Slashdot Mirror
Tim Russert Dies At 58
SputnikPanic writes "Tim Russert, NBC News' Washington bureau chief and moderator of the popular Sunday talk program Meet the Press, has died of an apparent heart attack. He was 58. Russert was known as an even-handed journalist who did not shy away from asking direct and often difficult questions of politicians regardless of their political persuasion. Earlier this year, Russert had been named by Time Magazine as one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"
I always looked forward to how Russert handled interviews and debates. Left or right, loony or sane, one always got a fair hand from him. He'd get on anyone who was hiding something, but I don't know of many who left his presence angry.
He was a rarity in the world of political journalism.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Sundays will never be the same again. We lost one of our best journalists around. Goodbye Tim.
America has just lost one of the last great newsmen out there. I know my sunday mornings wont be quite the same.
The irony is, on his show recently someone referred to his dad, "Big Russ", as being deceased. Tim had to correct him.
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
rip
are you seriously turning this into an os debate
Well he'll be missed by those who don't make dumbass analogies.
Virtually no one in news asks candidates and newsmakers the tough questions anymore. You could always count on Tim to throw hardballs every time. He also was very good at ignoring spin when he didn't get a straight answer. Great interviewer and moderator. Condolences to his family and friends, he certainly was taken before his time.
good man, great reporter.
I agree. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
Tim Russert was one of the few journalists today who are worthy of that name. Hearkening back to the proud traditions of Walter Kronkite and Edward R Murrough, who asked tough questions of big players who could normally intimidate or frighten their way out of being asked the questions.
Instead, we're left with Barbara Walters asking what sort of tree people would be, and persisting.
Another blow to quality journalism in America.
Why can't you just fucking google him
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
cheers
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
It probably was a perfectly natural heart attack, but we are in a time of political uncertainty, what with a very close election race, a President all but at war with the Supreme Court, and the economy flying south for the winter^H^H^H^H^H^Hsummer. There are very likely a lot of people, right now, who would be just as happy with any and all well-known highly vocal skeptics suffering accidents. Again, I seriously doubt it's anything sinister, but even a stopped clock is going to be right eventually.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Meet The Press was my Sunday morning staple, and it was because of Tim Russert. NBC will be hard pressed to find someone to fill his shoes.
I'll never forget Russert on the NBC coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Early in the evening, Russert wrote on his little whiteboard "Florida, Florida, Florida!" before anyone had any idea how close it was going to be. I stayed up with Russert and Brokaw that night until the next dawn, hoping to find out who the next president would be. Of course there were no conclusions, but Russert's exploration of the electoral college system and the implications of the vote returns were insightful and kept me watching.
Russert wasn't afraid of asking tough questions to powerful people. When they would try to weasel their way out of a direct answer, he would ask again, and again if necessary. If only all journalists would have that kind of conviction.
He will be missed. My condolences to his family.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Sad news indeed.
Here is his interview on Readers Digest a while back.
http://www.rd.com/poll-archive-parent/games-and-humor/celebrities-and-pop-culture/politicians/tim-russert/article26850.html
My fav. part is
After he was named moderator of Meet the Press in 1991, Russert called Larry Spivak, one of the show's original panelists, for advice. "Learn as much as you can about your guest, and his or her position on the issues," Spivak said. "Then take the other side. If you do that, you will have a fair and balanced program."
I think he followed that mantra throughout.
My wife and I had only one TV program in common...alas..our sundays won't be same.
RIP Mr. Russert.
but... in your own weaselly way, you have.
Whether or not he did or didn't do anything, how is it that you can't see your way to honoring him as a human being?
You are trying to smear possibly the only relatively unbiased guy on NBC with a Huffington Post article, on the day he dies. You sir, are a worse man than I. And you get modded informative, nice.
I'm not not licking toads.
The world of political news, especially with this historic national election coming up, will be poorer for his passing. I wish he could have lived to see it and report on it.
+++ATH0
You must be new here...
There's more than one kind of nerd, and more than one thing that matters.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
He called Bill Clinton the Democratic nominee early for the '92 election...called Florida the "must win" state in 2000, and you could always count on him saying something that sounded like it was from left feild but would come true in a few months.
A few days ago, after Obama secured the nomination, I saw him smile a little while talking about him on Nightly News. Smiling not for the candidate, but I think he was really, really, really excited that he would might see a black man get elected president of his great country in HIS lifetime. He looked like a little kid...sad he did not live to see what will be.
Didn't know him personally, but great journalist. A lot will miss him.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
While I doubt any of his family or friends is going to see this, for what it's worth, my condolences go to you.
Tim Russert was both an amazing man and an incredible journalist- a tremendous asset to the fourth estate, our nation, and the world. His unique blend of hard-hitting questions and high standard of impartiality have made our politics richer, our people better informed, and our politicians that much more honest.
Without any doubt, Mr.Russert's passing is a terrible blow to the once-noble profession of journalism. He will be sorely missed both by those who knew him well and by those of us who knew only the good he did in the public eye. His death, early as it was, should be taken by all of us as a reminder of our transience, and of the need to preserve the work of our lives for the generations that come after us. Tim Russert's great work, the great effort of his life, was to restore to journalism the spirits of integrity, honesty, and candor that once characterized the mighty fourth estate. It would be a great shame to his memory if those spirits were to die with him; if, in the absence of the man himself, we allow his dreams to wither.
For everyone reading this, I hope you can find a way to honor a man who worked so hard to make this world a better place in which to live- to build upon his life's work, and to bring even one more iota of honesty to the political process. Register a voter, write a letter to your representative or the editor of your newspaper, join a campaign- and always ask the hard questions. I don't think he would've liked anything better.
RIP, Tim. If you see God, I hope you get an exclusive.
