06/15/2008 11:25:14 AM EST

Meet the Press, June 15

posted by yturks

OK, be frank, how ridiculous was this deification of Tim Russert on Meet the Press today?  One person said he would have been a great prosecutor.  Are you kidding me? A prosecutor has to make a case, often with a series of penetrating questions. This was exactly was Russert was so terrible with. He was incapable of asking more than one question at a time.

(Am I going to regret having written this disrespectful comment?)

By the way, I would still question whether he was a journalist at all, much less the journalist to end all journalists.

David

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< Questions about the Hogan thing | Oil Prices...Fundamentals or Not? >
 Display:
Meet the Press, June 15 | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden)
Yay, Dave! (none / 0)

I've been thankful that I DON'T have a TV connection the last couple of days because I can imagine the circus and am avoiding it. The euligizers would be better off emulating Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or the still with us Walter Cronkite.


How many troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since Russert keeled over? Did they rate three days of wall to wall? This is one glaring thing wrong with "journalism" today - they THINK they are important.
How many journalist have died covering the battles? Did any of them merit turning over valuable airtime for their wakes? In Iraq alone, Reporters Without Borders says, "215 journalists and media assistants killed since the start of fighting in Iraq in March 2003, two still missing, 14 are kidnapped"

They would have been covered better if they had collapsed in New Jersey instead of being blown apart or shot in Our Folly.

I don't understand why death grants immunity for people's failings. I didn't respect him alive, I ain't gonna start now.

The passing of a reporter - more important than 35 counts of impeachment. Examining the SCOTUS decision. Iowa under water. Al Malaki's weakening position regarding Bush's Illegal Treaty. Rice, Bush, and France beating the war drums. None of that is important - a newreader has died!


The other side of this is how jealous I am. Fast, relatively painless heart attack - I've been TRYING for five years and he just goes and HAS one! Didn't even put any effort into it. Damn elitists!

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2008 11:59:49 AM EST

They're totally hyperventilating (none / 0)

about Russert. I was shocked as anybody. I liked Russerts tv persona, I thought he was a good tv journalist, he got these people on the record, and was fair and even-handed--for what he did.

But they're hyperbolizing that he "held people to account", which is pure hogwash. They'd like to hold him up in the wake of McClellan's memoir as proof that the press didn't have a massive breakdown in the runup to Iraq, and aren't currently failing us in the presidential campaign and the exaggeration of the success of the surge and the threat of Iran. Kearns-Goodwin likened him to Edward R Murrow.

I don't want to be the guy to say this not 2 days after Russert, who was perhaps the most important tv journalist in washington, but this is really over-the-top and narcissistic on the part of these people. It's why we call them "talking heads". It's difficult to think of two better examples (Murrow and Russert) of how high the art of journalism can be, contrasted with how low it has sunk. 

by hazmat on 06/15/2008 12:34:07 PM EST

I agree (none / 0)

It seems to me Russert precided over the Meet the Press era of just sitting around and letting politicians give prepared talking points for an hour.  A totally unwatchable waste of time.

Seemed like a nice guy and very sad he is dead but can't say he brought much light into my world. 

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 03:31:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)

I can certainly understand this opinion.  But I have a different gut reaction, so I thought I would comment.  I am not a tv watcher, but I do see it online, so my experience of Russert is mostly from clips during this past primary season.  I have seen a bunch of the coverage on MSNBC the past few days, including a hunk of this morning's MTP show.  I guess the superlatives don't bother me much--such things are often said in the days immediately following someone's death.  It's a way to honor them and people realize there is exaggeration. 

I don't agree with the frustration on people's part that they are spending so much time on Tim when so many other news-worthy subjects go unreported.  Regardless of what you thought of Tim and his performance, he seemed a man of integrity with incredible enthusiasm for his life and work.  He was an important part of these peoples' world for 17 years on the longest-running news show(?) ever.  This is a significant loss for them professionally and personally.  So I give them a pass for spending so many hours honoring his life this weekend.  After this, he will probably not really be spoken of in the news much anymore.  It would have seemed a little cold if they had NOT honored him on the first MTP show right after his death, no?

