In the wake of the passing of Tim Russert today, some will no doubt recall that he testified at the "Scooter" Libby trial -- but few, I would guess, can now remember what he said or why he was there. So here is a refresher, in the form of a portion of an AP article we carried at E&P just after that day in February 2007.
But first: On the afternoon Russert went to court, I had opened another article at E&P this way: "One of the most highly awaited moments in the 'CIA Leak' trial in Washington, D.C. arrived this afternoon just before 2:30 when NBC's Tim Russert finally took the stand, after discarding crutches (he broke his ankle not long ago)." I should note in passing that I have always followed Russert's career closely, as we grew up together, so to speak, in the Buffalo area at about the same time.
Here is an excerpt from that AP story:
Tim Russert, an unrelenting interrogator as host of NBC's "Meet the Press," said Friday it was painful having the tables turned on him by lawyers defending former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby against perjury and obstruction charges.The day after Russert spent five grueling hours on the witness stand in Libby's trial, the NBC newsman took questions in the much friendlier setting of an interview on the set of the "Today" show with his network colleagues. Asked how it felt to be on the other end of rapid-fire questioning, Russert said, "It's a lot of easier to throw grenades than it is to catch them. I've got to tell you.
"Sitting in that witness box is very uncomfortable because on `Meet the Press' or the `Today' show, you have a chance to finish your thought and complete your sentence. That's not the case in a court of law. The defense lawyer will say, `Yes or no, yes or no' and you're trying very hard to listen intently to the question to make sure you answer as precisely as possible," he added. "Otherwise it can be played back the next day. ... It's not pleasant, I have to say."
Russert said, though, he kept a mind a lesson learned in the 7th grade, that "if you tell the truth, you'll live to remember one story, and that's what I did."
In the "Today" interview, Russert reiterated what he had said on the stand: he did not discuss the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson with Libby in a conversation they had in July 2003 and he said he did not at that time know about Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, who was outed subsequently as a CIA operative.
"I did not know she worked at the CIA. I did not know any of that until the following Monday when I saw all in (newspaper columnist) Robert Novak's column. ... We simply did not know it. I wish we had."
Russert did say he was "stunned" when he heard that Libby said he had learned Plame's identity from him, saying, "I said that just can't be. It's impossible." Russert held to that line during cross-examination. He also disclosed -- in a well-publicized statement -- that he considered his chats with sources all off-the-record unless put on the record, the opposite of the usual journalistic approach.
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. He is editor of Editor & Publisher.
I guess that kid from Buffalo didn't see the glass as always half empty. He assumed perhaps that a man's word was his bond; that these politicians came on his show because they had as much respect for his position as he had for theirs. Sadly, they didn't.
Was Russert a bad guy? No. He was that kid from Buffalo who I believe woke up every morning with a sense of awe about where he was, who he was and how he got there...
Maybe someday we can have real journalism in this country.
I believe this is crucial for our Country to move forward. Real reporting & journalism, needs to rise up again.
I was not a fan of Russert. I thought he had the opportunity to do better with the huge and important audiance he was given. Sadly he was no Murrow when we so badly needed an objective voice that just might have helped prevent this horrific war in Iraq.
Hopefully Russert's employer will find a successor to him that will be highly qualified and provide objective reporting because we must have this if our democracy has a chance to survive.
He did ask the tough questions. But he didn't go for the throat, which seems to be your complaint. He would present the facts, and get a response from his guest. If there was a conflict between the two, he'd press his guest on that. But ultimately, he let the viewers decide.
Maybe if we as Americans could awake from our collective slumber and apathy and demand more from our lawmakers, we could prevent things like the Iraq debacle from happening again.
I understand that you have to have performed THREE miracles to be considered for sainthood.
That said, in the context of Mr. Mitchell's post, I think it's important to also recall another key part of his testimony at the Libby trial. In just about these words, Russert said that all his discussions with sources are considered off the record UNLESS they're specifically identified as on the record. (The details should be easily searchable in FireDogLake's live-blogging of the trial.)
Many were shocked by this admission by a leading journalist. Today may not be the day to re-hash the details, but in the ongoing discussion about the evolution of media & journalism, it's a question worth pursuing. Truly regretful that Russert won't be here to add his perspective.
Russert: "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified. So I didn't go on air and talk about it, but I told Neal Shapiro and told him I'd..."
link: http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/07/libby-live-tim-russert-one/
Russert was by no means alone in this, but it seems that a significant number of American journalists are simply naive, especially those who aren't predisposed to question authority. I don't believe that Russert was cynical or dishonest but rather, too credulous, too trusting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-nobel-prize-and-russe_b_9307.html
"Two-and-a-half years before Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) won the Nobel Peace Prize, friends of the Administration were trashing them in the media. Pushing for war with Iraq, these hawks insisted that inspections don’t work. In early March 2003, Tim Russert pushed their case further, by repeating lies to “prove” inspections don’t work. Those lies speak volumes about media coverage of the WMD story then and now.".
one core trait a journalist needs to have is CYNICISM.
to quote the republican godfather, reagan: trust, but verify
we need WAY more investigative reporting and much LESS pundit talking point regurgitation and predictions. anyone can speculate. who is out there simply reporting the TRUTH?
are you listening CNN?
Russert was never my favorite either. He was too subjective. There was an ambitious element of social climber in his pursuits. So anxious to be part of the in-crowd, he often turned meet the press into press releases from the administration. He was very anti-Howard Dean in 2004 -- and yet if someone would just pull the video tape, Russert crowed louder than Dean did when he was on air as an "objective" journalist that night.
I am impressed by the thngs his colleagues and friends have said about his love of family and what a supportive boss he was to them. These are things we weren't privy to. But as Merlin said -- there is OTHER news for his grieving employees to cover. I guess it will go on all weekend ...these people should save some of their eulogies for the funeral. It's kind of a public grief therapy session -- and not nearly as important to the audience.
Maybe they don't know what else to do: it's MSNCBC's cheap=profit model. Typicaly the MSNBC staff all interview each other repeatedly all day and all night. Usually they just report to each other what they've read on the internet. Meet the press went all the way with that concept June 8 - Russert interviewed his own staff!