Russert's Most Important Legacy

There have been many moving eulogies about the late NBC reporter Tim Russert. We have heard about his personal modesty and his extensive preparation for interviews. Russert was able to subtly expose the inconsistencies and underside of politicians with a smile.

But Russert's major contribution is the one that has been discussed the least. Russert was one of the few remaining reporters who adhered to the norms of adversarial journalism without resorting to partisan journalism. He asked aggressive questions, confronted politicians, and interjected his opinions while avoiding becoming a reporter from the left or the right.

There were several important changes that took place in the media during Russert's lifetime. The first occurred in the 1970s with the triumph of adversarial reporting. As a result of Vietnam and Watergate, reporters abandoned the norm of objectivity. Frustration had grown with this style of reporting. Politicians such as Senator Joseph McCarthy had manipulated reporter's belief in objectivity by stating controversial facts that were not supported by evidence with the full knowledge that reporters would publish their words without challenging them. Younger reporters were frustrated that senior colleagues had not been critical of the Johnson administration in 1965 when he Americanized the war in Vietnam and missed signs of corruption in Richard Nixon's White House.

The era of objectivity gave way to the era of adversarial journalism in the 1970s. The Washington Post's Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward made this style of reporting famous through their coverage of Watergate. They were not alone. Reporting on Vietnam in February 1968, CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite ended his broadcast by finally stating his opinion of the war: "to say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past."

The next change in the media resulted from technology. Cable television made its way into the homes of millions of Americans in the 1980s and 1990s. The medium transformed the news cycle and lessened editorial controls. CNN went on the air in 1980 and offered a 24-hour news cycle. Whereas in the network era-news cycle, the production of television stories took place over the course of an entire day (with producers sending out instructions to bureau chiefs in the morning and making decisions about what to air around five), cable allowed information to instantly go out on the air. Not only was information disseminated faster, but editorial controls diminished given the speed of the news cycle. George Stephanopoulos, a top advisor to Clinton and now the host of ABC news show, said that "stopping CNN was key. If they ran the story all day, however briefly, other news organizations could cite them to justify running their own stories. Our denials would be folded into these accounts, but the damage would be done."

Cable television resulted in the proliferation of news stations. Each show competed for a smaller share of the audience. Television hosts--who played a bigger role in the show -- scrambled to get stories quickly. According to Russert, "with satellites, everyone now has access to the same pictures and sound bites, and news becomes old with amazing speed, things have changed; networks are feeling the competition. We've become more aggressive... 10 or 15 years ago, the networks acted as if there was a tacit agreement to be 'highbrow' in their definition of news. Now we've got Geraldo, Inside Edition, A Current Affair, and Entertainment Tonight. Will their presence drive us, consciously or unconsciously, to gravitate toward more sex and scandal coverage." Newspapers mimicked television. With the advent of the internet, newspapers and magazines were able to publish stories with the same rapidity as television.

The same forces that caused partisanship and polarization in politics swept through the news industry by the mid-1990s, thus bringing Americans to the most recent stage in the history of the media: partisan journalism. Ironically, the norm of objective reporting emerged in the progressive era as an antidote to the partisan press of the nineteenth century. This trend has been most pronounced on television and radio. The move toward partisan reporting accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s as talk radio shows around the country introduced audiences to rightward leanings hosts who were open about their political stance on the news. Fox Television started in 1996 and brought the Rush Limbaugh style of reporting to national television audiences. For Fox, covering politics from the right was always their unstated objective. Fox programming, such as The O'Reilly Factor meshed adversarial reporting, cable era speed, and openly partisan interpretations of the news.

Recently, we have seen the same kind of reporting coming from the left. The former sportscaster Keith Olbermann now has one of the highest rated evening news shows. Olbermann has dropped any pretence of objectivity and has been openly critical of the Bush administration. His "Special Comment" segments toward the end of his broadcast allow him to openly lambast his opponents. Olbermann once said: "This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!" Olbermann took an extremely critical stand toward Senator Clinton and offered supportive coverage of Barack Obama, thus making his political positions even more clear.

There is of course room for this kind of reporting and it suits the current political climate of America. But the media needs more Tim Russerts, reporters who maintain the ideals of 1970s adversarial reporting without sliding into the partisan style of 2000s news coverage. Over the long run, partisan journalism undermines the faith of viewers in the people who tell us the news, rather than increasing the healthy skepticism about the people who are the subject of the news.

Julian E. Zelizer is Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Harvard University Press).

Comments

[nellie]

I wish I could agree, but I found that TR did not challenge the Republican congress or the Republican president, did not give Al Gore a fair shake in the 2000 election. I have a lot of respect for him, but we haven't seen great television journalism from anyone in decades.