I respected Tim Russert a great deal. He was one of the few out there who still seemed like he wanted to do hard news and prevent bias as much as he could.
You do realize this is a US site, with predominately US issues in mind don't you?
Or...you must be new here?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I find it interesting how all of the trolls and flamers in this thread seem to be averaging a staggering number of typos and grammatical errors in every sentence they type. I know that correlation != causation, but it's still telling.
That has got to be one of the dumbest articles I have read all year. It is just nitpicking. Russert didn't lie in that regard.
Your post itself is offtopic more then the story is. People don't usually die at 58. It is news because it is unusual and because most people on here DO care about politics because politics is just humans interacting with each other. Maybe you don't get out of the basement much and your only tan is from your monitor but in real life humans interact all the time and that interaction is what makes up politics and makes it interesting. Plus if you would ever stick your nose in a political thread you would see thousands of comments in there proving that the Slashdot userbase thinks it's important and nothing is more important than that.
My fiance's father died of what sounds like the exact same thing, at nearly the same age (58). He was very healthy, but had a genetic heart condition that the other doctors apparently didn't catch. To my understanding, heart failure is basically the final cause of (many|most) types of death, so it's actually a little more ambiguous than you might think. Or it could be that we just got a terrible coroner.
Who cares if it is not interesting to you or to people outside the US? The set of people who are not you and live inside the US is plenty to make it worthwhile.
Also, if this were "offtopic" for slashdot, why is there an entire Section about it?
Politics
This section is for news relevant to United States government politics. It was created primarily to cover the 2004 US Presidential Election, but today exists for occasional stories that fit the bill.
Hows this for a geek tie in, I built my mythTV box specifically so I wouldn't miss Meet the Press. Very sad news.
If you consider the commentary on political threads here to be useful, you may be the one who needs to get out a bit more here. I like The Economist myself. Check out the comments on the articles at their site if you want to see a whole different class of politically informed Internet writer than this site attracts.
But I sure wouldn't ask there about, say, what to do wite a gigantic pile of leftover hard drives--a thread that's collected twice as many comments here as this one has in about the same amount of active time, since you brought up comment count as a metric of worthiness. That's the sort of thing I like and expect to read here, if I want politics I go to a real politics site.
It makes me sad to see people memorializing Russert as a giant of journalism. At best he was a non-abrasive talker tossing softballs. The standard for journalism only seems to get lower and lower.
It's too bad he has died but it's only bad for journalism because so many of his competitors are loudmouth idiots. A calm demeanor has been enough to make him look like Walter Cronkite but for those of us with longer memories Russert is not notable.
If I am not mistaken, DVT also killed NBC reporter David Bloom, who sat in an APC in Iraq for 2-3 days before the blood clot got him.
You pick ONE question from this guy's 20+ year career in political journalism and believe it DEFINES his approach to seeking truth? What fucking idiotic moderator modded you up? Interesting? More like -10 dumbass.
Someone is likely to try to take over the balanced format that he started. The name Tim will always remind me of the ABC episodes of Jim Henson's Dinosaur Sitcom. "Gonna need another Timmy!"
Its news in which nerds might be interested, and it matters. It isn't "Nerd News, Stuff that matters". Or are nerds supposed to be completely oblivious, apathetic, and uninterested in the real world? Seems a pathetic existence.
If you don't care, don't open the article. Easy enough for you?
That said, I'm a nerd, and I care, and I find that this matters, since Russert was one of the last true journalists out there, who wasn't a pretty talking-head pundit. Our supply of actual newsmen is dwindling rapidly, and soon we will be stuck with hordes of O'Reilly/Olbermann* clones. Commentators disguised as newsmen.
* I personally like Olbermann, but calling him a newsman is rather inaccurate, he's a pundit, insightful, but still a pundit.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
In fairness, when you're dealing with political figures, you develop rules for what's on the record and what isn't. Clearly, Russert's practice for speaking on the phone was to treat such conversations as "off the record" or "background". If he then wanted to use what he got in a way that would lead to the official's doorstep, he'd need to ask permission. Knowledge gained this way is often used to question other officials on the record and shake information out of them, or to figure out whether somebody's lying.
Most journalists assume that unless it's expressly stated otherwise, an interview is on the record. There's no rule about this, however. Perhaps Russert felt that a phone interview was too easy to fake. Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
And I'd recommend reading Scott McClellan's book to see how the press was manipulated. And is still being manipulated.
McClellan's book also has about the only decent quote from Russert about Gulf War II.
Lou Dobbs asks harder questions about immigration almost every single week than Russert ever did about the war.
Jon Stewart is the best journalist we have and he's limited by whatever he can turn into a joke.
Russert had earlier been diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease, but it was well-controlled with medication and exercise, and he had performed well on a stress test in late April, Newman said. An autopsy revealed that he also had an enlarged heart, Newman said.
This is what all that Omega3 fish oil is supposed to prevent? Time to go kill a salmon!
I'm sorry. Severe brain-fart there. I have confused Russert with someone else.
"Never mind."
-Emily Litella
Get your facts straight.
Didn't Stephen Colbert recently make fun of a Hillary Clinton aid for making threats at Tim Russert's dad, saying that they'll put him in heaven if Russert doesn't play nice with them? (Damn. It was just a week or two ago...)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
No..I don't usually pay that stuff much attention, but, when one of the most important political newsmen of recent times...that is as unbiased as they come dies....especially in such an important junction in US politics...it is something that is, or should be to US citizens.
Too many people in the US aren't paying attention...and this was as good of a guy to help that problem as possible. He couldn't make you watch or care...but, he was good at putting it out there.
At this point in time....this was an important death.
