Why it Is of some Importance How we Remember Tim Russert

[Time for change]

In the past few days there has been a good deal of criticism of those of us who have criticized Tim Russert following his death on June 13th. We’ve been accused of “dancing on his grave”, disrespecting the dead, and lacking in compassion, and we’ve been told to think of his family and that if we don’t have anything good to say we shouldn’t say anything at all about him.

I believe that most of those criticisms are unfair. In the first place, there are some very good reasons for criticizing him at this point in time, which I’ll get to shortly. But first, to address some of the criticisms:

Criticism is not “grave dancing”. I can criticize a recently dead person for what he did during his life without taking any joy in his death.

How is it possible to respect someone more after he dies than you did before he died? It is possible to reconsider the matter, of course. But that’s not likely to change one’s opinion.

Compassion? I think I’ll save my compassion for those who need it or for those who have done things that have touched me in a positive way. I never knew Tim Russert personally, and he doesn’t fall into either of those two categories.

With respect to his family, I wish them no harm, and I know almost nothing about them. I’ll quote kenzee13 on this because I can’t say it any better: “People who choose public life also choose to subject themselves to the "disrespect" of strangers – It's part of the price of success, and why death should change that is a mystery to me.”

And as for not saying anything if we don’t have anything good to say – Sorry, but that doesn’t apply to public figures. This is why:


When a public figure dies

Public figures who greatly influence public opinion, and therefore public policy, are often subject to aggrandizement or attacks, according to the political views of those who aggrandize or attack them. The occasion of their death is no exception to that rule. To the contrary, their death often triggers a huge outpouring of both aggrandizement and attacks. The reason is obvious. The dead public figure will never be able to actively influence public policy again. But those who wish to support or challenge the ideals, actions, and political views of the public figure who recently died will want to frame his life in a way that supports their views and interests. They will never again have as great an opportunity to do that, because the days following the public figure’s death are the days when the greatest number of people will be thinking about him.

We all saw this not too long ago with Ronald Reagan. There was a huge effort on the part of our corporate news media to elevate him to sainthood. I don’t know how much of that was due to genuine affection versus political calculation, but I’m sure there were a lot of both. There was a great widening of the wealth gap, with consequent increasing poverty in our country, during the Reagan administration. This was no accident. It was accomplished largely by the dismantling of FDR’s New Deal policies. There are many people in our country, a disproportionate number who are extremely wealthy, who would very much like to see Reagan’s policies continued forever or extended. By attempting to raise Ronald Reagan to sainthood they were also attempting to enshrine his policies. It is very difficult to argue against the policies of a saint. In point of fact, Ronald Reagan was a lot less popular during his presidency than he was made out to be by our corporate news media in the days following his death. All the more reason to elevate his popularity by aggrandizing him in the days following his death.

So naturally, those of us who believed Reagan’s policies to be cruel and callous said so at that time. We didn’t have as big a voice as our corporate news media did. But we did what we could to combat their efforts to spin Reagan and his policies into something that they were not. That of course involved aggressive criticism of Ronald Reagan and his policies. And I firmly believe that that was the right thing to do.


The rise of the corporate (phony) news media in the United States

It has long been recognized in our country that use of the public airways is a privilege rather than a right. That is why, as early as 1927 our government began requiring licenses for use of the public airways, in the Radio Act of 1927, which was expanded in the Communications Act of 1934. Since then, the underlying standard for radio and television licensing has been the “public interest, convenience and necessity clause”, which is explained here by Sharon Zechowski:

The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting – the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted.

But with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we began to see a rapid decline in the quality of the news we receive. By relaxing rules that prohibited monopoly control of telecommunications, that Act led to the concentration of the national news media of the United States largely into the hands of a very few wealthy corporations, to an extent never before seen in our country. This, more than any other event, has allowed the content of the news received by American citizens to be determined by a small number of very wealthy and powerful interests. Hence the pervasive blackout of meaningful news.

David Podvin and Carolyn Kay explain how Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, put this process into play at NBC:

The new dimension that Welch introduced was the concept that the mainstream media should aggressively advance the political agenda of the corporations that own it. He did not see any difference between corporate journalism and corporate manufacturing… Business was business, and the difference between winners and losers was profit… From Welch’s perspective, it was insanity… for the corporate owners of the mainstream media to restrain themselves from using all of their assets to promote their financial well being. In general, he saw corporate news organizations as untapped political resources that should be freed from the burden of objectivity.

On the death of Tim Russert

I used Ronald Reagan as an example of a political figure whose death naturally triggered several days’ worth of aggrandizement from our corporate news media, along with some rebuttal from those who adamantly disagreed with Reagan’s policies. Some would – and did – argue that Tim Russert is not a political figure, and therefore should be immune from the kind of aggressive criticism that was triggered by Ronald Reagan’s death.

But those of us who have criticized Russert recently see it very differently. We believe that Tim Russert has for many years been used by the corporate owners of NBC to promote a far right wing agenda while pretending to be a neutral journalist. As such, he has had vast influence on political outcomes in our country – most notably the two presidential elections of George W. Bush.

So, why should our corporate news media spend so much time and effort aggrandizing Russert, since he hasn’t overtly espoused right wing points of view? The point is that Tim Russert was perhaps the most influential and widely admired news person in our country over the past several years. The owners of our corporate news media are interested above all in maintaining the status quo. They want Russert to be remembered in a very favorable manner, as that helps to maintain the fiction that the American people have actually been receiving relevant news from our corporate news media over the past several years.

Most people who are now criticizing Russert aren’t doing so because of lack of compassion or blind hatred. We are doing it as an attempt to counteract the false story of his career that is being put forward by our corporate news media. It is true that our voices are nowhere near as loud as the voices of the corporate news media. But we are doing our small part to counteract what we see as a toxic and harmful lie. We have the right to do that. In doing so we are exercising our First Amendment rights to criticize someone who we believe has been intimately tied to corrupt corporations that are in turn intimately tied to the most corrupt presidential administration we’ve ever had.


The origin of Russert’s right wing leanings

Podvin and Kay also give us some clue as to how Tim Russert became the right wing corporate shill that he has been for the past several years, in the same article I quoted above, based on anonymous sources who worked at GE:

Welch was absolutely determined to make his employees at NBC News finally genuflect to the most sacred words in his vocabulary: GE bottom line. He perceived that there was a widely believed American myth of well-intended journalists selflessly seeking the truth, and that there would be hell to pay if a business leader like him were to overtly force reporters to be good corporate soldiers. So, being a very bright guy, he largely left the journalists at NBC alone.

Publicly.

In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.

EVIDENCE OF RUSSERT’S RIGHT WING SHILLING

Because Tim Russert had an exceptional ability to come across as an unbiased and fair professional journalist with integrity, most people today, including even some liberals, still think of him in that way. That’s what made him so dangerous. I am convinced that, given the closeness of the last two Presidential elections, without Russert’s help neither one of them would have been close enough for George W. Bush to steal. Imagine how different our country and the world would be today if Al Gore had been our President for the past 7 years. So, let’s consider some of the evidence (much of which I’ve posted previously):


Russert’s role in the 2000 election

Russert’s announcing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling that every vote must be counted will forever be branded in my mind. That was the point in time when I suddenly realized who Russert was. The contempt in his eyes and in his voice was palpable. I don’t recall his exact words, but he was obviously enraged that all ballots would now have to be examined to determine the “intent of the voter”, as Florida’s Supreme Court had ruled.

Russert was relentless on Bush’s behalf during the Florida recount. Prior to Bush’s being awarded the presidency, as described by Eric Alterman in “What Liberal Media?”, Russert referred to Bush’s “future presidency” nineteen times, and he referred to Bush himself as “President Elect Bush”. On NBC Nightly News on November 8th, Russert said that Gore “can’t extend it too long, nor can he become a whiner about Florida”. He asked Dick Cheney if he thought that Gore was being a “sore loser”. And when Bush’s Florida campaign chairman, Katherine Harris, announced George Bush as the winner of the Florida election, based on the fact that the uncounted ballots hadn’t been counted by what she interpreted as the deadline date, Russert announced on his November 26th edition of Meet the Press, “He (Bush) has now been declared the official winner of the Florida election … and therefore is the forty-third president of the United States.”

And he tried, ultimately successfully, to get Gore’s running mate, Joe Lieberman, to make concessions. On Meet the Press during the height of the controversy, as related in Robert Shogan’s book “Bad News”:

Russert demanded that Senator Lieberman … announce that Gore would give up the fight and accept Bush as the winner if the Florida tribunal upheld an unfavorable lower-circuit court decision against him.

When Lieberman refused to agree, Russert persisted:

But Senator … if the Florida Supreme Court rules that the lower-court judge was correct and the hand recount should not be counted, it ends there. The Supreme Court has spoken. Why not accept that decision? Why keep dangling out there future litigation?

Then there was the issue of 680 controversial, illegal and probably phony overseas military ballots, which went heavily for Bush. Eric Alterman describes this situation in his book:

The New York Times reported that the Bush lawyers had failed to present “any evidence” for legal arguments to allow the ballots…. What’s more, a later extensive post-election investigation by the Times found considerable circumstantial evidence for monkey business on these and other overseas ballot by the Republicans. But the echo chamber they created was so strong that Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman felt compelled to concede the issue under pressure… Since the number of ballots in question was 680, and Bush’s alleged margin of victory turned out to be just 537, this concession alone could conceivably have cost Gore his victory.

Eventually, the efforts of the Bush campaign, Russert, and other “journalists” paid off, as Lieberman announced directly to Russert on Meet the Press that the Gore/Lieberman campaign would not dispute the counting of those 680 questionable ballots.


Russert’s destruction of Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential candidacy

Russert’s interview with Howard Dean, then frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, on June 22nd, 2003, showed how he interviews someone when he wants to destroy them politically.

Pulling out a highly partisan analysis of Dean’s tax plan, Russert asked Dean, “Can you honestly go across the country and say, “I’m going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent and be elected?”. Then Russert erroneously informed his viewers that Dean’s teenage son had been indicted for steeling beer.

And the fatal trap came when Russert asked how many men and women were serving in the U.S. military. When Dean said he didn’t know the exact number Russert lectured him, saying that “As commander in Chief, you should know that.”

An argument then ensued between Dean and Russert on this subject. Though I felt that Dean did a fine job of handling this, I tried to view the exchange through the eyes of a typical undecided American voter, and my conclusion was (later verified, I believe) that Dean was hurt badly by this episode. Indeed, the conventional wisdom was that Dean “failed” Russert’s test, and that Russert “cleaned Dean’s clock”. And I do believe that if not for this interview Howard Dean would be President today.

