephews. They don't always do what I would like but they learn from their mistakes and I do my best to encourage them to do what's best. They are human but, unlike Russert, they learn from their mistakes and become better people.

I'm not trying to make a case for him, but I do think that people (people I stand with- "my" people) are being uncharacteristicly harsh in how they describe his career- in the political legacy he leaves behind.

Maybe it is because they 'expected' better-?
:shrug:



Everyone has their own opinions and their own standards. I do know that for all the adulation being heaped upon Russert, imho, he doesn't deserve it.

He's dead. It came suddenly, and without good-byes. That is something most people don't want to face.

Do you think if he died over a period of time like Atwater that Russert would have had his come to Jesus moment too and repented for the harm he caused? Perhaps he would have had he known the end was near. Instead, he made the most of every day to promote himself financially and in the eyes of those whom he wanted to please.

there is far too much anger in this society- here and everywhere. We need to learn how to cope in less damaging ways.

Part of the reason that there is too much anger in this society is because there is far too much injustice. Russert had a part in creating those injustices.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. perhaps you

are one of those rare perfect people then.

There ARE injustices in this world- and there ARE things that *I* a low income single mother with serious health issues, no insurance and poor long term prognosis "could" do to change life if I was really honest with myself and everyone else.

Our run-down home has more room than needed to shelter the bodies that sleep within its walls. There are people who sleep at night on the streets of this nation and I have not opened my doors and filled my rooms with their need. We have an elderly dog that we rescued who brings us much joy and companionship, but the food that he consumes, could very likely keep a family alive in Darfur- yet, I have not euthanized him to end his consumption of goods that other humans need.
I have access to a computer, and use electricity to power my time online, electricity which could be used to save lives, or not produced at all, and thus would cut down even in a minute way on the stress we have put upon this earth. These are just a few of the many ways I fall short of what I COULD do to actually put my entire being into what I say I believe.

You may think I'm being sarcastic- I'm not. I so often see the injustices that are occuring all around me in this mixed up world of ours, and wonder how America can justify our existance when we are where we are to great degree as a result of using other people, and the earth as if we are the only beings who matter.

I don't think Tim Russert was a saint. I can't judge him on his failure to do what I myself have also failed to accomplish.

peace~

[HEyHEY]

66. ouch, burn

Well said, miss!

[Mabus]

77. I'm one of ten kids who grew up in a house with two bedrooms

My father is a schizophrenic, ex-Marine suffering from PTSD (aka "Combat Fatigue"). My deceased mother was an illegitimate child who was a full-blood American Indian woman with little more than a high school education who ended up being elected as our tribal chair and testifying in front of Congress. I, myself, was one of the four daughters in a family who preferred the boys. As a result I worked my ass off and put myself through undergrad and law school by myself (with the help of college loans and full times jobs). I cannot tell you how many times I went hungry. Nor can I tell you the number of times that my family went hungry when I was a kid. I, and several of my brothers, have problems because my mother was malnourished during her pregnancies.

I'm not perfect. I'm far from perfect. My husband says I'm too hard and expect too much from my stepkids. And I can understand how you feel being a single mom with few resources. I've taken in and helped more people than I can tell you although I didn't have the resources to keep my own electricity on or the food to feed myself. One of my sisters is both brain damaged and schizophrenic. Another one is a meth whore. My dad has arguments with my mom even though she's been dead since '96. He argues with her ashes. Believe me, I could tell you stories. I haven't had an easy life and I've made choices that I've regretted but that has nothing to do with Russert. Nor does it excuse the harm that Russert wrought with his complicity to those in power.

I don't think you're sarcastic. Why would I? I think you are a genuine, loving person who has suffered more than most people. I just have different opinions than you do about Russert. So be it. I respect and understand where you are coming from.

fwiw, I'm not judging Russert. That is beyond my capability. I am expressing an opinion about what he did with what he had, which is far more than either you or I have ever had or hope to have.

[Bluerthanblue]

109. hey-

:hug:

I just want to point out to you, that you and I DO have something Tim Russert didn't have, and never will.

And that is today- right now, this moment. I want to use this time better.

I wish you peace, healing, comfort and hope.

I wish that for all the earth. Everyone and everything, everywhere. 'Deserving' or 'not'-



:grouphug:
blu

[Mabus]

123. Back at you friend

Life isn't easy or fair. We all do the best that we can. Our experiences give us different perspectives and help us grow in our own ways. I was always taught that the lessons we learn as we go through life help our spirit, whether for enrichment of it or not. It is our decision.

Moreover, we should use the lessons we are taught to make our physical lives, and the physical & spiritual lives around us, better. I do the best that I can. I have a feeling that you do the same. But, to be honest, I have my doubts about Russert. I feel, and I may be wrong, that he valued the rewards on this plane more than he valued the enrichment he could have received on another. However, his was not path I had to walk. He made his decisions and his spirit learned the lessons that it needed to learn in this lifetime. I walk my own path and I am learning what I need to, as are you. I can only give you my perspective on what he and his actions accomplished. Anything else is not for me to worry about.

Peace.

[AngryOldDem]

152. BRAVO.

I just sent an e-mail to someone telling him to check out these threads here, and I said basically what you did, only much less eloquently and elegantly.

If people here have all the answers...please share them.
If people here can do better...please do.
If people here are so superior in intellect and morals and ethics...then please. Shut down the computers and share that with the rest of us lowly folk who are in dire need of your gifts.
If people here are all so damned perfect...well, it makes me question my definition of the word.

It's just so easy to type away at a computer and yet do (and say) absolutely nothing.

Your last line bears repeating.

"I can't judge him on his failure to do what I myself have also failed to accomplish."

That, to my mind, should be the modern-day Golden Rule.

Well done.