I cannot at this point think of much of anyone out there to replace him......and we need many more like him. Especially these days....we are going to miss having someone that does ask the tough questions of our leaders....and not only play softball with one side or the other.
We need answers...and there's not many out there that can be trusted to do that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Am I the only one who thought Russert was the spitting image of Jimmy James from Newsradio?
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
... Who? I never watch TV and I've never seen him mentioned on /. that I remember. He effectively doesn't exist to me.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Even if you are outside of the United States of America, what happens in the United States of America can and will effect you.
Tim Russert will be surely missed. He was a leader.
He set The Standard when it came to investigative political journalism.
He was prepared for every interview with whomever he met.
He only sought Truth.
Those of you that are mourning tonight, must look ahead.
Tim would want that of you. Embrace your role now.
Be prepared and dig. Dig as hard as PJ at Groklaw digs for the truth.
Rest in Peace, Tim Russert, the Americans will expose Truth.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Don't feel badly about the Flamebait mod. I'm looking that the article, as it sits, with 97 comments. Apparently the guy (whoever he was--typical Slashdotters seem to be far more television-oriented than I am) was popular--to the point that everyone with something good (even regarding random maudlin sentimentality as good) to say about the man gets modded up, and anyone else gets modded down. This article, so far, is the single best piece of evidence I've seen yet for how completely broken the moderation system is.
From:
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
"Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check."
A post (modded Insightful) down the thread:
"I'd have to say he was actually a great man and a great reporter...from what I know of the man he was a good father and an excellent role model.
R.I.P. Tim, you will be sorely missed, not only on election nights, but on Sunday mornings. And though I'm not a Buffalo Bills fan...in your honor I say...Go Bills..."
Where's the insight in that? Three sentences, all personal opinion, displaying nothing but sentimentality, and one was about expressing support for some random football team in Teh Great Man's 'honor'!
This entire article is *stuffed* with that sort of thing. Slashdot lurches toward mediocrity again. The up side is that now I won't feel guilty when I read without turning off adblock.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
It seems to exemplify what is wrong with modern journalism/punditry. They're acting as if Russert wasn't just the guy telling the story, he was a part of the story.
This was worthy of a breaking news bit, and some coverage on the 6pm news, along with a memorial 2 hour special a week later. But they've been going on non stop since like 4 pm this afternoon.
I doubt Walter Cronkhite will ever get this kind of coverage when he dies, and he was 10 times the reporter all of these people are I see on the tubes today.
Russert was one of the few in the media who try to do it right anymore. In the age of talking points and govt officials being treated like pro athletes when it comes to question & answer, he held firm to the correct way of doing things. Basically we're worse off now since that's one more outlet that politicians will be able to walk all over.
I am originally from Buffalo and I always had a great sense of pride to have that common bond with Tim Russert, a man who I watched intently on Sunday mornings. Though beyond that, his CNBC interview show was always fascinating as well as his regular commentary on MSNBC, especially on 'Morning Joe'.
Tim Russert was one in a billion. We'll never see the likes of him in our life time. It's a truly sad day for America, Tim's extended family.
Kathy Nooan said today: "Tim was a patriot, he had a love of country that just radiated..." Perhaps that should be inscribed on his tombstone.
As someone in my early twenties, Meet The Press is by far the best political show I have ever watched. I distinctly remember the first time I happened to catch it while channel surfing on MSNBC. Tim Russert would take 'gotcha' quotes from many years ago and read them directly to a politician's face, forcing them to respond and justify their new positions. He was always fair and neutral, able to play devil's advocate to draw out the facts that the American people needed to hear. Even after watching only one episode, you could tell it was leaps and bounds above the political talk shows on the rest of 24 hour cable news. I hope NBC can find someone appropriate to succeed his position. Condolences to his family, especially his son.
Russert was probably the best news interviewer on US TV. Unfortunately in all the interviews I saw him conduct he didn't push the interviewee as well as an average UK one, for candidates from any party. His great virtue, I think, was his evenhandedness, but that came at the expense of pushing for the truth. A sad event, even so.
Tim Russert was always interesting to watch on TV.
He came the closest to asking the follow-up questions that everyone wanted to throw back at the politicians.
This story should have had more prominence on the Slashdot front page.
There are only three "famous" people whose deaths made me sad to the point of weeping. The first was Jim Henson, the second was Johnny Carson. Tim Russert is the third. He was truly irreplaceable, and no matter what you think of his politics, his love of life and family were to be admired and emulated. Tim, you will be missed.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
"-1 Troll"
/. feelings!
/. feelings.
:D
Oh noes! You've hurt my
Oh...wait. I don't have
You can mod me Troll all you want, but you *know* my post was in no way a Troll or Offtopic, nor even Flamebait. Again, modding a political viewpoint you disagree with "Troll" only demonstrates your inability to tolerate any opinion that challenges your views, thus validating one of the major points of my post.
In other words...
I win.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Slashdot is an American website. It is United States centric, and will remain so. If you don't like it, you are welcome to leave, install Slashcode on a server in Portugal or wherever the fuck you're from, and have a Portugal-centric site.
Failing these, you are also quite free to fuck off.
+++ATH0
He had good days and bad. Some interviews were harder some softer. One interview that still pisses me off was the interview with Dick Cheney and he's helping to hold up drawings of elaborate underground bunkers. It appeared, at least to me, he was swallowing it hook line and sinker. He gave Cheney a voice that I passionately disagreed with. I suppose that comes with balanced reporting. By definition I should have trouble with 50% of his interviews.
The 2008 election of Obama will be bitter sweet without him.
-[d]-
Hey, um, I wrote a hotfix for you. I've taken all the slashdot 'politics' stories and separated them off into their own little section, just for you. Now you don't have to read stories from that section so you can stop wasting your (and the rest of our) time by NOT READING STORIES IN THE POLITICS SECTION.
