Posted on 06/16/2008 11:06:37 PM PDT by devere
Only with Tim Russert's sudden death at the age of 58 has his true stature as a landmark journalist become as widely recognized as it has long deserved to be.
To ask who will replace him as host of "Meet the Press" is to confront the reality that there is no one comparable on the horizon. Those of us who have followed "Meet the Press" since the long ago days of Lawrence Spivak know that Russert was the best of some very good hosts.
What made Tim Russert special was not some trademark catchword or contrived persona. What you saw was what you got-- a down to earth guy who came on the air having thoroughly researched the subject and having a keen insight into politics and politicians.
He didn't flaunt his knowledge. He was one of the few very smart people who seemed to feel no need to impress others that he was smart. But, if you knew the subject that he was talking about, you realized that he had really done his homework.
There was something else that set Tim Russert apart from many other journalists, whether print journalists or broadcast journalists: His agenda was bringing out the facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
He was, especially, a liberal hack.
Can’t believe they interrupted the US Open Golf Tournament for an hour while all the leftists described every contact they ever had with him.
That liberal hack you speak of carved up Joe Lieberman in a Meet the Press interview on the eve of the 2000 election. Russert knew the election was going to be close. He could’ve lobbed a bunch of softballs at Lieberman and prepared for a Gore victory party. Instead, Russert tossed his own liberal ideology out the window and did his job. He did it well. He had Lieberman on the ropes. It was one of the best political interviews I’ve ever seen. There are lots of liberal hacks out there. Russert clearly wasn’t one of them.
Tim Russert is dead?
That has not happened here. Once again the public has been subjected to “the media” abusing the public's airwaves to perpetrate the fraud that they are important. And they have done so by turning a colleague's death into a circus.
This is not only wrong, it is disgusting.
I don't care how good or bad a “journalist” Tim Russert was. He was just a “journalist”. As such, his death is unimportant.
best line in the article!
This subject has been overdone.
I tend to agree with you. I was shocked and saddened like everyone else and watched Saturday into Sunday the tributes at various times throughout the day, but when they were still having them Monday, I was thinking too much. The only worthwhile thing to watch on Monday was Tim’s son on NBC Today show the Matt Lauer (via you tube). That kid is amazing and strong to be able to show such maturity a few days after the death of his father.
He was, especially, a liberal hack.
Can’t believe they interrupted the US Open Golf Tournament for an hour while all the leftists described every contact they ever had with him.
You must be confusing him with someone else. He was probably a Republican in many ways, but just registered Democrat to apease his father and upbringing. He was one of the most fair people in media. He was extremely honest everyday of his life.
I'm sure that he was great guy - but what, exactly did he do for his country that would call for three or four days of extensive media mourning?
I mean, Mother Theresa of Calcutta got less coverage when she died!
Tim Russert was probably an OK guy, but about 6,000 other OK guys and gals went on to their respective rewards the same day, for gosh sakes.
Things are seriously out of balance when one of our young men dies in Afghanistan and nobody hears a thing but a guy whose whole job is a TV program is given the virtual "presidential state funeral" all weekend.
OVERDONE???
That friend, is an understatement.
While not a regular viewer of NBC, MSNBC or CNN, their orgy of coverage for 3 straight days I have noticed while channel surfing, is bordering on pandering and insulting to his family and close friends.
Yes, he appears to have been a nice man and (though I disagree) many consider him as having been "objective" when it came to his commentary and interviews.
Okay, so give him the Medal of Freedom (hey after all, Bush just honored Donna Shalala with this) but lets get over it.
I understand his funeral will be televised? Sheesh, enough already.
As a Catholic, I appreciate his faith and devotion to our Church, but this hardly qualifies for Canonization, which is what I perceive as many would like to suggest with which Mr. Russert should be bestowed.
“This subject has been overdone, but anything by Thomas Sowell is worth reading.”
I’ve never ssen a subject, medium-rare, done, or charcoal’ed, on which Mr. Sowell is not worth reading. And I ask again, just wondering, why major conservative candidates have never tapped Mr. Sowell for administration posts, even for VPOUS.
Russert was OK but in contrast to the panty waist typical small minded, bigot found in all the recesses of the MoronMedia, Russert appeared to be a genius...the MoronMediacrats just can’t seem to imagine that they are not immortal. IIR, Russert was a slimey participant in the Scooter Libby travesty, did a cover ya azz.
The most likely reason is Mr Sowell does not want a government position. He is an educator and pundit. Why would he want to be a goverment official with the most frustrating job imaginable?
Sowell is trying to influence his students and the public. He is quite effective. Why would he want to run some branch of goverment for a few years. An educator and communicator is not necessarily an administrator.
Miss Condi Rice is one who is a great mind, but I am not sure she is suited as an administrator, . . . or a negotiator. I wonder if she is not actually a good case illustrating your well-accepted point.
Still, GO MR. SOWELL !
There's no "h" in Teresa:
Reminiscent of the Wellstone funerally.
The drive-bys are mourning the loss of their monopoly on the news, on their power, and on their ability to control elections. Rightly or wrongly, Russert was the last of the "trusted men." There is no one out there now who comes close, and they are all perceived for what they truly are, political hacks disguised as "objective journalists."
My outrage was that not one of our fallen warriors gets a tenth the coverage that Russert has received; the acquitted Hadith Marines have not received a tenth the coverage he received---yet who in the long run has performed a more valuable service to our country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.