June 13, 2008

Tim Russert's passing and the celebrity of journalism

I am sure you have all heard the news, that Tim Russert passed away at the very young age of 58. I was shocked when I heard the news as I think everyone was. Mass media has brought us closer to a lot more people--in a one-sided way, and so we feel as if we know famous people, and grieve when they die.

Turning on the news, the cable shows were filled with tributes to his work and his person. What I have listened to, it sounds as if he was the best journalist ever. A perfectly understandable and normal response to the passing of a friend and colleague.

But that is also the part that makes me a little uncomfortable.

When you turn on NBC, you are watching what happens whenever a group or business loses someone close. As I said, it is understandable and normal. But in this context, it has also been presented as "news." In one sense, it is exactly what the cable news channels excel at. They cannot explain the economics of healthcare, or really explore the FISA debate with any nuance, but they can do emotion and shock. The fact that this is about one of them, and their emotion is real, and their pain is real, doesn't really make it any less an indictment of modern journalism.

We see the celebrity factor here and wonder how one celebrity can really cover another? Why do we wonder that someone as famous, and recognizable as most of these "analysts" and "anchors" are, how do they not see themselves as part of the famous elite? So when they interview a politician or celebrity, they are really talking amongst themselves.

None of this is intended as disrespect to Tim Russert or his family. His death is tragic and sad, and I am so sorry for those who knew him. I understand that in eulogizing him, they will elevate him to the "best ever," and he will become "scrupulously fair" and the "best interviewer ever." I don't think that was true. But that is irrelevant. His passing is tragic and sad.

But so are all deaths.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was struck by that as well - the very 'meta-journalistic' character of the whole thing. It seems that this is simply an amplification of what 24-hour cable news already brought us in terms of reporters reporting on reporters and reporting. It's when that lens gets focused on a single person, a celebratory, uncritical fashion, it seems more transparent. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of the overall quality of news reporting.

ANewAnglican@gmail.com said...

There is a little bit of a Princess Di thing going on here.

Could it be that Russert was the People's Journalist?

Anonymous said...

The People's journalist? I'm not sure, but he seems to have been someone those who viewed themselves as serious journalists seemed to have looked up to. (Man, that sentence needs an editor. Is there an editor in the house?)

In this case, I am not sure there is a close correlation between media coverage and public adoration. The average American is more likely to watch American Idol than Meet the Press.

At first, I thought you were suggesting that Russert was the victim of a conspiracy by the British role family to kill him in a way that would look like an accident because they did not want him to marry an Egyptian.

Anonymous said...

OK, now I'm jut embarrased. 'Role family' might be phonetic if I talked like some of y'all instead of more Fargo-like. See, I told you I need an editor.

Anonymous said...

I think Russert appealed to the American people in a way that most other journalists couldn't. He seems to represent what news reporting should be. He wasn't glamorous, he wasn't in the tabloids, he didn't have scandal attached to him. And for the most part, he was down-the-middle fair to all he interviewed. He was tough when he needed to be tough, and he did it in a truly non-partisan way. And to top it all, he was a family man. Even with all the hours he worked, he made time for his own father and his own son. Did he have flaws? Of course. Could he have done things differently, or handled some situations better? Absolutely. But he brought an air of respect to his job and to journalism in general. He was highly educated about the political landscape on which he reported, and it showed in his interviews and political analysis. He didn't get bogged down in the "Why aren't you wearing a flag pin" garbage that seems to dominate the political media these days. He made politicians accountable for their words, especially their contradictory ones. If only more interviewers had the guts to do that.

He is being celebrated because he deserves to be celebrated. Every story I've read about him has mentioned his detractors and what drew criticism to him as well. But his death deserves the media attention it is getting, and I'd rather news outlets cover his death like this rather than the Anna Nicole Smith debacle. THAT was sensationalism. Tim Russert is genuinely being mourned by the journalistic and political worlds combined. If there were more journalists like him, maybe the media wouldn't be the way it is today. Maybe it might have more integrity and respectability, and people would be more aware of the true issues surrounding the elections than flag pins, pastors and VP committee members.