Of course, if that's not enough for you, I can see what can be done to make sure EVERY story on slashdot meets your high standards. Using 'The Economist' as a model should make that rather easy... Lesee, we need a rose-colored reality filter, we need a little more professional incompetence, and we need a situation such as the internet being realistically shown to be crashing in a year or so while slashdot story after slashdot story tells us how great things are going. Yeah, that'll be MUCH better, and it'll make the Almighty and Allwise greg1104 happier! Yay!
I used to watch this regularly on Channel 7 (in Australia) when it aired at 2am, I liked the way Russert would let the guest respond to a question and move on, I always think this is far more effective (if the response is BS) than trying to debate the point and get the person to acknowledge they may be wrong.
I had my fill of US politics a while back but Meet the Press made for good Sunday night viewing for Americanophiles. Some episodes were very entertaining and others not so entertaining, and I found it interesting during elections to see Russert's interaction with Katie Couric, outside of his element perhaps.
I haven't seen Bush answer (or be asked) a question like that, and he claims to talk to God directly, and receive verbal response! That's a pretty strong theological claim, and I think it should have been tested, don't you? I mean, had we checked if this dude really was 'Christian' we might have realized that he and his... coven? cabal? cult? (whatever) would be responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
I guess with Obama we have to make sure he doesn't single-handedly re-write the U.S. Constitution in order to make all the women wear burkas, and all the men pray to the East. Or (most likely) you just really hate anyone who Fox News doesn't tell you is 'a serious politician' and thus will say even the most obnoxiously childish foolishness to show your loyalty to your clan.
Not that I'm an Obama fan, but I dislike him for reasons based in reality, not because my overlords have told me he's an 'Islamofascist' (the most ignorance filled oxymoron to be uttered in decades).
Have to agree. Russert may have been the paragon of 21st century journalism, but the definition of journalism has certainly been degraded. Frankly, I haven't watched American network news for years and years. My opinion of the guy was third hand from analyses of his work dissected after the fact on various web sites like Buzzflash and Crooks and Liars and there seemed to have been a multitude of "Have you stopped beating your wife" innuendo in his work. Fitting that his death should have been announced by Tom Brokow, the protean "pretty boy" announcer who replaced the old guard of the sixties and seventies who really did consider themselves journalists.
Yeah, that's like skateboarding on your testicles.
~X~
~X~
Ok, now that the "24-hour-can't-say-anything-critical-about-a-dead-man" period is over, can I just ask - huh? Are you sure you're talking about the right Tim Russert?
I remember a Tim Russert who insisted in open court that his personal journalistic philosophy was that, when talking to a public official, anything that was said was implicitly off the record unless that public official said that it could go on the record, explicitly.
I remember a Tim Russert who adamantly refused to testify during the Libby trial, who refused to testify against a source who had committed treason against the United States (according to George HW Bush), a Russert who privileged his own journalistic access to the nation's elites over the interests of the people his journalism was meant to serve.
I remember a Russert who, in 2004, basically rolled over for the President. I don't remember any "hardballs"; I remember a craven submission to the bamboozlement of an administration he, along with the rest of his Beltway buddies, allowed to lie to us for years.
I remember a Tim Russert who the Bush administration knew was a sympathetic media outlet to their talking points, a Tim Russert whose "Meet the Press" was a preferred venue because, in the words of a top Cheney aide, they could "control the message."
I can't for the life if me imagine how you remember Russert as some kind of dogged truth-seeker who stuck politicians to the sticking place. Those of us who were paying attention to his show know that Russert was at the head of the destruction of American journalism; the leader of an abdication of their responsibilities as the Fifth Estate.
Who the fuck are you talking about? Because it wasn't, in any way, Tim Russert, official stenographer for the Bush Administration.
P.S. Maybe he was a great dad, and a great guy, I don't know. I feel bad for his father, I really do. But this Tim Russert you keep talking about, the one who was so brave and asked such probing questions... well, I sure as hell wished that Tim Russert had actually existed, instead of the craven, obsequious Tim Russert we actually had on Meet the Press, because maybe with a media that actually did it's job we wouldn't be in so many of the messes we're in.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.
Clearly - because we know from their direct statements - the Bush Administration felt that the "ground rule" on Meet the Press was that they could totally control the message.
Is that the kind of hard, probing journalism that you all remember Tim Russert, for? Because it's precisely the sort of craven submission to power that I remember Tim Russert for.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Texas?
I didn't mod you, and yet I "know" that your piece was INDEED flamebait.
Russert was at the top of his game and worked very hard for a long time to get where he was, and that deserves respect. However, to lament his passing as a loss of a fair and balanced
journalist is simply delusional and self-vindicating feel-good mental stroking by people with leftist views at the expense of a dead man.
That right there is almost the definition of flamebait, you know, baiting to be flamed. If you don't see this, and assume that such an egotistical assertion is just 'informing the masses', well then 'troll' might be accurate too.
If the definition of "Troll" and/or "Flamebait" is now anyone who doesn't buy into the liberal democrat group-think and is not afraid to point out when people are using a dead man to make themselves feel good about their political views, then I wear the badges proudly.
As far as "baiting to be flamed" goes, the only people who should be offended are the very ones I described who viciously attack anyone who doesn't adhere to their political ideals. If you're not a member of that subset of people who are too narrow-minded to tolerate differing opinions, then I wasn't referring to you, and you have no reason to feel my comment was in any way a troll or flamebait. That you seem to think so says all there is to say.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Please read the post I responded to. The discussion concerned telephone interviews. I haven't been a fan of Meet the Press under Russert, but that's another issue entirely. In all honesty, I haven't noticed any of the major media outlets in the United States do much beyond kissing Bush's bum. You see it more in the stories they hardly cover at all (contractor fraud and looting of historical artifacts in Iraq, for two examples among a hundred) than in the quality of interview they actually conduct.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The discussion concerned telephone interviews. I haven't been a fan of Meet the Press under Russert, but that's another issue entirely.