[HEyHEY]

9. Blah, blah, blah another armchair journalist....

I hear the same crap from the other side about Russert being soft on the Dems and blah blah. Seeing as how both sides say the same thing, I'd say he was doing his job. People like you are never happy because anytime a journalist doesn't openly and obviously support your side you accuse them of being biased. It's so see through.

In my newsroom I get calls about stories within' minutes of each other, from both sides, accusing me of bias. That's when I know I've done my job.

[apocalypsehow]

12. This reply nails it. What all this grave-pissing amounts to is:

"He didn't agree with me about every single thing under the Sun, and didn't talk nonstop about issues important to me and me only 100% of the time when he was on the air, therefore he was a right-wing tool whose death should not be mourned (and probably applauded!!!!!!11!)."

That sums up the deplorable Russert grave-pissing I've seen on DU to date - it's all about "me-me-me" with these kind of folks.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

20. I call B.S.

Please see my response below, where I give factual and detailed examples with respect to my Gore interview example. Is a major interview with the Democratic nominee responsible journalism when essentially every question was factually inaccurate, negligent or an attempt to embarass the Vice President?

[HEyHEY]

23. sigh

[tom_paine]

145. Sigh all you'd like to. I'd like to share my memory of Tim Russert with you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3455657

You're a journalist, nay?

OK, they I would like to ask you a serious question. Whether or not you dispute my memory on the topic, if we set that aside for the moment, is not what I have related, this quote, directly from Russert's mouth, if not verbatim, then damned close, a VERY strong indicator when of Mr. Russert's objectivity, journalistic talent, credibility, and professionalism, and a very strong negative indicator.

I wish I had video or a transcript link. In those days, I was not savvy enough to do such things, as I had not realized reality had been turned upside-down and that such things were necessary.

But I just want to know what you think. IF my quote is accurate, does this not bolster the assertions that Russert was severly slanted?

[Dreamer Tatum]

95. Your response proves the point

Russert irritated both sides. That is the best possible definition for "doing a journalist's job."

A journalist who meets the criteria set forth here for a journalist would not actually be a journalist - it would be a partisan who
works for a media outlet.

Deal with it.

[HEyHEY]

100. They can't seem to

But I'll try to keep the faith!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

102. Say what?

The post to which you replied said essentially every question was factually inaccurate, negligent or an attempt to embarass the Vice President. How is that good journalism? He either distorted the facts in his questions or didn't bother to learn them. I literally do not understand the basis for your response.

This "irritating both sides means you're doing a good job" argument is a logical fallacy. Since a lot of people are having trouble understanding this, let me give you a concrete example. Bush gets criticism from the right (e.g. immigration, HIV/AIDS initiative in Africa) and the the left (Iraq, etc.) does this mean he is governing down the middle or competently?

[HEyHEY]

104. But, those are two different stories.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

138. Congratulations!

You finally made a relevant point. Now can we resolve the illogic of your original contention.

I'm saying your original argument is a syllogism:

A says I tilt left in my story;

B says I tilt right in my story; and

Therefore, I tilt neither left nor right in my story.

Question 1: Do you agree that these three statements are a syllogism? Yes or no.

Question 2: Do you agree that the three statements capture your previously posted argument? Yes or no.

Question 3: Do you agree that the conclusion does not follow from the first two statements (premises)? Yes or no.

[tom_paine]

144. Loinpresser, you just whupped his ass! Though it is not about such juvenile self-aggrandizment.

It is about the pursuit of truth. I don't give a flying FUCK if Tim Russert agrees with me on nothing or everything. Are you hearing me quite clearly HeyHey? I respect your posts, but you are dead wrong with that "agree with me" bullshit.

IS HE DOING HIS JOB? And it isn't "irritating both sides". It is pursuing the truth of what has transpired and relating as unbiasedly as humanly possible. Something like: Is he asking tough questions of BOTH sides or only one? Is he digging for the truth and debunking lies when possible by confirmed facts to both sides or only one? Is he asking relevant follow questions to pressure guests and get answers and IS HE DOING IT EVENHANDEDLY or just to one side only?

That's what I care about. It's all I care about. And I will bet I am not alone.

Now, back to the juvenile ranting...

Loinpresser, he asked for examples, and you gave him dozens, hundreds if you counter all the daily howler documentations! God Bless the Internet and it's Magic System of Information Tubes!



You just knocked him the fuck out!

[tblue37]

153. I might point out that Tweety also irritates both sides,

but that's because he is a total tool, not because he's doing a heckuva job. Katie Couric is another both-sides irritator. I could go on and on.

(Oh, and while we are at it, "Heckuva Job Brownie" also irritated both sides, as does John McCain.)

[WillowTree]

136. How, exactly, can a question be "inaccurate"?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

141. Here's what I mean.

A question is inaccurate when it assumes inaccurate facts:


Example #1: In one question Russert said an email from a staffer to Gore referred to the Buddhist Temple event as a fund raiser. False. The Buddhist Temple event had not even been scheduled when the email was sent!

Example #2: “You want the government to invest in the market. George Bush wants individuals to invest.” Gore "I don't support it. And I've put out my own Social Security plan." Russert became argumentative and kept interrupting, even though he was wrong.

Example #3: Russert asked whether Gore wrote “Bullshit” on a CIA document in 1995. That erroneous rumor had been debunked about a year before and there was no evidence for it.

Example#4 : Russert’s question: “They think you may have broken the law or lied under oath.” Referring to Louis Freeh and Justice Dept officials. They had publicly said the opposite.

Litt: “As the memo you put up on the screen a moment ago said, nobody really thought that was the case. As Chuck said, this was a process issue. Did it meet the technical legal threshold of the independent counsel statute?”

See what I'm getting at?

[tom_paine]

143. Self-delete n/t

[Mabus]

13. What a cop out

When both sides complain doesn't mean that a journalist is doing their job. What are the complaints and are the complaints valid? Are people saying that you didn't go far enough? Are they saying that your facts are incorrect or outdated? Are some people complaining just to complain? Do you listen to them and try to follow up? Or do you sit down and pat yourself on the back for doing a job well done just because people "from both sides" are complaining?