Dean was put in an untenable position. Here was “the ultimate unbiased nonpartisan” journalist telling him that he was unfit to be president. If he argued too strenuously with Russert about this he might appear to viewers to be belittling the responsibilities of the Presidency. If he argued not strenuously enough he might appear to be conceding that Russert was correct about his unfitness for the Presidency. What could he do?


Russert and George Bush

On bit of evidence of Russert’s leaning towards George W. Bush comes from an incident related by Al Gore to Anthony Lappe, which took place shortly before the 2000 election at the Al Smith dinner, attended by Gore and Bush. Here is Lappe’s description from his book, “True Lies”:

At one point in the evening, Gore explains, Russert approached the candidates. As Gore was closest to him, Russert respectfully shook his hand and then moved on to Bush. Thinking that Gore had turned away, Russert shook Bush’s hand and, mischievously, turned over his jacket lapel to reveal a Bush campaign pin hidden under the fold.

Anyone who thinks that Russert’s reputation as a tough interviewer has real life relevance to high ranking Republicans should look at the transcript of Russert’s interview with George W. Bush in February, 2004.

Shortly after chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay exposed the lie of Iraqi WMDs in February 2004, the White House needed to repair some of the political damage. Bush chose Russert for that purpose. Anthony Lappe describes Russert’s interview of Bush on his February 8th, 2004 edition of Meet the Press:

For over an hour, six million viewers were treated to one of the biggest journalistic letdowns of the election year. With so much on the table – from the nonexistent WMDs to the Iraqi quagmire to accusations that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard – Russert could have hog-tied the president and left him twisting in the wind. Instead, he let him off easy, failing to counter Bush’s dodges with obvious follow-up questions.

In that same interview, in response to Russert’s asking if he would authorize the release of his military records to settle the question of whether or not Bush was AWOL from the National Guard, Bush answered “Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.”

Russert, regarded as one of the most well prepared journalists on television, must have known that that was a bald faced lie, as researcher Marty Heldt has previously publicly made clear that his efforts to obtain information on Bush’s military records through the Freedom of Information Act had been rejected. But Russert just let Bush’s false statement slide by, without even a follow-up question.

And in an abject display of his unbounded admiration for George Bush, Russert even asked Laura Bush on his December 23rd, 2001 edition of Meet the Press if she thought that her husband had become president due to divine intervention.


Russert and Dick Cheney

The best clue to Russert’s connection to Dick Cheney comes from the testimony of Cheney’s former communications director, Cathie Martin, during the Scooter Libby trial:

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions…. then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message." "I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

For a perfect example of why ‘Meet the Press’ was the Bush administration’s “best format”, let’s take a look at a Russert interview with Dick Cheney shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, where Cheney tried to explain the pitiful response of his administration to the attacks:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time.

Russert must have known that Cheney’s contention that “the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft” was a lie, since fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances (such as hijacked aircraft) without requiring or asking for approval from the White House. But again, Russert made no challenge of that ridiculous assertion by Cheney, and did not even follow up on it.

Tom_paine recently added another piece of evidence of the abject subservience of Tim Russert to the Bush administration:

It was an informal TV interview, I recall. Tim was chatting, responding lengthily to a question, I can't remember what is was, when he said, "Oh, I think the Republican National Committee does a fantastic job with research. They send me stuff all the time and it's always dead on."

Tom then puts that statement into proper perspective:

A journalist should NEVER be accepting information from Party-Loyal Opposition Research Teams with an axe to grind, should not be running with it blindly and "catapulting the propaganda" to millions who trust you NOT to do that! My God, that crosses the interface between journalist and propagandist in a BIG way, IMHO.

Russert’s “moderating” of the September 2007 Democratic debates

Russert used his role as moderator of the September 2007 Democratic debates mainly to push right wing talking points and discredit the Democratic candidates. In addition to bringing up that urgent issue of crucial national importance, the fact that John Edwards got an expensive haircut during his campaign, consider the following:

Mischaracterizing responses to his question about pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013
Russert put the following question or a close version of it to all the Democratic candidates: “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?”

The use of the word “pledge” and the phrase “no U.S. troops” make that an extreme question. No candidate should be asked by a debate moderator to “pledge” to accomplish something where there is a possibility that unforeseen circumstances may make it impossible to fulfill the pledge. Instead, real journalists interested in real debate would simply ask how the candidate intends to handle the issue, without asking for a “pledge”.

All three of the leading candidates said essentially that they would drastically reduce our presence in Iraq and that meeting Russert’s pledge would be a goal of theirs. But they wouldn’t promise that they would be successful in withdrawing all troops from Iraq by the end of their first term.

Following those responses, Russert turned to Bill Richardson and said, “You’ve heard your three other opponents say they can’t do it in four years.” But the three leading candidates had said nothing of the sort. They didn’t say anything remotely resembling that they couldn’t do it. They simply refused to make an iron clad promise. But, the next morning on C-SPAN, picking up on Russert’s claim that “they can’t do it in four years”, the whole theme of the program was about that specious claim. And so, I listened to one Democratic caller after another pillory all the leading Democratic candidates for refusing to get out of Iraq in four years.

Invoking Rudy Giuliani as the ideal candidate for preventing nukes from falling into the hands of Iran
A little later Russert hyped the Iran threat by asking if Israel would be justified in attacking Iran if they concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability posed a threat to them. After Senator Clinton refused to take the bait, Russert held up Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the same question as a model:

You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani. This is what he said:

“Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they're going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them, we will set them back eight to 10 years. That is not said as a threat. That should be said as a promise."

Russert then asked the Democratic candidates:

Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?

So there we go again. Rudy Giuliani essentially promises that he will go to war if necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability, and Russert challenges the Democratic candidates to agree with that extreme and dangerous position.

Yet all the Democratic candidates handled it quite well. Senator Obama’s response to Giuliani’s warmongering was typical: “I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.”

Russert’s response to that was to put Obama’s responsible caution in the worst possible light, challenging him to equal Giuliani’s extremism:

So you would not offer a promise to the American people, like Giuliani, that Iran will not be able to develop and become a nuclear power?

Mischaracterizing the torture issue
Towards the end of the debate Russert got into the subject of torture:

Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaeda. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon. Obama – Would you do that as President?

Torture is indeed an important issue for our country to think about today. It is likely that since George Bush started his “War on Terror” our country has been responsible for the torture of thousands – the good majority of them innocent of any crime.

And what do we have to show for all this brutal inhumanity? Well, we got a high ranking member of al Qaeda to admit to a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that didn’t exist. That in turn helped George Bush to justify his invasion of Iraq. And we’ve antagonized the rest of the world through our lawless and inhumane actions, especially Muslims, thus greatly increasing the recruitment of new anti-American terrorists.

If a real journalist wanted to talk about torture, that’s what he should have talked about. That is an issue which, as you read this, is ruining the reputation of our country, causing us to lose ground in our efforts to combat terrorism, putting our own soldiers at extreme risk for being tortured, and greatly reducing our influence to control world events. It would have been very educational for the American people, and well worth the effort for Russert to have discussed this issue, as a lesson in what the official sanction of torture leads to.

But instead of talking about that he introduced a scenario that has a remote chance in hell of occurring. Why? He did it so that if the Democratic presidential candidates did the right thing they would appear to a certain percentage of Americans to be “weak on terror”. But none of the Democratic candidates succumbed to panic over Russert’s torture scenario. So he persisted:

Senator Clinton, this is the number three man in Al Qaeda. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?

Translation: Do you really care more about abstract civil liberties and moral concepts than you do about protecting the American people against a terrorist attack?

Senator Clinton responded by telling him where to go with his torture mongering, and I couldn't say it any better:

You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period… But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Our country is involved in many wars today. We have a war in Afghanistan, we have a war in Iraq, and we have a “War on Terror”. But perhaps the major underlying cause of all these wars is the class war, which is going on simultaneously. And by a class war I mean a war waged by an elite group of ultra-wealthy individuals against the middle class, the working class and the poor.

A major tool in that class war is our corporate news media. By acquiring monopoly control over the news that most Americans receive, their main strategy is to keep most Americans uninformed enough that the ultra-wealthy can continue to widen the wealth gap in our country to astronomical proportions without protest. Right wing nut jobs such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are somewhat limited in the extent to which they can help out with this war because most Americans don’t take them seriously. The greatest danger is posed by phony journalists such as Tim Russert, who have a great ability to disguise themselves as objective journalists while sticking their knives into the backs of anyone who poses a threat to their corporate masters. I don’t know of anyone who was better at that than Tim Russert.

So the recent corporate news media love fest with Tim Russert should come as no surprise. Russert serves as a model for the type of person whom the corporate media aspires to recruit, promote, and honor. Russert had a multi-million dollar salary while he was alive, and in death he gets raised to saint status. Those in the business know well what they need to do to rise to the top. And you can be assured that we will see no such canonization if Bill Moyers or Dennis Kucinich die prematurely.

Living in such a society sometimes feels to me like Alice in her journey through Wonderland and the Looking Glass. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, a major step in combating this situation is to help more Americans to see what is going on. That’s why we write articles such as this – not out of hatred or maliciousness, but out of a desire to maintain some contact with reality and help others to do the same.

Now I’ll end this post with a relevant quote from my favorite real journalist, Bill Moyers, from his book, “Moyers on Democracy”:

Jesus would not be crucified today… He would instead be banned from the Sunday talk shows and op-ed pages by the sentries of establishment thinking who guard against dissent with the one weapon of mass destruction most cleverly designed to obliterate democracy; the rubber stamp.

Yet democracy requires a public aroused by the knowledge of what is being done to their country in their name. And here is the crisis of the times as I see it… We don’t talk about what democracy means…

The American vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nurtured in a framework of government of, by, and for the people, has not been lost. What we must determine now… is whether we are big enough… whether we are free enough, to take possession again of the government which is our own.

[gkhouston]

1. Wish I could rec this more than once. Although Russert appears to

have been genuinely well-liked and admired by his colleagues, let's not forget what he chose to do -- and not to do -- with his abilities and his position.

[John1956PA]

4. Recommended.

It is important to hold deceased journalists to fair criticism. After Peter Jennings died, I was disappointed to not find any criticism of his pooh-poohing those of us who cried foul over the 2004 Ohio presidential election results. I will never forget Jennings' smug, dismissive demeanor a few days after that election when he reported on those who raised public outcry over another stolen presidential election. I have given up watching the network newscasts, since I perceive a right-wing bias. My hat is off to the OP and to the researchers whose works he cites.

