Tim Russert and Network Journalism

My sympathies to the family of NBC newsman Tim Russert who died unexpectedly on June 13. It was unusual and somewhat poignant for me as that is my birthday and I turned 61. Tim Russert was three years younger than me and he died of a heart attack. It always gives one pause. Why him, not me?

I can't answer that except to say the older I get, the more health-conscious and weight-conscious I have become. Maybe that has nothing to do with anything but it is something I always keep in the back of my mind. Health. Age. Diet. Weight. Exercise.

Getting to politics, which is the subject of this blog, Tim Russert had an enormous impact on American politics. As moderator of one of the nation's top interview programs, "Meet the Press," and overall analyst for NBC, my lasting memory of him is that he was one of the last "old school" political reporters in the business. He was fair to both liberals and conservatives and often made both feel uncomfortable. At a time when the broadcast networks (particularly Russert's sister network, MSNBC) are viewed as increasingly partisan--Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee--Russert was refreshing in that he would play it straight down the middle and not get caught up in the rush to take sides.

In fact, it was Tim Russert who asked the one question that began the implosion of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. I detailed this in an earlier post but he asked plain outright if she supported then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

Senator Clinton hemmed and hawed and tried to turn the question into a critique of the Bush Administration but Russert would have none of it. He kept pressing, asking whether yes or no she supported the policy. The more he asked, the more she dithered. Russert seemed incredulous before moving on. So did viewers and the pencil press who picked up on this key moment.

That was the first chink in the Clinton armor and it was then--the date was October 30, 2007--that Barack Obama began a little uptick in the polls and was seen as a credible alternative to Sen. Clinton.

Maybe another journalist wouldn't have pressed the matter as much. Maybe other journalists wouldn't have even asked. But he did. And knowingly or not, he paved the way for Barack Obama to make his case to Democratic voters.

It was said in Washington circles that potential presidential candidates had to pass the Russert test which was a public grilling on national television defending choices, positions, beliefs. It was often not pretty but necessary and everyone in the political world understood--if you couldn't pass the Russert test, why would anyone trust you to negotiate with world leaders, who would be much rougher than Tim Russert.

I will always remember him on the fateful election night of 2000. While other analysts were armed with computers, word processors, spreadsheets, and graphic representations of miniscule slices of the vote, he had a white board on which he wrote with a dry marker pen. He accurately predicted, long before the digital geniuses, that Florida would be the key to the election and he scribbled down the name of the state plus its electoral votes.

Like John Henry in the famous folk song who beat down the steam drill by using his strength with a sledge hammer, Tim Russert was there before the computers were using his own knowledge and intuition. Score one for the old school guys.

Russert's passing also points out what I think is a trend that is plunging headlong into the past. In America's political history, especially in the nineteenth century, the press--such as it was--was highly partisan. Political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats--had their own newspapers. Others were highly identified with a party. For instance, the New York Tribune's editor Horace Greeley, was strongly identified with the Republican Party and even ran for president.

Eventually, newspapers moved away from direct ownership by political parties and became independent. But papers always maintained strong editorial support for one party or another. In the internet age, newspapers and television networks have returned to the model of the 19th century.

The New York Times, the L.A. Times and many other newspapers have become much more liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party and make no bones about it. The Wall Street Journal tends to favor Republicans; Fox News is for conservatives (although it has mellowed over the years IMHO); and MSNBC has become an anti-Republican, pro-Obama network, according to many critics, including those without an ax to grind.

The internet blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of the 19th century with their unique takes--Daily Kos, MyDD, NationalReview Online, michellemalkin.com--so in a way, we are returning to an earlier model. There are some in the journalistic world who think this is a good thing as at least now the reader is well aware of the beliefs and views of the writer with no attempt made at phony objectivity or sneaking in opinion between the lines.

But getting back to Tim Russert, it appeared to me as if he really felt that he needed to be a journalist who didn't come down on one side or the other. And that is becoming more and more rare each day.

He will be missed particularly in the 2008 election season. Rest in peace, Mr. Russert.