[HEyHEY]

14. There's too many different situations to give you a blanket answer to that.

But, in short, "sometimes" is the answer.

[Mabus]

17. And therein lies the rub

This response, too, is a cop out. Sometimes to which questions? All of them? Some of them? Only you know.

The difference (I assume) is that you don't have the attention of a nationwide audience nor do you have the resources that people like Russert had. And while you may be able to make a difference in your locale on some issues, I'd wager that you don't have the power to influence nationwide opinion and to sway it with the questions that you ask or the angles that you choose to favor.

Russert was in a unique position. And he wasted that position in return for access and power. He could have been a champion by asking the hard questions of those who had the power to make a difference. Instead, he pissed it away for a home on Nantucket and a chance to rub elbows with those he deemed important and powerful.

[HEyHEY]

21. You crack me up - it's all black and white isn't it?

And yes I do have the attention of a nation-wide audience. "Sometimes" is the perfect answer and not a cop out. The situation could call for any one of the measures you listed in your first response. So, I can't just say "yes" or "no." It would not be a fair response to your question. It would just be me trying to "be right."

[Mabus]

37. Uh, my point was that there is no black and white

And without any specifics as to who was complaining, what their complaints were and whether or not their complaints were justified, your answer "sometimes" remains a cop out.

[HEyHEY]

41. No, that makes the answer completely valid. If I don't have specifics

All I can do is say "Sometimes" because it would depend on the situation. But, what I'll revise to say is this.... I practice my journalism to the best of my ability. So, if I've made a genuine mistake or overlooked something I do my best to correct it. If someone calls in about a story and gives me more info or says I missed something, if it is genuinely something I missed I'll look into it.

[Mabus]

42. If you think your answer is valid

It goes along to explain what is wrong with journalists these days. I applaud that you "do your best to correct" things you've gotten wrong but, perhaps, a little more research and a more open mind would prevent such problems in the first place. As a journalist you should know that people often remember the first thing that they hear and so it should be incumbent upon you to do proper research before presenting a story.

[HEyHEY]

45. Oh, give it UP! No one is impervious to mistakes.

And journalism is a MINEFIELD. ANd to suggest that I just don't make mistakes in the first place makes me question your sanity. There is nothing wrong with my answer. I do my best from start to finish on a story and rarely do I make a mistake... but it does happen. It happens to the best of us. And when a reporter does make a mistake I promise you no one is harder on them for it than themselves.

[Mabus]

50. There is nothing wrong with your answer, at least in your mind

and there again, isn't that is the problem. You say you do you best but then you continue to be evasive as to anything of substance. Being defensive and sticking to your original talking point - and shallow answer - of "sometimes" is such a cop out, whether you want to admit or not.

I don't think I suggested that you didn't make mistakes. Rather, I was suggesting that some people - not just journalists - don't like admitting they are wrong or were mislead. If anything, you are proving my point.

[HEyHEY]

53. You don't have a point

You're talking a lot but you're not saying anything. I'm not getting defensive, I'm answering your questions. I still don't think you understand why I said "Sometimes." I said that because you gave me a bunch of options of what I may do in a rehtorical situation. So, how could I give you a definant answer? What answer were you looking for?

Anyway, that's why I revised my answer.

[Mabus]

60. I listed some questions and instead of answering each in turn you said "sometimes"

Which makes me question how much you actually listen and respond to questions you get about your journalism. They weren't rhetorical questions. This might be part of your problem.

Ah, do I detect a Freudian slip? "definant"? Did you mean "definite" or "defiant"? I was looking for answers to each of the questions I proposed. And frankly, you going back and trying to re-write your answers tells me a lot about you. I haven't read your revisions as you didn't tell me which post you were revising. Like your viewers, I'm not a mind-reader and I know what you said the first time.

[HEyHEY]

64. mabus, how can I give you an answer when I don't know the situation?

There is no handbook. You take each one as it comes. Give me a scenario and I'll tell you what I would do.

[Mabus]

82. You said that you knew you did a good job when both sides complained.

I asked if their complaints had merit among a host of other questions that you took as being rhetorical. Your answer was "sometimes" which wasn't an answer. Rather than me making up hypotheticals why don't you give some concrete examples of reporting that you have done and the types of complaints that you have received. Afterall, you were the one who said you felt you were doing a good job when "both sides" complained. Shouldn't you be the one to be giving examples?

[HEyHEY]

93. Look at this

"I asked if their complaints had merit among a host of other questions that you took as being rhetorical."

I wasn't citing ONE case. So yes, sometimes their complaints had merit... sometimes they don't. Depending on the value of their gripes I then proceed to the other questions you asked me. Sometimes I pat myself on the back, sometimes I look into things further.... I don't see what is hard to understand about this... you know what? I'm not speaking french here. I've given you a decent answer many times. If you can't get it - go have a nap and come back later.

[Mabus]

99. Where did you say that? Is that one of your revisions?

Originally you did not answer any questions individually and then you ended up questioning my sanity (which was rude).

Please provide me a link to your revisions. I'm not inclined to go back and check to see which replies you've decided to revise (AFTER I've already made a reply) and which ones you haven't.

But besides that, you're trying to make this about you and not about Russert. Frankly, I don't care about you. But I do care that Russert is being lionized as some sort of journalistic hero and I don't think he is.

[HEyHEY]

101. What? YOU asked me the questions and kept saying you weren't

happy with the answers! So I kept trying to explain myself and now you accuse me of trying to make this about me? How's this for rude? "Fuck off"

BUH BY!

[Mabus]

107. My, my, what a great journalist you are.

Revising answers and not answering questions. Russert would be proud.

Sorry you couldn't answer softball questions. Now are you going to go back and beat your wife?

