RIP, Tim Russert
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
Sorry, but I already found out that Russert was dead from a dozen different news sources.
Also, he was never "fair" to both sides of the aisle. Sometimes he was in attack mode, sometimes he would switch to kid-gloves mode (I remember him giving a particularly easy interview to Mike Huckabee on the eve of the Iowa primary, and that is a man with a LOT of "interesting" issues to talk about). Maybe he was special in the world of journalists because he actually had an attack mode. But let him be praised for what he was, and not an idealized vision of what he never was.
I just read Speaker for the Dead again--I hadn't picked it back up again since high school--and I think Card argues we kill the dead all over again when we idealize them instead of confronting who they really were. An extreme thesis, but one worth considering.
(1) A story about Clinton's concession contains no information content. Everyone at all tracking politics knew it was coming, and anyone who cared about when it happened could have predicted the timing reasonably well in advance. Tim Russert dying is a story with no hacker news content, but it is at least some information--I sincerely doubt anyone was predicting Russert's imminent demise.
(2) A story about Clinton conceding is divisive to the community. It brings up a topic of discussion unrelated to the topic that brings this community together, and, given the tendency of some people to downvote in order to indicate disagreement, ultimately increases the homogeneity of the viewpoints expressed here. Most people do not find Russert's death nearly as divisive. Regardless of what you think of the quality of Russert's interviews, historical trends tend to indicate that he will be replaced by someone worse at it.
(3) A story about Clinton's concession reminds everyone of how Reddit came to be what it is. This sort of story is relatively benign in this respect.
(4) The story about Clinton conceding--if it had been popular--brings the baggage of continual political stories in its wake. If every time a major media figure dies there is a single HN story about it, HN is not incredibly damaged by this.
This is not a general news aggregator, we have those in spades, and the chances are that we all know where to find them. It's disheartening that this has gotten so many upvotes.
Will miss MTP without him.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/06/23/080623ta_talk_remni...
I would really like to see some insights or examples of what makes Tim especially fair or a great interviewer. :)
As an interesting sidenote, I didn't know who SJ was, so I googled that quote. Your comment here was the first result out of 850
One less fevered ego tainting our collective unconscious. Good.
Fair to both sides of the aisle?. Which is why Dick Cheney preferred to go on his show because of the message control. And why he allowed people to put things off the record after interviews. Let's not pretend he represented journalism or that the times he did call people on things, it wasn't just picking on sacrificial lambs so he could maintain a thin veneer of responsibility behind which he could hide the powerful people he ultimately protected. He was fair to everyone except the american people. He's dead now. He hurt America. Millions of people die every day. I can't believe there aren't hundreds of thousands of them more worth this outpouring of grief.
My condolences to his family, and to the powerful elites who depended on his show to control the way they distributed propaganda to the masses.
This is really a pretty despicable attitude no matter where you're from. It's good that a person died because his ego won't trouble you any more? Are you serious? I saw some comments like this on reddit, but I didn't think for a million years I'd see it here.
It's not good because he won't trouble me. It's good because all the thousands of people Americans are basically torturing overseas have one less journalist giving the politicians responsible cover.
It's good because the politicians like Cheney no longer can obscure shit like this http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 by gaining respectability on his show. Which means that Americans will be slightly less likely to allow this outrageous abuse and torture to continue.
Yeah. I'm glad Tim Russerts dead. I was elated all day. Why? Because I think torturing people is wrong and I think Tim Russert helped people who directly ordered that torture deceive the American people. I think he helped deceive america intentionally (I do not think he knew about the torture, though). To me, the thought that there is one less gasbag fooling my fellow americans into thinking goons like Cheney who order systematic torture are on the up and up is a great thing.
I guess this makes me the one with the despicable attitude and questionable moral fabric. Go look at those pictures. Tim Russert helped the politicians who ordered that to happen. Now that he's dead, he can't do that. Yeah, I'm glad he's dead.
Condolences to his family, though.
And I saw the disgusting spectacle of people who's shock at being confronted with death made then lionize this person who was quite flawed everywhere. I didn't expect to find that here.
Granted, Russert doesn't strike me as one that deserves it.