Yes, I do understand that it seems like the press is full of themselves in this type of coverage, but then again, haven't there always been outsized personalities in the news business?  I don't watch TV for a reason and that is because it seems to dumb down the news, and I don't really trust corporate news to give me unbiased coverage.

Anyway, just another opinion, from the schmoopie-papoopie sector. 

Angela 

by desertpear on 06/15/2008 02:25:07 PM EST

agree, but (none / 0)
I just think he should be lauded for what he was, a very good moderater of a political talk show, not given credit for being in the same league as Murrow. Just wait til you see it pear. Look, I'm not sitting here fuming at my tv in disbelief, I've come to expect this. But let's call a spade a spade. it's just more shameless self-promotion of the media. Russert was a huge personality, and I have no problem that they're covering his shocking and untimely death--I think its appropriate. I've watched his show religiously for years. It's just that they're creating a great television "journalist" out of his memory that never existed.

by hazmat on 06/15/2008 02:47:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah (none / 0)
I agree completely with your assessment of who he was, but I just think it is human nature to exaggerate accomplishments when a death like this happens, so that is why it doesn't bother me much.  Time will sort out who the real greats were. 

by desertpear on 06/15/2008 03:09:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The head of the nail is struck. (none / 0)

"It would have seemed a little cold if they had NOT honored him on the first MTP show right after his death, no?"

Actually, this is the ONLY place I think it's appropriate.

I haven't watched it yet, probably won't, but from what I hear he was in line to be the next Pope because he was such a"man of faith." And that speaks so directly to his position on a news show, doesn't it? (<-sarcasm)

It's okay to be schmoopie-papoopie. Me, I'm savin' it up for when my cat passes...

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2008 03:42:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't really argue this (none / 0)

And what was the big deal when Ronald Reagan died?

Did they expect him to live forever like some Demi-God lich or something? 

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 07:10:40 PM EST

Well, actually... (none / 0)

 Reagan Lich-King

 

That aside, I'm just gonna say it out loud: I think Ken made a good point. 

by Cogitor on 06/15/2008 07:21:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All true (none / 0)
Ken, I was kidding about Reagan and I agree with the broader point.

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 09:08:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not fair (none / 0)
He helped make Chevy Chase famous

by LORD FOUL on 06/17/2008 09:45:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
100% right, 0% wrong (none / 0)
I found the show to be incredibly touching, actually, and a fitting tribute to a man who loved what he did, did it well, and inspired and guided many others in his profession.

Call me a sap, but I really liked this.

by jarett on 06/16/2008 04:57:14 AM EST

Couldn't handle it, eh? (none / 0)

SMACK! to the side of the head

What the hell is the matter with you?

Just can't take a compliment? It can't be that the males who post here are just a little more interested in (as Bobo would say) substance than the great unwashed mass of their peers who would rather slobber over Baywatch reruns?

Me, I accepted it as part of the overall problem and in my head filled in the "missing white girl," "pedophile of the week," "sport star misconduct," "celebrity trial" automatically. There is no way that it is only women watching this crap fest.

It reflects on the standard of quality toward their product, not the gender of the viewer. 85% of what is shown is as helpful to understanding serious issues as The Enquirer is.

That was the point you were being acknowledged for, I think.

For once, just say, "Thank you" and STFU.


Geez........

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 10:47:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
as a chick (none / 0)

I denounce and reject this comment.  Surely gay men care about this stuff too (I'm just kidding.)  But there may be a reason that women have been the ones to traditionally care for the dead, while men go around clubbing animals and pulling women into caves by their hair.

What we see in the mainstream press these days is the dumbing down of news to match the intelligence of the stupidest members of the population.  That's what we get fed by the current administration too, as if we were all children incapable of having an informed opinion on how our country should be run.  Rush is as much a problem in this regard as anyone.

by desertpear on 06/16/2008 02:45:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What're you, nuts? (none / 0)

That's Mother Teresa, right? I had no idea she was partying with Diana that night.

Tell me more!