[HEyHEY]

110. THank you for proving to me that you are infact insane

I answered your questions over and over... I revised cause you could comprehend it. Now suddenly I'm a wife beater? Im not even married. Fuck, you're obtuse... welcome to the ignore list.

[Mabus]

116. Temper, temper. No, you kept REVISING answers to CYA

and evading. I'm not sure how asking you to link to which answers you revised after I had already replied is being obtuse. Constantly changing replies just isn't cool.

And, yes, you did make this about you while the OP was about Russert. My original questions concerning how getting dinged from both sides makes one a good journalist stands. Sorry you can't take the heat but it does help explain a lot about the current state of journalism.

Have a nice evening.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. Your response is a canard without logical merit.

Just because one person complains that I am driving too slow, alleging I am going 10 mph, and another complains that I am driving too fast, alleging I am going 90mph, it does not follow that I am driving at 50 mph. It means that both *perceive* something wrong. One, may in fact be substantially correct.

Speaking of facts, I refer you to the Russert-Gore interview of July 16, 2000. Russert's first question was either an attempt to embarass Gore (who was without fault in the incident) or was simple negligence on Russert's part. From the Daily Howler:

It's disappointing, but when Russert began his session with Gore, he borrowed some shtick from "Kit" Seelye. He opened up with a question posed at a recent Gore town hall event:

RUSSERT: Important campaign coming up, a lot of very important issues. You were in Saginaw, Michigan, on Thursday night.
GORE: Yeah.
RUSSERT: And for three hours, took real questions from real people.
GORE: Yep.
RUSSERT: I'd like to play one of those questions from Sheila Redman and a portion of your response and give you a chance to talk about it:
GORE: OK.

Hay-yo! You know how thatold game is played! Reporter sifts through three hours of questions, waiting for someone to be stupid or rude. (Seelye said it was three and a halfhours.) Then he builds his story or interview around that one thrilling question. Seelye began her July 15 story with the question which Redman asked Gore. Russert now played it on tape:

Town hall meeting, on tape:
REDMAN: I feel kind of bad in asking this, but I have to.
GORE: Yeah.
REDMAN: Where have you been for the past eight years?
GORE: Good question. Thank you. Thank you. The job of vice president is a mixed blessing. But you may not always notice that guy. And if you do, he may be just standing there stiffly behind the president, not saying a word. Well, when you—is it like the woman behind the man?

That's where Russert's tape cut off. Gore was midway through his reply. "What were you trying to say?" Russert imploringly asked.

The Redman question, of course, was a twofer. Not only did Redman ask an embarrassing question, but Gore seemed to make an odd comment. In explanation, Gore told Russert what he may have known—Redman had added the "is it like the woman behind the man" remark, although the mike didn't pick her words up. Gore was repeating what Redman had said. Gore than gave Russert a standard riff about what it's like to serve as vice president.

Russert pointed to absolutely nothing of interest about the Redman question. As soon as Gore explained the "woman" remark, he moved on to a different topic. Had Russert thought that the Gore-Redman exchange was so important that it really needed to open the program? Or had he simply decided to open things up with a question that maybe made Gore look silly?

http://dailyhowler.com/h072600_1.shtml

Also, from the same Howler post is a list of other questions in that interview, riddled with factual inaccuracies, documented in detail in other cited posts:

From beginning to end, Russert's performance was riddled with errors—errors which tended to "prosecute" Gore, if we could use Carlson's term of art. He misstated what Gore had said about an important fund-raising matter. He spun a court ruling on Elian Gonzalez. His presentation of the Hsi Lai temple was—can we talk?—just this side of malpractice. He interrupted Gore freely throughout the session; one almost wished that Alan Keyes would once again appear to accuse Russert of running for office (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/17/00). He asked lightweight questions on sensitive topics—the kind students ask in their dorm rooms, Carlson said. He baldly misstated Gore's Social Security proposal. He created a jumbled, confusing discussion about Gore's record on abortion. As we saw yesterday, he raised an embarrassing old tale about a Gore "barnyard epithet"—without saying that five solid years have now passed, and there's no evidence the event ever happened (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/25/00). He played a little word game about "White House coffees." There was barely a topic which Russert raised in which the discussion wasn't burdened with spin. He even came up with a question which was "silly," "oddball" and "trivial," Marjorie Williams reported.

[HEyHEY]

18. Was your entire response and example of a canard without merit?

Cause I'm talking about political issues.... a far cry from something as black and white as obeying the speed limit. As for your examples of what an evil pawn for the republicans Russert was, having the convenience of remembering a few times when Russert pissed you off does not constitute an argument to besmirch an entire career. If I felt like it, and I don't, I'm sure I could go through all his interviews and drag up examples supporting the other side of this argument.

[BuelahWitch]

26. So you feel like pissing on this thread but not backing up your "facts"?

:rofl: Yeah, 21st century journalism in action!

[HEyHEY]

28. I never said anything about "Facts"

I gave my opinion on his thread. See how you guys jump all over me like I'm the enemy now? This is your frame of mind. It's the reason you're trashing Russert the way you are, you're incapable of taking a step back and thinking about what is being said. If something is said you don't agree with you instantly attack the medium. Sad really, 20th century news consumers in action.

[apocalypsehow]

33. This thread deserves to be pissed on - the OP posted no "facts," just opinions.

Reading - it's not just for eggheads anymore. Try it. :thumbsup:

[HEyHEY]

38. Good sir! How dare you tell him to read - can't you tell he knows everything?!

;-)

[BuelahWitch]

40. Maybe you should go to the Daily Howler and try reading

The Admiral wasn't posting on his own opinions. There is plenty of evidence out there to support the OP. Why don't you make yourself busy instead of lobbing insults to people you don't know?

[HEyHEY]

46. So, you're sending him to an obviously biased website to prove Russert was bias?

Go away.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

63. In what direction is TDH "obviously biased?"

One follow up:

Can you point to any factual inaccuracies in TDH?

