See all in The Editorial Page

The spectacle of terror

The Editorial Page

Russert explained

These, of course, are sweeping generalizations. They should not be taken as a one-size-fits-all diagnosis. All institutions are less than perfect. That’s a sentiment, a bit of understatement, that Russert himself would endorse. If the observations above were made on Meet the Press, Russert might counter by asking about groundbreaking stories in the New York Times that exposed the extent to which the government ignores the Constitution by tapping phone and computer lines, or citing the Washington Post’s reporting on the deplorable conditions that wounded soldiers endured at military hospitals. It would be in keeping with Russert’s generous character to cite other fine broadcast competitors or colleagues in an effort to deflate too vigorous a critique of a profession he clearly loved.

That was the Russert technique: he sought not so much to deflate as to correct. His job was more difficult than it looked, and he did it well. Russert held guests who came on Meet the Press to the same high standards to which he held himself. He was legendary for asking any and all tough questions. If he appeared at times to be more exacting with progressives, it was probably to compensate for his own sympathies, which, while centrist, tended to be liberal. He made newsmakers squirm because he believed the public had a right to know what politicians were up to. Russert held official Washington accountable. If others in the media did as good a job as he did, maybe the nation would not be in the mess it is in today — or, to qualify that statement in a way that might meet with Russert’s realistic approval, the mess might not be as bad.

Tim Russert did not walk on water, but he did his job.

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•