[ellenfl]

5. lol, i wanted to rec more than once too! eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Recommended for you

:-)

[bjobotts]

39. Issa: "Russert would approve more drilling". House repub. shows Russert'

Russert's place. Continuing to "control the message" for repubs. eh?

[DaLittle Kitty]

84. AGREED! I liked Tim But in Da Past 5 Years Tim Was A Supreme Propagandist and "SHAPER" of DaNews...

Through and Through... I watched much of the coverage and I heard OVER AND OVER again how Tim "worked" with the other reporters to "shape" the "story" ... EACH and EVERY day! This is what we were up against...

NOW ... "WHO" will be the next bought and trusting figure to sell US the American people what we ... ARE to believe... They have to be soft and non threatening... Like Tim...

Chris Matthews... maybe? Who will he... or she be? we may be able to have a more fair election this time w/o the powers that be having such a supreme propagandist for US to "trust"... in 2008! :)

[Imagevision]

114. Poster did you bitch this much when Nixon passed? if not why???

[lolly]

126. Easy.

Nixon was not canonized after his death.

The public hearings on impeachment had forced people to realize that Nixon was not a saint--they couldn't make him into one. His funeral was much more low-key than Reagan's (or Russert's, for that matter).

Since Reagan was never called to account for his crimes (Iran-Contra, anyone?) the wingnuts were able to present his reign as a glorious era of all things wonderful. Subtext--we need to return to the great REPUBLICAN age of paradise.

This poster is pointing out that they're doing the same thing by eulogizing Russert as the epitome of "fair, tough minded" journalism.

[redqueen]

150. Thank you...

*sigh*

[defendandprotect]

143. They're still trying to make Nixon an honest man --- and we're still telling the truth!!!

[defendandprotect]

144. Highly recommend ---

[defendandprotect]

145. Just want to add that . . .

I think there is just too much basic trust for government and media ---

I think many of us grew up in the good times where the New Deal prepared the way for
more positive experiences and we can still look at WWII as "the good war."

But we understand now what was going on behind the scenes ---
Operation Gladio, coups by our CIA, corruption of government by the wealthy --
while we lived pleasant lives, others were plotting to assassinate presidents --
both FDR and JFK --- and to over turn the New Deal which represented CONTROLS on
capitalism.

Further back, we now understand better that this nation began with GENOCIDE by the
US against the Native Americans --- and quickly followed up with the enslavement of
Africans.

We are still in the same gene pool, folks ---

The New Deal is over --- turn off your TVs ---

[Karenina]

161. Just fer STARTERS!!!

:toast:

[laststeamtrain]

2. K & R

The people who criticized the criticizers of Tim Russert, big media superstar & right wing tool, whether the criticism came a minute before he died or a minute after he died or any other time are really, really messed up.

It's one of the worst things I've ever witnessed at DU.

Bizarre agents, 'Reagan Democrats', lynch mob fans, whatever you are, you're welcome here as far as I'm concerned. But you should post less & read more.

The ones who name called should be suspended at least. THAT was ugly.

[annabanana]

3. This is an excellent, well reasoned post.

I wish that more cool heads like yours were in evidence earlier.

[ellenfl]

6. excellent summary of my feelings about the russert lovefest.

very well done!

the thing that irritated me the most about russert and most of the tv 'journalists', was the lack of follow-up on many questions asked of the administration.

even stephanopolous has been bought off. and you can bet that the only reason olbermann is still allowed to say what he does is because he is making money for the network . . . and because the repigs are on their way out of dc.


ellen fl

[Bluenorthwest]

7. A fantastic and accurate post

And in depth too!

[JohnyCanuck]

8. K&R n/t

[Raster]

9. Outstanding, Time for change. Outstanding!

Nailed it:

"EVIDENCE OF RUSSERT’S RIGHT WING SHILLING

"Because Tim Russert had an exceptional ability to come across as an unbiased and fair professional journalist with integrity, most people today, including even some liberals, still think of him in that way. That’s what made him so dangerous. I am convinced that, given the closeness of the last two Presidential elections, without Russert’s help neither one of them would have been close enough for George W. Bush to steal. Imagine how different our country and the world would be today if Al Gore had been our President for the past 7 years. So, let’s consider some of the evidence (much of which I’ve posted previously):


"Russert’s role in the 2000 election

"Russert’s announcing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling that every vote must be counted will forever be branded in my mind. That was the point in time when I suddenly realized who Russert was. The contempt in his eyes and in his voice was palpable. I don’t recall his exact words, but he was obviously enraged that all ballots would now have to be examined to determine the “intent of the voter”, as Florida’s Supreme Court had ruled.

"Russert was relentless on Bush’s behalf during the Florida recount. Prior to Bush’s being awarded the presidency, as described by Eric Alterman in “What Liberal Media?”, Russert referred to Bush’s “future presidency” nineteen times, and he referred to Bush himself as “President Elect Bush”. On NBC Nightly News on November 8th, Russert said that Gore “can’t extend it too long, nor can he become a whiner about Florida”. He asked Dick Cheney if he thought that Gore was being a “sore loser”. And when Bush’s Florida campaign chairman, Katherine Harris, announced George Bush as the winner of the Florida election, based on the fact that the uncounted ballots hadn’t been counted by what she interpreted as the deadline date, Russert announced on his November 26th edition of Meet the Press, “He (Bush) has now been declared the official winner of the Florida election … and therefore is the forty-third president of the United States.”

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I have a simpler view .......

The evil Jack Welch.

Controls NBC.

Russert gets sucked in and flipped.

Buys a house on Nantucket, down the street from Jack's.

Matthews did the same.

Water boys.





I commend you for your far more thorough and irrefutable essay.

[Malloy63]

11. very long post...

little substance.

many recommends, most likely, many didn't read the non-sense.

Get off Tim.

Move-On to a real news story.

peace

p.s. Go fill some sand bags in Iowa

[seemslikeadream]

14. You have not been so nice to people here?

That is a very good friend of mine who does not deserve that kind of criticism, in my opinion, but I have known him for quite awhile maybe you could take some time to know folks around here

[Time for change]

80. Thank you for the kind words

I don't think that Malloy will be with us for very long.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Your head hurts a tad?

Oh my

Take the blue pill on your way out....


JEEESSUS AGE!

If you cannot go after the SUBSTANCE then there is this little thing called IGNORE

[seemslikeadream]

19. somebody needs to do a clean up in aisle 5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3473181


I guess you saw this one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3472968#3473434

[Swagman]

26. not as long as the nauseating eulogies

[yardwork]

29. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your time here.

[The Doctor.]

34. Hehehe... sure buddy.

What, precisely, do you disagree with. Use quotes please.

Yeah... like you could even do that.

[Zhade]

44. You do the man whose name you usurp a disservice.

NT!

[bjobotts]

49. Truth gets called many negative names when one doesn't want to hear it

[mrbluto]

54. You sully the word

Every time I see the word "peace" in a post like yours I notice its usage and context and feel nauseous.

I honestly don't think you mean "peace" when you use that word.

It really smacks of some freeper in-joke where they're taking a whack at what the perceive to be an icon of their trumped-up boogeyman, the "counter-culture" of the sixties.

Seeing the word "peace" used like that makes me realize what neocons and closeted gays have in common - they both feel they have to hide and/or something to be ashamed of and, since it really sticks in their craw, they have a sick love of ironic dog-whistle references. (Much like Russert with his hidden pro-Bush lapelpin. Total high school puerility.)

It may seem they are different, but there's only an orthogonal transform's difference between a boa-wearing, finger snapping queen and Neocons bloviating about how they're self-made men.

I can sympathize with the drag queen and closeted gay people - they really were and are persecuted.

Neocons have no excuse.

[JNelson6563]

68. Lots of big words too. Very annoying!

Oy.

[opihimoimoi]

74. Bush is coming to fill 2 bags on Thursday...11 days late....some kinda job he doing...

[gkhouston]

78. He does know he's supposed to use *sand*, right? n/t

[trumad]

81. You're a fucking moran.

[redqueen]

120. Enjoy your stay.

Low post count, propoganda...

[mistertrickster]

131. Very short post . . .

little substance.

Glad I missed your other posts . . . all eleven of them.

[mod mom]

142. Most of us here find TFC's posts full of informative substance. If you think it's too long

then maybe you're better off elsewhere. Anyway, you post kicked it so thanks for promoting this EXCELLENT thread.

[Doctor Panacea]

191. Perplexing

little substance.
many recommends; most likely, many didn't read the non-sense.
Get off Tim.
Move-On to a real news story.

I am always perplexed as to why people like this come to a progressive board. How can this country hope to restore the rights that Bush has taken away, and undo the incalculable damage, as long as people fail to recognize the role of bought-off whores like Russert in collaborating with the Bush Crime Family?

[Phred42]

12. Another excellent post - too bad the short attention span crowd won't make it to the end

:toast:

[bjobotts]

50. I did and it was well worth it. Excellent post. Media darlings are liars you can trust huh?

[Phred42]

90. Contratulations for making to the end

Not bad for a short attentioner

:toast:

[otohara]

13. Memory Lane

it's good to go down it once in a while so we don't forget the bad while being bombarded with only the good.

[Fly by night]

17. Exceptional -- as always. Thanks, TfC . K&R

[L0oniX]

18. K & R

[chieftain]

20. You nailed it. One of the best posts ever. eom

[bluesbassman]

21. Well reasoned post TFC.

I too do not believe that discussing (read criticizing) a public figures actions during their lifetime is "dancing on their grave". Many of the posts I read expressed anger and resentment for the man's actions, but few if any showed any joy about his actual death.

Your analogy to Reagan was spot on for this reason: If in death, we lionize people like Russert or Reagan we give credence to the destructive things they did.

[skepticscott]

22. Funny, isn't it...

that none of the scolds who were stalking the DU corridors last weekend looking to upbraid anyone saying anything even remotely negative about Russert have chosen to respond to well-reasoned, fact-based posts like this one with facts and reason of their own. The entire "never, ever speak ill of the dead" crowd was acting on their own visceral, emotional responses to his death (motivated, if only they realized the irony, by the media itself and its promulgation of celebrity worship), and expecting that everyone else in the world should adjust their behavior accordingly. Thankfully, the more rational voices who realize what this is really all about seem to have won out. Thanks for a first-rate post.

[Eric J in MN]

51. Quoting a garbage article by "David Podvin"

...whom we know nothing about, but supposedly knows all about the thoughts and secret words of Jack Welch and Tim Russert.

That isn't fact-based.

[hfojvt]

56. a 'garbage' article

you don't supply anything to refute it. Calling an article 'garbage' is not a fact-based argument either. Just name calling.