[HEyHEY]

65. Because the facts they chose to display are picked with an adgenda.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

85. Selective facts?

Was Russert's interview of Gore professional or not? If so, please provide examples of questions which were competent, if you can.

Yes, I supported Gore in 2000, but I also got angry when Russert and Brian Williams did their hatchet job on Hillary in that bizarre debate where they asked anti-Hillary questions for 45 minutes. I didn't support Hillary in this cycle, but I was outraged by the unprofessional and unethical conduct of these monkeys.

We need to talk about climate change and Iraq and energy policy and health care and revitalizing the American economy and then go back and talk about climate change till people are educated. And all these idiots want to talk about is a Mexican driver's license or whether the Buffalo Bills will win their next game. Christ on a cracker, these people are money changers in the temple!

[HEyHEY]

103. I think Russert, in that case did an okay job.

He was making Gore account for himself and what he did over the last eight years. No doubt it is a question many people may have wanted an answer to. Also, another way to look at it is that Russert handed him a softball because that was just an ample chance for Gore to talk about how great he has been as VP. Russert should have followed up and been harder on him.

[here_is_to_hope]

132. Careful, not only is it a Canuck but it makes meth in its basement...

And for a 'journalist', it does have teh trouble spelling, k?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

44. Please take a logic class.

I said your argument was a canard because it was. It was *literally* illogical. Your syllogism was this:

A says I tilt to the left;
B says I tilt to the right;
Therefore I tilt neither to the left or the right

That conclusion does not follow. Historically the American right has been "working the refs" i.e. crying liberal bias since the 60s a la Buckley, Spiro Agnew and others. The left has only been working the refs in a significant way since after the invasion of Iraq. The left has been waking up to the rightward shift of the MSM since 1992 only recently and has been able to organize protests via the Internet. Many more people still believe in a liberal bias in the media, a myth perpetuated by constant repetition. The truth is much more the opposite. I'm not saying most journalists are right leaning, I'm saying corporate and career interests make it much more likely that a journalist will give a report with GOP friendly spin.

Now as to your most uninformed assertion in the last post, that I can remember a *few* examples. As I have stated before on this thread, the dailyhowler.com is replete with hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of journalistic misconduct. An internal google of "Tim Russert" for example yields 707 hits. Now, some of the instances are duplicative, certainly, and occaisionly Mr. Russert is cited doing something in the public interest. But in general it is a very damning case of most of the famous American journalists of our times.

Would you like to see dozens more examples? I can google all night.

[HEyHEY]

48. I making the point that when both sides piss and moan a story is obviously down the middle

Because it would have grabbed from both sides. What do you think of Kieth Olberman?

[kath]

56. Not at all true. Very simplistic thinking.

you really aren't listening, are you?

And you clearly can't be bothered to do any reading on the subject, even though there is much out there. Transcripts, FACT-BASED stuff.

[HEyHEY]

62. No, it's very true. I will admit I have oversimplified it

In the interest of brevity. What I'm saying is that if a story is slanted intentionally or not if it isn't obviously and overbearingly slanted to one side it is likely the product of a reporter at least trying to tell both sides of the story. And no, it doesn't always happy. But, in my experience, the stories I know were solid are the ones I got angry phonecalls from both sides on. Maybe coincidence, but I think not. You have to remember that in any story both sides want their message to prevail. And if they're angry at you it's likely cause it didn't.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

72. OK, let me try another way to get at this.

Do you believe there was a war against Gore in 2000, on the part of the US press? Yes or no? Were they biased or fair?

[HEyHEY]

74. Sorry, Admiral, I am Canadian and was actually living in Quebec at the time

And we were having our own federal election that year. Plus In a very french area with no cable! So, I can't give you a honest opinion answer on that.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

151. Here's the most important idea I can offer.

There is a definite bias in American reporting and it is anti-Democratic Party. Anyone willing to study dailyhowler.com will realize this is proved by the conduct of the US media in 2000.

Three examples:

1) Al Gore said he invented the Internet.

2) Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal.

3) Al Gore said he was the inspiration for Love Canal.

All pure bullshit invented and relentlessly spun by the MSM.

[Reterr]

67. Very simplistic-it reminds me of Froomkin's comment about "fair and balanced"

He said unless two sides are engaging in pretty much equivalent behaviors, you cannot simultaneously be both fair and balanced. Being fair implies treating each side completely equally-being balanced would require that you consider what each side has actually been upto .

This is a sort of Faux news version of reality in a country where the right has been wrecking havoc for 8 years. If he whad been more objective he would NOT be hated by the right and the left equally-for one thing the right had far more power for 6 of the last 8 years. Absurd argument-Freepers and DUers hate him so he must be an excellent journalist :crazy:

[HEyHEY]

75. Did you read my revision?

[Reterr]

78. Not sure which post?

It wasn't specifically directed at your posts btw-it is just something I am seeing a lot -very flimsy stuff about how if both DU and FR hate someone they must have been objective etc. That is inferring a lot from a rather slim data set honestly. There is a lot of other evidence that seems to point to his having done a less than exemplary job in many ways.

[HEyHEY]

81. Okay

I was just making the point that, in my job, I've noticed the stories that I've been most proud of because I've really managed to get everything together and such are often the ones I get yelled at from both sides on.

[Reterr]

88. Fair enough

And good on you for the effort you are putting in-in general honestly, except the people in the top strata that you tend to see on tv , I get the impression that most journalists are objective and try to do their fairly difficult task as best as they can. And I can see how frustrating dealing with the sniping can be when you are doing your best to be objective.

You said you are in Canada and that may explain some differences in perspective-our tv news media has been really dropping the ball lately in this country-at least in my view. Part of the reason, I got rid of my tv-it was starting to get to me. Even here, the papers are much more reliable than tv. The NYTimes for instance has its share of Bumillers and Stolbergs, but they also have excellent people like Revkin and Lichtblau. I do vastly prefer the print media here to the so-called tv news.

