Watchdog

I've been borderline obsessed with the Tim Russert coverage - watching, reading, listening - since Friday. I'm not quite sure why his passing has affected me so much, but it has. It at least partly has to do with the fact that he was one of the few political analysts that wasn't overly cynical and who was able to provide analysis in a form that made sense to me. In short, I trusted him and unfortunately, there aren't too many trustworthy people in the media these days. And this is coming from someone who works in the media.

As to the issue of too much coverage? Welcome to the 21st century. Anna Nicole Smith gets more coverage than the war in Iraq. This is nothing new. At least in Russert's case, he contributed something positive to society.

Check out Lisa de Moraes column in yesterday's Washington Post. She does a good job explaining how the ratings figures appear to justify the volume of coverage of Russert.

i too was hooked on the russert coverage. not sure why either.

maybe because he came across as an honest guy you'd like to have a beer with and talk football or baseball?

i enjoyed his work on nbc and often watched his cnbc interview show each saturday. i really believe he helped shape the country with his objective yet firm grilling of the washington elite.

Thanks, Andy and Mikey.

Here's one thing that bothers me, though: Name the top political reporter in print journalism - not that I know who that person is - and imagine the coverage that his or her death would receive.

Russert was good at his job . . . and happened to do it on TV. I realize that makes him a star by definition.

But in the end he's just a journalist.

Neil

Isn't that more of a comment on the current state of print journalism?

And I think in order for the comparison to be fair, you'd have to be talking about the coverage given in print to a print journalist's death as opposed to the TV coverage given to a TV journalist.

I'm sure when Walter Cronkite passes, we'll be seeing similar coverage. Although the missing element there will be he wasn't a (relatively) young man.

I'd say the most prominent living print reporter is probably Bob Woodward, and if Woodward died suddenly at his current age it would be a big, big story. Not as big as Russert, sure, but pretty huge.

To me the coverage didn't seem excessive, but I'm a big, big Russert fan so maybe it's my radar that's off.

Neil, here's another piece that I feel was well done regarding the reaction and mourning of Russert, by Phil Bronstein in SF:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?&entry_id=27337

And this lede from Ed Dague, a retired TV scribe (like you) sums it up best:

"Tim Russert’s death seems appropriate to the times. Journalism in America is in tremendous trouble and the loss of one of its leaders will surely quicken the deterioration. We will soon have only people of passionate intensity to moderate our political life. It has seemed clear to me for too long that the center will not hold and Russert’s death affirms my pessimism about our times."

Tim Russert was a genuinely nice guy of middling intelligence who did well.

He loved his kid and canonised the old man, loved his wife, his life -- as Somers would say -- the whole thing ..

But, at heart, he was a chameleon. When he was on the Today Show, he behaved a particular way. When he was on Hardball. On Keith, etc

And when he was on Imus...

Russert:

Eunuch

Ho

Fag

Imus -- correctly -- suffers.

St. Tim ascends...