[Desiderata]

For clarification purposes, Olbermann was for Hillary Clinton before she turned him against her. He had her on Countdown and fawned all over her.

I would conclude that there a lot of regular folks who heralded the inevitability of the first woman President of the United States, who were equally excited by the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But she changed all of that by appealing to our basest instincts instead of our highest ideals.

Olbermann loves his country more than his own need not to appear foolish. He rightfully moved away from Clinton.

And Olbermann may be just as bombastic as O'Reilly, but presents the facts back up by researched evidence to support his point of view. O'Reilly is given his talking points. Nobody tells Keith what to say.

And obviously Olbermann appeals to those of us hungry for a voice to object to the desecration of all that was good about our country and our heritage, so soulessly sacrificed by those "others" that profess patriotism and Christianity as they propagandize and betray the nation for money and celebrity.

[mikekev58]

Olbermann's a bloviating fool.

I do know one thing: if he and Hillary went into a room alone together, it wouldn't be Olbermann who emerged.

[BubbaC33]

Obama should have appeared at the end of each broadcast of Countdown and declared I am Barack Obama and I approve of this message. Olbermann is not a reporter or a journalist, he is a propagandist.

[Lemeritus]

I'm happy to take my place in line to say "Thank God for Keith Olbermann!" He was a strong voice when we were voiceless (as was Paul Krugman, which didn't prevent him from being soundly and unfairly renounced here as blasphemous when his opinions did not "all hail Obama" -- sad but true).

My issue, Desiderata, is not with Clinton or Obama, or even with Countdown's opinion of one or the other, but with this uncritical "fandom" that has grown up around Olbermann. There's a lot of blov- in Mr. Olbermann's -ator. (See, for example,
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020774.php). It worries me when we check our critical thinking at the door to sit like wide-eyed children at the feet of the story teller who reads the tales we most like to hear. The Right has been doing this for Limbaugh for far too long; I would hate to see the Left become just the flip side of the same "ditto" coin.

[BubbaC33]

NO onw who paid any attention to the manner in which Russert reported the news in 2000 and 2004 would think he was non-partisan. We should keep his family in our prayers, but we should also resist the urge to make him a saint.

[InDudeMood]

Thank you Bubba, it only took you two sentences to say what I meant.

[mikekev58]

Ditto, Bubba.

Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler has been commenting on the nauseating hagiography of Russert The Journalist that's been taking place in the media since Russert's death.

Rest in peace, Tim, but you showed your hand many times and played gotcha way too often.

[PADDYWHACK]

Many years ago in England,there was an announcer called Jonathan Dimbleby,who was the voice of officialcom for all state occasions.He became ill and died and many believed the Royal Coronation should be called off,I feel the same way about the election,it will not be the same without his analysis.I think I need help.

[DAE]

Exactly! Well said. Although ironically what you wrote bursts the Russett balloon. He was the voice of American legitimacy at a time when Washington officialdom has been totally discredited. In his person the war criminals from Bush to McClain were given a "get out of jail" card. Not to disparage him for doing so, but that was his role and he relished it. So RIP Tim, but all the pomp and circumstance is more PR than substance.

[RRonin]

The response of ordinary folks to the passing of Russert has floored me. Thousands of people paying their respects, like for a former President. I have to ask myself, why? After much pondering, I have reached the conclusion is that after so many years of dissembling, tap dancing ("what the definition of 'is' is") triangulating, equivocating, dodging, half lies, half truths, weasel words, cherry-picked facts, and eight years of damned lies emanating from Washington, people have embraced him as a kind of 21st century Diogenes, searching for just one honest man. Being a good reporter is like being a good cop, if you do your job right, somebody's gonna be pissed off.

[Danny]

I can't say anything nice about Tim Russert except that he died too young, and I express condolence to his family. The grie-f-athon for Tim Russert is way over the top for someone who isn't a Pope. But that's just me, who has been around this media world a while.

[conniedogs]

Mr. Russert's most important legacy is his son "Luke".

[kickbass]

Are you kidding me? Russert was agressively partisan. Like most of his colleagues, he was in favor of invading Iraq: during '99-2000 presidential campaign was openly unfair to Gore which certainly contributed to the circumstances that got W in to the White House:

"From beginning to end, Russert's performance was riddled with errors—errors which tended to "prosecute" Gore, if we could use Carlson's term of art. He misstated what Gore had said about an important fund-raising matter. He spun a court ruling on Elian Gonzalez. His presentation of the Hsi Lai temple was—can we talk?—just this side of malpractice. He interrupted Gore freely throughout the session..."
(from http://www.dailyhowler.com/h072600_1.shtml )

This pattern continued right up to the end of his life.
Democrats, I urge you not to accept this assessment of Russert. Check the archives at mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com if you've forgotten the history.