[HEyHEY]

97. You'd be surprised how much ego can make a good reporter a bad one

So many people get to lofty positions because they are good. THen, it's as if when they get to that point they feel like they can do no wrong... and no one is holding the reporters themselves to account. So, they get sloppy and lazy without even knowing it. I think in the US it's worse because your society seems to value celebrity much more. So it's even worse when they get to those positions cause they feel like a supreme bigshot.

[Reterr]

98. "I think in the US it's worse because your society seems to value celebrity much more"

And there you have it.
Yup you nailed it. That is a large part of the problem.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

58. IMO, Keith Olbermann is a mixed bag.

I am glad he has directed some vitriolic "special comments" at Bush because our TV discourse has been much too deferential for most of the post 9-11. But I have found him playing fast and loose on occasion with the facts. I do not consider him a thoroughly reliable source, all though generally with more context and better accuracy than most MSM outlets. I'm glad he's on. Lord knows we need more voices on the left on TV.

But if your question is whether I believe in "shirts and skins" ideological reporting, no I don't. I yearn for the days of Walter Cronkite. The only vestige of that style of fair reporting I see among famous MSM reporters today is Helen Thomas. Bill Moyers is more akin to advocacy journalism, in my view, but he does it with great integrity.

[apocalypsehow]

49. The second to last refuge of an internet know-it-all is "take a logic class."

:eyes:

Weak, weak stuff.

[HEyHEY]

54. Even so I must get the name of his "Logic teacher"

Just to insure, should I take a class, that I don't go to the same one as the curriculum is flawed.

[apocalypsehow]

57. LOL! Good point - I hadn't thought of that.

:rofl:

[Reterr]

68. What strong stuff have you presented?

:shrug:

[kath]

80. (crickets)

surprising, eh?

[apocalypsehow]

87. Hardly - I'm not the one who posted the OP.

Like I said previously, you're really not very good at this sort of thing. But keep embarrassing yourself - I'll keep laughing. :rofl:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

106. Please look at post #16.

You will see a lot of facts and the documentation and argument from related links as well. The OP was telegraphic, as I said in the OP, but post #16 describes in factual detail why Tim Russert was a bad journalist who helped enable the GOP.

[apocalypsehow]

108. Already read it and rejected its implicit premise - it's pure opinion. Now read this, which is an

inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase) as regards your OP:

Written statement: "The U.S. and the world have a lost a great journalist, interviewer and author. He was an original and will be greatly missed."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5066622&page=2

[Admiral Loinpresser]

126. "It's pure opinion." False.

Facts are not opinions. Below are six facts detailing Russert questions. The first five involve various levels of mistake (or bad motive) in Russert's research. The last is just butt-ugly dumb.

So do you admit or deny-- it is a fact these questions were asked in the Russert Gore interview in July 2000-- true or false?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Fact #1: Russert’s opening question contained a clip in which Gore was quoting a woman. Russert asked what GORE meant by words originally spoken by the woman. This is either a mistake on Russert’s part or an attempt to embarrass the Vice President.

Fact #2: Russert: ” There was an e-mail from your staff member, Kimberly Tilley to you which talked about it as a fund-raiser;” Buddhist Temple event was not yet scheduled.

Fact #3: “You want the government to invest in the market. George Bush wants individuals to invest.” Gore "I don't support it. And I've put out my own Social Security plan."

Fact #4: Russert asked whether Gore wrote “Bullshit” on a CIA document in 1995. There's no evidence the event ever happened (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/25/00).

Fact #5 : Russert’s question: “They think you may have broken the law or lied under oath.”

Litt: “As the memo you put up on the screen a moment ago said, nobody really thought that was the case. As Chuck said, this was a process issue. Did it meet the technical legal threshold of the independent counsel statute?”

Fact #6: Russert asked: “What would you do if a woman on death row became pregnant?” Another zinger from the master of stupid questions.

[apocalypsehow]

131. Oh, it's true alright. But you're one of these "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" types

:boring:

You ignore evidence, misconstrue quotes, and spin fantasy scenarios of your own making - all in the name of "winning" a debate on an anonymous discussion board. Pitiful.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

135. Could you change up and maybe try some argument?

You know, a few facts, a little logic, some analogy.

All I've heard you present so far is eulogistic stuff from journalists and Gore. Guess what? Nobody famous is going to say anything bad about him today. And very few are going to say anything bad about him in the future, except a few heroes like Eric Alterman and Bob Somerby.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

133. OK, do you know what a syllogism is? n/t

[here_is_to_hope]

134. Preferably taught by a...nazi?

sorry, had to....

[apocalypsehow]

47. Lookee here what the man himself actually says about Russert:

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=8489829

From the article: Former vice president Al Gore says Tim Russert was "a great journalist, interviewer and author."

Looks like something here is a "canard" - and it looking more and more like it's your posts.

[kath]

59. Oh. Brilliant argument.

not.

jeebus, what the heck was he *supposed* to say? Would any non-moran in a million years expect anything different, especially in the current political/media-driven environment?

[apocalypsehow]

70. Hey, your "brilliant argument" is with Al Gore, not me. Why don't you take it up with him, and

explain to him that he really didn't mean what he said when he wrote "The U.S. and the world have a lost a great journalist, interviewer and author. He was an original and will be greatly missed."

You're really not very good at this sort of thing, are you?

[HEyHEY]

86. haha

Of course we can totally disregard what Gore said, because, even though none of us know him or have spoken with him about it - we can assume he didn't really mean it. Especially if it fits our argument.... shit and they're attacking MY journalistic integrity.

[apocalypsehow]

96. Yep - you nailed it.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

It really is quite amusing to watch these mental contortions they practice to arrive at the conclusion they want - and in full public view! Me, I'd be a bit embarrassed to get caught acting like that, but go figure.

[Reterr]

71. And...

Are we expected to agree with all of Gore's opinions?