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 07:27:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, well... (none / 0)

It kinda turned out that Teresa wasn't quite the saint that the Vatican was pushing, so there was a little bit of "You don't REALLY need to print that, do you?" going on.  It's not a surprise under the circumstances that her publicity was kept to a minimum.

Boy...that...kinda ruins the joke aspect of my last post, doesn't it...

by MedfordTim on 06/17/2008 01:07:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
um (none / 0)
How is that a "girl thing"?  I would say it's a media thing. I don't watch TV and didn't then either, so I saw little of the Diana stuff.  But I suggest watching The Queen if you want to understand the Diana extravaganza in more depth.  It's not just about women.  Also, my dad actually died the same week, so that is what I remember.

by desertpear on 06/16/2008 11:51:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A New Low Dave (none / 1)
Grow the fuck up you little immature shit. Holy fucking shit I fucking hate you Dave. Show the least little bit of fucking respect you worthless malcontent. This pretty much does it for me, I've known I'm not on the same page as the rest of the non-mainstream for a while now but the fact that so many of you agree with him, wow, an eye-opener, I'm done here. Very small protest to remove my links from my homepage and my profile here and I'm sure if anything people who've disagreed with me (from MedfordTim to KenTX) would be glad to see me go, but I'm sure for the most part no one will take notice. Which is fine by me, because I really don't think I'd want to be associated in any way shape or form with this site now. Dave, a new low, you are truly a worthless individual.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 06/16/2008 11:24:34 AM EST

Disagreements drive you away? (none / 0)

You expressed your outrage. It is your opinion. You are entitled to it.

If you disagree with me or anyone else, you can express your outrage and opinion.

Isn't that the POINT of all this?

I have nothing against you and truly DON'T want to see anyone run off. If you do decide to go away, just call it a break. It's is a revolving door, not an Emergency Exit Only.

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 11:43:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sure OK (none / 0)
go fuck yourself

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 06/16/2008 12:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So Special!! (none / 0)
Awwww, warm fuzzies, it's the new, kinder, gentler COMPASSIONATE KenTX. Aww warm fuzzies. Ken, obviously all this hanging out with liberals is rubbing off on you.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 06/16/2008 12:15:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
wtf (none / 0)
Where did that random tantrum come from?  I didn't like Dave's post any more than you did but a) it's not like he represents all of us b) who really cares if Dave didn't like it?

by jarett on 06/16/2008 12:22:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
random?!? (none / 0)
People should have respect for the dead. When Dave speaks, you notice the blog entry isn't titled Dave it is titled Young Turks. Everyone has mixed up opinions and says bizarre or seemingly backwards things from time to time, myself as much or more so than many. There are just some things you don't do. His father had to bury his son on father's day. His grave is still wet. You just don't make comments like that so soon afterwards. Sure sure, maybe Dave just had a bit too much to drink last night and was hung over. Hey, it happens. The point is, he isn't speaking for himself, he's speaking for the entire TYT community on the web. I do not think that is the kind of thing I'd like to be associated with. What I'd like to know is why you feel the need to defend him? Why attack me? Can't he speak up for himself if he feels offended by what I wrote? Did what I said hit a nerve with you?

Was what I said random? Not at all, it was directed right at him in response to what he said. What it was, was as I said, not on the same page (of sheet music) as the rest of you. The fact that you would see it as random just proves my point further, I'm agreeing with you in essence, we completely do not see eye to eye.

I mean are you so addicted to news you can't live one Sunday morning without it? Man I hope when you die you get the same kind of little shit like Dave making innane comments about you.

I'm glad to see you all seem to be in such hardy agreement with KenTX. Birds of a feather. You know the great thing about new media is that it isn't just a few outlets, I have a million other sites to choose from, and I will after shopping around a while. I did feel like there was a bit of a community feel here that you don't get on other larger sites like Huffpo. But all the same, on a site that promotes free thinking, dissent, and which often attacks the black and white thinking of the opposition, it does seem like it has become just a place to hear the same thing echoed a hundred times.