Is it a huge leap of faith to believe that a CEO ran his corporation for the purpose of increasing his and his company's wealth and power? Even if that corporation happened to be a television network? How foolish I must be to believe that Jack Welch cares more about money and power than he does about truth or the working class.

[Eric J in MN]

186. I'm not a fan of Jack Welch or Tim Russert.

But if David Podvin wants me to believe that Tim Russert "pounded the table" and said "Integrity is for paupers!"

...then Podvin needed to do more to establish his credentials first or name his source.

The burden of proof is on Podvin for such an extraordinary claim.

I tried to contact David Podvin years ago, as I was looking into that article, but never got a reply.

[hfojvt]

189. the OP does not quote that part of the article

but the part about how Welch ran NBC. Which seems quite plausible, although it is not solid evidence by itself.

The integrity is for paupers line seems believable to me, since it fits the evidence that Russert apparently sold his and got a good price for it. Or perhaps he never had any to begin with?

To name a source is to betray that source. Perhaps it was Welch's admin assistant. He/she could easily lose their job if they were named.

[skepticscott]

61. Apparently you have no facts either

just more denial. But now's your chance...if this is all garbage, it should be easy to refute, along with all the other similar posts. Come on, regale us with Tim Russert's history-making achievements as a true journalist...if you can. With the endless adulation of him that's been going on everywhere in the MSM, that should be the easiest research you've ever done. Don't be like Tim and wait for your phone to ring.

[Eric J in MN]

184. I wasn't a fan of Tim Russert.

I'm also not a fan of the David Podvin article, because we know nothing about Podvin, but he claims to have anonymous inside information on Russert and Jack Welch that lets him know their secret conversations.

If David Podvin had written multiple on-the-record interviews with former GE executives, then I would find this anonymous-source article more believable.

[Time for change]

79. The Podvin article would be more suspect IF

we didn't have a multitude of other evidence, right from Russert's mouth, to go with it. I provided several examples in this OP, but that only begins to scratch the surface of what he's done to hoodwink the American people.

Podvin's article was based on anonymous sources, so it is reasonable to take it with a grain of salt. It is not difficult to understand why the sources wished to remain anonymous.

However, when combined with everything that Russert has said over the past several years, it fits right in and seems to explain a lot.

[Kermitt Gribble]

23. Kick!

Excellent post!

[LiberalAndProud]

24. Excellent post.

You said what I've been thinking better than I ever could. This is Truth.

[Swagman]

25. the truth had to be said TODAY !!..not in 6 months when all is

forgotten and Tim Russett is just another foot note.

It's been completely outrageous and utterley un-deomocratic for others to try to censor or request self-censorship about Russett and the truth, using moral pressure and demands to pay him "respect" in death.

The truth MUST always be told and told immediately-not when it's convenient for others.

We all know the truth about the Iraq War-the lies told, the perversion of law, but those who perpetuate these lies rely on time giving them freedom to continue.

[T.Ruth2power]

27. Straight up

K&R

[yardwork]

28. Thank you for this research! I have bookmarked to read later.

I agree that journalists are especially important public figures, and therefore we must examine the quality of their work carefully.

[TexasObserver]

30. K&R

[Kat45]

31. Thank you for this.

I bookmarked it so I can show it to all the folks who couldn't understand why I had such a problem with Tim Russert. I was always vocalizing that I couldn't stand the guy, and no one could understand why I was so negative about him. I've been complaining about him ever since the Presidential debates in 2004, when he asked Wes Clark a question that really pissed me off--and he's continued to get worse and worse. Your post lays it out so well. Thank you.

[Time for change]

82. Thank you, I'm very glad you're spreading this around

I don't know if this is what you had in mind, but are you referring to when Russert went after Clark like a pitbull, trying to get him to disavow Michael Moore's support of him, and Clark refused to do it?

[penguin7]

32. Why so much adulation for Tim Russert on DailyKos?

I am not sure I understand it. Are these people just deluded? Are they misinformed? What is going on?

[The Doctor.]

33. Brilliant.

Well-explored, explained, and evidenced.

Beautiful post.

[tblue37]

35. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!

In response to the ongoing sanctification of TR, I too have been posting some of those documented examples of TR's shilling and similar explanations of why we need to counter the canonization, even quoting the comment (by Twain, if I remember correctly) that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth even puts on its pants as an explanation of why we can't wait a "decent interval" to do so. But of course the same sanctimonious posters always respond with slurs about my "indecency" and "cynicism" or my "rationalization of bad behavior."

But your detailed exposition is far better than any I have posted and offers innumerable examples of TR at his worst.

Still, I bet the most sanctimonious "Have you no decency!" types won't even bother to read most of what you have written. I am responding here before even reading the other responses, but I am guessing that when I do read them, I will run into a lot of the same people tsk-tsking in exactly the same way that they have been since TR died.

You have done truly excellent work here. Unfortunately, the people who need to read it either won't read it, or they won't pay any attention to any of your points. They are having too much fun patting themselvs on the back while wagging their fingers at the rest of us.

[tblue37]

36. Oh, and K&R! n/t

[Raksha]

37. K & R with pleasure. One of the most brilliant essays I've ever read,

not only on DU but anywhere. I've been impressed with your work many times in the past, but you REALLY outdid yourself with this one!

[Time for change]

83. Thank you very much

This has been an issue that I've thought about for a long time.

[Duncan Grant]

38. The most definitive post on this topic yet.

Insightful analysis? Check.
Substantive supporting evidence? Check.
Elegant and strategic composition? Check.

I wish I could express my appreciation as powerfully as this post deserves. I found this an absolute pleasure to read.

:applause:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

40. DU shines when intelligent analysis and honest opinion merge

into greats posts like this one.

Time for change, you are an inspiration. :thumbsup:

[ladym55]

41. Excellent analysis

Because Tim Russert had an exceptional ability to come across as an unbiased and fair professional journalist with integrity, most people today, including even some liberals, still think of him in that way. That’s what made him so dangerous.

That point needs to be made over and over and over. Tim Russert sold himself as a professional, impartial journalist. I heard him say those very words when he came to speak at the University where I work. He wasn't. He knew it.

Tim Russert's brand of "journalism" is not something that should be canonized.

[Lugnut]

42. K&R and thank you! n/t

[Zhade]

43. Kicking for the truth.

NT!

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. And this makes Russert different from the rest of them... how, exactly?

Most "so-called liberals" in America have bought into the media influenced zeitgeist about what it does and does not mean to be progressive or god fearing, etc.

I feel the criticism of "grave dancing" applies to tact, not content. It is useful to point out the limits of Russert's usefulness as a journalist without attacking the dead. The dead indeed get more respect than the living for the obvious reason that they are dead, and therefore cannot debate the point or do as you ask any longer.

That being said it is also useful to ask why the media care so much more about Russert than that San Jose Mercury News guy (overt corporate manipulation is not needed to teach people who is and is not respectable and worth remembering), and why people on DU hate him so much more than every other overtly RW media shill they fail to organize a campaign against (in the wake of Don Imus' firing, people on DU said applying the same standard to RW talk radio hosts would dilute the significance of the message they were trying to send that liberal hosts get held to a higher standard -- the opposite of what the message should be.)

[Swamp Rat]

46. All your zeitgeist are belong to us.

Obey the images on your Jesus Box.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. What you say !?

You have no chance to survive make your time...



-----

"Beware the Democrats, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Clinton bird, and shun
The frumious o'Bamasnatch!"

-----

He took his vorpal mic in ear:
Long time the lib'some foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile off cam, he thought.

-----

And, as he scanned the uffish tele-prompt,
The Elephant, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey photo op,
And burbled as it came!

-----

One two! One two! And through and through
The talking points went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

-----

"And hast thou slain the Huckabee?
Come to my arms, my hawkish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
Larry King chortled in his joy.

-----

'Twas Blitzer, and the slithy toads
Did gyre and gimble o'er the waves:
All Tweety were the talking heads,
And the mome-Russert outgrabe.

[trusty elf]

60. ...

[skepticscott]

63. Never trust any post

that has the words "zeitgeist" or "schadenfreude" in the first paragraph.

[Time for change]

87. I'm not sure what your point is

I didn't say that Russert was qualitatively different than any other news person.

I do believe, however, that for a combination of injecting right wing talking points, successfully pretending to be unbiased and professional, and swaying critical elections in our country, Russert was the very best. That's what made him so dangerous, and that's why our corporate news media is now lionizing him so much.

[Dogtown]

112. public figure

He chose to be in the public eye, which obviates the need to respect his deadness.

Besides, he's fucking dead. Can't hear, can't be offended by our disrespect. If he wanted to be honored after death, perhaps he should have reported the truth.

Dying doesn't shield him from culpability or our disrespect.

If we're picking on him instead of others, it's because he made the news; by dying. He's just more topical than the other hacks propping up this junta.


Oh, and I piss on St. Ronnie's mouldering corpse, so I guess I'll have to live with being one of the "so-called liberals" you repudiate. Hope the blasphemy doesn't disturb you too much...

:eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

48. You use the phrase "anonymous sources"

Actually, Carolyn Kay says its one anonymous source, and that she doesn't know the person is, but trusts David Podvin.

We don't know who David Podvin is.

He weaves a story in that article. That doesn't make the story true.

[Time for change]

89. I answered this in your other post, above.

[meowomon]

52. Ok, he's in the ground now

Now, would be the time. Just call me old fashioned or too southern, but we have our manners here and you don't speak ill of the dead until they are buried. Everyone knew the truth about Russert. Why the rush to slam him after his death? Too chicken to say it while he was alive? No matter how you slice it, you should have at least waited until a few maggots hatched!

[skepticscott]

62. And why is that?

Is it because with all of that dirt on top of them, they can't hear you any more? Is there something real about being planted in the ground that instantly makes it OK to criticize someone, or is that just something that you southern folk made up because it felt right, even though it has no rational basis?

And btw, it's clear from the orgy of adulation that attended his passing that not everyone knew the truth about Russert, or if they did, they were determined to whitewash it forever. All the more reason to speak the truth now.

[anniebelle]

66. The maggots hatched a long time ago in Timmeh's soul.

When he decided to carry water for the GOP, he let the maggots into his brain and soul. And for what? Glory, money and oh, did I mention, MONEY.

[MedleyMisty]

72. Please don't lump in all southerners with yourself

I was born and raised in the town that Mayberry was based on and have lived in North Carolina all my life.

I can't recall a single instance of anyone making a big deal about a primitive superstition. If people noticed the deaths of public figures at all they just said whatever they felt like saying about it and went on.

[Time for change]

91. I said it several times while he was alive

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1252317

I felt that this was another important time to say it, for the reasons I described in the OP.