How is that another issue entirely? Was Russert a journalist, or wasn't he?
Do you think that's just a press hat you can put on and take off, as it suits Beltway elites?
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
LOL, I wasn't personally OFFENDED by your post, I was amused at your smug attitude.
Your post was nothing more than a partisan attack on a dead man. An unwarranted and unsupported attack at that. You make a derogatory comment about someone based on political bias without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and are really trying to convince me that your post was something other than flamebait? And then the fail attempt at a subtle dig at me in the last paragraph? Yeah, you definitely exhibit tendencies of both flamebait AND troll. Partisan douche too, but there's not a mod option for that.
How, pray tell, is stating that the man worked very long and hard to get where he was and deserved respect an attack? Or are you referring to the FACT that he was NOT "fair and balanced"? Is stating a fact that someone doesn't want to hear now an attack?
I didn't attack Russert personally or professionally, I praised him. I just pointed out what people here wouldn't acknowledge, and that was that he wasn't the icon of fairness and balance that many commenter's here seemed to be claiming. Are there others far worse? Yes, on both sides of the political spectrum.
My evidence is his Obama interview, which is widely acknowledged to have been far far less probing or pressing after facts than his Hillary Clinton interview. Also the links cited in the parent post. If you can watch the two interviews and NOT come to the conclusion that he basically tossed Obama softballs, then you're too blinded by your own views to be reasoned with.
My last paragraph wasn't an attack on you if you don't fit the stereotypical intolerant liberal who can't tolerate differing opinions, and when confronted with facts that contradict your assertions, must attack those who dare expose the intellectual dishonesty. I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking you if the shoe is fitting uncomfortably-well. Maybe you should try another cobbler rather than attacking those who point out that it isn't the paving-stones causing your pain.
If you weren't offended, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to attack me for my post, and any other explanation is hand-waving and obfuscation. Period, stop, end-of-line. I consider this thread closed.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I'll take my -1, Offtopic mod now, but come on, it's got to start grating after a while - think about it: "yeah, we know X number of guys did this before you, but hey, you're the first BLACK guy!". It shows subtle ingrained racism and is just making out that black people are slower than the rest of us and deserve special praise when they achieve something other races can do without fanfare, like parents making a fuss over a slightly slow child managing to tie it's shoelaces. It's insulting, and people need to knock it off.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Russert was the broadcast version of print's David Broder: a Very Serious "journalist" who's very tough on Democrats, but bends over backwards for Republicans. Cheney's media director suggested he go on MTP for message control. Russert couldn't wait for Gore to conceed in 2000 so Bush could become president. He asked Bush about the number of nuclear missles under a Start II treaty and gave Bush a pass when he didn't know. Four years later, Howard Dean didn't know the exact number of active duty troops in the U.S. and Russert tore him a new asshole.
No, the only reason Russert looks good is because most of the press is so bad - he wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Cronkite or Murrow.
Russert wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Murrow or Cronkite. Russert wasn't a great journalist, he was a Very Serious Journalist. As in he would kiss the ass of right wingers like Dick Cheney while playing petty gotcha games with everyone else.
Read the original goddamn post. Are you fucking stupid? The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews. If you interviewed five Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, they'd probably give you five different answers to the question of how they establish a working relationship with news-makers they have to deal with on a regular basis. The same goes for five wankers who write UFO stories for the Enquirer. My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
Let me try to explain it to you in terms you might understand: Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am. I hope the analogy isn't beyond you.
Now quit bugging me and go play in traffic or something.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Regarding your second quoted sentence, that 'Period, stop, end-of-line' hubris might work with your children or your subordinates at work, but it fails miserably when dealing with real-world conversations and only serves to indicate your level of self-grandeur; no one is impressed.
And finally, the fact that you are consistent in suggesting that any possible dissent from your opinion MUST be liberal group-think or liberal intolerance shows exactly what kind of worldview you have: Liberals vs You. Attempting to maintain an illusion of neutrality whilst consistently rattling off about what I can only assume is the 'other' (gotta love false dichotomies) philosophy is self defeating.
I won't be so prideful as to tell you the conversation is at an end, in fact I invite you to reply yet again, but this time try not to insinuate I'm serving some partisan agenda without the slightest shred of evidence.
Bruce gave a tribute to him from the stage at Cardiff last night. It's on the front page of his website http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html.
ian
Just an opinion - but having an opinion that disagrees with your own isn't flamebait.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
No, but presenting a negative opinion about the recently dead without even trying to show evidence IS INDEED flamebait. Just because somehting is an opinion does not shield it from being flamebait. I'll give you an example.
#1 Brittany Spears' newest album pleases me just as much as the rest of hers have; not at all.
#2 Brittany Spears' newest album is nothing but a continuation of her self-worship and continued detachment from reality.
Both are opinion, both are very likely true, but one is a simple stated opinion and the other is intended (or would be, if this were more than an example) to create a negative emotional response in her fans. It's very likely to draw strong negative reactions due to the way it's worded; this is the very definition of flamebait.
The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews.
Interviews with journalists, yes.
Is it your contention that Russert stopped being a journalist when he picked up the phone?
Why don't you answer the question? Are his "standards" consistent with his responsibilities as a journalist?
My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
But how does that make sense to you? We're not talking about whether or not he had the lights on. That would be completely irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not he discharged the relevant responsibilities of a journalist when he picked up the phone - something journalists do - and it's abundantly obvious that, with that "standard", he did not.
Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am.
If you think that's a relevant analogy, you must be as worthless a journalist as Russert was.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I ran this thread around the office and the votes are in: You're an idiot.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I ran this thread around the office and the votes are in: You're an idiot.
Two stuffed animals and an empty Cheetos bag don't count as an "office."
Look, answer the question.
When a journalist is on the record that the only conversations with elected officials he'll report on are the ones they specifically say he can report on, does that serve the American public, or does that serve the elected officials?
Just answer the question.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I know that for you US guys this must be an iconic figure.
But that Time names a US interviewer, that few people out of the US know, one of the *world's* most influential people, just comes to show the complete and utter lack of journalistic integrity in your country, where the press has stopped to inform you and instead patronizes you and gives you frequent pats in the back.
If this individual was raising the bar a little it is indeed bad news his early demise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I, like a few others in this thread, don't think of Mr. Russert as a journalist at all, let alone a tough incisive one. However, most of the people posting in the thread have only high praise for his objectivity. Can you direct me to any inteviews by Russert that demonstrate this? Asking questions about real issues that demanded thoughtful answers? Pressing guests in the face of evasive answers? Most of what I see from "tough" journalists is comprised of questions about what I'd call distractions. The questions may make the guests fidget, but they don't have merit.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
I don't know if you see yourself as some kind of crusading news-hero or something, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and the question as you have framed it is simply nonsense. It is based on a false premise.
Because you are too lazy, or too lacking in talent, or just too stupid to do even a tiny little bit of research and find out for yourself why this is the case, I have done in a few minutes what you could have done at any time to figure out why there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use during interviews, especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
Follow the links and read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/samantha-power-ethical-jo_b_91401.html
http://www.journalismethics.ca/ethics_in_news/adams.htm
http://www.rrj.ca/issue/2006/spring/617/
http://www.eagle.ca/caj/
If, having read what you will find there, you still cannot understand why your question and its underlying assumptions are based upon an indefensible lack of understanding, then you should probably enrol yourself in a remedial reading course.
I am fairly confident that you won't bother to read what you will find at these URL's. At least one of them might take as much as five or six minutes to read in its entirety. If you actually do read them instead of just searching for "record" and reading sentences where the word appears, all will become clear to you, and it will be like the sun breaking out from behind clouds.
Personally, I'm expecting rain.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
Then Canadian journalism is a lot worse than I've heard. (I don't believe you, of course.)
there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use
This is an amazingly idiotic statement of yours, and it's the statement that proves you're no journalist.
especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
Calling people on the phone?! Yeah, what a corner-case. Hardly ever happens, I'm sure!
You're a fucking moron. Beyond doubt.
Answer the question. You've given me four irrelevant links - the first takes the idiosyncratic cowardice of the American press and tries to argue that it's universal with examples that prove that it's not. The second doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. The third is about journalistic shield laws in an entirely different country. And the fourth isn't anything but the CAJ's homepage.
Russert was a political commentator in the United States, maybe you didn't know that. Issues of Canadian journalism aren't particularly relevant, here. The American press has specific responsibilities to our citizens, related to our exercise of democracy, and they are given specific protections under our Constitution to protect them when they carry those out.
Those protections come with a responsibility - to privilege the concerns of the people over the concerns of powerful public figures.
Answer the question, already. Your four links have failed to do so. Who does it serve?
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I can see my remark about reading skills was right on the money. Back to school, little boy.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Answer the question.
You can't even begin to, can you?
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Oh, my! I took a look at your profile, and a pattern begins to emerge. You post obsessively, utterly determined to have the last word regardless of the merit of your argument. In fact, your arguments are often narrow and dishonest; isolated facts presented in a context designed to mislead and obfuscate. Based upon their reaction, /.'s moderators, seem to agree. I added up the moderator points on our two pages (24 posts each), and you seem to be trailing 37 to 28. Given the nature of the situation, that's like being blown out by six or seven goals in a hockey game...a team of little boys pathetically over-matched by bigger, stronger adults. The gap would be even wider, but a couple of my higher scores (for humour) dropped off the page when you started this nonsense.
And I now understand why you are unable to grasp my argument, or to see the relevance of the pages I found for you, or comprehend that your question was in fact answered, though the answer may not have been to your liking. (I apologize for sending you in one case just to the site instead of the exact page. I wasn't aware that after spoon-feeding you, I was also expected to wipe your chin).
Anyway, some of your other posts indicate you are so consumed with impotent rage that one must suspect you are the victim of that same awful self-loathing suffered by people prone to self-mutilation...and very small dogs. You tend to treat those who differ with you, no matter how cogent their argument or how polite their disagreement, with rage-fueled contempt and ad hominem assaults on their honesty and intelligence. Sometimes, evidently, your reading comprehension is affected.
I suspect your nastiest responses are drawn from a deep well of rage caused by your own unfortunate life experience. Therefore I will cease mocking you for that which you cannot control and treat you with the horrified pity which is a more appropriate and more charitable response to your misfortune.
Peace. It will all be OK. Really.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Answer the question. Your internet psychoanalysis falls somewhat short of the truth.
Answer the question. Can you?
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
"Your internet psychoanalysis falls somewhat short of the truth."
Only "somewhat"? By your own admission, only "somewhat"? Sounds to me like an objective observer might be inclined to be a bit more generous than "somewhat".
Go back and read the answer supplied. If you're too, um, "special" to understand it, I'm afraid there's not much more I can do, unless you let me have a word with your mommy. You're totally owned. You know it. I know it. Anybody who reads the thread knows it. Repeatedly squawking, "Answer the question" in a vain attempt to make it seem as though I haven't isn't effective when anybody can just read back and find the answer that you have so obviously missed.