Sure he was loved by many and was a "great" guy, but let's not gloss over what is a truly abysmal record. His signature bogus gotcha "questions" and spinning were overwhelmingly targeted at liberals which, no doubt, pleased his bosses NBC president Bob Wright and General Electric chairman Jack Welch.

[appleknocker]

Indeed. Tim Russert was to journalism what Joel Osteen is to theology.

[mikekev58]

Please...Joel Osteen at least means well.

[InDudeMood]

Am I the only one not impressed by Russert or the only one brave enough to say "enough" to this endless re-write of history love fest? I stopped watching MtP when I realized he was ignoring the ISSUES and covered only the horse races. Who has the advantage over who, what tactics will this campaign use against that one. The final straw, though, was the Ron Paul interview. Not partisan? That was the most hack journalist-tantrum. Every question was about Paul's run in the 80's as a Libertarian. NOT ONE QUESTION ABOUT 2008 ISSUES. You could tell Russert was just pissed for being pressured to interview a candidate he didn't like.

So he was a nice guy, a good family man and liked his dad. Professionally the only way Russert looks good is by comparison to FauxNews, but we all know that ain't sayin' much. This reminds me when Nixon died and so many people tried to make a stateman out of the criminal.

[kimnjerry]

Like you're the expert on political journalism.

Those who are, on both sides of the aisle, acknowledge Russert's contribution. Tim was a staunch Democrat, from a solid Democratic family and community. Although there wasn't a Republican bone in his body, he was never faulted for a lack of fairness or an imbalance in his interviews. There are plenty of news journalists who've passed on, yet none in recent times has garnered the praise given to Tim Russert. Certainly some of that was that he was just a good person, loved by most who knew him (including those of us in, or from, Buffalo), but the rest of the equation was that he was damn good at what he did.

And I agree. His legacy is his son. That Luke Russert could be so articulate at a time of loss speaks to the strength of his family. And I'm sure that Tim would rather be known as a great person than as a great TV personality.

[mikekev58]

Tim Russert may have been a Democrat and perhaps that's what led him to be so hard on Democrats. That still doesn't justify that he was uneven. Sure, he'd ask Republicans hard questions, but then he'd accept their answers without much follow up, and certainly without the aggressive gotcha tone he used on Democrats.

You speak of political journalists "on both sides of the aisle." I didn't think journalism was supposed to have an aisle, except for opinion writers and Russert was supposed to be a "moderator", not an op ed personality. To my mind, that so many journalists are pushing Russert's canonization as the Patron Saint of Broadcast Journalism doesn't mean much. It's a club, my friend, a good ol' boys club for the most part, so what do you expect them to say?

[ProfessorDuh]

I agree. Tim Russert was in the tank for the corporate power elite. He wasn't one of the worst reporters, but he was far from one of the best.

[HeevenSteven]

I agree 100%. He like so many others in the MSM played the access game. Softball questions to the powerfull, gotchya questions to others.

[pundit27]

No doubt a very fine man, Russert nonetheless was professionally a pure "platform" journalist; his job at MTP was to be sure he could get all the pols he could on the show, and that meant making sure whatever "righteous indignation" his reporting uncovered could never be expressed. One need only read the best journalists of the day, the handful of Sy Hershes of the world, to understand that it isn't partisan journalism to dig and be fair and to show one side, whether the administration or the dems in Congress or some bureaucrats, has egregiously erred or lied or performed duplicitously. Even Russert's "aggressive" questions were softballs for his guests for there was rarely ever any serious follow-up. Great journalists don't get send-offs like Tim's; but certainly great guys do.

[wutzhappn]

So sorry to speak ill of the dead, but Tim Russert was hardly the bastion of non-partisan journalism. His dislike of the Clintons was obvious, especially during the debates.

[Thorn]

Until hearing Maria Shriver's nine-hour speech at Tim Russert's memorial service just now, I had no idea that his life was almost completely about her.

[MzTexas]

Maria Shriver's eulogy was about how important Tim Russert was to HER . . . get a grip and a heart.

Personally, I think Russert's greatest contribution is his son.

[Desiderata]

He took his father's chair off the MP set. He should bring it back and sit down in it.

[RobertArend]

Agreed. The son took his father's chair off the Meet The Press set. He should return it and sit down in it.