[lolly]

130. Huh?

Everyone knew the truth? Then why is everybody telling lies--about how fair and hardscrabble and tough he was?

Too chicken to say it while he was alive? Russert's biases and phony "man of the people" act were discussed here and elsewhere long before he died. Most of us picked up on his shtick during the Clinton impeachment-fest.

[muryan]

53. It's very sad

I've learned to avoid this site in the event of a public death. I wouldn't call it grave-dancing, but I would call its shameless and tactless. Tim Russert was an incredible father and family man, and my respect for him is in no way heightened by his unfortunate death. The respect I've had for him remains as a constant, through life and death.

It seems that people on this forum forget that a large part of the country identify themselves as conservatives, while the plurality are moderates. If you dissect every question that an interviewer asks, I would hope to find questions from both sides of the political spectrum. That is a true representation of America, whether you like it or not.

It pains me to see keyboard warriors who decide to tear down a person upon their death, as if their perception of the person is absolute truth, and deserves no criticism.

In this respect, I would love to hear the eulogy you would give at a family members funeral. Instead of focusing on the merits of said person, the theme of your remarks would be "she drank to excess sometimes" or "he didn't spend enough time with his kids."

It is this strange phenomenon of grave preaching that casts a shadow on this forum as a whole.

[Time for change]

94. It's one thing to be a conservative

It's quite another thing to pretend to be something you're not. It's quite another thing to abuse the trust of the American people by disguising yourself as a journalist while successfully attempting to get people like George Bush elected President. Russert was very well paid for his efforts. If someone chooses to make tens of millions of dollars for bamboozling the American people about what's going on in this country and into a war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands, they shouldn't be too surprised if they get some criticism for that, along with the sainthood that is bestowed upon them.

[lolly]

132. You didn't even bother to read the post, did you?

It explained in great detail why it is important to counter the hagiography NOW.

Good for him that he was a great husband and father. My husband is too, and he manages to be one without collecting a 5 million/year salary and without enabling far-right lunatics like Cheney.

[muryan]

152. Yes I read the post

I could care less for his/her rationale, grave pissing is still grave pissing, no matter how self important your reasons are.

[DFW]

55. To gravedance or not to gravedance--that is the question

DU has NEVER been concerned about whether Tim Russert was a good family
man, well liked by his co-workers, or good at what he did. This is a
political board, and the majority consensus has never liked his brand
of "journalism."

As I see it, the rash of posts that criticize Russert upon his death are
mostly a reaction to the near-cannonization of him that the electronic
media are spewing out. Here in Europe, the main American paper had a
moderately small obit, and the European press had not a word. He was
effective at what he did, but the big question about just what it was
that he did, and why, is not something to be shelved out of respect for
the dear departed.

My father was a print journalist all his life, was a member of Sigma Delta Chi
and was elected to the presidency of Washington's Gridiron Club, so I know
something of the press, or, at least, what it used to be. A good friend of
my father's (and of the surviving members of his family), Helen Thomas, is
an example of the nearly extinct brand of journalism that used to be the norm.


Russert, on the other hand, was the opposite of Helen Thomas. Helen is tough
on everybody, gives no one a free ride. Russert, as so well documented in the OP,
gave certain people (mostly Republicans) a free ride, and pounced on others
(mostly Democrats) with trivialities and distractions and tried to sensationalize
them.

When Roger Ailes, alumnus of Nixon's "Dirty Tricks Team," and now head of Fox "News,"
was asked about his slanted station, he replied simply, "we have an agenda." The
difference is that Russert, to all appearances, had one, too. If he had come clean
about it from the beginning, he could at least not be accused of phony journalism.
Those of us who fault Russert's "professional" conduct now did so before, and
for the same reason. One does not act like like a partisan for a political party
80% of the time and then profess to be an objective journalist. If you are a
commentator, in the vein of Keith Olbermann on our side, or the rabid dogs of Fox,
then come clean. Russert pretended to be a journalist when he was pursuing an
agenda for one side. We faulted him for that that same way we faulted Reagan.

No one here held back from criticizing the media's attempt to elevate Reagan to
sainthood when he died (or even before that). I don't see why we are expected to
do differently for Russert. I agree with the OP for its stance on why Russert's
professional career was nothing to praise. This does not in any way make me think
he wasn't a good friend or a bad husband or a loving parent. I have no clue. My
father knew him well. I didn't. My father said he was always a nice enough guy,
but professionally had his head stuck up his ass, and as someone who had been
in print journalism for 50 years, and was never a media star, Dad's word still
carries a lot of weight with me, especially taking into account that in the ten
years since my father spoke those words, Russert never did anything to indicate
(again, to me) otherwise.

[hfojvt]

57. I strongly prefer not to grave dance

And again see no celebration either in the OP nor in your post. Why not wait some time before talking about him negatively? The OP spoke to timing, but metaphorically, the time to shout 'the emperor has no clothes' is when the Emperor is walking through the town naked (or video clips of the late Emperor are being played in this case). If you wait a week, or even a few days, much of the public attention has moved on to other things.

[DFW]

105. I appreciate the sentiment.

Frankly, I was surprised it got so much attention here, but I assume it
was in reaction to much positive attention spewed out by the MSM back
Stateside.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Outstanding!

And yes, you are correct; I always felt that Tim Russert was one of the biggest shills out there....and he decided when to be tough and when not to be...and it appears that he was much tougher on Democrats than anyone.

In fact, election 2000 is why I became politically active, and that year, I saw a whole lot of happenings with the media and it hasn't stopped.

May he rest in peace, but in my history book, his place will be the correct one and not the revisionistic one the media has been attempting to have us swallow.

[rdenney]

59. Tim Russert:: A Man that Stood for NOTHING and believed in NOTHING. At least when I pass-out of this

life, people will know what I stood for.

And as for the rest of these media cretins, like that smiling little televised weasel, Tim Russert, they can rest in _Hell_ knowing that he was a nothing more then a wage-slave to the MSM and the powers-that-be, who held this creature up as piece of "shining" excrement, as a "light in the darkness".

The "Darkness" being his masters, of course.

Rot in Hell, Timbo, you foolish idiot !!!

[anniebelle]

64. Thank you so much for spelling this our for us.

I too remember the way we canonized Ronnie Raygun and continue to this day with no rationale. Anybody paying attention during the Raygun years, knows what an evil bastard he was, but I digress. This is exactly why we need to keep our heads about us when the right-wing is trying to pull one over the gullible American viewers. Every time somebody pointed out facts about Timmeh, on this board (not over in freeperland), we were told to go fuck ourselves. Thanks for putting this in perspective for some of the less informed.

[DeltaLitProf]

65. Because we're trying to win an election this year

. . . and because we don't want to look like the ghouls that predominate in the other party's leadership. THAT is why we don't kick at Russert's corpse now.

[gkhouston]

73. Remaining silent while the corporate media propagates a falsehood...

yeah, that's worked so well for us before in election years. :eyes:

Sometimes it's not about the election, but about telling the truth. Telling the truth isn't kicking a corpse any more than it is unpatriotic.

[KG]

67. heartless grave-pisser!

just kidding. great post but not sure it will have any effect on those that choose not to see.

[JawJaw]

69. Getting things Into Perspective....

Whilst I bear no ill feelings towards Russert's family in their time of grief, the media prominence given to his death and his elevation to some sort of journalistic paragon does seem to be quite out of his proportion to his journalistic merit.

I could ask why the corporate media make only a passing reference (or no reference at all) to journalists killed in pursuit of their profession, but I think we all know the answer to that, don't we?

Nevertheless, it is worth reminding ourselves of those hundreds killed whilst carrying out real journalism, rather than studio chats with politicians:

http://www.cpj.org/index.html

(Committee to Protect Journalists)

[Time for change]

98. Great point

That brings to mind what the Bush administration has done to some very courageous journalists working for al jazeera to bring out the truth of what's going on in Iraq.

[redqueen]

121. Excellent, excellent point.

I can't believe the service is being televised.

:puke:

[gkhouston]

149. Given how many media colleagues he has outside of Washington

that he's worked with over the years, that doesn't surprise me. I suppose it's a way for them to "attend".

[valerief]

70. Well said. Alive, Russert was one of the bad guys. Dead, he stays that way. nt

[RayOfHope]

71. True. People aren't separating their emotions from facts here

and that isn't to say we are unfeeling robots, but we can be respectful of his family and still maintain the position that he was not some journalisitic god.

[endarkenment]

75. This should be pinned to the top of the Greatest Page

And should be mandatory reading for all of those here, all of you good progressive Democrats, who don't get why so many of us refuse to go along with the bullshit media annointment of Russert. Nice guy I'm sure, and he came from good solid working class roots, but he wasted his considerable talents, bought off by GE's money, advocating and propagandizing for everything we are against. This is not grave dancing, this is fighting against the imposition of the narrative of the New Robber Barons, a narrative carefully crafted and forcefully imposed on us through their control over the mass media, by skilled and talented individuals, well paid to do the bidding of their masters. Please reject the narrative. Please think first before you let their message go unchallenged.

[opihimoimoi]

76. Kick and R'd

:toast:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacetalksforall]

88. Self deteted - moved - posted in wront position

[tom_paine]

85. I feel honored to be quoted in such an excellent post.

Thoroughly done.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Time for change]

100. Thank you for yours too

I never saw that one, and if you hadn't picked it up it would likely disappear down the memory hole. A real smoking gun!

[mirrera]

86. Grand Slam! k&r...

[raccoon]

92. Great post, Time. Rec'd. nt

[peacetalksforall]

93. Thanks. You document your position perfectly. Very well done. Let me add to

my pre-2000 and year 2000 Russert;

He assisted in the smear of Al Gore. He participated in the giggles and smirks along with his guests when they joked and critiqued their way through the campaign perpetuating talk about Al's neck size, clothes, sigh, use of the words 'lock box' and he participated in the perpetual lies about lies. Perhaps because they had nothing else. He moved in lockstep with his network who moved lockstep with the other networks. He was a person who helped stack the deck and then participated in the network theft.

Al Gore was also a father and a son.

The way I will remember him ....
Russert was a person who started out as a journalist -
and became a propagandist under the guise of a journalist.

[Time for change]

101. Thank you for that very important addition

[mod mom]

95. EXCELLENT-of note: TELECOM ACT OF '96 (signed into law by Bill Clinton)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study tells the story of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its aftermath. In many ways,
the Telecom Act failed to serve the public and did not deliver on its promise of more competition,
more diversity, lower prices, more jobs and a booming economy.

Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.

Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in
lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills.
But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent.
Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy
by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications’ companies’ market value had fallen by about
$2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs.