By the way, I know LOL stands for "Laughing Out Loud", but it's not really appropriate in this case. So consider me SATP (Snickering At The Psycho).
And do wipe your chin.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
That's a great deal of print to not answer a question.
Answer the question. Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?
Answer the question. It's an either/or, and everyone can see that you've been dodging it. So stop, and answer it.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
This is fun.
You're clearly delusional, and have forgotten that everything written to this point is a matter of record. Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing? How did you manage to get that out of whether a journalist's personal rules for on-record, off-record interviews reflects on their professionalism?
You forget, I've looked at your other "work", and have seen what you are. If you lived near me and had a knife collection, I'd already have asked the police to provide protection for my girl friend. But because of this wonderful medium, I can afford to say that I find you amusing; that I have no intention of obeying you in any respect or accepting the nonsense that you are in the habit of foisting upon others; that your assertion I am dodging anything whatsoever is a steaming pile of crap.
When I get bored with you, I'll simply ignore you. But that time is not yet. So I'll say it once more: read what is already written, for there you shall find the answer...though not the one you seek. I believe the legal term is, "Asked and answered", and if a judge were around, he'd tell you to move on.
Trusting you will do this, I remain,
Your Superior In All Ways (and laughing at you).
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
That's a lot of effort to avoid answering a question. Just answer it. You can even have the last word to do so.
Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing?
You don't recognize the question I've been asking you this whole time? You've ignored it so long you've forgotten what it was?
Just answer it. You can have the last word to do so, I promise (it's clearly important that you have the last word); but you have to actually answer it. A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people.
Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?
Just answer the question. There's no delusion, here; there's just your refusal to answer a plain question.
Just answer it.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
"A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people."
As a matter of fact, in this case it does. It informs you about usual practice in the profession with respect to "on the record" vs "off the record". Such practice applies in both countries. My degree and journalism credentials are recognized in your country, and a graduate of one of your universities would be recognized here, as well as press credentials if he had them.
To refresh your extremely selective memory, you originally alleged (incorrectly) that because Tim Russert conducted all his telephone interviews with government officials "off the record" that this meant he was either incompetent or a tool of the power structure.
"Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?"
If only you had read what was given to you, you'd have understood why I keep saying that your question has been answered. Your premise is completely incorrect, probably because you misunderstood TFA. That's why you just don't seem to comprehend that the question you keep harping on is utterly meaningless. Get this through your thick head: It is the journalist who decides whether a comment or interview is "off the record". Nobody else. No government official, not even the President himself, can demand that anything said in the presence of a journalist be off the record. He can refuse an interview or he can attempt to reason with the journalist if he realizes he has spoken unwisely. He can even have the Secret Service confiscate the journalist's notes and kick him out. He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical. Did you bother to read it?
Russert's situation was probably this: a journalist will often make a blanket agreement with a frequent contact, so that easy conversation is possible without misunderstanding. For example, chatting with the White House Chief of Staff might be off the record unless THE JOURNALIST says otherwise (which he is free to do at any time). Conversely, conversation with the White House Press Secretary would likely always be on the record, unless THE JOURNALIST agreed to accept an interview as "background" or "off the record". If a Press Secretary tried to use such a promise to stifle an investigation, the journalist would certainly publish everything discussed...with full attribution and pretty flowers.
Most likely, Russert also felt that a telephone interview wasn't reliable. One of the reasons these people are based in Washington is so that they can meet face-to-face with their subject whenever necessary. What would happen to Russert's credibility if he published a story based on a phone interview, only to have the official in question prove he was nowhere near the office, and that a new aide who just happened to sound the same pulled a stupid prank? Furthermore, because any responsible journalist will usually sit on a story until he gets two solid sources, Russert wouldn't want to go with that one contact anyway. He would attempt to verify the information through other channels, and he would use it to grill somebody else who was most definitely on the record. Sometimes one source is all there is, but you put your professional reputation on the line when you don't get confirmation.
Again you have been spoon-fed. I hope you now understand that your question is nonsense because it was based on a premise that is utterly and completely untrue. If you had taken the time to review the links you were sent, you would have understood that, and this entire response would have been unnece
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Ah, progress. All you had to do was grapple with the argument. I knew you could do it, eventually. Too bad you still haven't answered the question.
As a matter of fact, in this case it does.
But it didn't. It was just the index page; it offered nothing that was relevant to the discussion. A red herring, essentially, so you could pad your post with links.
That's why you just don't seem to comprehend that the question you keep harping on is utterly meaningless. Get this through your thick head: It is the journalist who decides whether a comment or interview is "off the record". Nobody else.
But it's clear that Russert had a policy of not deciding - of allowing the government official to make the decision.
I don't understand why you keep talking about journalists in general when it's Russert, specifically, that's under discussion. And it seems to be you who's under a misapprehension - the misapprehension that Russert wasn't doing precisely what he stated that he was; allowing the government official to determine what was, and wasn't, on the record. Often after the remarks had already been made.
I agree that it should be the journalist who decides. But Russert specifically abdicated that decision to the powerful elites. He did not decide.
So answer the question, already. Did that benefit the powerful elites (and, in turn, Russert) or did that benefit the American people?
Answer the question.
Russert's situation was probably this
Russert's "situation" was precisely what he told us it was: conversations with the nation's powerful elites were off the record, always; unless they specifically told them they were on the record.
That is, when the elites decided that Russert was useful to them as a megaphone, someone to get their message out on their behalf. A stenographer.
Is that good for the American people, or is that good for the elites? I've told you what I think. Why don't you answer the question? Why don't you stop pretending that Russert didn't say what he said?
Is it just that you're completely ignorant of what journalism has become in the United States?