[apocalypsehow]

73. Go back and read that post you're replying to again. This time take it slow & easy

so you don't miss all those words you apparently didn't comprehend when you first cast your hazy gaze across them...

[Reterr]

76. So the argument is that he didn't do a shitty job of covering the 2000 election

because Gore makes an obligatory polite remark on his passing :shrug:?
What else is a public figure supposed to say? I really don't get this line of reasoning.
Or that because Freepers and Duers hate someone they must be bang square in the middle or that they were good at their job. Really flimsy reasoning honestly. I think I will take my hazy gaze somewhere less content-free. Have a nice evening.

[kath]

83. the problem here is that there really isn't any "reasoning" going on.

[apocalypsehow]

90. You can say that again - good to see you're at least self-aware when it comes to your flaws.

:thumbsup:

[Reterr]

91. Evidently-just lame gotchas and rofl smilies

lame gotcha exhibit just above. My little brother and I used to do this in grade school.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Give it another try - I see you're still having trouble understanding what you're reading. n/t.

[JackRiddler]

149. I get it. If Gore were to say the 2000 election was fair and Florida wasn't stolen for Bush

Obviously it would then be true, since it's Gore saying it. Right?

[arcadian]

29. Who signs your paychecks?

Then your allegiance is to them.

[HEyHEY]

35. We have "Paycheques" up here

;-)

Anyway, many a journalist, myself included, have quit a job for an ethical reason. A guy like Russert does what he wants. When you get to that level you assign yourself and get your bosses get fired if you don't like them. In the end you're the meal ticket for the station, not some "message." Unless of course you work for fox news.

[DesertFlower]

61. i agree. i've seen that so many times on DU.

everyone loved olbermann until he showed bias towards obama, then the hillary supporters hated him.

[JackRiddler]

148. Thanks for this valuable insight.

What's your newsroom?

[peacetalksforall]

11. You wrote professionally, accurately, and factually. These three trump.

This list can't be swept under the carpet.

I wanted to stop reading at Number 1, because it brought back all the pain of watching him, listening to him.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

94. Thanks.

It is painful, I agree. Without the likes of Russert and company, we'd be finishing our second Gore term and things would be much better in America and abroad. Many more of us would have healthcare, jobs and access to college. And we would actually be doing something to save civilization.

[Maureen1322]

25. Not speaking ill of the dead one day after they die is a good and decent custom.

This could have waited until after his funeral.
Glad your not the custom keeper.

[HEyHEY]

30. He is the "keeper of the douche"

[Admiral Loinpresser]

51. I believe in that.

I observe it locally for much more than a day. But I believe this man has blood on his hands and the peoples air waves are being used to build a false picture of him as a journalist while people in Iraq suffer needlessly. Indeed without his kind, Bush never would have made it to the White House in 2000.

I didn't obseve it for Reagan and I won't observe it for Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush, either.

[Maureen1322]

69. There are plenty of those journalists who are alive and should be made to explain

this mess. Maybe this will be a rallying call for those answers.
Tim Russert is not the person to be talking to or about. Not now.

[kath]

89. "without his kind, Bush never would have made it to the White House"

that's the dog's truth, Admiral. Sadly, even here many are too ignorant to realize this, or their denial is way too deep.

It is scary to admit it, but we are in a world of shit, due in no small part to all the media-whoring done by Russert and his ilk over the past 10+ years. (it dates back at least that far, to all the "Clinton's Cock!" screaming that Russert shouted from the rooftops. Probably much further back.)

[ileus]

39. WE love and will miss you Tim, the last American voice.

RIP old friend, news won't be the same without you.

[kath]

55. uh, 'scuse me. Off-topic. See: "Support Russert's career, if you can".

The Russert-butt-kissing threads are elsewhere. Plenty to choose from.

Or did you come here to "support his career"? Can you rebut *any* parts of the OP's "indictments"?

(tapping foot, waiting)

[eleny]

79. ...

http://buzz.ifas.ufl.edu/489ss2.wav

[kath]

92. thanks for that, eleny.

[HEyHEY]

105. Why bother attacking this person? There's plenty here engaged in the actual subject

Yet you go after such an easy target....

[Admiral Loinpresser]

111. Her point is correct.

I hoped to actually learn something positive I could say about his career. Nobody yet has given one example of something positive about Russert's professionalism, one well researched interview, ONE GOOD THING.

When I watched TV today the personal remembrances were warm (understandably) but the professional example I heard from Andrea Mitchell was disgusting and others I knew to be untrue (e.g. he was always well prepared-- the Gore interview makes that a joke).

His questions were often trivial and he rarely asked about important things like climate change. We are losing our chances at survival because of that bullshit. His death? What about the death of billions when the arctic ice mass breaks up one summer in about 20 years?

[apocalypsehow]

112. Her "point" is incorrect, but let's put that aside. This OP was posted *BY YOU* full of phony

nonsense about why Tim Russert was a terrible human being. The onus is on you to substantiate that claim (which you so far have failed at spectacularly), not on the rest of us to prove any "ONE GOOD THING" he might or might not have done.

Just like the lame "take a logic class" silliness above, the moving the goalposts routine doesn't quite cut it with those of us in the real world. You really should just ask the mods to lock this thread, and spare yourself further humiliation and intellectual embarrassment.

[HEyHEY]

114. I think I'll be leaving it - somehow my opinion on this has made me a wifebeater

According to some asshole above. When things get THAT twisted I leave. Cheers!

[apocalypsehow]

115. They get pretty ugly when they're proven wrong, I've noticed. Take it easy, have a good one.

:thumbsup: :beer: :toast:

[BuelahWitch]

120. The title of the OP is "Support Russert's career if you can"

It goes on to say that he was a shoddy journalist, and gives examples of him in action. One can be crappy at their job and still be a decent person to people who know them. The OP talked about what a mess TR made of his job as a journalist, not "a terrible human being". Get it right.
Now, I could play your game, and insist that you NEED TO LEARN TO READ, but I'm not going to do that. You're probably just going to use the little rofl smiley and call me names anyway, so you can toady up to the Fox News guy from Canada a bit more...

