Russert Watch, 4-27-08: In Which Tim and Team Play Inside Baseball

[From the Columbia Journalism Review]

This week, Tim Russert, the national handicapper-in-chief, brought Howard Dean onto Meet the Press and tried to coax him to “focus on this unity question”—to prognosticate about the outlook for an end to the Democratic race. Dean crisply repeated what he’d already said many times: He wanted the contest over by the end of June. Russert tried to draw Dean into making some news about tactics, but Dean was smack dab on message: he upholds the rules. The rules are the rules. And by the way, superdelegates are delegates too; they represent voters.

The most Russert got was this declaration: “I'm not the most important person in terms of bringing the party together. The most important person is the person who doesn't win the nomination.” And then Dean was back to his preferred Democratic mantras: “People want change in this country….John McCain is four more years of George Bush….You know, we're spending a lot of time on process, and I think most Americans care about whether they want to be in Iraq or not for a hundred years, about the economy, about health care.”

Russert tried to steer back to process: “But the Democrats are very worried about who's going to be the nominee and whether or not the result will reflect the primary process.” Dean parried: “The reason Democrats are so interested in this is they want change.”

The color commentator was stymied. As hard as he tried to get Dean to declare that Hillary Clinton’s prospects were dim, Dean wouldn’t play. What would black Americans do, Russert asked, if superdelegates deprived Barack Obama of the nomination? Dean refused the invitation, saying, “We don’t divide people…in this party.” Russert was reduced to sitting by while Dean blithely went on rat-a-tatting his talking points about McCain’s weaknesses. After a while, his efforts to nudge Dean off message begin to seem perfunctory. Little was revealed.

I sometimes wonder whether the custodians of commentary realize how little they move the conventional wisdom when they deplore its inadequacies. Consider this interesting moment with Gwen Ifill on Russert’s roundtable. “One of the most amazing things about Pennsylvania is…how little they were being told about the things they care about; how much there was not a debate about the war that happened during the Pennsylvania primary….” Ifill seemed ready to embark on an audacious effort to suggest that voters care about what the next president will do. But instantly, she stepped on her own audacity by drifting off into this haze:

…how much Barack Obama, in trying to chase after voters in places like Scranton and Steelton, where I once lived… I'm telling you, he wasn't going to win in Steelton and only made one big appearance in Philadelphia, where his base was. His theory, up until now, had been, ‘Run up my numbers in the places where I'm strong. But he, only Friday night before the election, had a big, one big rally in Philadelphia, while the Clintons were running rings around him in the suburbs, where he was supposed to be strong, and he didn't do as well as he was supposed to. So there's something...It seems like that campaign gets thrown off balance when Hillary Clinton sets the table for where they ought to be and what they ought to say. But what gets lost—as we slice up the electorate into the, you know, the white working class and the black middle class, and however else we're slicing it today—is what these people want to hear, what these voters want to hear. And the Democrats seem, for the moment, to have lost the issue debate.

Talk about losing the “issue debate”—There’s no here here, only shoptalk, inside dope ,and self-preoccupation. On Meet the Press, even journalists who aspire to honor “the things [voters] care about” can’t stay on point.

The host seemed most animated when he declared, apropos the question of whether Obama and Clinton would debate again: “I always enjoy debates about debates.” His relish was obvious. He licked his chops. At another point, Slate’s John Dickerson noted about McCain: “He’s made a lot of mistakes talking about the economy, but it doesn’t get talked about.”

What’s with the passive voice? Why not try out the active? Why not talk about those “mistakes”? Later, Russert asked, “Are we going to have a debate in November about past associations and pastors, or we going to have a debate about the war, health care, and economy?” As if the preoccupations of the knights of the Meet the Press roundtable have nothing to do with the answer.

Comments

[kilowat]

Look at who own NBC, GE what have they made off the Iraq war, enough said

[TommyMcCarthy]

Somebody help me out here......I'll admit my memory fails me here and there about details but never this alarmingly . I've watched Russert off and on for years and years. Prior to the '08 election cycle, I would have unhesitatingly said I LIKED the guy and had no problem with his objectivity or tone.

Of late, he seems positively awful, often very biased-seeming, sometimes outright rude....etc.

Question: Is it him or is it ME???? With the war and all the other horrors of the Bush administration, I'm following this Presidential race more closely but COME ON...........if others don't agree he's changed dramaticlly then I've undergone some sort of sea-change in my perception of the media.

Who's Next??................ Will my beloved Jim Lehrer from PBS suddenly seem biased?.......................Bill Moyers seem a corpoate lackey??

Responses welcome

[PollyTics]

Relax Tommy, it is NOT you (unfortunately). Russert has proven himself over and over again to be spinning for the Right, this has been documented often to the point that some White House memo even made mention that you wanted to go on MTP when you needed to spin. He was/is regarding as a friendly player in all things politics when it comes to the current administration.

Russert turned toward Karl Rove back in 2000 and must have been plenty thirsty because he swilled gallons of the White House kool-aid when offered.

Unfortunately most of the press has become oblivious to "actual facts" and seems to now be of the mind that if you are to be "unbiased" that translates into allowing everyone say anything they want, without comment. Facts and issues have taken the back seat to gossip and scandal.

So Tommy, it is NOT you and it is not merely Timmy.

[groucho]

these guys are so used to calling the shots and framing the arguments. i think the internet is showing them to be the trivial gossip mongers, once people start seeing other places with more interesting discussions, i think they will not even be replaced.
i watched robert greenwald's bravenewfilms during super tuesday and it was great. and no commercials. cenk uygur from the young turks hosted a slew of reputable guests and pundits and their coverage of the numbers coming in were just as up to the minute as cnn,

[HuffingPuffing]

Tim Russert - the fleshy embodiment of all that is wrong with the punditocracy and its insider myopia. As the Libby trial amply illustrated for us, Dick Cheney sure knew who to call on and appear before on Sundays before various 9/11 anniversaries... Timmy's toothlessness bettered only by his obsequiousness before someone who clearly knew who was pwning who.
Oh, and while I'm kicking him, his "Go Bills" may be well-intentioned, even sincere, but this ultimately faux populist touch never fails to grate on my nerves at least twice a season. Go Timmeh... go away... far away.

[buzzygirl]

These people are the very reason we have so much problems in this country. They are so divisive. Sadly, a lot of people don't stop to take the time to read up on the issues for themselves.

The media is no longer for the little man. People like Russert and the rest draw in their million dollar salaries, and so it's no skin off their nose to sit around and talk shop.

Their kids go to bed well fed. They don't have to worry about losing their homes or high gas prices. If those issues were closer to them, huh, you can bet the Rev. Wright would not be the main topic today.

Four Americans died in Iraq today. It's just a yawn in the American media.

[wayoutleft]

we're running out of ways to ignore the fact that these commentators are indirectly employed by their big insurance, aerospace, and pharmaceutical advertisers. sen. schumer, to little notice and absolutely no surprise, said this past week that- since the war will be bankrolled forever- no health care proposal will be considered due to lack of money. is a major network going to advance a discussion of taking health care away from insurance companies? of course not. this is uncomfortable to face directly because it nears the precipice of the limits of capitalism. these are dangerous things to talk about.

[JackW]

So true. It doesn't even matter the network. MSNBC or FOX, CNN or ABC, they're all paid by corporate America, who all have agendas. Same with the web. Websites sell ad space to someone, many the same as TV. Look no further than this site for examples.