Misgivings About the Coverage of Tim Russert's Death

I confess I watched aghast at NBC's coverage of the death of their top political correspondent, Tim Russert.  I could not believe how much air time Russert's network was giving his unfortunate and untimely death.  It was like watching a eulogy where someone was asked to 'say a few words' and three hours later, he's still going on with heartfelt words, yet making everyone very uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong.  I was a big Tim Russert fan too.  Russert's 'Meet the Press' was a weekly part of my news junkie routine.  But there is always this sense of discomfort when journalists who seek to cover the story become the story.  How much coverage do you give it?  When is it too much?  I thought NBC's coverage went way overboard to the point where network anchors and reporters were commenting endlessly about the rainbow that appeared in Washington, DC the day Russert was laid to rest.

But I kept quiet about it, thinking I was alone in my opinion until I read TV critic Hal Boedecker's column on the Russert coverage.  Here are some excerpts.

"The Russert coverage will be remembered as one of the most embarrassing chapters in television journalism history.  The coverage should be taught in journalism schools. The lessons:

1. Don't lose perspective. On Friday, "NBC Nightly News" devoted its entire half-hour to Russert. The network ignored all the other news in the world. I thought Brian Williams would say, "Tim would want us to move to the news of the day." Williams never did. That was a prelude to the days upon days coverage of Russert coverage on MSNBC. It was a misuse of a valuable platform -- and dereliction of journalistic duty.

2. Journalists should remember it's not about them. NBC has a bad habit of turning the news into a family album. The Russert coverage was the worst example yet. We, the journalists, are not the news. If we can't keep perspective about ourselves, how can you trust us when we turn to other topics?"

I couldn't help but agree.  With so much else going on in the nation and the world, how does a news organization justify spending so much time on the death of one of their own?  Even if the man who in his day was known as the most powerful journalist in America, Walter Cronkite, had died during the time he was anchoring the 'CBS Evening News,' would CBS News have devoted its entire network newscast to him?  No.  Cronkite retired in his prime and seems destined to live until 120.  When he does pass on, I suspect CBS will remember him with a story or two, and then move on to the important stuff Cronkite dedicated his life to bringing to the American people.  The news!

I never met Tim Russert.  You can get a sense of a man, however, as you watch him week after week, especially someone as genuine as him.  Russert never demanded top billing over the 'Meet the Press' name.  The program with him hosting often paid homage to its past that dates back to the 1950's, as if he was carrying on a great tradition, not creating something focused around him.  Russert was humble, self-effacing and very true to himself.

That's why I feel confident in saying Russert himself would acknowledge his excellent work still never came close to the impact of Cronkite or Brokaw or Jennings or Rather or Murrow or Wallace of many other greats of broadcast television news.  Russert was the 'aw shucks' guy from Buffalo who did his homework, asked tough questions and helped us understand the nation and world around us a little bit better.  But he did so understanding the men and women he interviewed were far more important than he.  In covering his death, NBC News seemed to have it all upside down ... as if all along it was Russert who was the star, and the political leaders he questioned week after week were just the fuel to feed his fame.

Boedecker ended his column with this quote.  "The coverage of Russert has crossed the line from egregious news misjudgment to outright merchandising of his death for ratings."

I don't agree with that.  I don't think the coverage of Russert's death was a heartless ratings ploy by NBC News.  I think those at NBC News so beloved Russert that they became caught up in the moment and allowed their hearts to rule their heads.  Terribly human and perhaps understandable, but many of us in the news business know viewers trust us to 'think' at those times when it would be human for us to just want to 'feel.'  Journalists are supposed to bring information and perspective to the events of the day even if those events touch us personally.  Boedecker notes it appears what NBC News lost was a sense of perspective about the true impact of a loss within their own ranks.

One thing I truly enjoy about working with Don Nelson, Michelle Edmonds, Meteorologist Scott Dorval and Sports Director Joe Hughes is that these are people who are very visible yet still understand the news is not about them.  It is about you.  That was Tim Russert's ethic as well, and I fear in fawning so heavily over his memory, NBC News obscured what was truly his most admirable personal and professional trait.

I confess I watched aghast at NBC's coverage of the death of their top political correspondent, Tim Russert.  I could not believe how much air time Russert's network was giving his unfortunate and untimely death.  It was like watching a eulogy where someone was asked to 'say a few words' and three hours later, he's still going on with heartfelt words, yet making everyone very uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong.  I was a big Tim Russert fan too.  Russert's 'Meet the Press' was a weekly part of my news junkie routine.  But there is always this sense of discomfort when journalists who seek to cover the story become the story.  How much coverage do you give it?  When is it too much?  I thought NBC's coverage went way overboard to the point where network anchors and reporters were commenting endlessly about the rainbow that appeared in Washington, DC the day Russert was laid to rest.

But I kept quiet about it, thinking I was alone in my opinion until I read TV critic Hal Boedecker's column on the Russert coverage.  Here are some excerpts.