And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news
and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they
need to participate in their democracy
Why did this happen? In some cases, industries agreed to the terms of the Act and then went to court
to block them. By leaving regulatory discretion to the Federal Communications Commission, the Act
gave the FCC the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. Control of the House
passed from Democrats to Republicans, more sympathetic to corporate arguments for deregulation.
And while corporate special interests all had a seat at the table when this bill was being negotiated, the
public did not. Nor were average citizens even aware of this legislation’s great impact on how they
got their entertainment and information, and whether it would foster or discourage diversity of
viewpoints and a marketplace of ideas, crucial to democratic discourse.

Now, as Congress once again takes up major legislation to change telecommunications policy, and as it
revisits the Telecom Act, major industries have had nearly a decade to reinforce their relationships with
lawmakers and the Administration through political donations and lobbying:

• Since 1997, just eight of the country’s largest and most powerful media and telecommunications
companies, their corporate parents, and three of their trade groups, have spent more than $400 million
on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, according to a Common Cause analysis of
federal records.

• Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric Co./NBC,
News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the National
Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the United
States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations since 1997.
Of that total, $17.8 million went to Democrats and $26.9 million went to Republicans.

• These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on lobbying
in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.

All this investment once again gives radio and television broadcasters, telephone companies, long-distance
providers, cable systems and Internet companies a huge advantage over average citizens.
While these corporations have different, and sometimes opposing views on individual provisions of a new
Telecom Act, their overriding desire is for less federal regulation. A new Telecommunications Act could
be written “in a matter of months, not years,” and be a “very short bill,” focused on an almost complete
deregulation of the telecommunications industry, said F. Duane Ackerman, chairman and CEO
of BellSouth Corporation. “The basic issue before the Congress is simple,” Ackerman said.
“Can competition do a better job than traditional utility regulation?”

-snip

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF


EXCELLENT POST AS USUAL, TFC. FULL OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION! THANK YOU.

[Time for change]

102. Thank you for all that information about the Telecom Act of 1996

I sure do hope that if we have a Democratic President and Congress this year, they will make some big moves to correct that.

[mod mom]

140. I thank you as you linked to the Common Cause Study that it is from.

This is one of the pieces of legislation that Bill clinton supported that lead the way to the Republican coup-imho. I book marked this information to share in the future here at DU.

Another wonderfully informative and well thought out post TFC!

[BrklynLib at work]

96. Add my name to the list of those who wish they could recommend more than once.

Superb.

[Phred42]

97. If this keeps up any longer it willl turn into a caricature

Of that Saturday night Live Sketch that ran on seemingly for ever:

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead

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


:popcorn:

[malaise]

99. A superb post

K & R

[lib2DaBone]

103. Because Corp/Gov needs to control

Main Stream Media (MSM) and Corp/Gov will take advantage of every opportunity to control and manipulate public opinion. Like the proverbial "frog in the boiling pot", they turn up the temperature slowly, so American's have no idea they are being boiled alive.

[n0nesuch]

104. You pretty well had it pegged when you said

'Dancing on his grave'...or use 'Opportunism'. Which ever you like better.

[lolly]

137. Dancing on Grave? No.

Dancing on grave=I'm glad he's dead. whoopee!

What we're saying is that we shouldn't perpetuate a false image--one that serves the purposes of corporate media.

[n0nesuch]

160. The body wasnt even cold when the zealots came out to play.

[fiamma mama]

106. Extraordinary work, Time For Change.

Well researched, well organized, well argued.

I substitute teach, and I also have a son in high school who will be taking a debate class next year. I'd like to use this as an example of persuasive argument, with your permission.
It certainly persuaded me. I try not to get emotionally involved about public figures, because doing so diminishes my ability to judge them rationally, based on their words and actions. However, this post made me angry enough to want to smack Mr. Russert upside the head and say 'what is WRONG with you!'

[Time for change]

165. Sure, I'm flattered that you want to use this as an example for your son

Not that you need my permission though -- Once we post here it's public property.

[Apollo11]

107. Thanks for setting the record straight

:kick:

[GreenEyedLefty]

108. I don't understand the point of all this... he's gone. N/T

[redqueen]

122. The point is many seem to want to revise history...

and go along with the new M$M narrative that he was a "great leader" and amazingly wonderful journalist deserving of all the lauding he's getting in the media.

It's important that we fight the canonization of this man, as it allows people to more easily accept the propoganda that this person was a fair journalist and deserves such praise. This propoganda adds a sheen of credibility to all of those of his class... and gives them credibility they do NOT deserve. This country will not be well-served by having millions more people convinced that Tim treated issues fairly, and perhaps more likely to think that others like him do so either.

Most journalists of his status are far from fair and impartial... it's important to know the facts... and allowing the media to portray him as an honest, evenhanded interviewer is very, very far from being a fact.

[lolly]

138. Read the OP

It explains very clearly why it is important to evaluate Russert's work objectively, rather than allow the corporate media's image of him to predominate.

[Faygo Kid]

109. "turned over his jacket lapel to reveal a Bush campaign pin" - says it all. Great post.

Tim Russert and his good friends, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

He could have been so much more than he was, because underneath it all, unlike many of his "friends," he had a core of humanity.

But let there be no doubt: Tim Russert was a conservative Republican - his days of working for a Dem senator (Moynihan) were far behind him.

[PinkyisBlue]

110. This is your best analysis yet.

I didn't think I would read the entire piece, but it was riveting! You got it so right. You did more research in this essay than Tim did as a hard-hitting "journalist". And there's no grave-dancing here; as a public figure, it is fair to review his work in its entirety.

Several years ago, I started watching the Sunday morning talk shows and thought they were so informative. But as I watched week to week, I noticed how Tim and other hosts were much tougher on the Democratic guests than on the Republican ones. During the 2000 election season, I really liked Al Gore, and it was obvious how biased most of the media, including Tim Russert, was against him. He was misquoted, his statements were replayed out of context, and he was characterized by most in the media as not just a liar but a stiff, wooden liar. And Tim was a part of all of this.

I mostly stopped watching him a year or two ago. I hated the whole "horse race" mentality of the Democratic primary (even here on DU). It seemed like a cop-out to discuss who was winning in this state or that state instead of discussing real issues. Our corporate media "journalists" have really let all of us down. As you stated in your essay, Tim and the others are good at promoting what is good for their corporate masters' bottom line, but they're woefully inadequate at keeping the American people informed about policies and events that affect their everyday lives.

And thank you for discussing the real war that is occurring here in our own country, the class war. As a multi-million dollar media personality, Tim was far removed from the middle class. He bowed to his corporate masters and just never mentioned the increasing wealth gap. He was complicit in the John Edwards media blackout--it's as though Edwards was never a candidate. Even when Edwards beat Clinton early on in the primary (in Iowa?), his candidacy was basically ignored (except for the $400 haircut).

Tim admitted to getting a lot of his information directly from the RNC. What a shill he was. He sold his soul for gold coins.

[juno jones]

111. K&R! n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

113. This is the part that really woke me up:

Welch sincerely thought liberals were phony and went about buying their souls. It is so true. Because there really isn't a clean way to make a good living, is there? Liberals have no choice but to take the options that are afforded to them, or live like hippies. (I'm exaggerating a bit) I mentioned this a while back, about what was a good occupation for a liberal, or something to that effect, and the answers were: teachers. Well, teachers mostly, from what I can remember. But that's not an occupation that makes the big money, is it?

Thank God Al Gore has seen the light and is beginning to pave the way so that liberals can get better options, and still remain true to their principles.

[TexasObserver]

115. Did Russert play any role in the canning of Phil Donahue from MSNBC?

I've always wondered who was behind shoving Donahue off the air at a time when he was the only voice on cable news against the invasion of Iraq.

How quickly we forget who the real collaborators were during the WAR frenzy.

[L0oniX]

116. K & R ...I highly recommend that you read "Moyers on Democracy".

[Time for change]

166. I'm reading it right now

For anyone who wants to know what a REAL and a GREAT journalist is, I highly recommend it.

[DailyGrind51]

117. This letter appeared in today's edition of "The Chicago Sun-Times".

Two sides of Russert

Different people will remember Tim Russert for different moments in his career, but I'll remember him for two.

The first was when he was moderating the debate between Senate candidates Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio in 2000.

Russert ran video of Hillary Clinton denying that her husband had had an affair after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

Russert then asked a stunned Hillary Clinton this question: "Do you regret misleading the American people?"

The second was when I asked Russert, at a May 2004 book signing in Coral Gables, why he didn't confront President Bush during a February 2004 interview with video from before the Iraq invasion of Bush talking about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

I asked Russert why he didn't ask the president the same question he asked Hillary Clinton.

Russert insisted to the crowd that he'd asked the Bush administration plenty of tough questions about Iraq.

But he never answered my question.

Harris Meyer,

Yakima, Wash.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/letters/1010828,CST-EDT-vox18.article

I watched MTP every Sunday and liked Russert's non-confrontational style, but would often become frustrated when he failed to "bring it home" in his interviews with Cheney. All he had to ask is, "Why don't you, Mr. Vice President, just acknowledge the fact that that Administration exaggerated its case for war?" Would that have been too difficult?

[Time for change]

167. I missed or forgot his moderation of Hillary's debate with Lazio

God, shouldn't that have made it obvious to everyone?

That took some guts for you to ask him that question. I hope he at least blushed when he answered you with a bald faced lie.

[Major Hogwash]

118. This is one of the best posts I have ever read at DU. This is mandatory reading for real liberals.

This is great stuff.
Very well written, easy to read, easy to follow and outstanding backup links for most of the remarks.

Thank you very much.

[redqueen]

119. I find it VERY sad that this has to be pointed out.

I thought more DUers paid more attention.

Anyone who disagrees that he shilled for the RW I suspect of being a troll. I expect DUers to hear something they were previously unaware of, read up, and learn... not argue like a fucking dumbass rightwing troll.

Thank you for posting this.

How fucking all-fired disappointing that it's necessary here. x(

[Zavulon]

123. "I think I’ll save my compassion for those who need it..."

No dead person NEEDS compassion. However, if I were to go by your logic, I shouldn't have donated to victims such as those affected by Katrina, the tsunami, etc, since I don't know any of them personally and none of them have ever "done things that have touched me in a positive way."

I see a LOT of dancing on Russert's grave here at DU, and I see your post as justifying it. DUers justifiably get angry at Freetards for doing the same thing when misfortune befalls those on our side, but when someone like Russert dies it's like our parents went away for a long weekend and forgot to lock up the beer and snacks. Pretty sick.