If you really want to convince me I was wrong though, honestly, try and explain where Dave and the rest of you are coming from, because I don't really get it. I have a feeling you'll feel it wouldn't be worth your time, which is fine by me. Spare me the high minded and well meaning platitudes of MedfordTim though, that I can do without.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 06/16/2008 12:45:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
low brow and spiteful, as ordered (none / 0)
"People should have respect for the dead."

And why is that, pray tell? People should become hypocrites because someone isn't sucking air anymore? I also felt no added respect at the passing of Reagan, Saddam Hussein, or Peter Jennings. My feelings about each didn't change - my level of respect stayed the same.

Why do you have a problem with honest expressions of feelings? Aren't we "reverent" enough for you? Fuck reverence. Another life, no more or less important than any other, is over. Q.E.D.

As I said, the place I thought it WAS appropriate was on MTP. The rest was excessive public chest thumping.

Get over yourself.

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 01:42:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Underscore (none / 0)

I had a thought and did a quick Google...

How many stories have you seen on tv, heard on the radio, or read in the paper about the number of protestors meeting Bush on the European leg of his "One Last Chance To Muck Things Up" tour? I'm sure the answers will vary, and I would be VERY surprised if the answer exceeded "5."

Now, how many links do you think their are to Foreign papers, radio, and TV reports? 3250.

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall....

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 11:52:46 AM EST

I don't get the disdain for Russert (none / 0)

Especially coming from the Left.  I honestly think the lefty talkers/bloggers always felt he wasn't adequately partisan.  The guy played it down the middle, and while he was influential, he was hardly the cause or enabler of the Iraq war.  I mean wtf--the guy can only take the answers the guys on the show will give him.  Politicians are going to feed you BS whether you ask followup questions or not.  It's not like he was Hannity sitting there asking John McCain whether liberalism is a mental disorder. 

 I don't think there were many guests on the show who thought they were going on a picnic.  Dave rails against people playing "gotcha" politics constantly, and now he's bitching that TR didn't get enough gotchas of the Republicans over the years.  I don't know.. I only recently started watching MTP regularly, but I never had a problem with any of his interviews or commentary.  It was nice having at least one guy who isn't viewed as partisan at the forefront of the media world. 

Remember he did work for a Democrat at one time and he spent a lot of time working for charities.  I have no problem with people giving their honest opinions, but I've always felt this guy was unfairly villified.

 

by schmoab on 06/16/2008 02:06:12 PM EST

could you be any more wrong? (none / 0)

No one here, certainly not Dave has "expressed disdain" for Russert. The subject of the post and the target of mine (and other's) criticisms are the exaggerations of Russert's role as a "journalist", "holding people accountable" etc. No one has claimed, as you suggest, that he was biased or unfair. Where did you get that from?

There's a serious, legitimate question about whether Russert represented the kind of hard-hitting, independent journalism that served the public interest, whether they be conservative or liberal-leaning, that used to be the norm in this country. That's why the Murrow comment (see above) infuriated me so. Whether Russert was "fair" to his guests is immaterial. He saw his job as getting these guys on the record--I get that. More often than not he would get an answer that was illogical or patently false and let it stand without asking the obvious followup question.

Again, he had a great show, I watched it religiously for years, and the record will show that he was one of the most important figures in washington during this period. I don't know if that's something to be proud of necessarily, but that's me. But here's what the record won't show: that he "held people to account" or that he was a peer of Edward R. Murrow. Those guys are all working in print journalism, sadly.

by hazmat on 06/16/2008 02:31:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
but I enjoyed the tribute (none / 0)
from all my posts here it might look like I hated the tribute. In fact I watched the whole thing, and apart from the exaggerations about Russert's journalism, I thought it was a fitting tribute. I liked the personal anecdotes, especially tom brokaw's joke about how God being a baptist. So don't worry, I'm not at a ten, I'm at a two. Alls I'm saying is that it's important not to let people rewrite history with regards to the media, without which the Bush administration would not have been able to do so much damage.

by hazmat on 06/16/2008 02:44:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Two things (none / 0)

1. I don't believe Russert was biased one way or another. I thought he was wimpy with both sides - that would be my complaint.