Take another look at those pictures. Then google "Cathie Martin Meet The Press". Then, google "Meet the Press, Dick Cheney interview"
My condolences to his family as well. I don't begrudge anyone their mourning. I'm sure a lot of people loved him on a different level than the people he worked for. But do it privately, please.
The people inundating us with a celebration of Russert's work are the people who bought and paid for him. His bias in favor of the malevolent powerful, whether left or right wing, was appalling.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm
Transcript of Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, 8 September 2002
Find one other interview with Dick that matches that level of questioning.
Giving a few questions that skirt the real issues is exactly the problem. Then, Dick Cheney can say he had a tough interview with a legitimate journalist. When really, he acted the part of the legitimate journalist and then let Dick Cheney manipulate america. From Glenn Greenwald:
"When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy -- our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission" -- Tim Russert, under oath at the Lewis Libby trial, citing the textbook function of a government propagandist to explain his role as a "journalist."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format," as it allows us to "control the message" -- Cheney media aide Cathie Martin, under oath at the Libby trial, making clear how well Russert fulfills his function.
As for "controlling the message", name one government on this planet that doesn't.
Russert, in the lead up to the war, WAS asking the critical questions. Few were listening though. And as the highest rated Sunday "news" program, he used his pulpit to the best of his ability and profession. Shoot, name one American TV journalist that did better during that time.
Did Bill Moyers or Jim Lehrer do better? I bet, but then they don't get access.
Where Russert was non-partisan (despite his roots), Moyers is, by contrast, hyperpartisan. And neither him nor Lehrer have close to the same audience or influence. Why do you think that is? Cause they do such a great job at informing the American people?
Again, you're placing all the blame for the system on one man even while that same man has done more with what he's had, to be fair and critical, than anyone else in that system. That perspective perfectly explains the reaction to his death - from Fox to CNN to CBS to NBC to senators and presidents and bloggers alike. Again, bemoan the system all you want. But the happiness you've expressed at his death is really just sad reflection on you and how misinformed you are.
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who did the anthrax attack last fall, Tim? We don’t know. MR. RUSSERT: Could it have been Saddam?"
"MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has he obtained that you believe would enhance his nuclear development program?" (enhance presupposes WMDs exist. Loaded questions like this are a propaganda technique.)
"MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat." ("How?" presupposes a mortal threat, a propaganda technique.)
"Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch: (Videotape, September 16, 2001): Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. (End videotape) Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand..." (an obvious set up for Cheney to conflate)
"MR. RUSSERT: Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why not Iran? They, too, have weapons of mass destruction. Why not go after them?" ("too" implies there are WMDs. This is a propaganda technique.)
"MR. RUSSERT: So Saddam’s more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?" ("More" presupposes he is dangerous. Propaganda.)
"MR. RUSSERT: We have just a minute in this segment. Will militarily this be a cakewalk? Two, how long would we be there and how much would it cost?"
"MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it looks like we’re going to war."
You don't understand propaganda very well Rob.
Meanwhile, from your selective editing (nice bit of propaganda, yourself!) Russert is asking the exact questions that needed to be asked at that time.
Still, no journalist was going to be able to dispute a deceptive administration on the WMDs. Their only hope was to question the evidence. And Russert did exactly that.
What did you want from him? To call Cheney a liar to his face? Based on what? As it is, he was incredulous at the aluminum tubes.
See, the entire system isn't supposed to be propaganda. Thats why we have a first amendment. To prevent exactly that. It's not a defense of Tim.
Russert pretended to question them to help Dick Cheney lay out his case. That's his role. This is not actual questioning. That's the message control his press person testified about Russert giving. Look at the subtle linguistic structure of what he's saying. Propaganda.
I wanted him to not ask questions that subtly presuppose the exact things Dick Cheney is trying to deceive the ameriacn people into believing. I wanted him not to work off the record with Cheney's press people before the interviews. I wanted him to tell us when a powerful corrupt person slips instead of later taking it off the record (this is not about the live interviews, but the stuff on background and stuff like that).
Journalists cover the news. They don't make it. Unfortunately, the system is unable to ferret out truth, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. We were failed by a good many journalists who failed to ask the right questions. Russert wasn't one of them. The transcript shows exactly that.
Better, what's one question he didn't ask that he should have in that interview? Name one.
