He Is America. (And Agrees With Public Eye!)
(AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)
"I think those studies are a little off.”
All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'Russert' posts in Public Eye
October 22, 2007 2:48 PM “People say that young people get their news from Jon Stewart and myself and other late-night people, but I think they wouldn’t get the joke if they didn’t know some of the news already.
"I think those studies are a little off.”
Stephen Colbert, “Meet The Press” online interview, sounding strangely familiar
"I think those studies are a little off.”
July 25, 2007 9:36 AM 
One final postmortem on the First-Of-Its-Kind and Groundbreaking CNN/YouTube debate from the other night.
It was called “freewheeling” and “lively." A “brave beginning." “Provocative," too. The New York Times thought it brought “freshness and spontaneity."
I’ve got another description for it: “Open-Book Test,” a point only raised – from as far as I can tell online – by Tim Russert at MSNBC.
The YouTube debate was unlike previous ones in ways catalogued exhaustively (and more enthusiastically) elsewhere, but its most overlooked trait was the fact that all the questions were available for public consumption as soon as they were uploaded. I could see them anytime leading up to the debate; you could see them. And so, critically, could the candidates and the candidates’ communications teams.
"Open-Book" Debate?
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
It was called “freewheeling” and “lively." A “brave beginning." “Provocative," too. The New York Times thought it brought “freshness and spontaneity."
I’ve got another description for it: “Open-Book Test,” a point only raised – from as far as I can tell online – by Tim Russert at MSNBC.
The YouTube debate was unlike previous ones in ways catalogued exhaustively (and more enthusiastically) elsewhere, but its most overlooked trait was the fact that all the questions were available for public consumption as soon as they were uploaded. I could see them anytime leading up to the debate; you could see them. And so, critically, could the candidates and the candidates’ communications teams.
February 12, 2007 9:30 AM 
According to the Los Angeles Times' Scott Collins, the Scotter Libby trial has exposed the fact that "to some Washington media types on both the right and the left, [Tim Russert is] just a tool for the powerful."
Russert, of course, hosts NBC's "Meet The Press," and he has long had a reputation as a tough questioner. Collins seizes on comments by a former Cheney press aide who pushed for Cheney to appear on Russert's show. The aide reportedly said the show was "our best format," a place where the Cheney team could "control the message."
I don't agree with Collins' implication here. Russert's show is arguably the most high profile regular platform available to a politician, and a successful appearance can indeed give him a boost. It's thus no surprise that Cheney's aide would want him on the show. But that doesn't mean that Russert is simply a tool for the powerful.
An interview is a complicated negotiation, but one thing is clear: The interviewee is not going to appear if he doesn't think he can gain by doing so. People submit to interviews because they have something to sell, whether it’s a new movie or a plan for Iraq. If Russert were simply to hammer Cheney for the duration of the interview, Cheney wouldn't show up in the first place.
At the same time, if Russert were to be too accommodating he would lose his reputation as a tough interviewer. His show would lose its luster as a result, and Cheney would forfeit the credibility a strong appearance on "Meet the Press" and the other Sunday shows gives him.
If an appearance on "Meet The Press" is simply a dog and pony show guaranteed to benefit a politician, after all, someone forgot to tell John Edwards. His 2002 appearance on the show is widely remembered as a disaster, one that put a significant dent in his presidential aspirations.
Tiny Tim?
(AP)
Russert, of course, hosts NBC's "Meet The Press," and he has long had a reputation as a tough questioner. Collins seizes on comments by a former Cheney press aide who pushed for Cheney to appear on Russert's show. The aide reportedly said the show was "our best format," a place where the Cheney team could "control the message."
I don't agree with Collins' implication here. Russert's show is arguably the most high profile regular platform available to a politician, and a successful appearance can indeed give him a boost. It's thus no surprise that Cheney's aide would want him on the show. But that doesn't mean that Russert is simply a tool for the powerful.
An interview is a complicated negotiation, but one thing is clear: The interviewee is not going to appear if he doesn't think he can gain by doing so. People submit to interviews because they have something to sell, whether it’s a new movie or a plan for Iraq. If Russert were simply to hammer Cheney for the duration of the interview, Cheney wouldn't show up in the first place.
At the same time, if Russert were to be too accommodating he would lose his reputation as a tough interviewer. His show would lose its luster as a result, and Cheney would forfeit the credibility a strong appearance on "Meet the Press" and the other Sunday shows gives him.
If an appearance on "Meet The Press" is simply a dog and pony show guaranteed to benefit a politician, after all, someone forgot to tell John Edwards. His 2002 appearance on the show is widely remembered as a disaster, one that put a significant dent in his presidential aspirations.
February 8, 2007 12:06 PM It was hard to find a jury pool that was not intimately connected to the cast of characters in the Scooter Libby trial.
And it's even harder to find Washington, D.C., political reporters who aren't connected to those involved. Just look at the way reporters are covering yesterday's testimony by NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert.
The introduction of Howard Kurtz's column today on the testimony, for example, addresses Kurtz's own role in it. (The piece is aptly titled "Russert and Me.")
"My name came up in testimony," he writes. "Then it came up again, and again. Suddenly it seemed like the whole criminal proceeding had taken a sharp detour into stories I had written three years ago." Afterwards, reporters in the gallery were asking him for information about the testimony.
Then there were the evening newscasts, which also covered Russert's testimony at the trial. Among them, of course, is the flagship program on Russert's own network, the NBC "Nightly News." As the AP's David Bauder writes this morning, Russert was most "visible" on his own network, compared with ABC and CBS' evening news programs.
Since the trial began, anchor Brian Williams has repeatedly talked to his audience about how the broadcast would handle Russert's role in the story. After the trial's first day, Williams said this to viewers: "And, by the way, as you heard, Tim Russert's name is a part of this trial. He will be called as a witness to testify in this case, and when he does, NBC News will report on his testimony as part of our coverage of the Libby trial."
Before last night's report on Russert's testimony, Williams noted on his blog that Russert's testimony today would also be covered "as a news story" and that Russert would be interviewed on the program following its conclusion.
We're guessing that'll be an exclusive.
Russert And ... Everyone
(AP)
And it's even harder to find Washington, D.C., political reporters who aren't connected to those involved. Just look at the way reporters are covering yesterday's testimony by NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert.
The introduction of Howard Kurtz's column today on the testimony, for example, addresses Kurtz's own role in it. (The piece is aptly titled "Russert and Me.")
"My name came up in testimony," he writes. "Then it came up again, and again. Suddenly it seemed like the whole criminal proceeding had taken a sharp detour into stories I had written three years ago." Afterwards, reporters in the gallery were asking him for information about the testimony.
Then there were the evening newscasts, which also covered Russert's testimony at the trial. Among them, of course, is the flagship program on Russert's own network, the NBC "Nightly News." As the AP's David Bauder writes this morning, Russert was most "visible" on his own network, compared with ABC and CBS' evening news programs.
Since the trial began, anchor Brian Williams has repeatedly talked to his audience about how the broadcast would handle Russert's role in the story. After the trial's first day, Williams said this to viewers: "And, by the way, as you heard, Tim Russert's name is a part of this trial. He will be called as a witness to testify in this case, and when he does, NBC News will report on his testimony as part of our coverage of the Libby trial."
Before last night's report on Russert's testimony, Williams noted on his blog that Russert's testimony today would also be covered "as a news story" and that Russert would be interviewed on the program following its conclusion.
We're guessing that'll be an exclusive.
January 26, 2006 3:05 PM
Old Boys Will Be Old Boys
Arianna Huffington and Mickey Kaus are a bit worked up over James Carville, Paul Begala, and Mary Matalin's appearance on "Meet The Press" this weekend. I'm a little surprised they even watched the segment – I couldn't, having already seen enough Carville and company to last a lifetime. (The James and Mary show has hit "Meet The Press" alone 41 times since 1996, according to Arianna. Mickey says 35 times. But you get the point.)
Take it away, Huff:
Take it away, Huff:
James and Mary, plus their straight man Paul Begala, were on to promote Carville and Begala's new book Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future -- which, I'm sure to their publisher's immense satisfaction, was mentioned 12 times in the course of the show.Any guess who said co-host might be? Luke Russert, a sophmore at Boston College, who "attended two Super Bowls, a World Series, five Major League Baseball (MLB) All-Star Games, an NBA final, four NBA All-Star Games, two NCAA Final Fours, an NHL Stanley Cup Final, a U.S. Open and The Preakness Stakes," all by age 16! He is also…let me check…yes…Tim Russert's son! What a coincidence! Here's the chummy exchange on the subject between Russert and Carville. Note that they never quite spell out what's going on:
But what made this appearance extra-special is how it was so luckily timed to coincide with Carville's upcoming gig as the host of a sports show on XM satellite radio.
And what made it all even more special is the relationship of Carville's radio co-host to Meet the Press's host…
November 7, 2005 12:55 PM
Journalists Remain At Center Of Media's Never-Ending Obsession With Itself
Today’s Wall Street Journal (free online this week) looks at the roles three prominent journalists are likely to play in the eventual trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine have been the media community’s faces throughout this story up until now but NBC’s Tim Russert is emerging as an important player. And he’s increasingly getting heat from bloggers about it, even as other players remain in the spotlight.
October 10, 2005 11:25 AM
About “Face” – Do Critics Want Dumbed-Down Discourse?
Complaints and criticism about the October 2nd edition of “Face the Nation” continue to hit our inbox despite some of our efforts to answer them. So after yesterday’s broadcast, I expected more coming in. Grand total of e-mails thus far – zip.
Here’s why I'm puzzled. What outraged many about last week’s show was the fact that three Republican members of Congress were invited on to discuss problems their party is dealing with, including the indictment of their House leader, Tom DeLay. Host Bob Schieffer’s explanation – he wanted to discuss the “Republican problem” – sent some into spasms of indignation. DeLay’s indictment is, they argued, much more than a “Republican problem,” it’s a national problem.
What upset them most was the lack of someone with an “opposing” viewpoint. It seems the idea that each show must have a “Republican” view and a “Democratic” view has become so embedded as to be a de facto programming law. That’s why the lack of criticism for yesterday’s show is confusing.
Here’s why I'm puzzled. What outraged many about last week’s show was the fact that three Republican members of Congress were invited on to discuss problems their party is dealing with, including the indictment of their House leader, Tom DeLay. Host Bob Schieffer’s explanation – he wanted to discuss the “Republican problem” – sent some into spasms of indignation. DeLay’s indictment is, they argued, much more than a “Republican problem,” it’s a national problem.
What upset them most was the lack of someone with an “opposing” viewpoint. It seems the idea that each show must have a “Republican” view and a “Democratic” view has become so embedded as to be a de facto programming law. That’s why the lack of criticism for yesterday’s show is confusing.
September 26, 2005 12:18 PM
Sob Stories: Read 'Em Too Close And Weep
It seemed for a moment over the weekend that the blogosphere had claimed one more victory over the mainstream media, but reaction to Aaron Broussard’s return to NBC’s “Meet the Press” shows a deep split of opinion over his comments – and the role bloggers have played.
You remember Broussard, the president of New Orleans’ Jefferson Parish, from his September 4th appearance on the same show. His weeping tale of the death of a colleague’s mother was among the more emotional punctuations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and seemed to encapsulate the growing frustration with the government’s response. But no sooner had the appearance become embedded as part of the story’s overall fabric, bloggers began picking it apart.
MSNBC has the chronology and details of the story the way Broussard originally told it – and the way it actually occurred. According to Broussard’s colleague, Thomas Rodrigue, his mother, Eva, did die at a nursing home but the chronology and circumstances were different than Broussard’s version. So it was no surprise the story would be revisited when Broussard returned to the show yesterday, or that more fireworks followed.
You remember Broussard, the president of New Orleans’ Jefferson Parish, from his September 4th appearance on the same show. His weeping tale of the death of a colleague’s mother was among the more emotional punctuations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and seemed to encapsulate the growing frustration with the government’s response. But no sooner had the appearance become embedded as part of the story’s overall fabric, bloggers began picking it apart.
MSNBC has the chronology and details of the story the way Broussard originally told it – and the way it actually occurred. According to Broussard’s colleague, Thomas Rodrigue, his mother, Eva, did die at a nursing home but the chronology and circumstances were different than Broussard’s version. So it was no surprise the story would be revisited when Broussard returned to the show yesterday, or that more fireworks followed.