"The Russert coverage will be remembered as one of the most embarrassing chapters in television journalism history.  The coverage should be taught in journalism schools. The lessons:

1. Don't lose perspective. On Friday, "NBC Nightly News" devoted its entire half-hour to Russert. The network ignored all the other news in the world. I thought Brian Williams would say, "Tim would want us to move to the news of the day." Williams never did. That was a prelude to the days upon days coverage of Russert coverage on MSNBC. It was a misuse of a valuable platform -- and dereliction of journalistic duty.

2. Journalists should remember it's not about them. NBC has a bad habit of turning the news into a family album. The Russert coverage was the worst example yet. We, the journalists, are not the news. If we can't keep perspective about ourselves, how can you trust us when we turn to other topics?"

I couldn't help but agree.  With so much else going on in the nation and the world, how does a news organization justify spending so much time on the death of one of their own?  Even if the man who in his day was known as the most powerful journalist in America, Walter Cronkite, had died during the time he was anchoring the 'CBS Evening News,' would CBS News have devoted its entire network newscast to him?  No.  Cronkite retired in his prime and seems destined to live until 120.  When he does pass on, I suspect CBS will remember him with a story or two, and then move on to the important stuff Cronkite dedicated his life to bringing to the American people.  The news!

I never met Tim Russert.  You can get a sense of a man, however, as you watch him week after week, especially someone as genuine as him.  Russert never demanded top billing over the 'Meet the Press' name.  The program with him hosting often paid homage to its past that dates back to the 1950's, as if he was carrying on a great tradition, not creating something focused around him.  Russert was humble, self-effacing and very true to himself.

That's why I feel confident in saying Russert himself would acknowledge his excellent work still never came close to the impact of Cronkite or Brokaw or Jennings or Rather or Murrow or Wallace of many other greats of broadcast television news.  Russert was the 'aw shucks' guy from Buffalo who did his homework, asked tough questions and helped us understand the nation and world around us a little bit better.  But he did so understanding the men and women he interviewed were far more important than he.  In covering his death, NBC News seemed to have it all upside down ... as if all along it was Russert who was the star, and the political leaders he questioned week after week were just the fuel to feed his fame.

Boedecker ended his column with this quote.  "The coverage of Russert has crossed the line from egregious news misjudgment to outright merchandising of his death for ratings."

I don't agree with that.  I don't think the coverage of Russert's death was a heartless ratings ploy by NBC News.  I think those at NBC News so beloved Russert that they became caught up in the moment and allowed their hearts to rule their heads.  Terribly human and perhaps understandable, but many of us in the news business know viewers trust us to 'think' at those times when it would be human for us to just want to 'feel.'  Journalists are supposed to bring information and perspective to the events of the day even if those events touch us personally.  Boedecker notes it appears what NBC News lost was a sense of perspective about the true impact of a loss within their own ranks.

One thing I truly enjoy about working with Don Nelson, Michelle Edmonds, Meteorologist Scott Dorval and Sports Director Joe Hughes is that these are people who are very visible yet still understand the news is not about them.  It is about you.  That was Tim Russert's ethic as well, and I fear in fawning so heavily over his memory, NBC News obscured what was truly his most admirable personal and professional trait.

Comments

[Sisyphus]

On Harry Shearer's radio show yesterday, he noted with much irony how, this week, the angle is whether the media overplayed the death of Tim Russert, giving them yet another excuse to talk about Tim Russert.

Next.

Anyone wanna talk about George Carlin?

[Robb Brady]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. NBC didn't overdue Tim Russert]s death. You decidedly overdid t he comment. Russert was an institution that your simply failed to recognize.
Robb Brady

[JOE SMITH]

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MEDIA DID OVER DO THE COVERAGE OF TIM RUSSERT'S DEATH AS WELL.
IN ALL TRUTH, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH COULD BE WHAT SPARKED THE "FRENZY" OF COVERAGE.
AFTER ALL, HE DIED OF A HEART ATTACK AT WORK, FROM EXHAUSTION AND BEING OVERWORKED.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FARFETCHED TO SAY THAT RUSSERT'S COLLEAGUES WERE THINKING "THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ME" AND SO THEY PUT A LITTLE MORE PERSONAL INVESTMENT INTO COVERING THE STORY.
WHILE I THINK THAT NBC DID WELL TO REMEMBER RUSSERT AND SPEAK ABOUT HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE START HEARING ABOUT HIS SON'S TATOO AND THE RAINBOW IN DC, THAT WE ARE TAKING IT A LITTLE TOO FAR.

[anonymous]

Channel 6 was too busy running the hard hitting news story this past Sunday night covering the upcoming Main Street Mile race. That was scintillating coverage - two radio deejays running around a track with beer-filled backpacks. Much more worthy of airtime than covering the tragic and untimely passing of a noted journalist.

[The REAL John Doe]

^Works at 7. Bitter.