Tim Russert Dies

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

When i mentioned it when I got in not a single one of my fellow employees working (all round my age) had any idea who he was. This stunned me more than i could imagine.

Well, the the Sunday morning news shows tend to be either of great interest or none at all, depending on the person. Even in broadcast circles that time period was sometimes called "The Sunday Morning Ghetto."

I was surprised that another director at our network, who is in his mid-40's, didn't know who he was -- and my friend had even worked for an NBC affilliate for a while.

I was not suprised that ABC and CBS gave a considerable amount of time on their regular newscasts to Russert's death, but I didn't expect Fox and CNN to basically give their entire evenings over to the story (although a lot of that programming is rebroadcasts from earlier).

I suppose it pays tribute to the man and his reputation and professionalism, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a newsman given the coverage that you would expect for a head of state or high ranking politician.

Also, in passing, I thought that the coverage was pretty well done on all fronts.

[AGDee]

I think if Walter Cronkite had passed away before retirement, he would have received the same type of attention(and still may). I put Tim Russert in the same category as Walter Cronkite. I think he had an incredible amount of integrity and tried very hard to be unbiased in his interviews. He really became more recognizable as a household name during the 2000 election with his white board.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think if Walter Cronkite had passed away before retirement, he would have received the same type of attention

Cronkite is an excellent example, and I suspect you're right.

There have been other "news stars" who have died and not gotten this kind of coverage, even though they were "main" anchors -- which Russert was not.

Part of this, I suspect, is the the fairly recent tendency for the cable networks to latch on to one big story and (sometimes) cover it to death -- with no pun intended.

Clearly though, the other part is Russert's reputation -- which is deserved.

The tributes from his peers seemed more genuine than the ritual comments often heard, and his "rags to riches" background is certainly the story of the American Dream.

It was fascinating to me that former GE Chairman Jack Welch said on FOX that Russert was the only NBC on air talent who never had an agent. (For those of you who may not know, NBC is owned by GE) He just wanted to be treated fairly and do what he loved to do.

Thankfully, NBC did that -- not always common these days.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Well, the the Sunday morning news shows tend to be either of great interest or none at all, depending on the person. Even in broadcast circles that time period was sometimes called "The Sunday Morning Ghetto."

I was surprised that another director at our network, who is in his mid-40's, didn't know who he was -- and my friend had even worked for an NBC affilliate for a while.

I was not suprised that ABC and CBS gave a considerable amount of time on their regular newscasts to Russert's death, but I didn't expect Fox and CNN to basically give their entire evenings over to the story (although a lot of that programming is rebroadcasts from earlier).

I suppose it pays tribute to the man and his reputation and professionalism, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a newsman given the coverage that you would expect for a head of state or high ranking politician.

Also, in passing, I thought that the coverage was pretty well done on all fronts.

It actually was also one of the stories on ESPN SportsCenter, and was featured on espn.com. For a non-sports person to get that kind of coverage is a huge deal.

To me, he was the preeminent interviewer of today, the ONLY interviewer who has been able to come across without bias or favoritism. He treated everyone the same, and conducted interviews the way we are all taught during journalism school. You hear about the correct way to do an interview, the correct way to approach a subject, and you think it's impossible to live up to that standard. Then, you'd watch Tim Russert, and you'd see that, with a lot of work and skill, it could be done.

There can sometimes be a barrier between print journalists and TV journalists; he was one of the few who was able to bridge the barrier, and garner respect on both sides of the aisle.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To me, he was the preeminent interviewer of today, the ONLY interviewer who has been able to come across without bias or favoritism. He treated everyone the same, and conducted interviews the way we are all taught during journalism school.

He supposedly said that when he was chosen as host he was very nervous, and went to the previous host, Lawrence Spivak, for advice.

He was told to learn everything he possibly could about what the guest believed, and then "take the other side."

It will be interesting to see who replaces Russert, and that replacement will undoubtedly be controversial to some, no matter who it is.

Some very early speculation points to NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory -- but who knows.