[redqueen]

124. I maybe saw two posts last week that were bad enough to call gravedancing. (nt)

[Zavulon]

128. I saw more than that, but even if there were only two, then

the OP is one ridiculously long justification for it. Nobody who follows current events needs such a detailed reminder that Russert wasn't always on our side, but looking at the recs 150+ people seem to think it's great. The whole thing just rubs me the wrong way, especially since the OP strikes me as a blatant attempt to tell us how to think. I really don't need the help.

[redqueen]

129. The OP isn't justifying ACTUAL grave-dancing.

How much more did you see? Enough for handwringers to try to shut down all criticism?

Alert on the FEW truly offensive posts. The rest stands.

[Zavulon]

135. Enough to make me sick.

And the OP does strike me as going out of its way to justify any anti-Russert post. Yes, the OP makes no effort to justify the physical act of locating Russert's actual grave and dance on it, but it sure looks like a justification of any post celebrating his death.

As for alerting, I'm not going to bother admins with people expressing their opinions, no matter how tasteless. When I see a threat, I'll alert. When I see a tasteless opinion, I won't.

[redqueen]

141. "the OP does strike me as going out of its way to justify ...

any anti-Russert post"

Where are you getting that? What wording in the OP strikes you that way?

If you don't want to alert that's fine... I was more directing that at the hand-wringers who would rather post OPs implying people should not criticize him at all.

[Zavulon]

146. For example...

"The greatest danger is posed by phony journalists such as Tim Russert, who have a great ability to disguise themselves as objective journalists while sticking their knives into the backs of anyone who poses a threat to their corporate masters. I don’t know of anyone who was better at that than Tim Russert."

"Podvin and Kay also give us some clue as to how Tim Russert became the right wing corporate shill that he has been for the past several years..."

Both of those indicate serious resentment and contempt, the way I see it. Your mileage may vary.

Russert wasn't always on our side, but he wasn't always on the other side either. I don't know what you see, but I see a 5000+ word post which basically says "Anything you want to say bad about this guy, go ahead and do it with gusto, because there's lots and lots of examples below which demonstrate what a festering piece of shit he was."

Anyway, I'm not going to go through the rest of the post because it's obvious that you and I don't agree. You may have the last word.

[redqueen]

147. "You may have the last word."

Uh, yeah... they indicate serious contempt. And deserved resentment.

How does that translate to "going out of it's way to justify... blah blah blah"

Answer: it doesn't.

I can see why you're letting me have the last word.

[Time for change]

168. It's not just a matter of "not being on our side"

He was dishonest to the core. He helped Bush and Cheney lead us into war by lying to the American people.

[Zavulon]

178. As did every single

politician who claimed that Iraq had WMD, to include a fair number of our guys. Same with those Democrats who voted for Bush's war. If one of them had died instead of Russert, I wonder how many people here would be giving the corpse in question shit about it.

I get it, though. Russert was scum. If only he had died in late 2002 or early 2003, I'm sure Bush and Cheney never would have gotten us into a war. Damn that bastard for living longer than that.

[Time for change]

182. My point was that it wasn't just a matter of his not "being on our side"

What he did was really terrible. After telling the American people that Saddam Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, it was pointed out to him that that wasn't true, and he refused to correct his statement. He was part of the effort to dishonestly fool the American people into supporting a war that should never have been fought -- in OUR name.

He is now being lionized as a great journalist. He was no great journalist. He wasn't even a decently good journalist. He went against everything that journalism stands for. Some of us are trying to point that out. It has to do with a lot more than merely "not being on our side". He had little or no respect for the truth.

Yes, other people did terrible things too. But this post isn't about ALL people, it's about Russert.

[Zavulon]

185. Actually, my post

wasn't directed solely at you, even if it came out that way. What I wrote about "on our side" is the impression I'm getting board-wide among his critics.

As an aside (I say this to indicate I'm not trying to be argumentative), can you name any good journalists? Truth be told, there's not one that comes to mind as really impressing me. Russert didn't bother me as much as I sense he bothers you, but since I think they all suck I tend to consider Russert the best of a bad lot. Just my opinion, but if you've got any candidates you could remind me of...

[Time for change]

190. Yes

Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, Amy Goodman, Robert Parry, Larissa Alexandrova to name a few.

Bill Moyers has been fighting for a free and independent press for a long time. Not long ago he was asked to give a speech to the U.S. Military Academy, which was a real challenge because of his passionate opposition to the Iraq War. But he did it, and he told it like it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3441401

Keith Olbermann I love because of his fearlessness in his criticisms of the Bush administration. He's a little more difficult to defend than Bill Moyers because his passionate "special comments" would lead some to feel that he's "biased" (towards our side). But he lets it be known where he stands on issues, rather than pretend to be strictly neutral, while all the while plotting to bring down one side, like some others. There is a big difference between presenting the news or interviewing someone vs. giving an editorial opinion. As long as you make it clear what you're doing, that's ok. But when you present the news or interview someone with the objective of shaping policy, while posing as a neutral reporter, that is hypocrisy of the worst sort, and it is a betrayal of the American people. Here is an article I wrote about one of Keith's "Special Comments"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3293443

[Zavulon]

192. Out of those five, I have never seen the work of

Moyers, Goodman, Parry and Alexandrova. I don't pay for cable, which is where I assume these guys work since I've never seen them on network news.

I usually like Olbermann, especially since I like a good criticism of the worst administration in our country's history. I enjoy his slams against Bill O'Reilly and was fully behind him when he ripped Hillary for the RFK remark. However, his work sometimes turns me off when I hear anger in his voice. That's just my taste, mind you.

I admit that I didn't think of him when I asked my question, but I actually meant "do you know of any good journalists who maintain a claim of objectivity?". Do the other four you mentioned do that?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think there is a good self-professed OBJECTIVE journalist out there. Olbermann says lots of things I like, but objective he's not.

[Time for change]

193. I believe that all 5 that I mentioned are very objective

All 5 have done a lot of work to expose the crimes of what you and I both recognize as "the worst administration in our country's history". There are many conservatives and even moderates who believe that that proves that they're not objective. I don't agree with that categorization at all.

In my view, given the extent of the numerous violations of our laws and constitution by the Bush administration, any serious newsperson who purports to present national news and fails to talk about those crimes is not acting objectively. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but in the old days, crimes such as what the Bush administration commits would be considered a national scandal, and it would be the major topic of news every day in our country -- like what happened to Nixon when he was found to have committed far fewer and less serious crimes than Bush has. The great majority of people outside of our country know far more about those crimes than Americans do, because elsewhere in the world that kind of stuff is considered big news.

When Keith presents the news, I feel that he does so obectively, in the sense that all of his criticisms are fact based and legitimate -- notwithstanding the anger in his voice.

Russert, on the other hand, while not showing the slightest sign of anger, repeatedly spewed out inuendo and lies, and otherwise tried to affect public opinion, while pretending to be neutral. Did you not find some things I discussed in the OP to be convincing in that regard? I only covered a small portion of what could have been covered, as the OP was already plenty long enough. But I'll give you one more. Numerous times when Russert interviewed Democrats or Republicans he would defend Bush by saying something like, "Well, you have to admit that we haven't had a single terrorist attack since 9-11", as if that was proof that Bush has done a great job of protecting us. He could have just as well said that Bush has the worst record amongst all our presidents on national security, given that he allowed the worst attack on American soil ever, and did virtually nothing to prevent the Katrina disaster or respond to it.

Bill Moyers used to work for PBS, but was fired by a Bush administration hack for his "liberal bias". Today Moyers makes a lot of speeches about what a free press means to democracy, and what has happened to our free and independent press. He tells it like it is, and many conservatives consider that "liberal bias". Anyone who tells the truth about the Iraq War is considered by them to have "liberal bias". Did you read my post about Moyers' speech to the U.S. Military Academy? I don't consider that biased at all. He was just telling the truth.

[Zavulon]

195. I like Olbermann and believe his reports of Bush malfeasance are responsible

and necessary, but I don't consider him to be objective at all. His pointing out things that suck about Bush make me stand up and applaud, but Olbermann sounds bitter and angry enough to leave me with the following impression: even if Bush were merely an incompetent dolt instead of a bloodthirsty profiteer, Olbermann would find something bad to report about him and paint it in the worst possible light even if he had to go so far as ripping a staffer for getting a speeding ticket.

Which, of course, would be fine with me - but it wouldn't be anything I'd consider objective.

As an example, I try to swallow an hour or so of Faux Noise each week to see what the enemy is up to. I was very pro-Obama / anti-Hillary during the primaries (and made no secret of it here); I will never forgive Hillary for her IWR vote or her refusal to admit it was a mistake. I also found myself bewildered by her stupid Bosnian sniper fire claim and disgusted by her RFK comment (and subsequent spin when she tried to hide behind Ted Kennedy's brain cancer). Now, I want to stress: these are my opinions, you may or may not agree, but I have to admit that I took some seriously perverse pleasure in seeing Faux Noise rip her on these issues.

That said, Faux Noise doesn't have a single objective journalist on their staff - in other words, saying something I agree with, as Olbermann does, doesn't make a person objective. I like Olbermann because I like his message, but I'd never call the guy objective.

In fact, I don't know of a single objective journalist anywhere. The other four you mentioned might qualify, but I'd have to watch them to judge for myself. I honestly don't see how objectivity in the media is possible unless you get a Vulcan to host a news program; I know I couldn't keep from wearing my heart on my sleeve.

In answer to your question, I did find a lot of what you said in the OP to be valid, but in Dean's case I truly believe the way the media mocked him for his infamous scream was what sunk him. I think you may be overestimating Russert's influence, but that's a matter of opinion.

I did read the Moyers thing you wrote and wouldn't be surprised to know that he was fired for not marching in step with the Bushies, but I have never actually seen his work. Maybe he is objective, but - and please don't take this as an insult - I can't take your word for it because you think Olbermann is objective and I don't.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see every journalist sing the song you and I want sung, objectivity be damned, but I won't call someone objective if I don't think he is.

We're getting off the beaten track here, though, and it's my fault. Sorry about that.

I'll wrap it up now. Have a good night and thanks for the response.

[Time for change]

197. I don't understand your point about Keith

You seem to acknowledge that he's right on target with regard to Bush, yet you consider him not objective, apparently because he seems bitter and angry. Well, almost everyone on DU is angry at Bush, and so are most sane people. I don't think that means necessarily that we're not objective. Before I would say that someone is not objective I would want to point to at least something that they said that was biased and wrong. I can't do that with Keith, though it's possible that I've missed something there.

I was upset with Hillary for many of the same reasons that you were, plus the way she tried to change the rules in MI and FL, plus her implying that McCain would be a more experienced commander in chief than Obama.

