Tim Russert ... a few thoughts.

Jetpacks and Danny G. pretty much summed up what I thought of Russert. Like Jetpacks, I tend to ignore people in the media who pass away. But considering I’ve referenced him in more than a few posts here, I thought it would be fitting to add a few words.

He seemed atypical for a talking head, a regular guy from Buffalo I identified with. Maybe too because I’m also from there and along with him, mutually suffered long and hard for a Super Bowl ring for New York state’s other NFL team.

Unfortunately when searching Google last night for stories about him, I came across this take at Huffington Post* about him via Twitter. Proving that they can be ever bit as derisive and agenda-driven as anyone on the far right, the author took the opportunity to question all the attention Russert’s death is getting by the media. He even questioned Russert’s interview technique, saying he never delivered the knockout blow to a guest his preceding questions had just set up.

First off, the problem isn’t that you question how someone does something. We’re all fair game in one way or another regardless of occupation. After all, opinions are like blogs—everyone has one these days. Entertainment, sports, politics, etc. Any topic. (And, when it comes to politics, I don’t fall squarely into either camp. As many times as you might see me bash Hillary, I’ll also deride Limbaugh and Hannity for something they said.)

Still, I try to see both sides of things and welcome opposing views. This can not be said of Huffington, Air America, or most conservative talk show hosts: They can and will not see the other side of an issue because to them, one does not exist.

Their way or the highway ... and so on.

No, the problem I have was that the column was written less than eight hours after the guy passed away. Forget humanity, how about having a little class. You’d think this was Ken Lay. Is Huffington that hard up for traffic that they call out Russert like that?

What was even more surprising was tuning into Fox later Friday night expecting to see how his memory might be further stepped on, but instead, finding nothing but praise from people like Hannity and Gingrich as well as others on the right.

Say what you will about their politics, but Fox last night was every bit as sensitive and considerate in their assessment of his career as they would’ve had they’d been interviewing the president. Who would’ve thought Fox had more class.

But not Huffington.

The Cult followers there also voiced support for the notion that he wasn't tough enough when interviewing people. I’m sorry, come again? He asked exactly the same questions many people at home have wanted asked of political figures.

How many times did Hillary squirm after a tough question, pausing nervously with an expression that seemed to say “Whoa, I was supposed to come on for a puff piece Tim, what’s all this? Thought you were my friend.” Or when you have Scott McClellan admitting he deceived the public, what more do you do as an interviewer?

Give the guy a gun and ask him to kill himself?

Did they want him to just hammer a guest with the same question over and over, yelling ad nauseum like some protester at a rally shouting down the president? That’s also a fine approach if you’re a prosecutor trying to get a confession from a witness on the stand—as a political talk show host, not so much.

People went on that show because deep down they must have thought what a great way to get a bump in the polling numbers. A lot of them probably also thought: Russert’s not going to get me.

Perhaps they didn’t like how he’d ask guests to defend their change of heart regarding things they said in the past, often replaying their direct quotes to them and watch them try to defend their position. Or maybe he knew didn’t need to talk down to his audience and get that confession because he knew the audience could spot a liar.

You could actually hear intelligent debate by all sides of an issue on Meet the Press. It’s what I look for in an interviewer: Don’t shout the other guy down, listen to what they say, and let’s take it from there. His shows were never out of control and he maintained a civility in any discussion that you don’t often see.

And to criticize him for not going after a guest in some kind of ambush is foolish. No major political figure is ever attacked this way when they appear on a show, regardless of who they are. (Behind their backs, definitely. Listen to AM talk any day of the week as both sides get their shots in.) Look, if every single time a politician was on a show and was basically put on trial, they’d never appear.

Besides, talk show hosts know they have no legal means to compel or illicit information that guests just don’t want to talk about. Holding him to some imagined legal standard just because you want every guest to admit “Bush lied!” is a joke.

Worse though in almost all the comments was the feeling of this patronizing sentiment: “Still, I’ll miss him.” They’re right about that, even though they don’t really appreciate the gravity of the statement. Why?

Because at a time when we have an important presidential election coming up—yes, they’re all important—politicians will have one less person like him holding them accountable and answering for the things they said. Who’s going to do it now, Ariana? Couric? Coulter? Rush? Yeah right. How’s that working out so far. Fair and unbalanced, here we come.

And no doubt Russert would have liked to see that election, regardless of who wins. Almost as much as as seeing a certain team in Western NY finally getting that ring.

(Image via Flickr.)

*It’s the last time the name appears on this blog.

Tags: Tim Russert