2. Reagan was a Democrat at one time, don't forget. People's politics DO change.

He wasn't unfairly vilified. He was held to task for asking silly, irrelevent questions all too often. Russert wasn't a villian, he was more of a Wizard of Oz.

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 03:08:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wizard of MSNBC (none / 0)
"I'm not a bad man, just a bad interviewer."

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 03:22:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
tim (none / 0)

I guess I see a lot more worthless news on TV than the passing of people that are well known for one reason or another.  We all have the freedom to watch what interests us, after all.  I totally agree that I'd certainly like to be seeing more relevant news, but I don't really see that Tim was part of the larger problem of corporate ownership and consolidation of the media.  Those are the real enemies.  If we aren't fighting this, we are part of the problem (I include myself).

One thing I noticed in the coverage of Tim's death was how almost everyone interviewed mentioned what a great father he was, no matter how famous or busy.  He also apparently touched a lot of people through his book on his dad and a followup book on fathers.   If he could be alive to say one thing, it seems like his message would be "spend time with your kids, because that is what really matters in the end."  My father (RIP) made time for me when I was a kid too, even though he was a hard-working man, and it made all the difference in the world in my life. 

by desertpear on 06/16/2008 02:36:48 PM EST

Settle Down Tiggerporn (none / 0)
Dude, relax.  Tim Russert wasn't a journalist. Is that really such a terribly mean and disrespectful thing to say? I don't really have a clear answer on the question of whether he was "biased" or not.  And sure, he asked some good (but obvious) questions and got some jerky politicians to say things on the record that later proved to be completely wrong. There is some value in that.

David posts as yturks because it would be a pain in my butt to constantly logout and login as dkoller or davidk whatever I am. It has no meaning beyond that.

David

by yturks on 06/16/2008 02:52:53 PM EST

Just the facts, ma'am (none / 0)
Right so Tim Russert is to blame for TMZ and the rise of TV magazine shows like Access Hollywood, and for soft news. The zeitgeist of the era when supposed hard hitting news journalism was all the rage, newspapers and magazines were considered a lesser form of journalism because they were secondary, books and scholarly journals usually contained original research as opposed to derivative work. So are we to say that Charles Dickens was less of a writer because during his era he was considered a hack writing serials to sell newspapers?

I know a lot of people decry the fact that there is so much so-called soft news. However it is also no surprise that a lot of the tabloid journalism is aimed at women or a female demographic, like soap operas. Entertainment news, however, does not bother most frat boys as long as it knows its place and stays in the confines of the check out aisle and has lots of tit and ass. What people get confused about is the gray area where news and entertainment meet or cross over. But it would be better to blame it on Tivo, the way we like to skip commercials or the very foundation of the TV and advertising relationship than on Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, no matter how easy they are as targets.

When people cry for Woodward and Bernstein, are they crying for themselves, do they feel that men can't be men today? Are they even referring to Woodward and Bernstein or rather to the news media classes they had in college mixed together with their impressions from their memories of the movie counterparts of Redford and Hoffman? We look at the present through the prism of the past, but the past is only relative to the particular zeitgeist of that era. Do you have an image of a guy with a press card in his hat talking tough? Did you watch Murrow growing up or are you talking about Clooney's version?



To be honest I don't really get the hatred of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, but I can kind of sort of understand the disconnect a lot of men feel today and I can see how it is wrongly associated with things like soft news (this isn't to say that women can't hate Lindsay and Paris and soft news) but not in a visceral, really emotive way. I also don't get Ultimate fighting (and I do think there is a connection). OK, so you can question my manhood, whatever. But to look back and long for another era you didn't experience is downright silly. You are longing for someone else's memories, someone else's version of the past.