I could be wrong about Dean's interview with Russert being the main factor that sunk him, but that interview certainly did hurt quite a bit -- and it was so unfair. And remember, the scream didn't come until AFTER Dean lost the Iowa primary by a very large amount, coming in a distant third, after he was strongly favored.

You might be interested in reading Moyers' book, "Moyers on Democracy". It's just a collection of some of his best speeches, but there are some really great ones there. And unlike Keith, I've never seen Moyers appear bitter and angry.

[Zavulon]

198. Just because someone's right about a certain issue does not mean

he's objective. For example, if Rush Limpballs ever said anything I agreed with, that wouldn't make him objective. Olbermann isn't, either. I'm angry with Bush and hate his administration, but just because people here would agree with that doesn't make me objective. Bush could pull a child out of a burning car and Olbermann would find fault with him for it. I would, too. Why? Because neither of us is objective.

However, you don't understand my point and I'm not sure if I have the method or energy to make it another way, so let's just agree to disagree. The last word is yours if you want it.

[Time for change]

154. No

The victims you refer to need our compassion, whether we know them personally or not.

Tim Russert doesn't.

[Zavulon]

177. Read what I wrote again, please.

I said "...if I were to go by your logic..." (referring to the OP's absurd "...done things that have touched me in a positive way"), which means I'm actually not. In other words, I think the same thing you do about disaster victims and didn't need to be told what you wrote.

Sheesh.

[Time for change]

179. You're quoting half of my sentence.

My full sentence was "I think I’ll save my compassion for those who need it or for those who have done things that have touched me in a positive way."

So, if you go by my logic, you were NOT wasting your money by donating to those victims. You quote half of my sentence to imply that I'm advocating that we shouldn't donate money to those who need it.

[Zavulon]

181. No, I was implying that

unless someone has "done things that have touched me in a positive way," compassion isn't a guarantee from you. I wouldn't presume to guess your definition of "need."

[Muttocracy]

125. very interesting. Has Moyers said anything since Russert died?

I'd be very curious what he had to say about Russert.

Thanks for your post. As someone without a TV, I have had a very limited impression of Russert (mostly video clips on DU in the last few months) so this is interesting context. Thanks for your work on this.

[Time for change]

169. I haven't heard Moyers say anything

If he was asked, that would be about as big of a challenge as when he was asked to speak to the U.S. military academy in the midst of the Iraq War.

[leftofthedial]

127. Thanks for a great post.

[Nothing Without Hope]

133. Very well said, just excellent. Thank you!!!! K & R n/t

[Time for change]

170. Thank you.

I haven't heard from you in quite a while :hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

183. Good to "see" you, too, TfC. Let's hope the NEXT election can't be stolen.

I'm still watching DU, but I'm concentrating on non-internet things for now. Hope you're well.

This really was an excellent post. It's so valuable to have your reasoned explanations and background summaries for issues. Let's hope that the gap between GOP candidates and Democratic candidates is large enough that they can't steal THIS election despite their secret voter registry purges and all the rest of their sordid - and previously all too effective - arsenal.

And let's get those Bush Democrats out of office, too. Foks, if anyone besides TfC and I are reading this, TfC's series of posts on the purges of Democratic - especially minority - voters from rolls in the 2004 election makes riveting reading. They had lots of ways to illegally "win" Ohio for Bush. And the Bush-Democratic Machine did what it could to bury it.

Here are some of those old TfC posts:

du 10/30 - What Happened in Cleveland? – A Plausible Scenario for a Stolen Election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2196589

du 11/9/05 - Update on purging of > 100 K voters from Cuyahoga Co. voter roles
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x400753

du 11/9/05 - The Role of Voter Registration Purging/Fraud in Kerry's loss of Ohio
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2237782

du 12/10- The Significance of the Death of Raymond Lemme to the 2004 Election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5567680

du 12/18 TFC thread} - How Can We Verify What Happened in Cleveland on Election Day 2004?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5627789

du 12/30 - Coalescing Evidence of Massive Voter Registration Fraud in Ohio 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5719248

1-6-06 Time for Change compilation/essay} - Yes it CAN Happen Here – The Impending Death of American Democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x67175

2-23-06 Cleveland Audit Reveals Vote Count Discrepancy in Bush’s Favor–Need Help!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x505525

7-14-06 Time For Change essay - The Three Determining Factors of Election Results in the United States
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1630226&mesg_id=1630530

5-16-07 Partial Summary of Evidence for Electronic Vote Switching that Swung US Elections from 2002 to 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x904301

[Time for change]

196. Wow!

I'm very flattered that you saved all those posts.

I think that the most important one is:
"Coalescing Evidence of Massive Voter Registration Fraud in Ohio 2004".
That basically explains, I'm pretty sure, how they stole Ohio in 2004 (And they used the same mechanism as their primary means of stealing Florida in 2000.) I think that the primary lesson for voters and any organization doing voter registration drives is: Don't think that just because someone registered to vote that they're still registered. The voter rolls need to be checked frequently to make sure they're accurate. But I'm not sure about the mechanics of how to go about doing that.

Anyhow, let's hope that between the lead that Obama's building up and what we've learned about voter purging that we'll have a very different result this time. :toast:

[mistertrickster]

134. Ironclad. A sell-out is a sell-out in life or in death. One can only wonder if

becoming a traitor to his class, his blue-collar background that he paraded seemingly every chance he got, filled him with so much emotional angst that the stress affected his health.

A house in Nantucket and all the money in the world can't shield one from one's private opinion of oneself.

[Straight Shooter]

136. It's very unusual for me to read such a long post, word for word, in a focused manner.

Very well said, Time for change. This is one of the best essays I've ever seen on DU. No snark. No profanity. No veiled insults. No excess verbiage. Just the pure unvarnished truth.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[SalviaBlue]

139. Thanks for this. Recommended!!

Love the Moyers quote at the end. Now there's a journalist.

[defendandprotect]

148. This thing is now exceeding our mourning period for JFK --- !!!!

What utter nonsense!!!

[OnyxCollie]

151. K&R. nt

[countryjake]

153. Kick for exposing the corporate media!

[eppur_se_muova]

155. A truly excellent post, and a real shame that it is so necessary.

DUer's shouldn't need this diagramed out so explicitly.

[speedoo]

156. K&R, and bookmarked. nt

[Ignis]

157. K&R. Thanks much for spelling it out, TfC.

Many of us were only able to sit and watch in horror as Saint Ronnie was enshrined in the public consciousness as a "good guy and great leader." Bollocks! Those of us who actually lived through his awful foreign and domestic policies have no sympathy for a man (puppet or no) who took the USA back several decades in public policy.

Thanks again for stating clearly, directly, and with support why it is important that we do not allow the GOP to beatify Russert.

:hi:

[katty]

158. Did Russert 'ever' reference love for his mother-as well?

[Muttocracy]

173. I don't think I heard her mentioned in any coverage I saw (didn't watch very much) nt

[AntiFascist]

159. "In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty”

to a responsible representative of GE interests."

This why some us tried to point it out everytime Russert was guilty of corporate shilling. Corporatist control of our political views, whether through the media or through our politicians, leads to nothing less than fascism. I'm sure that KO is not even allowed to say half of what he would like to say on his program.

[Karenina]

164. I don't believe too many here

Know much more about Jack Welch than his name. He's an actor whose bio should be investigated by anyone wishing to grasp "the Big Picture" in high-resolution.

[Time for change]

171. I don't know much about him at all

Have you investigated his bio?

[Karenina]

194. He's one of the players I've followed for many years.

MIC+MSM=Jack Welch. He's a major.

[blm]

162. The canonization of Reagan was a RNC wetdream during 2004 election.

Those who uncovered and dared to expose the crimes of Reagan and Bush administrations were scorned for their efforts.

Letting the truth about the corporate media's role in the ascension of Bush2 is WRONG and every bit as evil as the pedestal built for Reagan. Reagan and BushInc didn't get where they are without the complicity of the corpmedia and Russert was one of their most important allies.

I'll give others the space to mourn a human life, but when it comes to the preservation and accuracy of our nation's historic record, Russert was a complicit voice for the fascists who sought to close government to the people.

[Psyop Samurai]

163. You're a patient soul, Alice...

...er,...I mean, Time for change. :P

I must admit, in the face of this latest episode, I declared (once more) that it was time to leave the dead to bury the dead.

Long past time for the lifeboats.

Whether that assessment is the final word (or if indeed there IS such a thing as a final word), I know that you (and some other amazing DU'ers) are going to hold down the fort 'til they literally drag you out.

God knows how you do it. But, regardless of how I may regard our prospects, I'm humbled by your perseverance.
_________

ps. They seem incapable of getting the "war" part, or what that might mean in real terms. Even if they agree that there's a war, it's something distant, like something on TV. It's a profoundly dissociative state (which, of course, is exactly what TV is there to enforce).

I've been tempted (but thought better of it, so as not to fan the flames), to tell a few people that I'd like to give them something to cry about, like ripping some betrayer's throat out with my bare hands. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and I'm one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. Nor do I need lectures on social propriety.

Now, if you want to discuss it in terms of Satyagraha, if you disagree with my methods, then that is an appropriate discussion. But if your only effect is to reinforce a counterfeit reality, then you're a concern troll that needs to get your whiny punk ass out of my face.

:hi:

[Time for change]

172. Wow!

Ripping someone's throat out with your bare hands would be even more impolite than my post. Be careful. :hi:

[Psyop Samurai]

175. lol... right you are... and like I say... I thought better of it.

Honest, I'm just a big pussycat...

...one with really sharp claws.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

174. You nailed it, tfc

:thumbsup:

Russert was memorialized far more effusively than either Peter Jennings or David Brinkley, both of whom had longer, more varied careers.

[liberal N proud]

176. Well said

Thank you

[L0oniX]

180. I'd rather remember the 100+ real journalists who have died while covering the wars.

[Sunnyshine]

187. K&R&B - That quote from Bill Moyers is da best. Nice way to end this subject.

My Dad liked Russert back in '99. TR's death reminded me of the memories I have of my father watching MTP. Sometimes cussing and sometimes praising. Tom (my daddy-o) was a great father, a soldier, a Reds fan, and a proud Democratic voice. I miss him. A lot. Out of respect for those memories, I tried to be nice and provide another perspective on TR's life.

I wasn't feeling the "down with TR scene" this weekend per se, but I can't say that I didn't agree with most of the criticism that came forth. People are justified to feel the way they do. Thats my in between take on things. Thanks for the summary.

[Major Hogwash]

188. I wonder if Keith Olbermann will read the OP of this thread.

And then shut the fuck up from posting about real liberals at the Daily Kos blog!!!!!