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
"Ah, progress. All you had to do was grapple with the argument. I knew you could do it, eventually. Too bad you still haven't answered the question."
No, sorry. No progress. You are still unable to understand the actual situation, or usual journalism practice. And I see no evidence that you have the intellectual capacity to do so.
"It was just the index page; it offered nothing that was relevant to the discussion. A red herring, essentially, so you could pad your post with links."
You obviously don't know quite what to do when you run into an index. You're supposed to read it, and having done so you go to the place it points you toward. If your skills don't extend to determining where that is, you need more help than I can offer you. "Pad my post?" Don't be an ass. You choose to forget that I intended to point you at an actual page on the site, and gave you the index by mistake. And said so. As I also said, I didn't know that spoonfeeding you included wiping your chin. This, of course, is typical of the way you twist and misrepresent what has been said in the vain hope of bolstering your case.
"Is it just that you're completely ignorant of what journalism has become in the United States?"
Well, no, actually. What it has become is a cesspool dominated by asskissers (more in broadcast than print) on assigned beats. And moonbats like you who have gained spurious legitimacy by your access to the Internet and your willingness to trumpet your ignorance far louder than more informed, more intelligent people who are routinely drowned out by your histrionics.
"Russert's "situation" was precisely what he told us it was: conversations with the nation's powerful elites were off the record, always; unless they specifically told them they were on the record."
Your inability to read and understand the implications of a simple quote are the basis of your persistent failure to grasp the situation. Russert was quoted incompletely though not inaccurately in a tech magazine opinion piece which was widely reproduced. The quote was derived from his testimony at the Scooter Libby trial, but not taken directly from the transcript. The quote was, "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified." Do you see the implications? I bet you didn't notice that Russert made no mention of who it is that makes the specification. Or when. Or under what circumstances.
You might also consider the implications of the fact that in any interview Russert would have notes. Such notes are presumed accurate and are admissable in court. Do some research, and maybe you'll begin to understand what this means. I doubt it, but there's always hope.
I say I doubt it because you seem very much like one of those tinfoil hat people who insist that there was no moon landing. If a powerful enough telescope was turned on one of the sites and took pictures showing evidence of human activity, they'd claim they were faked. If the pictures were verified by a reputable scientist, the scientist would be called a member of the scientific establishment, and untrustworthy...and so on, and so on.
Even though I know you will never, never admit you're out of your depth, and even though I'm done with doing research you're too lazy and/or too dishonest to do for yourself, I'll give you one more chance. Try to get beyond the shallow, seven-second-sound-bite version to a place where you understand that criticism of Russert, or any journalist, has to rest on more than an incomplete apprehension of idiosyncratic practices that are largely situational.
Time for you to step up to the plate. Prove you aren't a moonbat. Do some research. Supply something more than misrepresentation, reflex aggression and bombast. Who knows, maybe you'll manage to broaden your horizons a little.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You are still unable to understand the actual situation, or usual journalism practice.
Usual journalism practice is, as I've told you, irrelevant, because we're not talking about your "usual journalist."
We're talking about Tim Russert, who had a stated policy that, in his words, was to allow government officials to be off the record unless and until they gave specific instructions for Russert to go on the record.
Is that good for the American people, or good for powerful elites? It's a simple question that I can't help but noticed you've ignored again.
Russert was quoted incompletely though not inaccurately in a tech magazine opinion piece which was widely reproduced.
Oh, I see. You're actually saying that Russert didn't say what he is quoted to have said.
Gosh, if I'd realized you were simply factually misinformed we could have cleared this up several go-rounds ago. This is Russert:
"When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy -- our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission"
It's the government official who decides for Russert, not the other way around as you state. If he can't get permission - permission! Like he's a schoolchild! - then he renders himself mute. Just like a good government stenographer, I guess.
I bet you didn't notice that Russert made no mention of who it is that makes the specification.
But we know who specifies - Russert always allowed the government official to do so. We know that because that's exactly what he stated, and we know that because everybody in the Bush Administration knew how that worked; hence, the reliance on Meet The Press as a propaganda tool, because they knew Russert would allow them to "control the message."
So answer the question. Who benefits from that? Russert and powerful elites? Or the American people?
You might also consider the implications of the fact that in any interview Russert would have notes.
What, you were there? Or are you talking about journalists in general, again?
Again I don't dispute that, in a system of functional journalism, that would be true. Indeed I would prefer that to be true.
But that's not how it worked for Russert, because he was far more interested in bending over backwards for powerful elites than for doing anything as hard and meaningful as the kind of journalism you describe.
That's sort of the problem, here. It's amazing that you still don't get that, after all this time. (Maybe if you'd spent more time thinking about the argument instead of thinking of ways to insult me, we'd be on the same page, finally.)
Try to get beyond the shallow, seven-second-sound-bite version to a place where you understand that criticism of Russert, or any journalist, has to rest on more than an incomplete apprehension of idiosyncratic practices that are largely situational.
It's time for you to arrive at a place where you understand that criticism or defense of Russert has to happen based on Russert's own conduct and statements, not what journalists in general do or don't do. Indeed the number one problem with Russert that I've been describing is that he doesn't follow standard journalistic practice; by every indication he had his own set of practices that privileged the convenience of powerful elites over his responsibilities as a journalist.
And it's time for you to arrive at a place where you actually answer the most pertinent question, which I have repeated multiple times.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I guess you believe Russert, or any journalist, would bend over backward to make sure that a hostile examiner didn't leap to any wrong conclusions, or that a source begging to be burned should be aware of their vulnerability. You persist in chasing an illusion, and have forgotten completely that I specifically said I didn't want to defend Russert.
"He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical."
Cut. Paste. Repeat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.