If anyone understand what I'm talking about here, I'd really love for them to explain to me how Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" is soft news. Please, clarify. What I was really offended by was the context of this whole thing. If a bunch of guys were sitting around bullshitting in the proverbial frat house and we'd all gotten drunk the night before and there was cold pizza and everyone was hung over and waking up, and one spiffy young lad was up early and had on the news and instead of the news they happened to have on a tribute to a guy he hated, and he starts spouting shite about the decline of western civilization and news journalism and how this fucker wasn't even a journalist and blah blah blah, eh, I'd shrug it off and probably chime in. To me, that was what this board was the equivalent of. But this is an open forum viewable by anyone on the web. It would be more like you're making these jokes at his funeral where his family could hear. Just very bad taste.

The only thing that really gets my goat is that an ass like Dave cries about the news and yet doesn't understand he is part of the process of creating the situation he's crying about. You can't turn back the time on the move from print media to tv and cable anymore than you can turn back the tide from new media webcontent to old media tv radio print. Can I have some more, sir? You'd as easily go back to a Dickensian world of paupers and nobility. Fine a jack ass like he would say, at least with the web we have a form of print media. But it was the very rise of the internet that contributed to the likes of Tim Russert's rise to fame, and if anything he was the one fighting the tide, trying to hold back the future of entertainment news. I just think it is a lot of misplaced aggression better served by watching some Kimbo Slice earbiting and complaining about why white guys can't get laid anymore. Dave is so white you can't tell when he has on his tighty whiteys and so anal retentive he is now referring to himself in the third person.

Good riddance.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 06/16/2008 06:48:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hey A.D.H.D. posterboy (none / 0)

don't get to the point or anything. We're waiting with baited breath.

by the way, you seem to be responding to me, not David. So I'll take the liberty of rebutting you.

 "Right so Tim Russert is to blame for TMZ and the rise of TV magazine shows like Access Hollywood, and for soft news."

First of all, Russerts show isn't soft news. It isn't news at all! Again no one said or implied that. So you had an argument about nothing with yourself. I think I'll stop wasting my time reading your posts.

by hazmat on 06/16/2008 07:02:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
David... (none / 0)
I know we don't agree on much and we've had our differences, but I think you were a bit harsh on Russert and the coverage. I agree that it was a bit overdone, but to make comments like yours before the man was buried shows a high degree of insensitivity - especially since you are technically in the same business (even if you don't agree on what exactly constitutes "journalism"). Besides his ADHD rantings, I think this might be what our departed friend Tiggerporn might have been trying to convey. Thanks for your time in this matter! :)

by bobo1 on 06/16/2008 10:41:58 PM EST

i am reading all this (none / 0)
If you call my comments insensitive because of the timing of them, I can't argue with that. In fact, if one of Russert's colleagues, friends or family members participated in these discussions, I would have to apologize "if my remarks hurt anybody."  In a roomful of people who don't know Russert, it's fine. That's the shield of anonymity.  But this eruption by Tiggerporn is way out of control.  He is ascribing to me all sorts of conclusions and viewpoints that are totally made up and have nothing to do with my original comments.

David

by yturks on 06/17/2008 01:14:28 AM EST

Human Nature ? (none / 0)

By all accounts , outside of his work as a journalist ( agreed, debatable), Mr Russert was a genuinely nice guy. His death was unexpected, tragic even, and a grim reminder of our mortality.

So I'm thinking the reaction was had some aspects of "Wow, that could have been me " from his colleagues. Perhaps the deification as you put it comes from a subconscience desire to say nice things in a vain hope that the same courtesy would be returned if it happened to them.

Or it was a slow news cycle. Your choice . In any case he never impressed me as a particularly probing questioner either , not horribly vapid and ineffectual like Blitzer, but passable. However, he wasn't a complete asshole and he never let his success go to his head. That counts for something.

 

by MRFred on 06/17/2008 03:43:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold onto ya butts (none / 0)


Tim Russert was an indisputably good guy. But the mainstream media is going extinct.

Furthermore, Russert's vision was based on movement and he had a separate brain which controlled his hindquarters.  And he had useless, two-fingered forelimbs.  It's really no wonder he lost the evolutionary coin flip. 

by OneHitKill on 06/17/2008 12:48:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
David Carr? (none / 0)

So thats where he ended up.

Hope the NYT has a better line than the Texans. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 01:44:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Meet the Press, June 15 | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: