Best Tim Russert tribute today: a white-board with the words, “Tim – We Will Miss You” set up with a bouquet of flowers outside of NBC studio in DC.
Tim died of a heart-attack mid-afternoon. He died at work, taping audio teases for Sunday’s Meet the Press; and while the fact that he died working is appropriate, it’s also unsurprising.
There were other tributes as well – the flags in Buffalo lowered to half-staff as well as a candlelight vigil in the same city (actually, in Russert Park). The remembrances poured in from everyone in the journalistic and political worlds – Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbara Walters, Tom Brokaw, Barack Obama, Doris Kearns Goodwin, John McCain, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite. Andrea Mitchell cried on air, and many others have choked up.
Brokaw used the word “surreal,” which seems to be the perfect summary of the mood. The sense of I just saw him on TV. He was everywhere. He helped to anchor last Saturday’s coverage of Clinton’s concession speech, speculating with great excitement that Obama could add Al Gore to the ticket (acknowledging that it was a crazy idea, but justifying it by saying it was 10am on a Saturday, the time for crazy ideas.)
And Meet the Press? I don’t have a single memory of anyone other than Russert anchoring – of course, I was what – 11 or 12? – when he became the host (and with 17 years as host, he was by far the longest serving in the 61 year history of the show). So many thoughts of watching him that just seem too current to be part of history: Hillary Clinton snapping at him during one of the primary debates he moderated that she “always gets the first question,” the Bruce Springsteen intro to his Morning Joe appearances, the “Go Bills” sign-off to Meet the Press or even the “But first” to kick off the show.
And on a more substantive note, the level of journalistic trust he inspired – not just the “tough, but fair” cliche that’s been tossed around today, but the fact that if Russert said it, it must be true. Like Cronkite providing one of the public opinion turning points for Vietnam by closing his broadcast on February 27, 1968 with “it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could,” Russert had the credibility to give an equally declarative (and argumentatively subjective) statement weight that few other journalists could offer.
A few weeks ago, after another one of the Democratic Primaries (I believe this was the Indiana/North Carolina night), I headed to my house with the call still out on Indiana. When I got home – sometime after midnight – I flipped on MSNBC and watched the moments before and after they finally awarded the state to Hillary Clinton. But the storyline was about Obama’s strong performance (landslide NC victory, and a near-miss in Indiana). One of the anchors asked Russert for his final analysis on the outcome, and Russert, eyes bleary from hours on the air, stated very deliberately that “we now know who the nominee of the Democratic Party is going to be.” And that line settled it more than any subsequent primaries or endorsements. The primary was over because Russert said it was over, and Russert was too professional to say it if it weren’t true. Hillary Clinton was apparently upset by the declaration. She knew its value, just as LBJ had known after that 1968 editorial moment by Cronkite that “if we’ve lost Walter Cronkite, we’ve lost middle America.” Clearly the two subjects vary in national importance, but they both demonstrate the influence of a trusted journalist.
I could easily that turn into an indictment of the modern journalistic community – the idealization of Tim Russert’s professionalism and the high standards to which he held himself vs. the sensationalism of the modern press. Russert could be used rhetorically as the exception to the rule – the bar set by Russert of which too many in today’s media falls short. But I don’t really buy that. Journalists, analysts, pundits… they all have roles to play in terms of disseminating information. For some, it’s by giving opinion, some by making predictions, some with humor, some by using history as context for current events. All (okay, most) are important.
But there will also always be a role for the tough, serious, trust-worthy journalist — not to mention for someone who so clearly enjoys his work, and actually likes the people he interviews, without letting that affection interfere with the toughness of the questions he asks. It would be hyperbole to say that he is irreplaceable… but I think it’s just a fact to say that at this time, he has no peer and no obvious person to step into his shoes.