"Hussein has the tubes for his WMD program." "There is no evidence he has tubes for his WMD program." People here "WMD program" 20 times. Who cares about the tubes, that's where the propaganda is working.
I don't think he was evil. I think he got in over his head and then was so interested in keeping his power and access he let himself be available to be manipulated.
I would of wanted him to ask about the way Cheney's press office handled the run up to the interview, and what he knew about the way his press office was setting up his interviews.
Wow, that would have been insightful.
Meanwhile, you're naive if you think the President (and VP) doesn't set the national agenda. The problem is not enough journalists questioned that agenda. Russert wasn't one of them.
Russert asked the questions. That's more than 99% of the journalists did at the same time. I simply don't see how you can blame him because the answers were deceptive. He was never going to be in a position to prove the administration wrong (nor any journalist).
I don't think the presidents prerogative to set the agenda extends to colluding with a supposedly free press to deceive the american public. The way Russert questioned the VP was part of that collusion.
(Hey, I noticed you're a neuroscientist. If we're going to be typing back and forth, I'd rather be picking your brain about that then spending one more second of my life thinking about Tim Russert.)
I wouldn't have engaged you on this topic if I didn't find your comments so distasteful and dirty. I had hoped to find a rational perspective behind that emotion. Clearly, it's all emotion.
What you find dirty and distasteful is the fact that you are going to inevitably die, and could drop dead any second like Tim did, not my comments. Confronted by the sudden death of someone you liked, and attacks on him, you attack back, as if by refuting the attacks on him you can fight back against the inevitability of death.
Because I don't care about the fact I'm dying, I do not let death cloud my judgement of the recently dead. This gives me a freedom to objectively judge them and the impact they have had on the world. Not respecting the taboo on death makes groups that are obsessively afraid of death not like me very much.
This is the first time in my life I've been called too emotional and not rational enough. I'll take it as a compliment, I guess. Most people tell me I don't seem like I have emotions. I get vulcan a lot. Never too emotional. So, thanks!
It's easier to think some guy you talked to online is an ass (which I am. don't care) then admit you've been fooled by a propagandist for 5 years, especially right after a shocking death. I don't expect to change your mind. I'm sorry for your sense of loss, and hope you'll eventually reconsider in light of what will be revealed about this time over the next few years.
Russert, no matter how much you may personally dislike him, did his job and did it well. The wide-spread reaction to his death show better the role he played in an industry that is far from perfect.
As for "this time", the evidence has already been made obvious. The administration gamed the case for war. No journalist was going to prove them wrong then. Russert asked the questions that needed to be asked. If only half of his peers did the same, we may have been in a different world today.
Good night.
The widespread reaction shows how sick our culture is, not anything about Russert.
I liked talking with you because you made me rethink what I thought. I still think I'm right, but you made me think.
If we knew each other I'd bet 500 bucks that more information will come out by Jan 1 2010 that indicates Russert was occasionally a propagandist.
Part of this comment, however, deserves a reply. I can see where people think you're not very emotional and you would feel complimented by being called emotional. I would ask you to honestly consider that all people are emotional creatures. The more you've heard in your life how logical you are, the more you've probably bought into it. It's a lie.
Rule #1: People believe what they want to believe and use their mind and reasoning capability to justify it.
Rule #2: This is always easy to see in other people but tough as heck to see in yourself.
I post this because HN is full of bright, ambitious people. We're just the type of people to be logical, analytical, cold, etc. The sooner we all realize that introspection is more valuable than argument, the sooner we can work more effectively as a team. You see, good teams are full of these broken mammals called humans, each looking out after the other guy's blind spots. It's not a Vulcan debating society.
That's it for the sermon.
I'm looking out for the blind spots of all my teammates who are deluded into lionizing a propagandist because they thought he was entertaining on TV or have problems relating to death. I love my teammates so much that I'm willing to do this even though their pain around death and stupid conventions make them not like it. Like some sort of 21rst century Bodhisattva, I'm sacrificing my accumulated karma points to help all beings on hacker news. :)
When I worked with people on hospice, my clients seemed to really like me because most people treated them like they were dying or already dead and I naturally treated them like they were still alive. So my atypical reaction to the taboo about death isn't all bad. Dying people really liked that I wasn't emotionally affected by their death (they know their dying, they don't want everyone to be constantly reminding them of that by the way they act, because then their death costs them the rest of their human interaction too). But the survivors and mourners of dead people? Not so much into my attitude (except the ones that saw me work with their loved ones, and the nurses).
Let's review:
"Not hacker news" <- great comment
"One less fevered ego tainting our collective unconscious. Good." <- personal attack on someone you didn't know and who can't defend themselves in this forum.
That kind of brazen disregard for humanity is anathema to any organized conversation, in my opinion. I'd down-vote you again if I could.
As a political junkie, I like watching the Sunday-morning talkers. Yes, Russert was a democrat and had worked on several campaigns before joining NBC, but he was good at what he did and brought a joy to his work that was infectious. I'm sure he did a lot of good and bad things, but most of all he was a human, a human I spent several dozen hours watching over the course of my life. He deserves better than that comment.If it's not for the board, fair enough.
You know, it's quite possible to disagree with people, even hate their behavior, without demonizing the person themselves. "Powerful elites [using] his show to control the way they distributed propaganda"?? I feel like I need a shower after reading it.
This, friends, is why politics shouldn't be on HN. If you feel you need to launch into some tirade about multi-national corporations using mind control to enslave the population, take it somewhere else.
I don't think this story had to be political at all. Famous talking-head dies. What sorts of neat startup attributes did he have?
That, I think, is a great question. To me, Russert exemplified the best of his profession without sacrificing himself or his work. By all accounts, he was a great guy who did a great job (qualifications aside about the state of the American media, esp with regard to politics). If folks say the same of me when I'm gone, it will have been a life well-lived, indeed.
He was so absorbed in his work he was looking at "what's the best tool right now to get from point A to point B" not necessarily what the most or least telegenic thing to do might be.
I believe he's the guy who gave us the entire concept of "red states" and "blue states"
I'm sure he had a lot of faults, but it's obvious he was competing well at a national level, and having a blast doing it.
If I remember, in the last year or two the network bought him some huge freaking interactive map to use on the air. He used it once and then went back to the whiteboard -- the whiteboard was just enough functionality to do what he needed and not any more.
Lots of good startup lessons here -- or at the very least lots of good life lessons.
It was fun first.
EDIT: Funny to me that this comment and its parent just got voted down. That's some spite. See, bemoan the state of the American media all you want. But Russert was one of its shining stars - a force of good where most is trivial. We should all aspire to stand out similarly.
I don't think not being sad about his death and keeping the harm he did in perspective is anathema to humanity. I believe the things and people he was part of enabling are anathema to humanity. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq dead or maimed because of the way the mainstream media (which he was a leader of) protected and enabled the people who were lying in the run up to war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people dead or maimed, thousands of American soldiers killed, tens of thousands more maimed or with PTSD or suicide risks, thousands of foreigners tortured under the US flag. Thats the anathema to humanity, and the people Russert was instrumental in enabling caused it. I don't think we should care too much if he brought infectious joy to his work in judging his life.
What you are saying is basically "I was entertained by the way he was part of lying to me on the TeeVee, so he deserves better after he's dead." No. He got way better then he deserved. The ones who deserve better are the people still being tortured and that are dead or damaged for life that are consequences of the deception ho was part of. It should be how dirty these things are that make you want to shower, not me pointing them out.
We hackers often get so caught up in the little details of what we do, it's easy to lose the big picture. And the biggest picture of all, IMO, is other people. The bits and bytes are cool, but it's the difference they make in other people's lives that keeps me going.
I don't know whether this thread is appropriate for hacker news, but I do know that some of the comments here are totally inappropriate in any forum. Frankly, I'm a little embarassed for our community (I'm glad he's dead - wtf?)
Politics, religion, sports, and popular culture belong on other boards. But the few times they rise to the top here, could we at least act like the smart people we are supposed to be.
Thanks, Daniel, for saying what a lot of us were already thinking.
Having malice towards people who let people like Dick Cheney get away with hurting hundreds of thousands of people is part of a well developed, integrated sense of humanity.
My hatred for people like him flows from a deeper place of great love for all beings.
(BTW: For what it's worth, One less fevered ego... and the hate parts were based on bill hicks quotes I liked. I don't know if that changes the implication or not.)