[HEyHEY]

113. that's cause anything anyone present you with you shoot down and refuse to accept

[kath]

118. Good thread and post, Admiral.

You're doing yeoman's work here. Too bad that two #^#**@ (want to avoid namecalling) working in tandem have disrupted the thread. They're beyond hope -- but at least one of them promised that he's leaving.

Interesting that little if anything can be offered in support of TR's professionalism, **even by his colleagues**.

[Mabus]

121. Not to mention the wonderful grammer of a so-called professional journalist

:rofl:

The one who said that a journalist was doing a good job is there was criticism from both sides. You know, the one that couldn't take criticism. :rofl:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

146. 'wonderful grammer'

!

[Mabus]

155. I don't use spell check

Perhaps I should.

[Bluebear]

157. Just funnin' ya :)

[Mabus]

159. and I took it in the spirit

Around the time I was posting my husband was watching "O Brother, Where Art Thou". He kept cracking me up as he started dancing around like the Soggy Bottom Boys. I wasn't be real careful.

[terrya]

117. Good God, my IQ dropped a few points reading your post.

[kath]

119. now, HERE, finally, is an enlightening post in support of TR's career.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

128. roflmao n/t

[Radical Activist]

122. He was malicious in his efforts to ignore and deligitamize Kucinich.

His doing so made it acceptable for the rest of the media. He spent all of 03/04 calling Dean the only "major" peace candidate in order to not speak Kucinich's name, made overt efforts to not mention his name to this day when it would have been appropriate to do so, and pulled out that bullshit attack about Dennis seeing a UFO instead of talking about a real issue.

Russert was the leader of limiting the terms of acceptable debate and that included censoring the issues of people like Kucinich. He was a leader of the media rigging our elections. Well guess what Tim. Dennis was right and you were completely wrong.

[DS1]

125. "Journalism" aside, he was one of the top worst debate moderators ever

coming behind Stephanopolous and Gibson, of course. Nothing will top their mutual suckfest.

[Mabus]

127. Russert was the one who took the moderator out of MTP

In the old days there was a panel of journalists who asked questions of a guest and there was a moderator to keep things in line. Russert did away with the moderator and made himself the centerpiece of the show as both the moderator and sole questioner. It was no longer "Meet The Press". Instead, it became "Hi, I'm Tim Russert and You WILL Answer My Questions, No Matter How Stupid Or Irrelevant".

[DS1]

129. Totally

It should have been called "Meet Tim Russert"

[Mabus]

139. It changed the whole dynamic of the show

and, as a result, the value of it. It went from being about policy and issues to about whatever Lil' Russ wanted it to focus on. It was a disservice to the American public.

[kath]

130. Good point, I'd forgotten that.

Must confess that I've stayed away from the Sabbath Gasbag shows for a while. Been so disgusted with the state of the media ever since they started going after Clinton.

[Mabus]

137. I admit, I am a political junkie, and I am unable to control myself

I continued watching even though I was disgusted. I had to know what was being said so I could debunk it.

It was a really sad change to the format and it was a disservice to those, like me, who continued to watch.

[Uncle Joe]

140. I totally agree with your post, Admiral.

I believe Russert was just one of many prime examples of our dysfunctional corporate media and the sorry state it has sunk in to.

Personally I don't care what any journalist's personal politics are but when they do the job of reporting the news or interviewing someone, they have a special responsibility to the American People with all the power, the constant in your face exposure to tens if not hundreds of millions of viewers that television brings, and in Russert's case, the purposeful ignoring, spinning or distorting of facts all to suit the corporate media agenda was pervasive and all too apparent.

I believe the purpose of FOX News is to serve as a red flag, distracting attention away from the shoddy, blatant, sometimes Trojan Horse, piss poor performance of the vast majority of the rest of the corporate media. Russert was only one cog; but an important one in that corporate media propaganda machine.

I believe many people have died and suffered as a result of the corporate media enabled corrupt, incompetent maladministration in power, the deaths of these people have virtually gone ignored by NBC. While NBC devoted an entire 30minute prime time news segment; before they did their one hour special later that evening to Russert's passing, 500 year floods in the midwest were totally ignored that night. They can lionize Russert all they want, but it won't change the fact that he was an integral player and symptom of American Journalism during it's most dismal days.

I can't judge Russert's humanity, but as a corporate media propaganda tool, he excelled.

[rdenney]

142. His untimely death couldn't have come soon enough. Now he won't be around to support McShame. nt

[GeniusLib]

147. "I am in agreement with those who have said Tim Russert betrayed this country and the world"

Is asking Howard Dean some tough questions and maybe showing some favoritism to Mccain really "betraying the world"?

My advice in the future is to get rid of the overreaction and dramatization if you want people to take you seriously.

[Zodiak]

150. No, but allowing the administration to use MTP as a propaganda outlet

...in order to start a war in Iraq 5hat destabilizes the entire middle east is betraying the world.

So is treating the issue of torture as a political football.

The examples you cite are all local, but that is not the full-scope of what has happened on MTP and what has happened because our collective journalists failed to do their jobs.

[Raster]

158. I see no overreaction or dramatization except in the ceaseless canonization of Russert.

And let's not forget, anytime cheney*/bush* needed to sell a lie to the American public, they usually came to Russert first.

I think the poster is being taken quite seriously. And that's really your problem, now isn't it?

[Time for change]

154. Russert's performance as Democratic debate moderator earlier this year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1941289

[Warren Stupidity]

156. I completely agree. nt.

[gulfcoastliberal]

161. I agree - Russert was a major douchebag and a pox on journalism.

As you said, his conduct during the 2000 presidential campaign was shamefully biased in favor of crackhead Bush.